Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/09/2026 11:10:02 AM PDT by dennisw
Veteran actor Jeff Bridges has seen enough of Hollywood’s enthusiastic embrace of artificial intelligence (AI) to know it’s hastening the demise of people like him in an industry that has delivered so much to so many through pure human endeavor.
But all is not lost for the son of Lloyd and brother of Beau.
He used an interview to outline that if you can’t beat it, enjoy it, as he charted AI’s development since he first came across it as a video game character in the classic Tron back in 2010.
If all else fails he can simply monetize his own image and on-screen likeness.
Bridges is far from alone in his bleak assessment of the future role of human actors in Hollywood.
As Breitbart News reported, Oscar-nominated actor James Woods warned last December AI is not a short-lived craze, but a technology that could mean the “end of human actors” in Hollywood.
“AI is the end of human actors. I’m adamant about this,” Woods told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade in a Sunday interview, repeating similar fears from fellow actors.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
If Ai replaces actors will it also tell democrats what they should think and how they should vote?
“”””They are just well-done cartoons.””””
I think so also, they are so real that they will able to stir interest and make some money, but the disconnect with real will grow and there will always be a softness in the market for them, because in the end, they are really fancy cartoons, authentic looking, computer generated, mannikin figures.
This is how hollywierd and the left works.
Jeff is pushing 80 so he has been fortunate to experience the best of Hollywood. Have enjoyed many of his performances. but he's right .... much easier to work with AI than human actors and their egos. And really, what are we talking about here - line-readers who strike poses. Oh sure, one can easily see the difference between a bad actor and a mediocre actor and some ne who really inhabits the role.
BTW, AI must also be the reason so many big names are doing commercials now (I believe Bridges provides the voice for Jack Daniels ads).
While that may be tragic for human actors in Hollywood, it won't make much difference for the rest of us. And I believe the stage willl continue - there is no substitute for a live performance.
Hey Dude, there’s a beverage here!
My DVR has recorded the newest Lioness, but I haven’t had time to watch it. You got me fired up to watch it!
BTW, I like all of Taylor Sheridan’s work.
Nope. They've worked for YEARS modeling every muscle in the face with wire-frames. They've got it down to a science, even to the way the skin wrinkles with expression, with the way that textures show in subtle changes in lighting due to movement.
This is new.
I love Ai is making lunatic leftist actors obsolete.
People will always turn out for well-written well-told stories. It's a fact of human character - it goes back to Homer after all. And whether those stories are told with real-life actors or digitally created avatars I don't think it willl make much difference.
Ferret, but whatever.
I like when the guy picks up the bowling ball and asks The Dude what it is. His reply: You are obviously not a golfer.
LOL! Beau has always been overshadowed.
Jeff Bridges is 77......
I watch a lot of nonfiction YouTube talks about birds, cultures, history. Some of these use really lovely AI artwork to accompany the talks, and I enjoy that.
I don’t think I’d want to watch a feature film entirely created through AI. That would be boring.
Same here.
I don’t know whether the last contract talks fully nailed this down, but one of the big issues was ownership of actors’ likenesses. The studios were arguing that since the studio bought the rights to an actors’ pictures connected to a given film, they owned the image going forward and were free to throw it into the AI blender.
There were tentacles of this all over the place. Actors had done a commercial 15 years ago. They might have gotten filmed for auditions even if they didn’t get the role. They might have done publicity stills for a studio. All of this was before the AI breakout, and any studio use was going to be very limited. But the studios wanted the rights to the image and all digital manipulation of it for any and all purposes going forward.
SAG-AFTRA was arguing that actors’ retention of the rights to their images should be clearly recognized by contract, and that a revolution in the available technologies shouldn’t be exploited to place all actors’ images in the public domain.
Estates are involved, and sometimes decendants of a long-dead actor get greedy. Their grandfather or great grandmother isn’t around to object, and the current generation may not have even known them. Greedy descendants sometimes are pathetic — but if it is legally permissible, sooner or later we’ll see Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman in fully nude sex scenes in a remake of Casablanca. “Here’s looking at you, babe” will take on a whole new meaning.
And let us not forget that what can be done to an actor can be done to you and me.
Then a first derivative issue arises. When the actors’ images become nothing more than realistic animations, there is no human being standing there with the classic actors’ veto power: “Hell no, I’m not doing that. Period. Ask again and I’ll walk. Or shoot you. Take your pick.” Now the decisionmaker will be the 23 year old DEI freak hired for her piercings, foul language, gender confusions, and ideological manias — and if he/she/it/they want John Wayne, Dwayne Johnson, Timothee Chalamet, and Dylan Mulvaney in explict nude sex scenes, freepers who say they’d like to see a John Wayne movies will be in for a surprise.
It shouldn’t be a surprise at this point.
Then there’s the use of actors’ filmographies to train the AI programs. The actors should have the right to refuse this use of their body of work. The studios disagree. If the studios win out, the AI programs will precisely model every expression, every inflection of the voice, every characteristic nuance of an actor’s style — and if the lawyers decide to reach for a bit of cover, they will make some very slight alteration in order to argue that there is sufficient differentiation that the artificially generated image isn’t legally a copy.
Was John Wayne left handed or right handed? I don’t know and don’t care. But the AI could effortlessly flip it, or four purposes of the nude gay orgy sketched above, they’d probably make the Duke ambidextrous.
Jeff Bridges is delusional if he thinks actors will be able to successfully monetize this. The goal of the studios is to get it all for free.
They could bring back the big "ensemble cast" movies on the cheap. Cannonball Run III, after all these years. ;-)
The principle I identified 25 years ago is that what makes something private is what transforms the state of mobile commons.
Sunlight is a commons. The actor's face transforms its state by reflection. To capture and use it in anything but a public place requires a contract.
Contract management used to be expensive. Lawyers have done everything in their power to keep it that way. Computers will make it cheap. It can't happen too soon, but there will need to be new laws that, for the most part, are WAY beyond the ken of our current crop of legislators.
” I like all of Taylor Sheridan’s work.”
We’re fans of his work, especially Landman. But “The Madison” ... we tried a few times, but hated it. Too chick centric. Kurt Russell was (still is?) listed as a major presence, but that’s just not true.
We’ll try Lioness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.