Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TheLastSamurai t1_j6kr0mo wrote

Sounds like a dystopian nightmare no thank you. Rotten creatively to the core

19

TiredOldLamb t1_j6ndds9 wrote

Have you seen actual TV shows? There's no way AI is going to be worse that majority of television.

1

dangler001 OP t1_j6krwv1 wrote

> Eventually, all major studio releases will be AI/CGI, and an industry of 'Organic' independent movies will grow.

−4

steve-laughter t1_j6kovfj wrote

Evidence based speculation means you want to look at examples in the past to speculate on what would happen in the future.

AI is still just a tool. And like any tool it allows accessibility where there was none previously. For creative minds it may very well be invaluable in creating art that previous generations could never have dreamed of. We see that in digital art already. But art is still art and the human ego is far too litigious to not want it's name wherever it can put it.

Which is just a longwinded way of saying, Picasso signed his art with his name, not with a paintbrush.

8

dangler001 OP t1_j6kq0sn wrote

>Evidence based speculation means you want to look at examples in the past to speculate on what would happen in the future.

yeah, I did that a few times in my post.

you're entire comment is super generic and really has nothing to do with what I posted.

−5

steve-laughter t1_j6kqz84 wrote

Honestly, you're original post is so low effort I'm not even going to justify my own. You're right, you got me. Literally addressing just exactly what you were on about is a total non sequitur that has nothing to do with what you're on about. My bad, I'm sorry.

2

dangler001 OP t1_j6krr9g wrote

> you're original post is so low effort

get real.

−2

Veleric t1_j6ku00l wrote

He's not entirely wrong. While you did bring up a lot of points that are indeed quite likely to happen and are interesting in their own right, it would have been much more interesting if you dove deeper in the the ramifications of this on creativity. Will it mean more people will be able to bring their visions to life without being an established Hollywood producer with a monumental budget or will it mean that nothing will have creative merit anymore because the process is so synthetic and lifeless? Will it mean that stage productions will increase as a more novel way of getting the theatrical experience or will that continue to be very niche because it's expensive and out of reach of many people?

I'm just saying if you are going to hit on this low-hanging fruit, you would get a lot more traction and engagement if you offered more (even speculative) insight into why this is so important and what to be excited for/afraid of.

1

dangler001 OP t1_j6kyp0k wrote

> Eventually, all major studio releases will be AI/CGI, and an industry of 'Organic' independent movies will grow.

.

>If (when) all this happens, FanFic and Self Published scripts will be able to be fed into the app and generated.

but you're right, I didn't get philosophical about it, just talked about the tech possibilities

0

Koffeekage t1_j6kxb4f wrote

Its inescapable. They can just hire a couple writers to feed prompts into a computer.

4

MpVpRb t1_j6lb2lk wrote

This may be a fad for a while as studios try to cut budgets, but I don't see it long term

Instead, I see small groups of creative people using tech to make great stories without stars, big budgets or studios. The "movie star" will turn out to be a short lived phenomenon and we will return to zillions of storytellers armed with amazing tech

It's already close to that in music. There are thousands of creative musicians with home studios making great music without record companies

3

EOE97 t1_j6m4jop wrote

Ultimately the economics will be the biggest determinant . If you can provide similar/greater quality with AI for a fraction of the cost, then I see no reason why it wouldn't be adopted more broadly.

1

Responsible-Score893 t1_j6m3jle wrote

Yep, seems inevitable to me too.

I think your S1mone example is interesting but I think that step could be skipped and each film will have a totally unique AI designed for it. So films no longer have 'actors', they just have the characters unique to that story.

2

dangler001 OP t1_j6m5qp2 wrote

for the most part I agree with you, except 'Hollywood' loves having their big name stars. I'm pretty sure the theory is that it's easier to promote an already popular brand. Think like, just about any Marvel movie that comes out will break the Billion dollar mark, simply by being another Marvel movie.

Although, that may just be a relic of the past (the future's past, our present) due to movies' budgets. Once all movies cost the same to make (I'm assuming cheap as dirt) maybe the movie culture will change. No more summer blockbusters, maybe they will adopt a 'spaghetti against the wall' approach.

