Introducing Tilly Norwood!

Meet Tilly Norwood.

You’ve probably never heard of her. I hadn’t either until recently. Despite this, Norwood’s being touted as “Hollywood’s next big star”. It’s an ambitious claim, and since Hollywood likes recycling A-listers it sounds good in theory. However, there’s a problem: she’s not real.

I’ve made no secret about my disdain for A.I. I’m not entirely opposed to it, it has its place, but right now people are adopting it left-right-and-centre without thinking about the implications. A.I., like the CGI boom of the 90s, is a tool that should be used alongside actors, not instead of them. And like said boom, it’s not. That’s worrying.

I’m not alone here. Since Tilly Norwood’s announcement, many members of SAG-AFTRA have expressed concerns about her. SAG-AFTRA has also made it explicitly-clear that Norwood can’t be used in their productions, as she could potentially steal work. But while Norwood’s creator has said that she isn’t meant to replace anyone, I’m not convinced of that. Because it’s not like “one-offs” have stayed “one-offs” with A.I.

Perhaps the best example is the Star Wars IP. When Star Wars: Rogue One debuted in 2016, there was hubbub about reviving the late-Peter Cushing’s likeness for Grand Moff Tarkin. He was in a few scenes, and he served a story purpose, but something felt off. Whether it was his face looking plastic, or his voice sounding robotic, the idea, though ambitious, wasn’t flawless. This was nothing to say of the late-Carrie Fisher’s Princess Leia having a 5-second cameo at the end of the movie, making an attempt to tie everything to the 1977 classic.

The filmmakers justified this as a “one-off” meant to serve the story. Fair enough…even if Cushing and Fisher never consented. However, this was done again with Mark Hamill’s Luke Skywalker in Season 2 of The Mandalorian, as well as for an episode of The Book of Boba Fett. In both cases, this was also an A.I. recreation. Except that this time, the actor in question had input(?)

Regardless, this decision, while not the same as reinventing someone, raised many legal and ethical concerns: was it okay to mimic someone’s likeness if they were dead? Was it “acting” if it wasn’t them? And given the recreation was sculpted on top of a stand-in, why not have said stand-in portray the character instead? It’s not like you can’t find mimics, animation does it constantly, so why take the easy way out?

This isn’t even discussing authenticity. An A.I. recreation, at least for now, isn’t acting. It isn’t human either, and it lacks the emotion and warmth of one. Ignoring how A.I. doesn’t create, but rather recreates, the feeling of knowing that what you’re seeing isn’t real is called The Uncanny Valley. And believe me, humans can detect this.

A.I. technology’s constantly improving, and it’s getting harder and harder to spot it, but removing humanity from art and “making it work” is a fallacy. Movies, even ones done by computers, need a guiding hand from real artists, and this removes that from the equation. Since entertainment, like all art-forms, is in conversation with reality, what does it say about reality when it’s conversing with an artificial construct? And I’m not referring to robots, either.

You see the issue? It’s one concern if artists have consented to signing away their likeness. I don’t like that James Earl Jones consented to using his Darth Vader voice after his death, but he at least was consulted. Tilly Norwood, like Carrie Fisher’s Leia, can’t consent. In the case of Norwood, it’s because she’s not a real actress, and has been scraped from hundreds upon hundreds of hours of other actors’ performances. So while this might seem “novel”, it’s not as novel as you’d think.

This also broaches a bigger question: even if Norwood’s not meant to replace anyone, what’s to stop another Norwood from being created? Moviemaking’s a business, and businesses love cutting corners, so what makes people think a studio won’t eventually bite? It’d not only rob someone of a future role, it’d also be a cynical ploy to pinch Pennies here and there. That’s what really bothers me.

I don’t need to be reminded that A.I. isn’t going away. I see that on LinkedIn constantly. I also am currently writing about that for an automotive magazine, and it’s scheduled to release next month. A.I.’s here to stay. I have to get used to that.

In the same breath, regulations and rules need to be established. Like the mocap animation debate from the 2000s, which had similar concerns, over-relying on artificial actors has real ramifications. It also robs humanity from film, makes audiences further desensitized to thinking critically, and destroys suspension of disbelief. It’s not like people can go along with the absurdities of the premise because it feels anchored or grounded, as that isn’t true anymore. That’s not healthy for the art-form, either.

Finally, there’s the issue of interpretation. Going back to Star Wars, Ewan McGregor isn’t Alec Guinness, nor should he be. But while the former’s been portraying a younger version of Obi-Wan Kenobi, he’s also made him his own. He’s brought a unique energy, too! And fans can’t imagine anyone else in live-action now. That’s something Tilly Norwood can’t do, no matter how “well-intended” her creation was.

So yes, people are right to be concerned about Tilly Norwood. The question is: what can we do about it?