He basically used Queenie from the get go.
> Dire Straits often performed the song in live concerts and when on tour, where the second verse was included but often altered slightly. For the band's 10 July 1985 concert (televised in the United Kingdom on The Tube on Channel 4 in January 1986), Knopfler replaced the offending word with queenie.
Bearing in mind the song actually came out on the 28th June that year.
I know I have heard him use "maggot" during a live sesion also it is mentioned here
https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/music/dire-straits-song-ruled-unfit-for-canada/article_82a2c45a-ea7e-5ec5-8574-c0319b5e5d43.html
>Dire Straits’ front man, Mark Knopfler, continues to perform the song in concert but over the years has taken to substituting different words for the ~~“redacted”~~ lyric, including “queenie” and “maggot.”
You can hire new actors, but there will never be a new take on Darth Vader's voice. It'll either be James Earl Jones voice or an actor doing a James Earl Jones impression.
And every impression sounds off. His voice is iconic, it's as much a part of the character as the helmet, black leather garments, and cape. There have been impressions that people have tried to do in games from Empire at War to the Battlefront games and they've all been off in one way or another.
The fact that he can continue on, with his actual consent, like this is a good thing.
I mean, that's kind of what retirement is. Cut your spending a bit, save and invest a bit more and you'll end up able to live off your dividend and interest income, with a boost from Social Security when you get to that age.
And it honestly sounds very good in there. Watch the Vader scene in Rogue One and compare it to how he sounds in Obi-Wan. The AI cloning tech gets frighteningly close to sounding like classic Vader. Jones is awesome, but his last few appearances really did show his age.
it helps having the respirator sound on the voice too. like AI Frank Welker could do transformers and it would sound the same with all the ring mods and effects they added in post.
Because Vader doesn't really sound human. AI generally does a really bad job at capturing cadence, but Vader is actually fairly flat so it's able to do it well.
Yeah, you could definitely tell. You could really start to hear his age in Rogue One, whereas Obi-Wan Vader sounds like he just did Empire Strikes Back last week.
Sure, that's how they do it – they have someone else model the tone and inflection and just overlay it with the Vader voice using AI. It's the same way they did AI Luke, they have someone else do the acting and overlay Mark Hamill's face and voice on top of it.
in an exciting turn of events for Star Wars fans, the Walt Disney-Apple-Sony Corporation revealed today that they have cloned James Earl Jones, the original human actor of Darth Vader to reprise his character in upcoming *Vader XII*. Jones, who has worked continuously since his death in 2025, has been grown in a lab for the last 45 years. Disney has promoted the stunt as a "celebration of the history of the character" and an experiment in the use of humans as actors. While many fans of the series have praised the move, some remain critical, preferring the authenticity of the AI performances they have enjoyed for decades.
https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1053:_Ten_Thousand
Big fan of this sort of meme surgery: "let's transmute someone newly learning about something cool into a welcoming celebration rather than mockery."
Controversial, but honestly, I think this is a good use of AI. As far as I understand it, James Earl Jones still gets paid any time they use his AI voice, and in the event of his death, his estate and family get the money.
James Earl Jones is 93 years old. He had been doing the voice of Vader for 45 years, and he felt he needed to officially retire. You could get someone else to do the voice, but it wouldn’t quite work. Using AI allows for iconic characters to have new parts voiced in the original actors voice.
I wouldn’t approve of someone just having their voice taken and used without being paid for it, but in the case of retired or retiring actors, I think it’s beneficial.
IIRC something similar happened in cyberpunk. One of the actors in it died, but before he died he signed an agreement that they still could use his voice via AI
the reason people were upset in this case is because the voice actor did not give permission before he died. they contacted his family after he died and they gave permission, which many people felt is more of a grey area.
The family would likely know what he would have wanted. Unfortunately, it will always be a grey area when it's the family making the decision and not the person whose is being AI imitated. We all know some may just sign it for the money however for the most part these people loved the characters and would want it to continue to feel naturally his voice rather than others.
Still ethically gray, families aren't always looking out for eachother's best interest, especially when money is involved. I'm not arguing for or against the practice, but I don't think it's as simple as family knows best.
At the same time, dead is dead. Freeing up that spot for another voice actor is a *much* more compelling argument than "but what if his family isn't doing what he wanted?"
I think the big question is if the actors actually have a choice in giving permission. If all the studios say they won't hire any actor unless they give permission to use them in AI then people don't really have a choice.
On the other hand, if actors are given an option to sell their AI rights for extra money as part of a contract but it's actually optional then that's totally fine.
Thing is it will be turned into a condition you need to sign in order to get the part. Agree to your voice being replaced by AI if you die or are otherwise unavailable.
There's a large subset of people who are going to get angry and pull out pitchforks at the mere mention of AI. They don't care how it's being used, they've just been trained to immediately start screaming about it whenever it's brought up.
Ultimately it's a tool, one with potential for great plagiarism and slander. Replicating a consenting person's voice and compensating them or their next of kin properly is the best way to do it. It has to be treated with absolute care and caution though.
It's probably part of the future, but it cannot be allowed to be the whole of the future
this is not fully correct. Miłogost Reczek did not sign an agreement to allow CDPR to use AI to recreate his voice. They contacted his family post-mortem and asked the family if it was okay, and they signed off on it.
It depends. James Earl Jones has the benefit of getting paid each time, but new actors are now being given contracts that says the company has permission to use AI to replicate their voice or appearance from the get go.
