Val Kilmer will appear in a new movie as an AI recreation approved by his family

[midian182]

A hot potato: There has been plenty of controversy over the use of AI replicating actors' voices and likenesses, especially when it happens without their permission. In the case of the late Val Kilmer, the star will be recreated in an upcoming movie – with his family's blessing.

According to Variety, Kilmer was cast as a Catholic priest and Native American spiritualist in 2020 for a movie called "As Deep as the Grave," but his battle with throat cancer meant he was too ill to make it onto the set.

"He was the actor I wanted to play this role," says the film's writer and director Coerte Voorhees. "It was very much designed around him."

Kilmer sadly passed away from his illness in 2025 without ever shooting a single scene for the movie, but he will still appear in AI-generated form.

"Despite the fact some people might call it controversial, this is what Val wanted," Voorhees told Variety.

Courtesy of Variety

Kilmer was forced to use AI to create a version of his voice when he appeared in Top Gun: Maverick, thanks to his partnership with Sonantic. He said at the time that he was "grateful" to the technology company for giving him a "chance to narrate my story, in a voice that feels authentic."

Exactly which AI technology will be used to recreate Kilmer in the movie is unknown. Vorhees says he has many images of Kilmer provided by his family, as well as footage from his final years.

The makers of As Deep as the Grave say they fully expect it to attract a lot of controversy – which could actually make the movie more popular – but they say it will be an example of how AI can be used ethically. They also note that the production relied on SAG guidelines and compensated Kilmer's estate for his appearance.

We'll obviously never know for certain whether Kilmer himself would have approved of this project. His daughter Mercedes Kilmer said she supported the film, and noted that her father was "a deeply spiritual man" who resonated with a "story of discovery and enlightenment."

Several actors have spoken out against using AI versions of themselves in movies after they die. In 2024, Robert Downey Jr. said he intends to "sue all future executives" who allow an AI-created version of him. "My law firm will still be very active [after his death]," said the Marvel star.

In December 2025, a 2019 lawsuit over Disney's recreation of Peter Cushing in Rogue One was thrown out after a judge found in favor of Disney and dismissed the claim.

Permalink to story:

Val Kilmer will appear in a new movie as an AI recreation approved by his family

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

This is a situation where an actual law clarifying the rights to one's likeness, and how long they extend to one's estate post-death would be handy. Could go with say 70 years after death (copyright for personal works is life of the author + 70 years, so that would line up) preventing any cheap cash grabs of someone's image shortly after their passing, but allowing the image to be used for any historical works or documentaries.

 

[kira setsu]

So much for "rest in peace" it seems,

people truly are garbage when it comes to making some coin.

 

[moral hazard]

Is Tilly Norwood going to be his costar?

 

[NumberNine]

When humans desire more cash, nothing is sacred. Just a little necromancy to squeeze a few more dollars from the corpse. Val Kilmer didn't outlive the usefulness of his face, but I guess everyone agreeing to legally do the wrong thing makes it okay.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

When humans desire more cash, nothing is sacred. Just a little necromancy to squeeze a few more dollars from the corpse. Val Kilmer didn't outlive the usefulness of his face, but I guess everyone agreeing to legally do the wrong thing makes it okay.

What exactly is wrong here? He apparently agreed to allow his image to be used this way, and his estate is being paid for it. Who is being harmed? People have been doing their best to recreate the image of dead people for historical films & documentaries since the beginning of the media. What's the moral difference between recreating a specific dead person's appearance with a computer versus choosing an actor specifically because they look similar and then altering their face with makeup to make them look as close to the deceased as possible?

 

[unoficialoficial]

This is a situation where an actual law clarifying the rights to one's likeness, and how long they extend to one's estate post-death would be handy. Could go with say 70 years after death (copyright for personal works is life of the author + 70 years, so that would line up) preventing any cheap cash grabs of someone's image shortly after their passing, but allowing the image to be used for any historical works or documentaries.

Likeness is not like land, where one can define absolute coordinates and declare a square unique and absolutely distinguishable, with ownership assigned to someone.

For example, hundreds of free people express a stylistic(probably not chosen by him but from a fashion designer) likeness similar to Elvis Presley during one specific era of his life. They do it because they admire him, his expression resonates with a similar part on their personalities. So, why should worldwide society obey laws protecting a texture on clothing? It is an insult to human nature and represents the pinnacle of vanity.

After all, "likeness" it violates the constitution, which does not allow laws that discriminate based on physical characteristics.

 

[DrSuess]

This is a situation where an actual law clarifying the rights to one's likeness, and how long they extend to one's estate post-death would be handy. Could go with say 70 years after death (copyright for personal works is life of the author + 70 years, so that would line up) preventing any cheap cash grabs of someone's image shortly after their passing, but allowing the image to be used for any historical works or documentaries.

It has been accounted for in a way

"The 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) extended U.S. copyright protection by 20 years, bringing terms to life-plus-70 years for individuals and 95 years for works-for-hire. It was designed to harmonize U.S. law with European Union standards and prevent works from entering the public domain"

So Kilmer's estate would have nearly 100yrs of controlling what projects his likeness would appear under the works-for-hire provision.

