Copyright dailydot
People are cheering Simu Liu on after he spoke out against the idea of replacing background extras in film and TV with AI. Kevin O’Leary, best known as “Mr. Wonderful” from Shark Tank, is ruffling feathers by promoting AI ahead of his acting debut in A24’s Marty Supreme. During a recent interview on The Hill’s “World of Travel: The Podcast,” O’Leary brought up the reality of allegedly having up to 150 extras in a number of scenes throughout the film. “Now, those people have to stay awake for 18 hours, be completely dressed in the background,” he said, claiming that it takes “millions of dollars” to employ these extras. He then went on to make a brutal suggestion: “Why couldn’t you simply put AI agents in their place?” “They’re not the main actors. They’re only in the story visually. [You could] save millions of dollars, so more movies could be made. The same director, instead of spending $90 million or whatever he spent, could’ve spent $35 million and made two movies,” he said. Will AI background extras make movies affordable? Concerns about AI actors have been ramping up in recent years, with particular attention being drawn to the issue after AI studio founder Eline Van der Velden claimed that talent agencies were clamoring to sign the AI “actress” she built or…whatever, Tilly Norwood. O’Leary referenced this by suggesting “you just put 100 Norwell Tillies” in a film as extras, “and you’re good.” Like many AI-enthusiasts, O’Leary seemed disinterested in both the human and artistic costs of replacing humans with AI. Quite frankly, it also seemed completely delusional and out of touch for him to suggest that doing this would result in studios just giving a director money to make a second movie rather than divvying up the remainder among its top executives and shareholders. The costs of movies have certainly ballooned up over the years, but the reasons why are complex—and not remotely about background actors. Simu Liu fights back over AI replacing extras Liu was one of many people who called this out, responding to the Variety article about O’Leary’s interview with strong words of his own. “Sure, blame the extras making 15-22 dollars an hour struggling to make a living and not above the line people making multiple millions,” he wrote on X. “Above-the-line” refers to roles like the main actors, director, screenwriter(s), and producers. While Liu could very possibly be referring to actors who take home multi-million dollar checks here, bigger productions also tend to be quite producer-heavy. Some producers really work for their cut, while others are contractually handed the title for various reasons—bringing in talent, being attached to original IP, lending a recognizable name. The list goes on. It can really suck a lot of money from the budget in both film and TV, sometimes to the point of even preventing things from being made at all. Regardless, movies already don’t have to cost as much as they do. Taking work and money from the people making the least is a crappy fix that, as Liu pointed out in a later tweet, is more likely to serve to benefit those at the top even more. “I also took Econ 101, lil bro, you don’t have to regurgitate rudimentary textbook stuff to me,” he replied to one commenter siding with O’Leary. “Kindly read some material on techno-feudalism and how tech breakthroughs overwhelmingly benefit the hyper-wealthy and leave ordinary people in the dust. Nobody needs AI extras.” Social media users agreed with the sentiment While AI tech bros continued to whine and complain about how we need to embrace the future and accept that art is going to be replaced with AI slop, others appreciated Liu speaking out. “As somebody who often works as an extra, THANK YOU for speaking out about this,” wrote @RawbertBeef. “More people in Hollywood need to take a stand against AI. It’s just going to get worse if they don’t.” “As a background actor, I find this untenable! Background acting gives life to the set. If you add AI background actors, there is nothing to react to and the ‘on the day’ vibe on set would not be nearly as authentic,” @Wh1t3f34th3r pointed out. “We aren’t expensive, we are worth it.” “They’ll never consider that the ones at the top making the outrageous money, while doing nothing substantial to create the content, should probably have their salaries slashed. Then they’ll call people lazy for not having work to support themselves,” @POTIN1 added. The internet is chaotic—but we’ll break it down for you in one daily email. Sign up for the Daily Dot’s newsletter here.