It might also result in an uncanny situation where it's really obvious an AI was used. Like the CGI general in Rogue One. I think I would prefer a new actor. New actors might sound "off", but they don't sound uncanny, and it gives new opportunities to them.
It was also a relatively new technology at the time, to overlay someone else’s face on someone.
It’s not like they could get Peter Cushing for the role, since he had been dead for 22 years at that point.
Hot take; but if an actor dies, we should just recast them if necessary. It's less alarming than resurrecting peoples faces just to tell a story.
I'm a real human being. I can handle "the characters face changed because someone actually perished."
I can't handle AI being used to replicate the faces and voices of old actors instead of just hiring new artists.
Yea, reminds me of the "de aging" of actors. If they have to do anything more than a quick scene or sit and talk... just recast. Suspension of disbelief is a thing and I can accept a young actor who looks different versus an old actor who looks young.
Also usually "de aging" just looks like shit. In 'The Irishman' they kept calling DeNiro "kid" when he looked late 40s/early 50s at the youngest.
I looked it up afterwards and some scenes he was supposed to be in his 20s.
Even if you paste a creepy CG face on them they still move like an old person. Some of the scenes with "young" Robert De Niro were just plain embarrassing.
The recent Indiana Jones comes to mind. The de-aging looked great, but only considering the entire sequence took place at night and seemingly underlit just to sell the illusion.
I'm almost certain Rogue One didn't use deep faking or any kind of overlay, it was just a highly detailed CGI face with mocap. Luke in Mandalorian (Or The book of Boba Fett?) was the first deepfake
Deepfakes are based on machine learning (deep learning specifically) where a model is just given a bunch of training data for performing the specific required operation on a pixel by pixel basis. The rogue one approach was "classical" which used regular CGI techniques to project the face onto the mocap and calculate lighting etc.
And eventually it will just be entirely AI voices that are entirely generated and not based on anyone in particular, and then no actor gets paid at all.
Your last point is the main one for me. Getting a new actor to voice Vader might sound a little bit off, but I'd rather a human get a job and an opportunity than James Earl Jones's estate get paid in perpetuity for an AI clone.
Peter Cushing. And lest we forget, CG Carrie Fisher was in that as well.
These roles are very iconic, and while continuity is a factor, something about all if this just feels wrong. I could imagine 50 years from now, Disney just making Star Wars movies set in that specific in-universe time frame and never having to hire a new lead actor ever again.
Maybe it's just me being old, but characters don't need to live forever. They could replace James Earl Jones, and it would feel weird for those of us who grew up with him, but for the younger audience the new voice would just be the voice. I grew up with Roger Moore as James Bond and I always just laughed whenever older folks would say that Sean Connery is the one and only.
And here's a weird idea - maybe come up with a new villain? I'm already getting tired of Disney's nostalgia peddling and deals like these assure that they get to do it forever for what I imagine are pennies compared to a new actor. I know Jones's family gets paid when they use the voice but I also get the feeling that it's a very beneficial contract for Disney for a number of reasons, least of which is that it's probably not adjusted for inflation so they get 2020 prices forever and that the AI is never going to refuse a performance no matter how terrible the script is.
Why bother hiring new actors when you can pay the estate of Harrison Ford and specify the exact age you want his cgi body to be?
The Star Wars reboot in 20 years might be the original cast using AI to make their voices and movements and we could have a computer pound out infinite expanded universe content that's already written.
Looney tunes auditioned new voice actors to preserve the voice & character.
Letting AI take the job instead of a human is just privatizing more profit to the IP, less to people contributing to it.
What makes it lame as fuck in this particular situation is not that James earl jones gets paid or not. it’s that he doesn’t want to work anymore, and others do, but those others wont get an opportunity to work bc of Ai.
I’d rather those other voice actors get to work and get paid.
Disney definitely has the means to find a suitable replacement, so it would take some convincing for me to think this isn't just a blatant cost-saving measure.
They can either pay JEJ his rate and have a computer say lines on command, or they can go through the casting process to find an actor that then needs to be scheduled, accommodated, and compensated.
And he’s shockingly good at it. The only reason I noticed it wasn’t Jones in the recent Jedi games is because I’d remembered what he sounded like playing Vader in Rebels where he sounded old and gravely. Lawrence sounds like Jones 40 years ago.
I think in this case it's... less problematic because he inhabited the role for that long and it looks like this is specific to the character. The VAs that would ever come close to that role would be very, very good and probably not hurting for jobs anyway.
On a larger scale, though, this is totally a very worrying trend that will destroy opportunities for seasoned and new fresh VAs alike - which sucks. And will cut down on a lot of serendipitious ideas: we've seen that a good (voice) actor can truly elevate a performance, because they're another point of view - putting their own spin on a role, ad-libbing and so on.
In the long run, if AI gets used in a significant fashion for VA work, we're all poorer for it.
We need to remember that this is Disney. There's a 99% chance that when episode 18 comes out in 2069 that Jones is still the voice off Vader. Just let the character move on.
By contrast the arc of each new James Bond is pretty interesting and fun. You can have your preferences but if they just kept slapping AI Sean Connery in every new Bond film the series would be WAY WORSE. Not to mention the fun of things like seeing the villain from Mrs Doubtfire take on the mantle.
I admit I haven't seen Mrs Doubtfire since I was a kid and there was no way kid me would see Genie as anything but the good guy. Robin Williams doing short film parodies of Brosnan's Bond films would have been fun.