No stars would be great, too many stars aren't all that great, and having known actors in a role can be distracting. And of course all the back room politics...

I'm hoping it becomes all about the writer, and the writer can be anyone. There will be a lot of shit out there, but hopefully we'll be able to sort through the muck better by then

1

Longjumping-Tie-7573 t1_j6nhpcu wrote

Eventually, the only 'star' of any consequence will be which AI made the movie. Instead of Kubrick fans you'll have Direct-O-Tron 37a fans.

2

theironlion245 t1_j6nkrm0 wrote

Even for entertainment brainless movies people want to drool over the good looking actors, admire them, follow them, and get splashed in the face by amazing spectacle.

A lot of things will change and it's good, when you see the crap Hollywood produce every year, I hope every hack incompetent script writer in Hollywood lose their job, but I think actors are here to stay.

2

Nightshade_Ranch t1_j6on4ed wrote

Bruce Willis is already headed that direction. Of course more stars will jump on. They'll want to do it while they're younger. They'll be able to license out the models. They'll be able to act with themselves as a younger co-star. Their estate will be able to profit forever. It'll get cheaper. There will be knock offs.

2

joelmole79 t1_j6kwcr2 wrote

Hollywood wants nothing more than to make self referential movies about their art, so I fully expect to see a dystopic movie covering this in a meta commentary on the subject.

The issue is I have a hard time with the idea of fully crossing the uncanny valley for things that are naturalistic and actor focused etc. Could they do something like this for cgi riddled action movies? Probably. But those have large special effects budgets. You’re arguing for the idea of automating out actor work with AI like other professions and forms of art. It would have to make financial sense and in many cases I think it would not. There’s a reason not all movies are animated or all filmed on green screens. I think it will be a long time before actors can be replaced fully in such a way that is believable, and in such a way that is affordable. Additionally I think people will stop caring to watch for many genres of movies.

I would be more immediately concerned with AI replacing or augmenting the writing process, because so many movies and shows follow similar tropes and plot lines. Additionally I’d expect to see AI augmentation for the animation process for movies that are legitimately animated, or use CGI backdrops / set pieces etc.

1

dangler001 OP t1_j6l2qki wrote

> Hollywood wants nothing more than to make self referential movies about their art, so I fully expect to see a dystopic movie covering this in a meta commentary on the subject. >

S1m0ne is a movie about a totally AI model. I havent seen it, but it's my understanding that intitally, they present her as a real person... then I imagine get caught in the lie. idk. > > > The issue is I have a hard time with the idea of fully crossing the uncanny valley for things that are naturalistic and actor focused etc. Could they do something like this for cgi riddled action movies? Probably. But those have large special effects budgets.

I think we've seen in various forms that the tech is already capable of crossing the valley, the trouble now is time/expense. But as the tech improves it will only get quicker and less expensive, especially if they can reuse assets.

Also, I forgot to add the point to my OP that people are more and more trained to ignore imperfections with cgi. Most people now (and more as time goes on) are used to the cgi in games, and watching more and more anime and cgi movies/series'. I don't think uncanny valley will be an issue as time goes on.

>You’re arguing for the idea of automating out actor work with AI like other professions and forms of art. It would have to make financial sense and in many cases I think it would not. There’s a reason not all movies are animated or all filmed on green screens. I think it will be a long time before actors can be replaced fully in such a way that is believable, and in such a way that is affordable. Additionally I think people will stop caring to watch for many genres of movies. >

not really arguing for it, it's just the way I see things will probably go. 🤷‍♀️ With modern tech, it may not make financial sense, but it's all getting cheaper and cheaper (and faster and faster, and better and better). "There's a reason not all movies are animated or all filmed on green screens" currently. In 10 years? Who knows? And more a more movies are filmed on basically nothing but green screens, even scenes that I would have never thought they would do it on (like really simple stuff).

>Additionally I think people will stop caring to watch for many genres of movies.

I don't understand this comment.

> I would be more immediately concerned with AI replacing or augmenting the writing process, because so many movies and shows follow similar tropes and plot lines.

Yes, another point I forgot to add. I'm pretty sure they already have a Script Writing app they're working with. But it's not ready yet. I would assume the first working versions of this app would write the basic script, and then a human writer would do a rewrite.

