Kevin O'Leary Claims Marty Supreme Wasted Millions on Human Extras

Kevin O'Leary, the Shark Tank investor making his film debut in Josh Safdie's Marty Supreme, says the production spent millions unnecessarily on background actors. Speaking on The Hill's World of Travel podcast, O'Leary argued that AI could have replaced up to 150 extras per scene, cutting costs dramatically and enabling more films to be made.

The comments sparked immediate backlash from film industry professionals and unions who view background work as entry points for aspiring actors. O'Leary's economic argument prioritizes cost reduction over the human element that unions and filmmakers say defines cinema as an art form.

O'Leary's Economic Argument

O'Leary framed his position in business terms, emphasizing the financial burden of managing large numbers of background performers. He described scenes in Marty Supreme requiring 150 extras who needed to remain on set for 18 hour days in full costume.

"Almost every scene had as many as 150 extras. Now, those people have to stay awake for 18 hours, be completely dressed in the background. They're not necessarily in the movie, but they're necessary to be there moving around. And yet, it costs millions of dollars to do that," O'Leary said on the podcast.

His proposed solution centers on what he calls "AI agents" replacing human performers in background roles. "Why couldn't you simply put AI agents in their place? Because they're not the main actors. They're only in the story visually and save millions of dollars, so more movies could be made. The same director, instead of spending $90 million or whatever he spent, could've spent $35 million and made two movies."

The calculation suggests that production budgets could be cut by more than half through AI replacement of background talent. O'Leary claims this would allow studios to produce multiple films with the same resources currently devoted to one project.

Reference to Tilly Norwood

O'Leary cited Tilly Norwood as his example of AI performers replacing human actors. Norwood, unveiled in September 2025, is a completely AI generated character created by talent studio Xicoia that sparked controversy when reports claimed major talent agencies wanted to sign the creation.

"Tilly Norwell is an actor that's burst onto the scene. She's 100% AI. She doesn't exist, but she's a great actress," O'Leary said, incorrectly referring to Norwood as "Norwell" throughout the interview. "She can come in any age you want. She doesn't need to eat, so she works 24 hours a day. The union is going out of their mind."

He continued: "I'd argue, for the sake of the art, you should allow it in certain cases. An extra is a really good use case because you can't tell the difference. You just put 100 Norwood Tillys in there and you're good."

SAG-AFTRA issued a swift condemnation when Tilly Norwood was announced. The union declared the AI creation is "not an actor" and stated: "It doesn't solve any 'problem.' It creates the problem of using stolen performances to put actors out of work, jeopardizing performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry."

The union's response reflects broader industry concerns about AI replacing human performers. SAG-AFTRA spent much of 2023 on strike, with AI protections forming a central negotiating point. The guild secured language requiring consent and compensation when studios use AI to replicate actor likenesses.

Background Work as Career Entry Point

O'Leary's dismissal of extras as merely "visual" elements overlooks the role background work plays in actor career development. Many successful performers began their careers as extras, using the opportunity to observe professional sets, network with industry professionals, and gradually build toward speaking roles.

Background work provides income for working actors between larger roles. The Screen Actors Guild establishes minimum pay rates and working conditions for this category, recognizing its importance to the profession's economic structure.

Directors also value human extras for their ability to create authentic atmosphere. Background performers respond naturally to scene action, provide varied physical presence, and contribute spontaneous moments that AI systems cannot replicate. This human element affects how main actors perform, creating more natural interactions than performing against green screens or empty sets.

The economic argument for AI extras ignores these qualitative factors. While O'Leary claims "you can't tell the difference," filmmakers and cinematographers note that human crowds possess organic movement patterns, realistic body language variations, and authentic responses to environment that remain difficult for AI to fully simulate.

Industry Response

Film industry professionals responded critically to O'Leary's comments, questioning whether someone making their acting debut should advocate for reducing opportunities for other actors.

The irony of O'Leary's position struck many observers. He benefits from being cast in Marty Supreme despite having no acting background, securing his feature film debut through his business profile rather than traditional career progression. Yet he argues for eliminating entry level opportunities that help aspiring actors gain set experience.

A24, the studio behind Marty Supreme, built its reputation on championing human centric storytelling and unique artistic voices. The studio's brand emphasizes authenticity and artistic integrity over pure commercial calculation. O'Leary's public advocacy for cost cutting through AI replacement contrasts sharply with A24's established values and market positioning.