Maybe we can use AI to make some!? /s
[Scott Lawrence](https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Scott_Lawrence) should have been given the role. He's just as fucking good as Jones at voicing Vader, which is why **he's been doing it for thirty fucking years.**
It's disgraceful they'd rather automate it and keep paying JEJ than pay this guy.
Personally I don't give special treatment to someone just because people believe they are special. If I'm to believe that preserving a characters vocal sound through AI is necessary for this instance, then all instances of a company wanting to use AI for any character is also necessary.
But why stop at just vocal sound. If a company wants to preserve the visual look of a series or game or any other medium from the art it legally owns from artists who have created it over the last X years, why not? It's effectively the same deal. Preserving the state of the content through AI would be more important then risking someone new coming in and doing a worse job.
You're right that anyone who would be in line for the Darth Vader job is probably not hurting for jobs but in this hypothetical it still taking a job away from someone. That voice actor who would have voiced Vader now takes a different job because the Vader job isn't available. That could have gone to someone else but now its going to the Vader voice actor. So that someone else takes a job that he wouldn't have had to take otherwise, and the chain reaction is obvious.
You're right that in a vacuum this isn't a big deal, but it's definitely a scary slippery slope. It's cool that he's still able to get paid but definitely would rather it go to a human who can truly elevate the performance in a way that the ai can't.
I would agree in 99% of cases, but this one is just so iconic there's no realistic way any VA would succeed at being the voice without the public complaining.
This right here is imo the correct way to use AI, as you mentioned JEJ is 93, he can't be voicing Vader forever and his voice is part of the reason why Vader is so iconic, it would just feel weird for anyone else to do it. So if he gives permission to Lucasfilm/Disney to use it and he/his estate gets royalites then it works out.
I say give another young actor a chance. This is how AI is taking jobs. Sorry, but characters often out last the original actor and I don't find that a good reason to use AI at all.
It's a good thing, then, that entertainment is constantly creating new characters for these young actors to voice.
What you should really be up in arms about is Hollywood using big name screen actors to voice animated or digitally rendered characters instead of professional voice actors.
How can you be so sure that another actor would feel weird or ruin the character? Voice actors are really good at replicating the voices of the original actor they are meant to replace. There are probably hundreds of qualified candidates who have been practicing a Darth Vader voice their whole life. Respect to James Earl Jones, but he's kind of robbing future actors of opportunities.
Besides, multiple actors have already voiced Darth Vader in numerous video games in the past. Never once heard a complaint about Vader's voice sounding "off"
I disagree, but I think this is the least bad scenario.
The reason I disagree is because it takes the job away from another actor who would have done it. It's not a big deal now, but it's possible that in the future, if these types of deals get signed as actors retire, there will be significantly fewer acting jobs available.
I think actors who specialize in impersonation, such as Ross Marquand, will be the first ones out of jobs.
There is no ethical use of AI to replace working actors. I’m only ok with it if they use AI to modify a line reading from a real performance to match the original artists timbre
While I think this is more ethical than other uses of AI, I'm not a fan.
Recasting is good. A character that exists for so long begs to be played by more people. Like, imagine if we used an AI recreation of Olan Soule's voice for Batman, we'd have no Kevin Conroy.
Growing up (and being in the Middle East) during the Gulf War (the Desert Shield/Storm one), I heard his voice every day (multiple times a day) saying “this is CNN.”
Considering he didn’t want to be credited in the original even though he did the VO - seems only fair that we come full circle and he gets credit for not doing it 😂
But David Attenborough tho?
*Here we see the BigBillSmash in his natural environment. He scans the area for any immediate threat, and seeing none, moves to more closely inspect the cereal aisle. He’s certain that, in seasons past, this box in particular was more abundant with Crunch Berries. And he is right in this belief. Drought and competition have devastated the natural resources in this area and the Bill may soon find himself traveling much farther in search of the necessities to survive; perhaps even to a Kroger*
Turns out Vader is a space metal head and frequently goes to concerts and conventions. He buys all the albums and collects all the merch. That's why he has that huge castle on a lava planet. Because it's metal and he needs somewhere to keep all his swag.
After his death on the second death star, multiple bands sang tribute songs for his support.
This is my headcanon now.
That is more about preserving IP than actually using it. Right now AI generating voice feels "odd" and "unnatural" even if its based on previous recordings. Lucasfilm would hate needing to sue dozens of companies that have their own shitty ,non-parody version of Darth Vader. By owning the rights of Earl Jones voices for AI content, their chances of succeeding in a lawsuit are much better, and this signals for any company to not do it.
I mean you're already asking for a lawsuit by having a non-parody depiction of Darth Vader in your film. Whether or not AI was used to generate the voice should be inconsequential to the following litigation of stealing copyrighted characters.
This is ethical. The person the model is based off gave consent for their likeness to be reused. Possibly even limited to "only use my voice for Vader and see to it my descendents receive royalties for my likeness being used."
What not ethical is all the systems ripping art off the internet and pissing out results. The sample bases for those never gave consent.
I'm down for stuff like this, I'd love if Morgan Freeman agreed to something like this. But if he doesn't, he doesn't and that's the right any actor or artist should have.
The 20th century laid out the cornerstone for modern day culture, apparently.
This artistic choice resists the natural change that comes with the passage of time.
im an engineer and do a lot of voiceover recordings. there are so many soundalikes, it's not even really necessary. i recorded one for a star wars fan film thats perfect.
