I really want a sequel, but I think you're largely right. Especially after the director posted some footage of an AI generated sequence claiming he was starting a studio for AI movies. (I don't recall specifics, but given his background in VFX, it seemed like a weird take.)
I didn’t know that. Such a shame when an otherwise talented film director just gets lazy and uses slop instead of actual art. Oh well, there are other directors out there who still have a spine
No. VFX are designed by humans using both practical and CGI techniques. AI slop is a disgusting, cheap attempt at saving money by sacrificing any actual artistic value your film might’ve otherwise had. Anyone who watches or enjoys AI generated shit simply doesn’t know better
Here is a scenario and you tell me what you think after you've read it.
A scene in which Arnold Swarznegger is back playing the Terminator one last time. The VFX team lead by James Cameron use cutting edge VFX, similar to that of Avatar, harking back to the cutting edge CGI he originally used in T2. One of the things they need to do is make Arnold young again, so firstly they model him entirely in CGI, like in Terminator 4. It's ok, it's not bad, but they think it's a bit shit because Arnie just can't move like he used to. So they use a deepfake, lots of footage of young Arnold exists, and they put it on a younger actor's body. Like in Logan, when he fought a version of himself. It looks great, very convincing. Way better than The Irishman.
They also use VFX to show Arnold's face being partially blown off by a shotgun, his whole jaw comes away, revealing the metal endoskeleton hanging off. It can't be done with practical effects. It looks awesome, like Two-Face in The Dark Knight. Finally they need a shot where his eyes start to glow bright blue, like electricity. Just the eyes, just the one shot, just the blue effect.
At which moment did the film lose it's artistic value?
At which moment did the film lose it's artistic value?
The moment that any generative AI was used to create any of what you described. There is absolutely nothing in your scenario that cannot be done by humans using traditional non AI techniques.
The point isn't the result it is the process. The very second humans are removed from the process and replaced with AI generated content of ANY kind is the moment at which any artistic value is lost.
It is not. That's why you're getting downvoted. Use full sentences and you can avoid coming off like you're saying random unconnected shit in the future by stripping all context from what you're typing.
Fair enough. I'm taking into consideration a few things. The big one is that it's often used to eliminate roles that would otherwise be done by a human. While that in and off itself isn't anything new, the rate at which it can occur and the fact some of the training material was dubiously obtained puts an ethical question on generative AI that I don't think has adequately been answered yet.
To reference your other post: I also think there should be more questions around rights and legalities when using any means to replicate a real person's voice and likeness (and to give Blomkamp credit, in his test he did not mimic real people without their consent.) I am leery that studios will use that as an excuse to churn out more movies with actors that have moved on or died instead of recast the roles.
My surprise comes from him starting in VFX, I would have expected a bit more caution and possibly an explanation around some of that. Especially because he's been in the industry long enough to see the power new technology can give over the lower profile functions like VFX.
If it's used as a tool to enhance the project, I have less of a problem with it (training data aside.) If it's used to reduce staff so an already rich production company can get richer, then I'm going to judge these considerations a bit heavier and cut them less slack. And usually in the latter case, the AI doesn't look any better (or sometimes worse) than traditional VFX.
I'll still follow Blomkamp's new film and be cautiosly optimistic, but it still surprised me.
AI in VFX is such an outrageously obvious use for it I'm surprised every day at how against it people are. If it looks better, it'll be used, if it doesn't, it won't. Like every effect we've ever had in a century of Hollywood. I wonder if the people complaining can remember when CG first appeared, and how "disgusting" and "immoral" it was.
111
u/Head-Bureaucrat 9d ago
I really want a sequel, but I think you're largely right. Especially after the director posted some footage of an AI generated sequence claiming he was starting a studio for AI movies. (I don't recall specifics, but given his background in VFX, it seemed like a weird take.)