I am conflicted on this kind of thing. On one hand there is no doubt this will harm people’s ability to work in fhe industry. On the other hand I don’t really buy the idea this isn’t art. I don’t see a distinction between this and the invention of paint, tv, or vfx, for example. It’s just another tool to use to make art. The resulting product is still art as the source is still the human mind.
I suppose plagiarized art is “art” in a very narrow sense.
1 Like
Just watched Predator Badlands. Uh, was this nominated for anything? Because it should win something. That was fantastic!
5 Likes
I’m not saying it can’t be used to make art.
I’m saying that will overwhelmingly not be what it’s used for, and the appetite for it to be used for more than novelty will continue to shrink.
There’s still plenty of us who value a theatrical experience. But there’s an increasing population that would rather be on TikTok.
Now maybe I’m a doomsayer and this technology will evolve into an effective tool for cinema. But will the demand be there? Or will this tool shrink the very audience it might best serve?
1 Like
The recent episode of The Town is about the new trend of micro drama which are whole shows told in 1-2 min episodes. Apparently huge in Asia and gaining here.
1 Like
You could also say this about the rise of CGI
1 Like
I don’t think it’s the same. You need a lot of artistic skill to create compelling CGI. It’s just a different art medium, like graphite vs paint.
This new AI engine requires no such skill. You plug in a two-sentence prompt.
2 Likes
Just forget the Oscars for a second and acknowledge that Shakespeare in Love is actually a great movie.
1 Like
It’s more to the point that it’s so overused it diminishes the overall artistic intent of making a movie.
AI in small doses can be good. As a Marvel movie it wouldn’t be taken seriously. Until a 90 minute film can be made well it’s just pipe dreaming.
What was the intention of the AI?
Is the below actually from the movie? No. But I’d dare anyone to tell me that without already knowing.
https://x.com/markgadala/status/2022379097674928320?s=20
Let’s redo Titanic!
https://x.com/markgadala/status/2021972627976290660?s=20
https://x.com/markgadala/status/2021972619764089097?s=20
https://x.com/markgadala/status/2021972610020782099?s=20
https://x.com/lexx_aura/status/2022309260852638126?s=20
https://x.com/awesome_visuals/status/2021235144367980644?s=20
Kill it all with goddamn fire.
13 Likes
I’ll play the odds and assume that AI Deadpool is at least as good as the real thing.
5 Likes
Wasnt there a company that was a complete disaster that tried this very thing here?
Ummm, Thanos completely whiffed his punch
1 Like
Yes. Can’t remember the name anymore. Kevin Hart was big in it.
A friend of mine was mixing low budget soap operas that were 60 minute episodes broken up into very short pieces. He felt robbed when he realized how much work it was for the pay.
Sounds a little like this:
Thats it
Didn’t have one. It doesn’t think. The intention came from the prompt.
We are pretty close to not needing the prompt though at which part the art definition becomes suspect for sure.
Given what AI does, I think it’s still an interesting debate if it’s art. Picasso said, “all art is theft” and Elliot said, “immature poets imitate, mature poets steal”. In this context, it is hard to argue no AI created content is art as it’s all just remixed content learned from the totally of the artistic cannon.
Yes they talk about that and say the market is much different now.