How do you replace a legendary actor like James Earl Jones? With the help of artificial intelligence, Disney doesnât have to.
On Sept. 9, we lost Jones, a titan of cinema known best for his roles in âField of Dreams,â âThe Lion Kingâ and, perhaps most notably, as the voice of Darth Vader in âStar Wars.â His dignified and at times menacing golden voice reverberates through the childhoods of generations and will be preserved in living memory decades after his death.
And, thanks to AI, that also will include future posthumous âperformances.â In fact, we already have an example of what this will look like: A digital replica of Jonesâ voice appeared in the âObi-Wan Kenobiâ Disney+ series two years ago with his approval.
Before he died, Jones consented to allow the studio to reconstruct his voice with AI for use in future projects. When Disney first capitalized off this in the âKenobiâ series, it didnât garner a large negative response, likely because it was overshadowed by the fact that fans were excited to see âStar Warsâ prequel actors Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen return to their roles. There also was a disproportionate and racist backlash to actor Moses Ingram, which I condemned in a column on the matter.
But now that Jones is dead, his approval of using an AI version of his voice is a major footnote in his legacy. There have been countless examples of dead actors brought to life using AI and deepfake technology with the consent of their estate, but Jones lived through the rise of this technology. He was able to make an informed decision before opting into it.
Whether Disney will again implement it is unknown. The company faced criticism for digitally resurrecting the actor Peter Cushing in âRogue One: A Star Wars Storyâ â criticism I partook in via my first-ever column for this newspaper in 2016 â and I think audiences have little stomach for the practice. Look no further than âAlien Romulus,â which has recently sparked controversy for using CGI (computer-generated imagery) to recreate the likeness of Ian Holm, who died in 2020.
Iâve seen other publications claim that Jones will be âimmortalizedâ by AI â a notion that I soundly reject. While I can understand wanting another performance by Jones, the man is dead. Itâs time to let his voice rest.
While AI can produce extremely convincing imitations of people, itâs not able to bring them back to life. It might be able to duplicate their mannerisms, likeness and voice, but itâs not able to replicate the most important part of a performer: their mind.
In previous columns, I admitted that, for this reason, I cannot consider media produced by AI as art because art requires an artist to make it. As such, I also cannot consider anything made entirely by AI as a performance, because there is no performer â just a computer algorithm pretending to be one.
As painful as it might be, itâs time to let Jones go. His unforgettable performances on screen will always exist for anyone to watch. But future projects should be reserved for the living. Even ones that include Darth Vader.
AI poses an existential threat to the arts and society as a whole. Already it challenges a cornerstone of civilization: how we treat our dead. Do we honor and respect the finality of death by resisting the urge to recreate those who have died using AI? Or do we allow ourselves to normalize the opposite?
Iâm not religious. I donât believe in an afterlife, and Iâm OK with that. Our mortality gives weight to our existence and wonderful meaning to our lives. I think AI is a convenient way for us to ignore the harsh reality that the dead are never coming back, that our time on Earth is finite and might be all that we have.
In this context, I canât help but see AI recreations of the dead as an insult to their memories. Itâs a technology that we must resist not just because itâll help us accept death but itâs the decent and right thing to do.
Rest in peace, James Earl Jones. May the Force be with you.
Mitchell Chapman is The Eagleâs night news editor.