 

[wiyosaya]

I'll pass on this movie or any movie that has an AI "Actor" performing.

Besides, I have not gone to see a movie in a theater in a long, long, long time. My home theater is a better experience.

 

[Anton Longshot]

Soon, movies featuring deceased family and friends.
Gonna happen.

Not gonna happen to me though but different people different tastes.

 

[Megalomaniac]

I don't mind signing an AI waiver to allow my digital footprint to be incorporated into a super mega troll that will stalk and harrass the internet for centuries to come. A Virus.

 

[NumberNine]

What exactly is wrong here? He apparently agreed to allow his image to be used this way, and his estate is being paid for it. Who is being harmed? People have been doing their best to recreate the image of dead people for historical films & documentaries since the beginning of the media. What's the moral difference between recreating a specific dead person's appearance with a computer versus choosing an actor specifically because they look similar and then altering their face with makeup to make them look as close to the deceased as possible?

This doesn't create absolution. He is complicit for his own participation as well.

 

[polord]

So much for "rest in peace" it seems,

people truly are garbage when it comes to making some coin.

He agreed..

 

[The Talking Tech]

Totally disgraceful....even if the actor himself approved this.....your work dies with you.... period.just like everything else.

 

[The Talking Tech]

I'll pass on this movie or any movie that has an AI "Actor" performing.

Besides, I have not gone to see a movie in a theater in a long, long, long time. My home theater is a better experience.

So you are saying it's ok for you to play this in your home theater?...weird message you implied there.

 

[p51d007]

In some ways I find it creepy, but he & his family agreed to allow this.
The funny part is using "fake" actors, if this works out, should give the
hollyweirdo land the chills that an actor could be created, not them, but
a generic actor to replace them MUCH CHEAPER.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

This is very weird.

I’m not sure how I feel about fake dead actors.

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

Ice, Batman and Doc Holiday returns.

 

[Squid Surprise]

What exactly is wrong here? He apparently agreed to allow his image to be used this way, and his estate is being paid for it. Who is being harmed? People have been doing their best to recreate the image of dead people for historical films & documentaries since the beginning of the media. What's the moral difference between recreating a specific dead person's appearance with a computer versus choosing an actor specifically because they look similar and then altering their face with makeup to make them look as close to the deceased as possible?

Well, while I don’t see anything wrong with this, I assume the argument would be that his role could be performed by a human instead - so that person who didn’t get hired suffers…

Honestly though….. who cares? I’ve seen some pretty terrible actors in many a film (looking at you, Sharknado!) that I doubt anyone would notice if the actors were AI instead of human.

 

[Endymio]

It has been accounted for in a way
... (copyright quote deleted)...
So Kilmer's estate would have nearly 100yrs of controlling what projects his likeness would appear under the works-for-hire provision.

You can't copyright your face or likeness. Technically, you have a "personality right" or a "right to publicity" instead, which even in the US varies from state to state.

It's not clear there's any social benefit to granting publicity rights to a deceased actor. Enforcement alone is a serious issue -- we no longer live in a Hollywood Age of a couple hundred well-known celebrities; streaming means hundreds of thousands of people are successful actors, many of whom strongly resemble someone else. There are even a few sets of identical twins -- which one owns the face?

You also must remember that intellectual property law exists NOT to benefit the owner, but -- as the US Constitution states -- "to promote the progress of the sciences and arts". We allow copyrights because, without them, people would not spend months and years to author new works. But how many budding actors would refuse to enter the industry, because their face may live on after they die?

 

[Thrackerzod]

Just imagine, someday people will be able to generate entire movies starring anyone they want right on their computers at home. Just feed it a script and tell it who you want to play the roles.

 

[Endymio]

Just imagine, someday people will be able to generate entire movies starring anyone they want right on their computers at home. Just feed it a script and tell it who you want to play the roles.

Someday is today. Check out the Brad Pitt / Tom Cruise AI fight clip.

 

[thewelshbrummie]

I don't want to go too off-topic but the following section isn't accurate:

Kilmer was forced to use AI to create a version of his voice when he appeared in Top Gun: Maverick, thanks to his partnership with Sonantic. He said at the time that he was "grateful" to the technology company for giving him a "chance to narrate my story, in a voice that feels authentic."

From USA Today via Wikipedia:

Kosinski: I've read about it and saw Val is working with that company. But I've never used that technology and we didn't use that A.I. technology in "Top Gun." (Kilmer's) voice was digitally altered and blended a little bit just for clarity.

A little fact-checking wouldn't go amiss next time.

 

[Endymio]

From USA Today via Wikipedia:

Fortune and Variety Magazine both claim otherwise.

"...Val Kilmer’s voice in Top Gun: Maverick (2022) was recreated using AI technology developed by British startup Sonantic. Following a 2017 throat cancer diagnosis and tracheotomy that affected his speech, Kilmer partnered with Sonantic to train an AI model on hours of his past audio recordings, allowing him to authentically voice his character, Tom "Iceman" Kazansky, for the film. ..."

I heard Kilmer speak after his surgery: no one voices a film character with just "a litlte bit of blending" after a full tracheotomy. But in the current Hollywood climate, if Kosinksi admits to use of AI technology, his career is over.