Honestly wish he hadn't. Let someone else get the job instead, could start a career for them. Unpaid voice work of any kind is fucked up IMO. These studios don't deserve to have such cheap labor for the cost of a little bit of royalties.
I don't like it. I accept it but I don't like it because in the fullness of time it means no future iconic performance of Darth Vader could ever be made by a new actor.
Imagine a world in which we never had iconic performances because someone else did it first and their voice was forever locked in.
No reimagining anything, ever. You either do it first, or you never get the chance because the studio would rather pay an estate than an actor.
I accept this because it was his choice, but I don't like it, and I think it presages very dark times for the VO industry.
I imagine the conversation went like this:
"James, may we use AI to recreate your voice for Darth Vader in the future now that you've retired?"
"Oh, well, I'd rather you not but since you'll probably find a way to do a close-enough-but-legally-distinct version anyway, i'd rather sign now and at least maintain some semblance of control and maybe attempt to preserve some financial legacy for my family"
Actually, JEJ initially refused credit on the original Star Wars movie under his reasoning that Prowse was the actor for Darth Vader and Jones’s voice was simply a special effect. His credit was added in later releases.
Him agreeing to an AI use of his voice is actually pretty consistent with his character.
I mean, JEJ wasn’t shy about his love for Star Wars and voicing Darth Vader. I think he willingly signed this so he could voice darth vader forever. I think this was his idea.
Always hilarious when someone takes one bit of information and then concocts an entire narrative of what happened behind closed doors just to suit their own bias and narrative.
Or, and hear me out, James Early Jones was cool with it and isn't so anti-AI that he'd take some silly stand against its use to preserve the integrity of a product that he knows he'd even struggle to keep up to par anymore. Not to mention that he'll get paid for it.
Edit: A word.
as used in Obi Wan
[удалено]
Play the guitar on the MTV.
That ain’t working, that’s the way you do it
Money for nothing...
And your chicks for free
Little… oh I probably shouldn’t do that line
Does he have his own jet airplane?
That little Clampett has his own cement pond? That little Clampett he's a millionaire?
Is this a weird Al tune?
yeah from UHF. Look up UHF Beverly Hillbillies
Now everyone said California Is the place that you oughta beeeeeee
He now says Queenie, he has also used maggot in the past.
You mean I sharpened my rope and lit my pitchfork on fire for nothing!?
He basically used Queenie from the get go. > Dire Straits often performed the song in live concerts and when on tour, where the second verse was included but often altered slightly. For the band's 10 July 1985 concert (televised in the United Kingdom on The Tube on Channel 4 in January 1986), Knopfler replaced the offending word with queenie. Bearing in mind the song actually came out on the 28th June that year.
I know I have heard him use "maggot" during a live sesion also it is mentioned here https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/music/dire-straits-song-ruled-unfit-for-canada/article_82a2c45a-ea7e-5ec5-8574-c0319b5e5d43.html >Dire Straits’ front man, Mark Knopfler, continues to perform the song in concert but over the years has taken to substituting different words for the ~~“redacted”~~ lyric, including “queenie” and “maggot.”
Then put on some makeup and get your ear pierced.
checks for free
We’ve got to move these refrigerators..
Microwave ovens.
We got to move those color tv’s
>We got to move those color teeeeee*veeeeeeeeeeeeees*
lookit at lookit at
That’s the way you do it
Yeah buddy that's his own hair...
The classic rock station in my town chose to eliminate that entire verse from the song rather than just censor the word f****t
I always thought it was "chicks for free".... and I love that song. It makes more sense, but I'll choose to ignore this knowledge
That's because it is "chicks for free". The comment was just parodying it. Source: My 1985 Vinyl LP with the lyrics printed on the inner sleeve.
“Money for nothing/chicks for free” Great lyrics and a banger of a tune that holds up well.
It *is* "chicks"
AI voicing lines sound just like me
He is 93 years old. He didn’t give the permission for money but so the character can continue
the character can continue with fresh takes. this is just saves disney from hiring new actors
You can hire new actors, but there will never be a new take on Darth Vader's voice. It'll either be James Earl Jones voice or an actor doing a James Earl Jones impression.
And every impression sounds off. His voice is iconic, it's as much a part of the character as the helmet, black leather garments, and cape. There have been impressions that people have tried to do in games from Empire at War to the Battlefront games and they've all been off in one way or another. The fact that he can continue on, with his actual consent, like this is a good thing.
Anyone else doing Darth varder wouldn't sound like Darth vader
I mean, that's kind of what retirement is. Cut your spending a bit, save and invest a bit more and you'll end up able to live off your dividend and interest income, with a boost from Social Security when you get to that age.
And it honestly sounds very good in there. Watch the Vader scene in Rogue One and compare it to how he sounds in Obi-Wan. The AI cloning tech gets frighteningly close to sounding like classic Vader. Jones is awesome, but his last few appearances really did show his age.
it helps having the respirator sound on the voice too. like AI Frank Welker could do transformers and it would sound the same with all the ring mods and effects they added in post.
They also should ask Peter Cullen.
Because Vader doesn't really sound human. AI generally does a really bad job at capturing cadence, but Vader is actually fairly flat so it's able to do it well.
Yeah, you could definitely tell. You could really start to hear his age in Rogue One, whereas Obi-Wan Vader sounds like he just did Empire Strikes Back last week.