Josh Safdie, directing Marty Supreme, has not commented publicly on O'Leary's statements. Safdie's previous work, including Uncut Gems and Good Time, emphasizes gritty realism and authentic New York atmosphere that depends heavily on genuine location shooting and real crowds.

The production choice to hire 150 extras for multiple scenes likely served Safdie's artistic vision, creating authentic period atmosphere for the 1950s ping pong culture setting. Replacing those performers with AI would fundamentally change the film's visual character and authenticity.

O'Leary's AI Investments

O'Leary revealed during the podcast that he actively invests in AI technology and is developing his own AI likeness. "We've got AI Kevin now and we did it in Abu Dhabi. I'm going back there in a couple weeks. I'm going to train the model even more," he said.

He described the current challenge as distinguishing AI generated voices from real ones but expressed confidence that upcoming iterations will eliminate that differentiation. "The challenges with AI is most people can distinguish now between what's fake and what's real, because of the voice. But there's another iteration of the model coming in about a week. This next AI Kevin, you will not be able to tell the difference."

O'Leary is also pursuing citizenship in the United Arab Emirates, where he sees growth in AI development. These business interests inform his advocacy for AI adoption in film production. His financial stake in AI technology creates incentives to promote its use across industries, including entertainment.

The disclosure of these investments provides context for his public statements. O'Leary approaches the AI extras question primarily from an investor perspective focused on cost efficiency and market expansion, rather than from artistic or labor considerations that define filmmaking as a profession and craft.

Economic vs Artistic Perspectives

The debate O'Leary's comments highlight reflects fundamental tension between business and artistic priorities in filmmaking. His analysis treats background performers as pure expense items, quantifiable costs that reduce profitability and limit production capacity.

This perspective overlooks what filmmakers and critics describe as cinema's essential humanity. The argument for real extras extends beyond economics to questions of authenticity, artistic integrity, and the medium's capacity to capture genuine human presence.

Directors value the unpredictability and organic quality that human performers bring to scenes. An extra might catch sunlight unexpectedly, react authentically to nearby action, or move in ways that add visual interest beyond what was scripted. These moments contribute to what audiences perceive as realism and immersion.

The presence of real crowds also affects main actors' performances. Performing to actual people creates different energy than acting against empty space or AI-generated images added in postproduction. This interaction between foreground and background performers shapes the scene's overall authenticity.

O'Leary's suggestion that audiences "can't tell the difference" between human and AI extras remains unproven at scale. While AI can generate convincing still images and short clips, sustained background presence across multiple shots and camera angles presents technical challenges that current systems handle inconsistently.

Practical Realities of AI Replacement

While O'Leary presents AI extras as ready for immediate deployment, current technology faces limitations that affect practical viability. Generating consistent human likenesses across multiple shots, camera angles, and lighting conditions remains technically challenging.

AI systems excel at generating crowds for distant wide shots where individual detail matters less. Close and medium shots where background performers appear more prominently require higher fidelity that strains current capabilities. Maintaining consistency of the same AI generated people across different takes and angles introduces additional complexity.

Motion remains particularly challenging. Human movement involves subtle weight shifts, unconscious gestures, and natural variation that AI systems struggle to replicate convincingly. Background performers walking, talking, or reacting to environment require sophisticated animation that goes beyond static image generation.

Period films like Marty Supreme add another layer of difficulty. AI systems must generate characters in appropriate 1950s clothing, hairstyles, and grooming while avoiding anachronistic elements. This requires careful prompt engineering and quality control that reduces the cost efficiency O'Leary claims.

Postproduction integration also demands resources. AI generated crowds need compositing into live action footage, lighting adjustment to match scene conditions, and checking for artifacts or inconsistencies. These steps require skilled artists and render time that partially offset the savings from not hiring extras.

Labor vs Technology Advancement

O'Leary framed his position around technological inevitability, arguing "you can't stop the advancement of technology." This rhetorical move presents AI adoption as natural evolution rather than choice about how to structure industries and allocate opportunities.

The argument obscures human decisions behind technological deployment. Technology provides capabilities, but humans decide how and whether to use those capabilities in ways that serve or harm worker interests. The choice to replace background actors with AI reflects priorities about cost efficiency versus employment and craft preservation.

Union contracts currently restrict AI use in ways that protect performer livelihoods. SAG-AFTRA negotiated terms requiring consent and compensation for AI replication of member likenesses. These protections can expand to cover synthetic performers created without human templates, establishing frameworks where technology serves rather than replaces workers.

