448
The ghouls at Netflix are attempting to "resurrect" Gene Wilder via genAI, and his wife is on board with it
(variety.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2026
448 points (99.6% liked)
Fuck AI
8146 readers
2040 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Last year I saw a stage play about Gene Wilder. The actor playing Wilder, Jonathan Randell Silver, bore a passing visual resemblance to him, helped along by a good hair and makeup job, but also sounded and behaved very like him. Silver had obviously studied Wilder's mannerisms and choices, both in Wilder's iconic roles and in Wilder's own persona from interviews and such, and Silver's performance in the play really evoked Wilder on a very effective level whether it was recreating some of Wilder's famous comedy bits and characters or portraying the real Wilder behind the scenes. This was an actor who understood the role, and used real human choices and talent to create his performance.
There are countless talented actors and impressionists who could have recreated Wilder's Wonka on a human level and given a genuine performance with a real soul behind it. The use of low-effort AI slop instead was a deliberate choice here, and it falls to the viewing public to accept this or not.
Also, this is a fucking game show. They are digitally defiling a beloved corpse for a fucking game show.
Any idea where I could watch a recording? I didn't know anything about this show and would love to see it. I could find small clips and excerpts but could find the whole show anywhere
As a theatre artist myself - part of the fun of doing live performance is the ephemeral, never-to-be-repeated part. Recorded theatre never works.
Yeah it does. It can work just fine. Just because you have that opinion doesn't mean it's true. I also have a background in performing arts if we just want to appeal to authority...
But I've personally seen several recordings of live shows that were pretty good representations of the show itself. For a recent example, the recording of Hadestown with the orginal cast is pretty solid and I quite enjoyed it even after seeing the live show previously.
I've also seen the Hadestown Netflix- and Hamilton, and I grew up watching the Cats original recording on VHS.
Although they're entirely passable, they aren't as good as movie-musicals (examples - Singing in the Rain, The Muppets 2011, Mary Poppins, West Side Story, Hairspray, Wicked) or as good as the live shows.
Is not the same as:
Watching a live performance is going to have a different energy obviously. But seeing it recorded is still better than never seeing it at all.
The "art is ephemeral" is pure art school nonsense and 99% of the time ends up being turning into "art for the elite that can afford it." I thought it was silly in art school 30 years ago and have had 30 years to think about why I still think it's silly. It's one of those buttons for me that, when I see it, I have a really hard time not being harsh to the person regurgitating the sentiment.
Given the choice of a recorded theatre or live theatre id pick live theatre.
Given the choice of a movie or recorded theatre I'd pick a movie.
And I think that's the nail in the coffin for me.
Okay, but what about movie vs live theatre?
It's like asking what about tennis vs soccer - they're different things with different contexts, seasons (of sorts) and contexts. I'd pick a new Chris Nolan movie over a community production of Hedda Gabler, I'd pick a professional production of a new Martin McDonagh play over the latest Marvel superhero flick. I'd pick almost anything over recorded theatre with few exceptions.
I'm not sure you understood my question.
You compared live play vs recorded play. Then you compared movie to recorded play. I'm assuming you were comparing against the same story/intellectual property.
Let's take the Cats musical for instance. (These are inequality sings, not arrows) Cats live > Cats recorded > Cats movie
Or even the shreck musical, it's really good, but obviously wouldn't replace the movie, but you can absolutely want to see both for different reasons.
I'm actually going to take it a step further and say that the BBC radio play is the definitive version of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
So there is no "nail in the coffin". Or whatever you were trying to say. It's entirely circumstantial.
But I did answer that. It would depend on the movie or the play.
In this specific instance I do think the 1998 Elaine Page taping of the Adelphi Cats was better than the recent movie but I'd say that's the exception that proves the rule.
It was a small production at an Off-Broadway theatre, so I don't believe any full filmed production of it has been published, but maybe someone will remount a production sometime. It was a very good show.
Off topic question but is your username a reference to the Marx Brother's movie Duck Soup's Rufus T Firefly character? I know it's not quite the same name but close enough to name me raise an eyebrow.
I assume the eyebrow you're raising is painted on. 🥸
And yes, you're correct. Short version of the story: I'm a lifelong Marx Brothers fan and I used "Rufus T. Firefly" as a screenname for a bit back in the 1990s before deciding I wanted to use something a little more "me," changing the first name to my given one, and dropping the period after the T.
Thanks for your curiosity!
That's awesome! I don't think I've seen a Marx Brothers reference outside of very surface level Groucho, Harpo, or Chico. I used Zeppo as a internet handle for a long time. Really cool, and kind of excited, to see someone else that's a fan!