Why is an Amazon-backed AI startup making Orson Welles fan fiction?

On Friday, Fable, a startup backed by Amazon, unveiled its intriguing plan to recreate the missing 43 minutes of Orson Welles’ iconic film, “The Magnificent Ambersons.” This venture raises questions about why a company positioned as the "Netflix of AI," and recently funded by Amazon’s Alexa Fund, would focus on remaking a film that is over eight decades old. Fable has developed a platform enabling users to create cartoons using AI prompts. While the startup begins with its own intellectual property, it has aspirations to expand into Hollywood's intellectual properties. Notably, the platform has previously been utilized to produce unauthorized episodes of “South Park.” Fable is now introducing a new AI model claimed to be capable of generating intricate and lengthy narratives. Over the next two years, filmmaker Brian Rose, who has dedicated five years to digitally reconstructing Welles’ original vision, intends to leverage this model to recreate the lost footage of “The Magnificent Ambersons.” However, it is significant to note that Fable has not secured the rights to the film, making this an experimental demonstration of technology that is unlikely to be accessible to the public. Why this particular film? For those unfamiliar with Welles, the choice may seem obscure. Even among classic film enthusiasts, “Ambersons” often lives in the shadow of Welles’ more celebrated work, “Citizen Kane,” which is frequently hailed as one of the greatest films of all time. “Ambersons” is remembered as a lost masterpiece, marred by drastic studio cuts and an unconvincing ending imposed against Welles’ artistic vision. The film's legacy—its sense of loss and unrealized potential—appears to be what intrigues Fable and Rose. Nevertheless, it is essential to recognize that our continued interest in “The Magnificent Ambersons” is due to Welles himself, whose career was significantly impacted by the film’s release and subsequent alterations. This raises eyebrows over Fable's apparent neglect in reaching out to Welles’ estate for approval. David Reeder, who manages the estate for Welles’ daughter Beatrice, criticized the project as a publicity stunt capitalizing on Welles' legacy, arguing that it lacks the innovative spirit that characterized Welles’ work. Despite Reeder’s concerns, he expressed a more general disappointment about not being informed beforehand rather than outright condemnation of the project itself. He noted that the estate has been open to AI technologies, having even developed a voice model for voice-over work. As for my own perspective, even with the estate’s involvement, I would still find little appeal in this digital reimagining of “Ambersons.” The integrity of Welles’ original vision cannot be restored through technology, and the awareness of using AI to fabricate a digital version of his legendary voice for commercial purposes is unappealing. Attempts to complete or enhance Welles' films have been made in the past, but they typically utilized footage he had already shot. Conversely, Fable’s approach is described as a blend of AI and traditional filmmaking, where contemporary actors will reshoot certain scenes, only to have their faces digitally swapped with replicas of the original cast. While the absurdity of pursuing such a project without the necessary rights or approval from Welles' estate is evident, Rose appears genuinely committed to honoring Welles’ artistic vision. He expressed regret over the loss of a four-minute, continuous shot, lamenting that only a fragment remains in the current version of the film. This sense of loss resonates deeply; however, I believe this is a tragedy that AI cannot rectify. Regardless of how adeptly Fable and Rose may reconstruct their interpretation of that iconic shot, it will ultimately be their creation, devoid of Welles' essence, and filled with digital replicas rather than the original actors. Unless the lost footage miraculously resurfaces, Welles’ authentic vision of “The Magnificent Ambersons” remains irretrievably lost.