It’s still an open question whether an AI performer can actually “act,” but awards bodies will soon have to confront whether such a performance could ever be eligible for a major award.
It seems like a storyline plucked out of some Hollywood dystopian satire. Still, with the arrival of concepts like AI “actress” Tilly Norwood and, now, the likeness of Val Kilmer in an upcoming movie role a year after his death, the question of whether AI-generated likenesses could ever be awards-eligible is lingering over multiple organizations that recognize achievements in filmmaking.
Kilmer was cast in “As Deep as the Grave” before his death in April 2025, in which he was set to portray Father Fintan, a Catholic priest and Native American spiritualist. Due to complications from throat cancer, he was ultimately unable to appear on set. Writer-director Coerte Voorhees, who had built the role around him, refused to recast. Instead, with the cooperation of Kilmer’s estate and his daughter, Mercedes Kilmer, Voorhees reconstructed the performance using generative artificial intelligence, assembling the role from archival material and digital tools.
“He was the actor I wanted to play this role,” Voorhees told Variety when the film’s trailer debuted. “It was very much designed around him.”
The film, which does not yet have U.S. distribution, arrives at a moment when the industry is still in the process of considering the ramifications of AI attempting to replicate actors’ performances.
And while we don’t know if “As Deep as the Grave” will be a viable awards contender or if the Kilmer likeness will be deemed a success or failure, it’s nonetheless forcing awards groups to confront a question their rulebooks were not written to answer: Can a performance that no human being has given compete for the industry’s highest honors?
The answer, depending on whom you ask, ranges from “possibly” to “probably not,” and “we are still working on it.”
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences took its most public position on the matter following the 2024 awards cycle. That season encompassed the controversy surrounding Brady Corbet’s historical epic drama “The Brutalist,” which used generative AI to enhance Hungarian dialogue in Adrien Brody’s performance and produce architectural imagery. That prompted enough unease within the Academy that it felt compelled to respond, although the response stopped short of an official ruling. AI tools, the Academy said, “neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination.” Voters were instead instructed to weigh “the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship.”
Surely that is a principle, but it’s not yet a policy. In the case of Kilmer, it raises more questions than it resolves. The organization will announce any updated rules for this year in the coming weeks.
The Actor Awards, which are helmed by SAG-AFTRA, have drawn a harder line. Under its current rules, performances “fully generated by artificial intelligence” are disqualified from Actor Awards consideration. Work enhanced by AI may still qualify, but only when the performer has provided consent in accordance with union agreements. The consent portion is a standard that Kilmer’s estate has satisfied, but it seems likely the performance would be considered “fully generated” and thus not eligible.
Earlier precedents — including the digital resurrection of Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher in “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” which involved roles those performers had previously inhabited, drew their own fair share of criticism.
However, this isn’t a question only plaguing actors. The use of AI in creative work is affecting every craft. Other major awards organizations have arrived at positions of varying clarity. The Recording Academy, responding to its own reckoning with AI-generated music, established in June 2023 that only human creators are eligible for Grammy recognition. Works containing AI elements may still qualify, but the human contribution must be meaningful — not incidental.
“We’re not going to be giving a nomination or an award to an AI computer or someone who just prompted AI,” Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr. told Variety at the time. “It’s the human award highlighting excellence, driven by human creativity.”
The Television Academy, which hosts the Emmys, requires disclosure when AI-generated material exceeds a minimal threshold and is tied to its code of ethics. BAFTA has discouraged the use of AI in certain categories, particularly in its games vertical. Notably, none of these positions were written with a Kilmer scenario in mind, and none are fully equipped for it.
One of the deep discomforts lies in the question of what an AI performance actually is, and who, or what, deserves credit for it. Kilmer delivered performances over four decades that remain staples of his legacy. I think often of his turn as rock icon Jim Morrison in “The Doors” (1991), his career-defining work as Doc Holliday in “Tombstone” (1993) and his gay and wisecracking private detective in “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” (2005).
The prospect of posthumous recognition, through a role constructed after his death, raises its own kind of unease. Would that recognition honor Kilmer himself or simply the technology deployed in his name? Would this warrant consideration for best visual effects, standing toe-to-toe with “Avengers: Doomsday” or “Dune Part Three”? I’d imagine many members of the Visual Effects Branch would be divided on the answer.
But what is clear is that studios are not waiting for the debate to settle.
Sun Zhonghuai, a senior executive at Tencent, projected in late 2025 that AI-driven productions could account for 10% to 30% of film, television and animation output within two years. The tools are accelerating faster than the ethics can evolve, and the embrace of AI is accelerating faster than rules can be made.
Groups like the Golden Globes and the Critics Choice Awards have yet to formally establish AI guidelines, but are expected to do so in the coming years (perhaps even sooner?).
Versions of this conversation began long before Kilmer’s film reached the marketplace. Andy Serkis’ lived-in work as the terrifying hobbit Gollum in “The Lord of the Rings” and as the warrior ape Caesar in the modern “Planet of the Apes” trilogy pushed audiences and awards bodies to reconsider what constitutes acting. Serkis was nominated by the Critics Choice for best supporting actor for “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” (2011) and given a special prize for best digital acting performance for “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” (2002) by the org.
The debate continued with the arrival of James Cameron’s “Avatar” (2009) and persisted even in voice performance work such as Scarlett Johansson’s turn as the AI Samantha in Spike Jonze’s “Her” (2013), whom the CCA also nominated for supporting actress in her respective year. And even for this upcoming awards season, questions are likely to surface around whether Rocky, the lovable sidekick to Ryan Gosling’s astronaut in “Project Hail Mary,” is a performance worth recognizing, thanks to puppeteer and voice performer James Ortiz.
If audiences respond positively to Kilmer’s performance in “As Deep as the Grave,” awards voters will find themselves facing a verdict that no existing guidelines anticipate. Are people watching a tribute to a beloved actor or just another instance of AI slop?
The answer matters. But whatever it is, it won’t be the last of its kind.
