Nerdist: James Earl Jones is retiring from his role as Darth Vader. Even though he never wore the imposing costume, his iconic voice acting makes the character what it is. It’s not surprising the actor is saying goodbye to Darth Vader, he is 91 years old after all. But thankfully, this doesn’t mean we won’t hear James Earl Jones’ iconic Darth Vader voice anymore. Jones signed over the rights so Lucasfilm can use artificial intelligence to add his voice to Darth Vader for any future projects.
9 comments:
To me, I think it’s kind of freaky that we’re able to create someone’s voice like that just using technology. In the case of James Earl Jones, I guess it’s better because he clearly gave his consent, but the thought that this could be done for long dead actors or for living people without consent has disturbing implications. The Alexa thing where they can recreate voices even of the deceased is quite frightening. I just don’t like to think that this could be used for gaslighting purposes or to use someone’s voice in a way they wouldn’t have intended. It would be pretty creepy to know that Alexa or some similar household AI is recording my voice and could use it against me at any point (which may sound a bit paranoid or pessimistic, but in the wrong hands, AI that powerful could be dangerous). However I see the benefits of reviving iconic voices with consent; I just wouldn’t want that to get too widespread.
Throughout my entire life the idea of the robot invasion taking over others jobs and livelihoods has been an inevitable fear of growing up in a technologically advanced society. The futuristic idea of AI being able to create and replicate voice and art replacing true real live people actors has its pros and cons. The idea that actors who have died, retired or simply grown up can be brought back to life in the same manner audience members are used to is comforting; however, the idea that AI can be used to imitate voices and arts without consent of the artist is concerning. This idea of taking and imitating an artist's work through AI is why so many are opposed. Darth Vader is Darth Vader because of James Earl Jones and AI is able to preserve his voice and legacy but at what cost to other artists, creators and their privacy and work.
Theo
This is the thing about the popularization and continued usage of AI. It’s terrifying, but at the same time, it’s technologically fascinating. The fact that we’re able to do this at all is crazy, and frankly, you could argue it’s a solution people might like more than just hiring an impressionist. I’m glad that the voice gets to live on in its “same” form. Technically, it remains faithful. However, it poses the question, as this kind of thing always does: will AI start taking over valuable jobs? In my opinion - no. Humans are artists and creators by nature. I would imagine that in mainstream media, companies would much rather hire a genuine voice actor than use an AI, because we’re social creatures who thrive off of collaboration. That’s just my opinion. But of course, there’s always the use of AI for malicious intent. Deep Fakes are unnerving and concerning. However, I do think that the entertainment industry will always use human artistry first.
It is a little creepy to me that AI can be so effective in replacing people. The idea of an actor signing off essentially the "rights" to their voice is so unsettling. As a star wars fan I understand that Darth Vader is an incredibly iconic voice so replacing him would be pretty difficult but I also wonder at what point does the character retire. Darth Vader has had tons of stories and been in the franchise for decades that seeing james earl jones retire is sad but at what point do we draw the line between acting and just reading a script. I think genuine intention and inflection when it comes to voice acting is just as important. This also makes me question on whether there will be a point where AI will be used without consent and what companies can make these "actors" say. Thinking about a world where James Earl Jones is dead yet we are still hearing his voice in every Star Wars movie is incredibly unsettling.
To think that we’ve come this far in technology to accurately, and fully, recreate a voice is insane. But, after I saw the news that James Earl Jones would be retiring and an AI would use his voice for Darth Vader, I wasn’t surprised. Darth Vader’s voice is iconic. Any Star Wars fan is going to know the voice of Darth Vader and probably will be able to pick apart any voice of Vader that didn’t come from James Earl Jones’ mouth. I’m very interested in learning the technology behind this and how AI works because it’s most likely going to be popular in our industry. A question also came to my mind though while reading this, and that: what will this mean for actors and voice actors? Will the number of jobs decrease for those since technology can replace the need for another person? It’s interesting to think about how cool AI is, but there are some other downsides to using this.
This article was not the first bit of media I have seen regarding the AI taking over the voice of Darth Vader. My favorite thing I have seen so far was a video categorizing this new AI as a vocaloid. Though it does not technically fit the mold, as Darth Vader never sings, it was close enough to get a good laugh out of me. To be honest I had no idea that James Earl Jones was not the voice of Darth Vader in the Obi Wan Kenobi series. The AI was spot on in my opinion but I am sure I can go back and nitpick it as many probably already did. It is crazy to me how far technology has come since the creation of Darth Vader himself. The original tech for the CGI in Star Wars Episode IV was not great and I wonder if fans from then ever thought it would be so advanced that their main villain is literally just a robot now.
AI replacing voice over in this context seems like a natural step to many - but there are plenty of people who can do the Darth Vader voice convincingly well. The step towards AI replacing voice overs and voice acting in general is worrying, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. It’s a little worrying to consider voice acting and dubbing will be taken over by AI - art and performance in general and AI are some things that could work very well together, but could also be harmful to each other. I actually had a conversation with my roommate about AI and art, and what the gray area is between what is “good” art creation with AI and what is “bad” art creation with AI because it is an incredible field that can be explored, but there is certainly an argument about what this technology could be used for and how many people it could put out of jobs. It’s an incredible technological advancement, but at what cost?
I’m glad that they’re asking for consent before doing it, especially for someone as iconic as James Earl Jones. I mean he is 91, and with how much the Star Wars universe has been growing in the past few years, I feel like it was a smart move both on his part and on Lucasfilm’s. Though I am concerned about the Alexa thing, sure I’d love to hear my loved one’s voices again, but I feel that is too creepy. Plus, there’s a pretty good chance of people misusing this AI. I feel like recreating someone’s voice with AI without their consent falls into an ethical gray area, even if their family consents to it. Mainly because of people misusing it, but it’s possible that there will be psychological effects on the friends and loved ones of hearing their voice but not being able to see them. It all just falls into a gray area that makes me feel icky.
This topic kind of works in conjunction with the rise of deepfake technology, leading to an obvious question: what's to stop film and television from using the likenesses and voices of actors and actresses long since passed instead of bringing in new and fresh talent? Now, I know that sounds like the age-old "robots are gonna steal all our jobs" argument, but bear with me for a second. Truly, what is to stop a company from relying on famous, known stars, even long after they've passed, instead of using live actors? Obviously, the technology would be pricey to use, but it's already been proven to be possible when the needs of the show demand it, like in Star Wars. And, even if the tech itself is pricey, it saves in other areas, like not having to house people or pay benefits, negotiate union contracts, etc. Should that make it more economical to rely on this new tech over time (obviously not now, this tech is still relatively in its infancy), why would studios not use it to save costs while continuing to get huge names to star in their shows? Not only does it save money, but it eliminates the risk of using an unknown name in your show, helping to ensure that audience will actually pay attention to it.
Post a Comment