Why is an AI Startup Backed by Amazon Producing Fan Fiction About Orson Welles?

Last Friday, the startup Fable announced an ambitious project aimed at re-envisioning the 43 lost minutes of Orson Welles’ legendary film “The Magnificent Ambersons,” a venture that both fascinates and confounds.

What drives a startup calling itself the “Netflix of AI,” particularly one backed by Amazon’s Alexa Fund, to delve into a film that’s over eighty years old?

The answer stems from Fable’s cutting-edge platform that enables users to create their own animations using AI-generated prompts. Initially focused on original content, the company is now broadening its horizons to include classic Hollywood films. This technology has previously facilitated the creation of unauthorized episodes of “South Park.”

Fable aims to craft a specialized AI model designed to produce detailed, long-form narratives. Over the next two years, filmmaker Brian Rose, who has been reconstructing Welles’ original vision for five years, plans to use this model to recreate the missing scenes from “The Magnificent Ambersons.”

Interestingly, Fable has yet to acquire the rights to the film, hinting that this project might serve more as a demonstration of technology rather than an actual public release.

Why select “Ambersons”? For those unfamiliar with Welles’ work, choosing this film for digital revitalization might seem odd. Among cinephiles, “Ambersons” often lives in the shadow of its more renowned counterpart—while “Citizen Kane” is hailed as the greatest film ever made, Welles’ second feature is perceived as a hidden treasure, altered by studio executives for a more optimistic ending.

The film’s legacy, which delves into themes of loss and unrealized potential, likely drew the attention of both Fable and Rose. It’s crucial to acknowledge that our present-day interest in “The Magnificent Ambersons” is significantly shaped by Welles himself, particularly since its incomplete release adversely affected his Hollywood career, highlighting his remarkable directorial talents.

Notably, it seems that Fable has not reached out to Welles’ estate. David Reeder, who manages the estate on behalf of Welles’ daughter Beatrice, criticized the initiative in Variety as an “attempt to gain publicity through Welles’ creative legacy,” asserting that it would ultimately be “a purely mechanical endeavor, lacking the unique innovative insights a creative mind like Welles would have contributed.”

Despite Reeder’s concerns, he seems more troubled by Fable’s lack of outreach than the project itself. He highlighted that “the estate has embraced AI technology to develop a voice model for use in voiceover projects with various brands.”

Personally, I’m not particularly excited about this project. Even if Welles’ heirs had been consulted and compensated, my interest in this new interpretation of “Ambersons” remains limited, akin to my discomfort with hearing a digital imitation of Welles’s iconic voice for marketing new products.

Welles enthusiasts are aware that this isn’t the first instance of his films being edited or completed posthumously. However, earlier attempts typically used footage originally filmed by Welles. In contrast, Fable’s approach blends AI with traditional filmmaking—reports indicate that some scenes will be re-shot using modern actors, digitally altered to resemble the original cast.

The audacity of announcing such a project without securing film rights or obtaining Welles’ daughter’s endorsement is striking; nonetheless, Rose appears genuinely dedicated to honoring Welles’ vision. While discussing his plans to recreate the film, Rose expressed sorrow over the loss of “a four-minute-long, unbroken moving camera shot, the absence of which is a tragedy,” emphasizing that only 50 seconds of that shot exist in the released version.

I share his sense of loss—but I also believe that this is a challenge AI cannot fully meet.

Regardless of how effectively Fable and Rose reimagine that tracking shot, it will ultimately embody their interpretation, showcasing digitally altered versions of Joseph Cotten and Agnes Moorehead instead of the original actors. The final product will not authentically capture Welles’ true vision for “The Magnificent Ambersons,” which RKO modified nearly 80 years ago. Unless an extraordinary rediscovery of lost footage occurs, that version will remain irretrievably lost.