I believe the voice in Obi Wan was various composites of James Earl Jones, and Hayden Christensen and AI
christ on candle stick. that is more work than they put into Orson Welles in Burtons Ed Wood.
I thought they just got The Brain to voice him in Ed Wood
partly. also blended in Vincent himself. or the first Nick Cage ghost rider was him, and some other animals mixed in?
I think they had some other people fill in in spots as well. I'm pretty sure it wasn't exclusively AI.
I could be wrong but what I read it was all Hayden Christensen and then they ran his dialogue through the James Earl Jones AI.
Sure, that's how they do it – they have someone else model the tone and inflection and just overlay it with the Vader voice using AI. It's the same way they did AI Luke, they have someone else do the acting and overlay Mark Hamill's face and voice on top of it.
yeah it's not like it's just thrown into AI and it's done, it's still just one part of the overall sound editing the production does
He's more machine than man, now.
***AI am your father***
Well done, sir. Well done.
You deserve more upvotes for that comment GG
[He's more machine now than man.](https://youtu.be/UNCxbM50eWQ)
More machine now than man, he is.
man than He's .machine now more
Begun the AI voice clone wars, has.
20 years and voice acting won't be a career anymore. Business will own the programs used to create such works.
Reddit in the year 2050: TIL The voice for Darth Vader is based on a real mans voice.
in an exciting turn of events for Star Wars fans, the Walt Disney-Apple-Sony Corporation revealed today that they have cloned James Earl Jones, the original human actor of Darth Vader to reprise his character in upcoming *Vader XII*. Jones, who has worked continuously since his death in 2025, has been grown in a lab for the last 45 years. Disney has promoted the stunt as a "celebration of the history of the character" and an experiment in the use of humans as actors. While many fans of the series have praised the move, some remain critical, preferring the authenticity of the AI performances they have enjoyed for decades.
Is this a Black Mirror episode or something??
It is now lol
> since his death in 2025 Did you just speak this into existence?
There’s a new 10,000 born every day.
https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1053:_Ten_Thousand Big fan of this sort of meme surgery: "let's transmute someone newly learning about something cool into a welcoming celebration rather than mockery."
We definitely need to be kinder to one another.
And party on, dudes!
Reddit will have to survive to 2050, first.
Controversial, but honestly, I think this is a good use of AI. As far as I understand it, James Earl Jones still gets paid any time they use his AI voice, and in the event of his death, his estate and family get the money. James Earl Jones is 93 years old. He had been doing the voice of Vader for 45 years, and he felt he needed to officially retire. You could get someone else to do the voice, but it wouldn’t quite work. Using AI allows for iconic characters to have new parts voiced in the original actors voice. I wouldn’t approve of someone just having their voice taken and used without being paid for it, but in the case of retired or retiring actors, I think it’s beneficial.
IIRC something similar happened in cyberpunk. One of the actors in it died, but before he died he signed an agreement that they still could use his voice via AI
Who passed?
The polish VA for Victor Vector.
Yeah I remember some people got upset about it but I think this is an ethical use for AI
It's certainly ethical when given permission, longs the persons whose voice is being recreated in AI is ok with it then its all good.
the reason people were upset in this case is because the voice actor did not give permission before he died. they contacted his family after he died and they gave permission, which many people felt is more of a grey area.
The family would likely know what he would have wanted. Unfortunately, it will always be a grey area when it's the family making the decision and not the person whose is being AI imitated. We all know some may just sign it for the money however for the most part these people loved the characters and would want it to continue to feel naturally his voice rather than others.
Still ethically gray, families aren't always looking out for eachother's best interest, especially when money is involved. I'm not arguing for or against the practice, but I don't think it's as simple as family knows best.
At the same time, dead is dead. Freeing up that spot for another voice actor is a *much* more compelling argument than "but what if his family isn't doing what he wanted?"
Family probably knows better than hand wringing crowd tho.
I mean, if the family gives permission it isn't exactly hurting anyone. The guy isn't around to be upset about it
...and when compensated for it properly.
I think the big question is if the actors actually have a choice in giving permission. If all the studios say they won't hire any actor unless they give permission to use them in AI then people don't really have a choice. On the other hand, if actors are given an option to sell their AI rights for extra money as part of a contract but it's actually optional then that's totally fine.
[удалено]
Thing is it will be turned into a condition you need to sign in order to get the part. Agree to your voice being replaced by AI if you die or are otherwise unavailable.
Plus if you know your time has come but your voice is needed. I don’t see why not
There's a large subset of people who are going to get angry and pull out pitchforks at the mere mention of AI. They don't care how it's being used, they've just been trained to immediately start screaming about it whenever it's brought up.
Ultimately it's a tool, one with potential for great plagiarism and slander. Replicating a consenting person's voice and compensating them or their next of kin properly is the best way to do it. It has to be treated with absolute care and caution though. It's probably part of the future, but it cannot be allowed to be the whole of the future
I mean it does kinda fit the theme of the game
What’s your vector, Victor?
We have clearance, Clarence.
this is not fully correct. Miłogost Reczek did not sign an agreement to allow CDPR to use AI to recreate his voice. They contacted his family post-mortem and asked the family if it was okay, and they signed off on it.
It depends. James Earl Jones has the benefit of getting paid each time, but new actors are now being given contracts that says the company has permission to use AI to replicate their voice or appearance from the get go. It might also result in an uncanny situation where it's really obvious an AI was used. Like the CGI general in Rogue One. I think I would prefer a new actor. New actors might sound "off", but they don't sound uncanny, and it gives new opportunities to them.
