A single creative decision is forcing a public test of boundaries: ai is being used to place Val Kilmer in a new movie after he died, even though he never shot a single scene for the production while alive. The filmmakers insist the late actor wanted it that way; the project’s structure, funding limits, and reliance on family-provided images reveal how quickly “can we?” is overtaking “should we?”
What exactly is being done — and what did not happen on set?
Verified fact: Val Kilmer was cast five years prior to his death in 2025 to play Father Fintan in the film now titled “As Deep as the Grave, ” previously titled “Canyon of the Dead. ” Writer-director Coerte Voorhees said the role was designed around Kilmer and drew on his Native American heritage and his ties to and love of the Southwest. But Kilmer, who was battling throat cancer, became too sick to make it to set and did not shoot a single scene.
Verified fact: The filmmakers are now using state-of-the-art generative technology to create an on-screen version of Kilmer that will appear in “a significant part” of the finished film. The project uses younger images of Kilmer—many provided by his family—alongside footage from his final years to depict the character in various stages of life. The audio utilizes Kilmer’s voice, which in later life was damaged by a tracheal procedure.
Verified fact: The production is described as an indie film that endured COVID pandemic shutdowns, stretching production to six years. At one point, scenes involving Father Fintan were cut for budget and time reasons; the filmmakers later decided the scenes were a “major missing element” needed to round out the narrative. They said they could not roll camera again and did not have the budget to proceed in a conventional way.
Whose consent is being claimed — and what is the public not being told?
Verified fact: Coerte Voorhees said the work is being done with the cooperation of Kilmer’s estate and his daughter, Mercedes. Voorhees also said Kilmer’s son Jack is supportive. The director framed the decision as consistent with the actor’s wishes, saying the family emphasized how important they believed the movie was and that Kilmer wanted to be part of it and wanted his name on it, even if some people might call it controversial.
What is not being told (unclear from available facts): The details of any documented permissions are not described here—no contract terms, scope limitations, creative approvals, or boundaries on future reuse are provided. The public is also not told what criteria the estate or family used to evaluate the ethical implications of reconstructing performance, voice, and presence for a role that could not be filmed.
That gap matters because the core claim anchoring this project is consent: the filmmaker’s assertion that “this is what Val wanted. ” Without any described documentation, the audience is asked to treat a moral question as settled by private assurances.
How “As Deep as the Grave” links illness, character, and performance
Verified fact: The film is described as the true story of Southwestern archaeologists Ann and Earl Morris, chronicling excavations in Canyon de Chelly, Arizona, in an effort to trace the history of the Navajo people. The cast named includes Abigail Lawrie opposite Tom Felton, with Wes Studi and Abigail Breslin also listed. Another description identifies the story as involving 1920s archaeologists who worked with the Navajo people, and names a supporting cast that includes Jacob Fortune-Lloyd.
Verified fact: Producer John Voorhees, the director’s brother, said the character Father Fintan suffers from tuberculosis and suggested a parallel between that historical condition and Kilmer’s real-life throat cancer. He also described the voice component as a “unique opportunity” for the character to reflect the condition the actor was suffering from, creating “a kind of a bridge. ”
Analysis (clearly labeled): This is where artistic intent and ethical exposure collide. Using ai to recreate an actor’s appearance is one question; using a damaged voice and aligning it with a character’s illness is another. The film’s framing treats that alignment as a narrative advantage—an authenticity bridge—while critics could read it as turning a real medical hardship into a production solution. The available facts do not show whether the estate set boundaries on how illness is depicted through reconstructed voice.
Who benefits, who is implicated, and what pressures are visible?
Verified fact: The filmmakers cite budget constraints and inability to resume shooting as drivers of the decision. Coerte Voorhees said they could not roll camera again and the film is not a big studio production, positioning technology as the only workable path to restore missing narrative material. This puts an economic motive alongside an artistic motive: completing a story without the cost of a conventional recast or additional principal photography.
Verified fact: The late actor’s estate and his children are central stakeholders because they are described as cooperating and supportive. Their approval, as presented, functions as the project’s legitimacy shield. Coerte Voorhees acknowledged controversy and framed the family’s support as the confidence needed to proceed.
Analysis (clearly labeled): The incentives are asymmetrical. An indie production under financial stress gains a market-defining hook and a way to solve a narrative gap; the estate gains a path to fulfill what is described as Kilmer’s desire to have his name on an important story. The public, however, is left without disclosed safeguards: what prevents the same materials—images, final-years footage, reconstructed voice—from being reused beyond this film?
What accountability looks like when ai becomes a posthumous casting tool
Verified fact: The filmmakers described a heated debate surrounding AI. Within this project, the debate is not abstract: the film will feature a substantial performance created without on-set acting for the role, built from personal archives and final-years footage, and supported by estate cooperation.
Analysis (clearly labeled): Accountability begins with transparency. If consent is the ethical foundation, then the public-interest standard is clarity about what was authorized: the permitted uses of voice, image, and footage; whether there are limits on promotional use; and what approvals the estate retained over final depiction. None of these specifics are provided in the available facts, leaving the audience to weigh a major shift in filmmaking practice with incomplete information.
For El-Balad. com readers, the contradiction is plain: ai is being promoted as a respectful way to honor a performer’s wishes, while the underlying permissions and guardrails remain private. If the industry is moving toward posthumous roles as a production tool, the burden shifts to estates and filmmakers to show—not merely assert—what was authorized, how it was governed, and how future reuse will be prevented. Until that standard becomes routine, every new “resurrection” will deepen the same unresolved question: when ai can create a performance, who is accountable for the person it claims to represent?
