If it requires acting, it likely can't be done with AI. You underestimate, I think, how much an actor carries a movie. You can use it for digi doubles maybe, for stunts and VFX. But if his face in on the screen... We are ages away from having an AI actor perform at the same level as Daniel Day Lewis, Williem Dafoe, or anyone else that's in that atmosphere. They make too many interesting choices per second for it to replaced by AI.
Quality aside, there's a reason producers pay millions for A-list stars instead of any of the millions of really good aspiring actors in LA that they could hire for pennies. People will pay to see the new Matt Damon flick but wouldn't give it a second glance if some no-name was playing the part.
If you can't replace Matt Damon with another equivalently skilled human, CGI won't be any different.
Granted, maybe that's less true today, given Marvell and such are more about the action than the acting. But if that's the future of the industry anyway, then acting as a worthwhile profession is already on its way out, CGI or no.
Yes, people also take actors as a sign of the quality of the film, or at least they used to, before Marvel. Hence films with big names attached get more money, etc.
Still the idea that actors are easy to replace is preposterous to anyone who's ever worked with actors. They are preposterously HARD to replace, in theatre and film. A good actor is worth their weight in gold. Very very few people are good actors. A good actor is a good comedian, a master at controlling his body, and a master at controlling his voice, towards a specifically intended goal. They can make you laugh, cry, sigh, or feel just about anything. You just look at Paul Giamatti or Willem Dafoe or Denzel Washington. Those people are not replaceable, and their work is just as good and just as culturally important as a Picasso or a Monet. A hundred years from now people will know the name of actors, because that was the dominant mode of entertainment of our age.