>Additionally I’d expect to see AI augmentation for the animation process for movies that are legitimately animated, or use CGI backdrops / set pieces etc.

Yup, no reason not to. Another stepping stone...

1

joelmole79 t1_j6l58hl wrote

Re: I don’t understand this comment:

I think it will turn people off and not work well for many genres. I wouldn’t assume this idea, even if feasible, would work as well for any type of movie under the sun. So if possible, it will be tried with varying success. It’s great for movies that are trying to make a commentary about AI and there are quite a few. It’s been tried in some limited ways for action and Sci-Fi movies. But I wouldn’t expect, for example, to see Laura Linney replaced in Ozark, or Ana De Armas in Blonde. What’s the point? We watch these things to see real humans doing things that people do. Dramatic performances - in the absence of a real person, what’s the fucking point? I would lose interest.

1

dangler001 OP t1_j6l7879 wrote

thanks for the clarification

>Dramatic performances - in the absence of a real person, what’s the fucking point? I would lose interest.

There are plenty of sentimental and dramatic animes and games out there that people really love.

What's the point? 1) aging starts continuing on. They will love the oportunity to continue to get paid without having to actually work. And the studios would love to be able to push a few buttons on their computer and pump out the next Angelina Jolie and Bruce Willis blockbuster... especially if they don't actually have to deal with (asshole) actors.

also, I would like to point out that this is just a discussion on the future, I'm not trying to say this will happen now or even the next few years (except maybe Step 1). People will get more used to this things, as they already are getting used to cgi. etc...

1

AeroReborn t1_j6l1b69 wrote

Wasn't this what they were trying to do with Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within?

1

kratos-ktp t1_j6lj6xo wrote

Why pay another actor for his/her likeness when you can make your own, for free...

1

Jupiter20 t1_j6lv9h4 wrote

The word for poet in German is "Dichter" which comes from "dicht" meaning dense. A Dichter is somebody who makes something denser. I think AI might be bad at that kind of thing. Like spitting out two sentences that you can contemplate on for hours, and that transports all kinds of aspects of humaneness. This kind of thing is also what comedians do. There is often a lot to unpack in jokes, something that makes you think twice and that second or third level is what makes it funny. And even if AI will be able to do that, we still have to be able to understand it.

But of course, comedians tell their jokes to friends, and they would filter out the bad ones. You could train an AI on the reaction of a live audience, maybe it's going to be the funniest shit ever, who knows.

The future will be completely overloaded with colorful and magical things that tingle our brains in all kinds of different ways. Art and entertainment will be so abundant, people won't be able to tell what they are listening to or what they are watching. Selling music or pictures is not going to cut it, you will have to sell yourself.

1

Gowo8989 t1_j6km47a wrote

This is just awful. CGI is trash. It can’t even replicate walking or looking well. Human actors are so much cheaper than having a team do a small amount of cgi, let alone a whole movie.

−1

KamikazeArchon t1_j6ktvje wrote

The vast majority of CGI that you're used to seeing is 3d modeled stuff. That approaches "make a moving image" by simulating an environment, physics, and motion.

"Deepfake"-style CGI is fundamentally different in approach. It does not have a physics engine or anything like that. It is relatively very new to the scene; 3d-model CGI is nearly 50 years old.

This makes it difficult to extrapolate from one to the other.

Human no-name actors are cheap; but physical camera work of any kind is not cheap, and human celebrities are very expensive. A team working on full-CGI scenes isn't just replacing the actors for those scenes - it's replacing the makeup, costume, camera, stunt, set preparation, prop, lighting, safety, animal handling, etc. teams.

3

BMXTKD t1_j6kxan5 wrote

Okay, in 15 years, we went from super Mario Bros 3 to Grand Theft Auto San Andreas.

2

dangler001 OP t1_j6kposm wrote

> CGI is trash. It can’t even replicate walking or looking well

have you never seen a modern movie? "looking well"? Like Avatar or Marvel or Star Wars...

Hell, there was a post showing how cgi changed an actor swearing into a pg-13 friendly version, and then into different languages.

really, everything you just said was wrong, and worse, thoughtless.

−1