The Real Stakes Behind a Synthetic Star

by

Hollywood is facing a new round of worry this week, sparked by a comment at an industry panel on Saturday, September 27, as reported by Deadline. The comment came from Eline Van der Velden, who founded a U.K.-based AI studio called Particle6. She was speaking at the Zurich Summit, held alongside the Zurich International Film Festival, about the use of AI in entertainment. Van der Velden was also there to introduce Tilly Norwood, the “face” of her AI talent studio, who appeared in a short film fully created by AI and released by Particle6 in July. This synthetic performer looks remarkably similar to the many Instagram influencers seen online – with perfect hair, flawless skin, bright teeth, and a slightly detached expression. Although Tilly isn’t much of an actor yet, Van der Velden, who has a background in acting and comedy, is actively trying to make her a star. “We want Tilly to be the next Scarlett Johansson or Natalie Portman,” she said in an interview with smaller publications in July, while promoting the short comedy sketch titled “AI Commissioner.”

At a panel in Zurich last weekend, Van der Velden increased the excitement around Tilly by stating that there was industry interest in her, and that Particle6 planned to announce which agency would be representing her in the coming months. This claim felt like typical startup exaggeration and should have been viewed with skepticism. However, when Deadline called it a “revelation” and reported the supposed interest as fact without checking, the headline (“Talent Agents Circle AI Actress Tilly Norwood”) quickly spread and became a major news story. By Monday, other industry publications picked up the story, and it grew rapidly by Tuesday. Variety even asked Emily Blunt about Norwood during a podcast; when shown a picture of the avatar, she reacted negatively: “Come on, agencies, don’t do that. Please stop taking away our human connection.” Whoopi Goldberg, Melissa Barrera, and others expressed similar disapproval, and SAG-AFTRA issued a statement condemning the idea of agencies signing a synthetic performer.

Regarding the concerns, leaders at both WME and Gersh stated their agencies would not sign Norwood, but also admitted, as Gersh president Leslie Siebert explained, that “this issue will continue to arise, and we need to find a suitable way to address it.” Sources within the major agencies have all told Vulture they weren’t involved in any competition to sign Norwood. Following the negative reaction, Van der Verden attempted to change the conversation surrounding the situation. “I view AI not as a substitute for human talent, but as a new resource-a new creative tool,” she said in a statement shared on her Instagram and a newly created account for Norwood on September 27. “Similar to how animation, puppetry, or CGI expanded creative options without diminishing live performance, AI provides another avenue for developing and crafting narratives.”

It’s completely normal to feel overwhelmed by all the buzz around AI. But what does it actually mean when someone says an agent has “signed” a virtual performer? Would that essentially mean representing the company that *created* the performer, similar to how an agency works with the Pokémon Company for Pikachu? And if that happens, how would it change the way talent agencies operate? These questions lead to complex technical and legal issues that will likely take years to sort out. However, one thing is certain: Particle6 and its founder have achieved what any new product creator wants – attention. The broader concept of “synthetic performers” has also captured the spotlight, tapping into some of Hollywood’s biggest fears. Startup founders are often encouraged to be ambitious with their claims, even if the technology isn’t quite ready to deliver on those promises. This in-between stage is ideal for promoters and those looking for opportunities. (Right now, OpenAI’s Sam Altman is raising significant funding based on similar forward-looking ideas.) In many ways, Norwood isn’t a rising synthetic star, but rather a test case, a way to gauge interest. The footage of her isn’t polished enough for widespread release, but the discussion she’s sparked opens up a difficult and uncertain conversation about what Hollywood will do when – or if – the technology reaches a truly advanced level. Whether Van der Velden’s claim about agency interest was accurate isn’t the point; it’s the idea of what might be possible that’s driving the conversation.

The negative reaction to generative AI shouldn’t be seen as an overreaction. It’s already widely used in Hollywood. Studios are testing it throughout the filmmaking process – to speed up visual effects, digitally alter actors’ appearances, and simplify time-consuming post-production tasks (potentially leading to job losses). As my colleague Lila Shapiro discovered in her reporting this summer, the industry has largely accepted the trade-off of getting quicker, cheaper results, even if it means sacrificing quality and artistry. “Of course, there’s a loss in quality,” one VFX artist told her. “But only people who truly appreciate the details will notice, like with a fine wine.” Hollywood isn’t the only industry worried. The music industry recently faced a similar situation with Velvet Sundown, an AI-created band that gained over a million Spotify listens through algorithmic promotion, highlighting that the platform prioritizes quantity over artistic merit and has little reason to limit AI-generated music. (Spotify has also recently changed its policies to suggest it’s accepting AI-generated music, while publicly claiming to fight low-quality content.) The publishing world is experiencing the same disruption, as AI tools produce large amounts of easily-consumed content.

As a critic, I keep seeing the same thing happen: technology doesn’t need to be *good* to shake things up, it just needs to be profitable. My worry isn’t whether someone like Norwood will actually *get* a role, but whether the industry is prepared to cast a digital creation like her. She’s essentially a test case – pushing the boundaries of what audiences will accept and, frankly, reminding Hollywood – which is already focused on saving money – that the difference between art and a commodity is becoming increasingly blurred. This isn’t just about the *technical* capabilities of AI; it’s a *political* and *economic* issue about how companies *choose* to use it. Currently, the conversation swings wildly between overblown excitement and outright fear, leaving little room for thoughtful discussion. The people creating these tools benefit from the hype, corporations benefit from the cost savings, and the media benefits from the attention… leaving the public to wade through all the confusion. It’s a concerning trend, and one we need to address.

However, this situation isn’t entirely new. Video games have been exploring these issues for years, dealing with incredibly realistic characters, performances created from data, and using the digital images of real actors in games like Death Stranding and NBA2K. Hollywood isn’t entering completely unknown territory; it’s simply overlooking what’s already been done. That’s why discussions – whether in industry publications or at conferences – need to be more consistent, well-informed, and less driven by excitement or anger. Until that happens, the crucial question – who actually gains from this? – will remain unanswered in favor of those who create the work, and instead benefit the companies and new businesses that profit from the constant change.

Read More

2025-10-02 22:56