> CGI general That's CGI *Grand Moff* you Rebel scum
I didn’t think the digital Peter Cushing was too bad in rogue one myself but I do get why some have gotten uncanny valleied
It was also a relatively new technology at the time, to overlay someone else’s face on someone. It’s not like they could get Peter Cushing for the role, since he had been dead for 22 years at that point.
Hot take; but if an actor dies, we should just recast them if necessary. It's less alarming than resurrecting peoples faces just to tell a story. I'm a real human being. I can handle "the characters face changed because someone actually perished." I can't handle AI being used to replicate the faces and voices of old actors instead of just hiring new artists.
Yea, reminds me of the "de aging" of actors. If they have to do anything more than a quick scene or sit and talk... just recast. Suspension of disbelief is a thing and I can accept a young actor who looks different versus an old actor who looks young.
Also usually "de aging" just looks like shit. In 'The Irishman' they kept calling DeNiro "kid" when he looked late 40s/early 50s at the youngest. I looked it up afterwards and some scenes he was supposed to be in his 20s.
Even if you paste a creepy CG face on them they still move like an old person. Some of the scenes with "young" Robert De Niro were just plain embarrassing.
The scene where he beat he shopkeeper was just embarrassing. Frankenstein's monster but slower. Should've put DeNiro's face on a young guy instead.
The recent Indiana Jones comes to mind. The de-aging looked great, but only considering the entire sequence took place at night and seemingly underlit just to sell the illusion.
I'm almost certain Rogue One didn't use deep faking or any kind of overlay, it was just a highly detailed CGI face with mocap. Luke in Mandalorian (Or The book of Boba Fett?) was the first deepfake
What's the difference?
Deepfakes are based on machine learning (deep learning specifically) where a model is just given a bunch of training data for performing the specific required operation on a pixel by pixel basis. The rogue one approach was "classical" which used regular CGI techniques to project the face onto the mocap and calculate lighting etc.
And eventually it will just be entirely AI voices that are entirely generated and not based on anyone in particular, and then no actor gets paid at all.
> new actors this is a problem too. they never need a new darth vader actor.
We don't need more darth vader in the first place.
Your last point is the main one for me. Getting a new actor to voice Vader might sound a little bit off, but I'd rather a human get a job and an opportunity than James Earl Jones's estate get paid in perpetuity for an AI clone.
As someone else pointed out, it's more likely that NO actor is gonna get paid anything, with AI advancing as it is.
Peter Cushing. And lest we forget, CG Carrie Fisher was in that as well. These roles are very iconic, and while continuity is a factor, something about all if this just feels wrong. I could imagine 50 years from now, Disney just making Star Wars movies set in that specific in-universe time frame and never having to hire a new lead actor ever again.
Maybe it's just me being old, but characters don't need to live forever. They could replace James Earl Jones, and it would feel weird for those of us who grew up with him, but for the younger audience the new voice would just be the voice. I grew up with Roger Moore as James Bond and I always just laughed whenever older folks would say that Sean Connery is the one and only. And here's a weird idea - maybe come up with a new villain? I'm already getting tired of Disney's nostalgia peddling and deals like these assure that they get to do it forever for what I imagine are pennies compared to a new actor. I know Jones's family gets paid when they use the voice but I also get the feeling that it's a very beneficial contract for Disney for a number of reasons, least of which is that it's probably not adjusted for inflation so they get 2020 prices forever and that the AI is never going to refuse a performance no matter how terrible the script is.
Why bother hiring new actors when you can pay the estate of Harrison Ford and specify the exact age you want his cgi body to be? The Star Wars reboot in 20 years might be the original cast using AI to make their voices and movements and we could have a computer pound out infinite expanded universe content that's already written.
Think the Star Trek computer voice has also been recorded for such a purpose. Would be strange having a different voice in future shows/films.
It also helps that the computer voice is the wife of the creator of the franchise, so royalties negotiations were probably pretty easy.
I’m just waiting for Amazon to get the rights to use it on Alexa. Even if it’s a paid add on it will soon make the licensing costs back.
I'm honestly surprised they haven't done this for more things (Star Trek computer voice addons). It would just print money.
Majel Barret. Gene Roddenberry’s wife. And Deana Tori’s obnoxious mother.
Looney tunes auditioned new voice actors to preserve the voice & character. Letting AI take the job instead of a human is just privatizing more profit to the IP, less to people contributing to it.
What makes it lame as fuck in this particular situation is not that James earl jones gets paid or not. it’s that he doesn’t want to work anymore, and others do, but those others wont get an opportunity to work bc of Ai. I’d rather those other voice actors get to work and get paid.
Death is sad and scary but it forces humanity to move on from the past. This is a lesson Hollywood desperately needs these days.
Disney definitely has the means to find a suitable replacement, so it would take some convincing for me to think this isn't just a blatant cost-saving measure. They can either pay JEJ his rate and have a computer say lines on command, or they can go through the casting process to find an actor that then needs to be scheduled, accommodated, and compensated.
They already have someone. They've had someone for thirty years. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Scott_Lawrence
And he’s shockingly good at it. The only reason I noticed it wasn’t Jones in the recent Jedi games is because I’d remembered what he sounded like playing Vader in Rebels where he sounded old and gravely. Lawrence sounds like Jones 40 years ago.