O'Leary's assertion that replacing extras would enable "more opportunities for human actors" in lead roles lacks supporting logic. Studios face no shortage of projects they could fund if costs decreased. The constraint on film production stems primarily from market demand and distribution capacity, not production budgets alone. Lower costs might increase profit margins without necessarily funding additional projects.

Historical patterns suggest cost efficiencies from automation typically flow to capital rather than expanding employment. When industries adopt labor-replacing technologies, the savings generally increase returns to owners and executives rather than creating equivalent jobs in other areas.

What This Means for AI Filmmaking

O'Leary's comments represent one vision for how AI integrates into film production, but far from the only possible path. The technology enables multiple approaches depending on priorities that govern its deployment.

Some productions may adopt AI background crowds for specific use cases where human extras prove logistically impossible. Fantasy films, science fiction, or historical epics requiring thousands of period accurate performers might use AI to supplement rather than replace practical crowds.

The technology could also serve visualization and planning purposes without replacing final production methods. Previsualization using AI generated crowds might help directors plan camera movements and shot compositions before committing to expensive shoots with real extras.

However, the wholesale replacement O'Leary advocates represents a more extreme approach that prioritizes cost cutting over other filmmaking values. Whether this vision becomes reality depends on collective industry decisions about labor protections, artistic standards, and the economic models that structure production.

SAG-AFTRA's strong response to Tilly Norwood indicates unions will resist AI replacement of performers. These labor organizations possess negotiating power through their ability to shut down productions, as demonstrated in the 2023 strikes. Future contracts will likely establish clearer boundaries around AI use that protect employment while allowing limited technological integration.

Marty Supreme Context

The film at the center of this controversy, Marty Supreme, stars Timothee Chalamet as Marty Mauser, a young man pursuing greatness in 1950s ping pong culture. Josh Safdie directs, reuniting with cinematographer Darius Khondji and production designer Sam Lisenco from previous projects.

O'Leary plays the husband to Gwyneth Paltrow's character, marking his feature film debut. Early reactions from its surprise world premiere have praised Chalamet's performance as potentially his best work yet. The film releases theatrically on Christmas Day 2025.

The production's choice to hire extensive background talent reflects Safdie's commitment to authentic period recreation. Scenes set in ping pong tournaments, social venues, and New York streets of the 1950s require crowds dressed and styled appropriately to the era. These background players contribute essential atmosphere that grounds the story in its historical setting.

O'Leary's public criticism of this production decision while actively promoting the film creates awkward positioning. He benefits from the project's theatrical release and A24's prestige while simultaneously arguing the studio wasted money on choices that defined the film's visual approach.

Whether his comments affect Marty Supreme's reception remains to be seen. The film already generated strong early buzz independent of O'Leary's controversial statements. However, his advocacy for AI replacement may become part of the discourse surrounding the release.

Conclusion

Kevin O'Leary's comments about Marty Supreme highlight tensions between business efficiency and artistic integrity that will define ongoing debates about AI in filmmaking. His investor perspective prioritizes cost reduction and increased production capacity, viewing background performers primarily as expense line items.

The film industry's response emphasizes values beyond pure economics: the importance of employment pathways for aspiring actors, the artistic contribution of human presence on screen, and cinema's role as fundamentally human expression rather than manufactured product.

The debate extends beyond background actors to larger questions about how AI reshapes creative industries. Technology provides capabilities, but human choices determine whether those capabilities serve artistic and labor interests or primarily financial returns to capital.

For filmmakers and content creators, O'Leary's statements signal that economic arguments for AI adoption will intensify. Understanding both the capabilities and limitations of current AI technology helps navigate these discussions from informed perspectives rather than accepting claims about technical readiness or cost savings at face value.

The coming years will establish precedents for how the industry balances efficiency gains from automation against employment protection and artistic integrity. These decisions shape whether AI serves as tool that expands creative possibilities or replacement that reduces opportunities and diminishes cinema's essential humanity.

Stay informed about developments in AI filmmaking technology and industry policy at AI FILMS Studio, where we track emerging capabilities and practical applications for content creators.

Sources:

• The Wrap: Kevin O'Leary Interview on World of Travel Podcast
• SAG-AFTRA Statement on Tilly Norwood (September 2025)
• Variety, Deadline, The Hill Coverage of O'Leary Comments