Why Is an Amazon-Backed AI Startup Writing Fan Fiction About Orson Welles?

On Friday, a startup called Fable introduced an audacious and somewhat perplexing initiative to reconstruct the missing 43 minutes of Orson Welles’ legendary film “The Magnificent Ambersons.”

What drives a startup that brands itself as the “Netflix of AI” and has recently received support from Amazon’s Alexa Fund to remake a film that is over 80 years old?

The answer lies in Fable’s innovative platform, which allows users to craft their own animations using AI prompts. While the company initially focuses on original content, it aims to expand its capabilities to Hollywood classics. In fact, its technology has already been used to create unauthorized episodes of “South Park.”

Fable is launching a new AI model that purports to generate complex, lengthy narratives. Over the next two years, filmmaker Brian Rose — who has spent five years reconstructing Welles’ original vision — plans to use this model to recreate the missing scenes from “The Magnificent Ambersons.”

It’s crucial to note that Fable has not obtained the film’s rights, making this project a potential showcase of technology that is unlikely to be publicly released.

Why focus on “Ambersons”? If you’re not familiar with Welles, it may seem like an odd choice for a digital revival. Even among film aficionados, “Ambersons” often lives in the shadow of its more celebrated sibling — while “Citizen Kane” is frequently praised as the greatest film ever made, Welles’ second feature is remembered as a lost gem, significantly altered by the studio with an unconvincingly happy ending.

The film’s legacy — capturing themes of loss and unfulfilled potential — likely piqued the interest of both Fable and Rose. Nonetheless, it’s vital to emphasize that our contemporary intrigue with “The Magnificent Ambersons” largely stems from Welles himself — especially considering how its incomplete release negatively impacted his Hollywood career and how, despite its shortcomings, it showcases his directorial genius.

It’s particularly striking that Fable seemingly did not engage with Welles’ estate. David Reeder, who manages the estate for Welles’ daughter Beatrice, characterized the project to Variety as an “attempt to gain publicity using Welles’ creative legacy,” arguing that it would ultimately be “a purely mechanical undertaking devoid of any uniquely innovative thought that a creative mind like Welles would embody.”

Despite Reeder’s criticism, he seems more disheartened by the lack of communication from Fable than by the initiative itself. He noted that “the estate has welcomed AI technology to develop a voice model intended for use in voiceover work with brands.”

I’m less inclined to embrace this idea. Even if Welles’ heirs had been consulted and compensated, I would still have little interest in this new “Ambersons,” just as I wouldn’t want to hear a digital imitation of Welles’s iconic voice used in marketing for new products.

Welles enthusiasts know that this isn’t the first time his films have been posthumously edited or completed. However, previous attempts at least utilized footage that Welles originally shot. Fable, in contrast, suggests its approach will combine AI with traditional filmmaking — reportedly, specific scenes will be reshot with contemporary actors whose faces will be digitally altered to mimic the original cast.

The absurdity of announcing such a project without film rights or the approval of Welles’ daughter is evident, yet Rose appears genuinely committed to honoring Welles’ vision. For instance, when discussing his motivation to recreate the film, Rose articulated his regret over the loss of “a four-minute-long, unbroken moving camera shot whose absence is a tragedy,” with only 50 seconds of that shot preserved in the edited version.

I relate to his sense of loss — but I also believe this is a tragedy that AI cannot resolve.

Regardless of how adeptly Fable and Rose might reconstruct their interpretation of that tracking shot, it will ultimately be their shot, featuring digitally generated versions of Joseph Cotten and Agnes Moorehead, rather than the actual actors. The final product will not reflect Welles’ vision of “The Magnificent Ambersons” that RKO altered nearly 80 years ago. Without a miraculous rediscovery of lost footage, that version remains forever lost.