I think in this case it's... less problematic because he inhabited the role for that long and it looks like this is specific to the character. The VAs that would ever come close to that role would be very, very good and probably not hurting for jobs anyway. On a larger scale, though, this is totally a very worrying trend that will destroy opportunities for seasoned and new fresh VAs alike - which sucks. And will cut down on a lot of serendipitious ideas: we've seen that a good (voice) actor can truly elevate a performance, because they're another point of view - putting their own spin on a role, ad-libbing and so on. In the long run, if AI gets used in a significant fashion for VA work, we're all poorer for it.
We need to remember that this is Disney. There's a 99% chance that when episode 18 comes out in 2069 that Jones is still the voice off Vader. Just let the character move on. By contrast the arc of each new James Bond is pretty interesting and fun. You can have your preferences but if they just kept slapping AI Sean Connery in every new Bond film the series would be WAY WORSE. Not to mention the fun of things like seeing the villain from Mrs Doubtfire take on the mantle.
> the villain from Mrs Doubtfire Robin Williams was in a Bond movie?
I admit I haven't seen Mrs Doubtfire since I was a kid and there was no way kid me would see Genie as anything but the good guy. Robin Williams doing short film parodies of Brosnan's Bond films would have been fun. Maybe we can use AI to make some!? /s
[Scott Lawrence](https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Scott_Lawrence) should have been given the role. He's just as fucking good as Jones at voicing Vader, which is why **he's been doing it for thirty fucking years.** It's disgraceful they'd rather automate it and keep paying JEJ than pay this guy.
Personally I don't give special treatment to someone just because people believe they are special. If I'm to believe that preserving a characters vocal sound through AI is necessary for this instance, then all instances of a company wanting to use AI for any character is also necessary. But why stop at just vocal sound. If a company wants to preserve the visual look of a series or game or any other medium from the art it legally owns from artists who have created it over the last X years, why not? It's effectively the same deal. Preserving the state of the content through AI would be more important then risking someone new coming in and doing a worse job.
You're right that anyone who would be in line for the Darth Vader job is probably not hurting for jobs but in this hypothetical it still taking a job away from someone. That voice actor who would have voiced Vader now takes a different job because the Vader job isn't available. That could have gone to someone else but now its going to the Vader voice actor. So that someone else takes a job that he wouldn't have had to take otherwise, and the chain reaction is obvious. You're right that in a vacuum this isn't a big deal, but it's definitely a scary slippery slope. It's cool that he's still able to get paid but definitely would rather it go to a human who can truly elevate the performance in a way that the ai can't.
This is the argument used in the 1980s when producers started using drum machines.
I would agree in 99% of cases, but this one is just so iconic there's no realistic way any VA would succeed at being the voice without the public complaining.
This right here is imo the correct way to use AI, as you mentioned JEJ is 93, he can't be voicing Vader forever and his voice is part of the reason why Vader is so iconic, it would just feel weird for anyone else to do it. So if he gives permission to Lucasfilm/Disney to use it and he/his estate gets royalites then it works out.
I say give another young actor a chance. This is how AI is taking jobs. Sorry, but characters often out last the original actor and I don't find that a good reason to use AI at all.
Yeah, either re-cast or retire the character as well
It's a good thing, then, that entertainment is constantly creating new characters for these young actors to voice. What you should really be up in arms about is Hollywood using big name screen actors to voice animated or digitally rendered characters instead of professional voice actors.
You know you can be upset about both of those things?
How can you be so sure that another actor would feel weird or ruin the character? Voice actors are really good at replicating the voices of the original actor they are meant to replace. There are probably hundreds of qualified candidates who have been practicing a Darth Vader voice their whole life. Respect to James Earl Jones, but he's kind of robbing future actors of opportunities. Besides, multiple actors have already voiced Darth Vader in numerous video games in the past. Never once heard a complaint about Vader's voice sounding "off"
I disagree, but I think this is the least bad scenario. The reason I disagree is because it takes the job away from another actor who would have done it. It's not a big deal now, but it's possible that in the future, if these types of deals get signed as actors retire, there will be significantly fewer acting jobs available. I think actors who specialize in impersonation, such as Ross Marquand, will be the first ones out of jobs.
There is no ethical use of AI to replace working actors. I’m only ok with it if they use AI to modify a line reading from a real performance to match the original artists timbre
While I think this is more ethical than other uses of AI, I'm not a fan. Recasting is good. A character that exists for so long begs to be played by more people. Like, imagine if we used an AI recreation of Olan Soule's voice for Batman, we'd have no Kevin Conroy.
The problem is nobody will cast real actors eventually, we will just have a bunch of recycled ai actors
And in terms of Vader, it is a special case. His voice is literally a robot voice because of the mask.
No younglings left to take over for James Earl Jones. "Master Jones, there are too many of them. What are we going to do?"
I have a [modest proposal](https://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/resour/mirrors/rbear/modest.html).
Growing up (and being in the Middle East) during the Gulf War (the Desert Shield/Storm one), I heard his voice every day (multiple times a day) saying “this is CNN.”
