11–20 of 82 posts
I true HN style, I'd like to reply in an only tangentially related way... That would be: How could a tea commercial actress cause scandal anyway? I mean, who really cares if your tea commercial actress has an abortion, or just breaks up with her boy friend? In Japan, there's a really weird relationship between "fans" and "idols". The public has very extreme expectations that the performer will somehow conform to thei…
I true HN style, I'd like to reply in an only tangentially related way... That would be: How could a tea commercial actress cause scandal anyway? I mean, who really cares if your tea commercial actress has an abortion, or just breaks up with her boy friend? In Japan, there's a really weird relationship between "fans" and "idols". The public has very extreme expectations that the performer will somehow conform to thei…
I can imagine companies like Disney going for this, as they insist on having cast members that have the purest of pasts and will not cause controversy with parents who are entrusting Disney with their children's time. It's like a vice clause for VCs' LPs. What better way to avoid controversy than to hire an actor who cannot cause controversy, by not actually existing. Not sure if that's actually ever been an issue fo…
This is such a weird angle for the story. The only "spokesperson scandal" I can think of is the Subway guy, and I don't really think even that enormous scandal hurt Subway very much. I have to believe the reduced effectiveness of a fake spokesperson outweighs the benefit of avoiding a minuscule chance of scandal. Also, fictional spokes"people" like Mr. Peanut or whatever already exist. I don't think I understand why…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can imagine companies like Disney going for this, as they insist on having cast members that have the purest of pasts and will not cause controversy with parents who are entrusting Disney with their children's time. It's like a vice clause for VCs' LPs. What better way to avoid controversy than to hire an actor who cannot cause controversy, by not actually existing. Not sure if that's actually ever been an issue fo…
Reducing controversy could reduce costs. Plus I’m sure Disney would be happy to have fully generated and manipulable actors protected under copyright for decades upon decades. Essentially zero risk of actors making “bad” choices, especially “aging” or “getting fat”, or “retiring”.
Imagine how much money Hollywood could have saved by being able to digitize Tom Cruise, Will Smith, or Leonardo DiCaprio early on in their careers, when they were doing acting gigs for beer money - and then simply use the digitized versions in lieu of the real thing after they made it big.
This is such a weird angle for the story. The only "spokesperson scandal" I can think of is the Subway guy, and I don't really think even that enormous scandal hurt Subway very much. I have to believe the reduced effectiveness of a fake spokesperson outweighs the benefit of avoiding a minuscule chance of scandal. Also, fictional spokes"people" like Mr. Peanut or whatever already exist. I don't think I understand why…
Yeah, "person I've never seen before" doesn't give any clout to the product. Why would I care if that person drinks it? Other than the appearance that it took like 30 years off her hair and skin, that is.
Just because you see Joe Celebrity using a product in a commercial, all that really means is that they paid her enough money to say that she uses the product. There have certainly been celebrities outed for not using their endorsed product - for example, when Samsung paid a number of celebrities to endorse their phone, then the celebrities were caught tweeting or going out with an iPhone.
What if social media is saturated with videos of cloned AI spokesmodel's likeness, doing things 1,000x as terrible as any human spokesmodel ever could?
What difference does it make if it's a heavily filtered human or some computer generated image?