Filmmaking is no stranger to budget battles, but the conversation turned unusually sharp this week when Kevin O’Leary, business mogul and new co-star in A24’s buzzy upcoming release “Marty Supreme,” publicly stated the studio should have used AI-generated background actors instead of human extras.
O’Leary’s argument, delivered during a press push for the ping-pong-driven comedy, centers on hard dollars: scenes packed with spectators required nearly 150 human performers, each incurring wages, meals, and overtime across exhausting 18-hour shoots.
His math is simple: swap those bodies for digital avatars, and producers might slash millions from a reported $70–90 million budget on crowd scenes alone.
O’Leary referenced Tilly Norwood, an AI-created “actor” developed by tech startup Xicoia and designed to simulate on-camera presence at any age, appearance, or activity.
Though Tilly Norwood herself isn’t in “Marty Supreme,” the concept she represents, digital characters indistinguishable from real extras, has become a flashpoint in Hollywood’s long-simmering debate about technology versus tradition.
The Shark Tank personality insists audiences will never notice, suggesting these digital substitutes are ideal for scenes where background actors are only required to look the part, not perform dramatic feats.
A24, known for championing artistic independence and unconventional storytelling, faces a particularly pointed question in light of this controversy: Is replacing even non-speaking extras with AI avatars a harmless cost-cutting trick or a threat to the spirit of independent cinema?
Also Read: BTS’s RM Makes History as First K-Pop Artist to Deliver Keynote at APEC CEO Summit 2025
Artists Versus Algorithms: Backlash, Labor, and Industry Ethics
It didn’t take long for O’Leary’s stance to ignite a firestorm. Many actors, especially those working as extras, pushed back on social media and industry sites, accusing him and other AI advocates of trivializing real jobs.
SAG-AFTRA, the union representing Hollywood performers, quickly condemned the use of AI extras, citing Tilly Norwood as a dangerous precedent that “jeopardizes performer livelihoods and devalues human artistry.”
Their September statement echoes broader fears that artificial intelligence isn’t just a new tool for filmmakers but a potential engine for widespread job loss within the creative class.
For aspiring actors, being an extra is often the first step toward building experience, networking, and union eligibility. Even one day on set can mean the difference between paying bills and going broke.
Industry veterans warn that rapidly swapping in digital extras, especially before clear legal protections are in place, could slam the door on these entry-level opportunities.
Beyond practical concerns, there’s a philosophical aspect to artists’ resistance. Background actors help give movies authenticity, reacting to chaos, ad-libbing when things go awry, and occasionally turning an unscripted moment into movie magic.
Some directors worry that losing this human element would flatten the texture of big-screen storytelling, especially in genres like comedy or sports dramas, where audience reactions need to feel spontaneous, not procedurally rendered.
The Tilly Norwood situation underscores how quickly AI tech has outpaced the industry’s ability to regulate it. As reported last month, more than one talent agency sought to “represent” Norwood, prompting the union’s sharp rebuke and sparking debate over the very definition of a movie actor in the digital age.
The question is stark: what happens when a market rewards studios for making films with fewer people involved?
A24, Innovation, and the Future of Background Acting
O’Leary’s comments come as A24, beloved in indie circles and now an Oscar-winning production house, lays plans for its own AI research and digital effects division. Some fans and filmmakers bristle at the idea, worried that a push for cost control will chip away at the authenticity that sets A24’s films apart.
Others, echoing O’Leary’s efficiency argument, suggest the indie studio is simply adapting to a rapidly evolving business, one where budgets, ticket sales, and streaming deals are under new pressure.
The mixed reception to “Marty Supreme’s” making-of story highlights the heightened sensitivity after the 2023-2024 SAG-AFTRA and WGA strikes, which centered largely on pay, protections, and AI’s place in the entertainment industry.
Unions made transparency over digital likenesses and job displacement a core issue, and A24 was widely seen as a pro-labor studio during those disputes. The company’s next moves, especially in how it communicates the role of AI in future productions, will likely influence how it’s regarded by performers and audiences alike.
For now, “Marty Supreme” is set for a major theatrical release, starring Timothée Chalamet and Gwyneth Paltrow, and is already stirring conversation before opening night.
O’Leary’s proposal that the film might have been made for half as much and still looked just as good will remain fodder for debate as filmmakers, extras, and moviegoers consider what they value most: savings on the spreadsheet or the subtle magic of real people populating imaginary worlds.
Also read: One Piece Chapter 1164 – Spoilers, Pics & Summary