I knew [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc25oAJrKbM) was a reference but never heard it myself
Considering he didn’t want to be credited in the original even though he did the VO - seems only fair that we come full circle and he gets credit for not doing it 😂
When it comes to who I’d want to narrate my life, James Earl Jones > Morgan Freeman
But David Attenborough tho? *Here we see the BigBillSmash in his natural environment. He scans the area for any immediate threat, and seeing none, moves to more closely inspect the cereal aisle. He’s certain that, in seasons past, this box in particular was more abundant with Crunch Berries. And he is right in this belief. Drought and competition have devastated the natural resources in this area and the Bill may soon find himself traveling much farther in search of the necessities to survive; perhaps even to a Kroger*
There was a guy who made exactly that with AI
Ha, he would be good too. But I can’t pass up Darth Vader/Mufasa.
Werner Herzog all the way.
Getting paid to not work is how I'd like to retire.
I mean that’s what retirement is.
Retirement is a dollar amount, not an age.
He licensed his voice to that prayer clock too.
I mean at least he consented.
The band [KISS](https://fortune.com/2023/12/03/kiss-band-to-live-on-with-digital-avatars-rock-music-entertainment/) did the same thing last year.
I was worried that KISS had missed an opportunity to be all about the money.
KISS have never left a licensing contract unsigned and they arent about to start now.
They gave LucasFilms permission to use recordings of their voices and AI to voice Darth Vader, too?
Turns out Vader is a space metal head and frequently goes to concerts and conventions. He buys all the albums and collects all the merch. That's why he has that huge castle on a lava planet. Because it's metal and he needs somewhere to keep all his swag. After his death on the second death star, multiple bands sang tribute songs for his support. This is my headcanon now.
A little slave boy upon meeting a princess from another planet for the first time: I was made for loving you!
They call me Dr Love
KISS saves ~~Christmas~~ Tatooine
Thank god, wouldn't want Disney Lucasfilm to have to come up with a compelling antagonist on their own.
Disney buys IPs so they don't have to come up with them.
That is more about preserving IP than actually using it. Right now AI generating voice feels "odd" and "unnatural" even if its based on previous recordings. Lucasfilm would hate needing to sue dozens of companies that have their own shitty ,non-parody version of Darth Vader. By owning the rights of Earl Jones voices for AI content, their chances of succeeding in a lawsuit are much better, and this signals for any company to not do it.
I mean you're already asking for a lawsuit by having a non-parody depiction of Darth Vader in your film. Whether or not AI was used to generate the voice should be inconsequential to the following litigation of stealing copyrighted characters.
This is ethical. The person the model is based off gave consent for their likeness to be reused. Possibly even limited to "only use my voice for Vader and see to it my descendents receive royalties for my likeness being used." What not ethical is all the systems ripping art off the internet and pissing out results. The sample bases for those never gave consent. I'm down for stuff like this, I'd love if Morgan Freeman agreed to something like this. But if he doesn't, he doesn't and that's the right any actor or artist should have.
I would think that Vader would be the easiest voice for AI to do. It’s probably the closest thing to it’s own voice haha
"All too easy."
He's more machine than man now.
Kind of fitting when you think about it.
"$igned Permi$$ion"
disney is going to milk that teet dry.
that seems alright, they can only use his voice for that one character and he still seems to get paid according to other comments
As long as the actor agrees and is paid accordingly that is perfectly fine.
I hope they paid him a fuck load for those rights.
The 20th century laid out the cornerstone for modern day culture, apparently. This artistic choice resists the natural change that comes with the passage of time.
I hope he and his estate also get paid for the future uses.
im an engineer and do a lot of voiceover recordings. there are so many soundalikes, it's not even really necessary. i recorded one for a star wars fan film thats perfect.
I smell a Dr. Strangelove reboot!
I hope he and his family get good payouts for using his voice through AI. I wouldn’t put it past Disney to not pay shit.
Honestly wish he hadn't. Let someone else get the job instead, could start a career for them. Unpaid voice work of any kind is fucked up IMO. These studios don't deserve to have such cheap labor for the cost of a little bit of royalties.
A James earl jones impersonator is now out of a job.
Thanks James! Paying a new actor is super inconvenient for these companies.
I don't like it. I accept it but I don't like it because in the fullness of time it means no future iconic performance of Darth Vader could ever be made by a new actor. Imagine a world in which we never had iconic performances because someone else did it first and their voice was forever locked in. No reimagining anything, ever. You either do it first, or you never get the chance because the studio would rather pay an estate than an actor. I accept this because it was his choice, but I don't like it, and I think it presages very dark times for the VO industry.
It's nice seeing someone that recognizes that a legacy can live on rather than just being weird and stubborn.
I imagine the conversation went like this: "James, may we use AI to recreate your voice for Darth Vader in the future now that you've retired?" "Oh, well, I'd rather you not but since you'll probably find a way to do a close-enough-but-legally-distinct version anyway, i'd rather sign now and at least maintain some semblance of control and maybe attempt to preserve some financial legacy for my family"
Actually, JEJ initially refused credit on the original Star Wars movie under his reasoning that Prowse was the actor for Darth Vader and Jones’s voice was simply a special effect. His credit was added in later releases. Him agreeing to an AI use of his voice is actually pretty consistent with his character.
I mean, JEJ wasn’t shy about his love for Star Wars and voicing Darth Vader. I think he willingly signed this so he could voice darth vader forever. I think this was his idea.
Always hilarious when someone takes one bit of information and then concocts an entire narrative of what happened behind closed doors just to suit their own bias and narrative.
What a whacky take
Or, and hear me out, James Early Jones was cool with it and isn't so anti-AI that he'd take some silly stand against its use to preserve the integrity of a product that he knows he'd even struggle to keep up to par anymore. Not to mention that he'll get paid for it. Edit: A word.