I still hold firm that, ultimately, what audiences want to see - what they connect with - are actual human beings telling and performing these stories. No matter how great this technology becomes, and how life-like it ultimately looks, if there's not a human being authoring the story, and behind the eyes of an "actor," there will eventually be a disconnect. It might not happen at first, but once the novelty wears off, I truly believe people will ultimately seek out/prefer the real deal.

Not to mention, it would otherwise erase celebrity pop culture, having a favorite actor, etc, and for millions that's an essential part of the experience - not only knowing these are real people, but becoming fans of/having an interest in them (even if a morbid curiosity) outside of the movies/shows themselves. That, and actors aren't ever going to stop acting. For many of them, it's in their DNA.

Instead, where I think we land with all of this is that it becomes more of an essential, cost-cutting tool. It'll be the definitive way to create establishing shots, landscapes, environments, and replace most traditional VFX work (if not meld with it in some new way). I'm sure it'll even be used to replace actors in certain wider shots, or in certain action sequences. But for the actual, traditional, movie star acting, I think that job forever belongs to human beings.

Beyond that, though, there will be some combination of AI and The Volume that will ultimately replace so many sets, locations, sequences, shots, etc, thus drastically streamlining the filmmaking process.

Lear to code

No need, AI will do it for me.

First they came for the Actors, and I did not speak out--

I think it will be used to create consumable content. This is just your lazy "we made it so people watch it for a few hours on a night". It's not going to be good, but it will be good enough to entertain for an hour or two.

Hell I feel like that's already how poorly some of these kids shows are. Lookin' at you, PJ masks and Miraculous with Lady Bug and Cat Noir.

I think cinema and film will still rely on humans. Directors and DPs are always way too focused on lighting, angles, framing, shot-types, color motifs, themes, etc to give up control to a computer.

AI for entertainment, humans for art.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

I think it will be used to create consumable content. This is just your lazy "we made it so people watch it for a few hours on a night". It's not going to be good, but it will be good enough to entertain for an hour or two.

Hell I feel like that's already how poorly some of these kids shows are. Lookin' at you, PJ masks and Miraculous with Lady Bug and Cat Noir.

I think cinema and film will still rely on humans. Directors and DPs are always way too focused on lighting, angles, framing, shot-types, color motifs, themes, etc to give up control to a computer.

AI for entertainment, humans for art.

---

The below fear kind of speaks to what you're talking about. I could see there being two "tiers" in both film and television. AI movies and shows made for the broadcast/Wal-Mart crowd, and then man-made movies and shows for the cinema/prestige TV/we-want-something-good/real crowd. Almost like it is now, but even further separated. That said, even then, after a few years, I still think people will ultimately check out on the 100% AI stuff that's not cartoons and the like...

The problem isn’t just AI, it’s also the general/quality taste level plummeting amongst general audiences. I don’t worry about AI being as good as me at my job, I worry more about no one caring about an inferior product cause their taste has been programmed to accept mediocrity.

— 𝕾𝖊𝖙𝖍 𝕸 𝕾𝖍𝖊𝖗𝖜𝖔𝖔𝖉 (@SethMSherwood) February 15, 2024

TCTTS said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

I think it will be used to create consumable content. This is just your lazy "we made it so people watch it for a few hours on a night". It's not going to be good, but it will be good enough to entertain for an hour or two.

Hell I feel like that's already how poorly some of these kids shows are. Lookin' at you, PJ masks and Miraculous with Lady Bug and Cat Noir.

I think cinema and film will still rely on humans. Directors and DPs are always way too focused on lighting, angles, framing, shot-types, color motifs, themes, etc to give up control to a computer.

AI for entertainment, humans for art.

---

The below fear kind of speaks to what you're talking about. I could see there being two "tiers" in both film and television. AI movies and shows made for the broadcast/Wal-Mart crowd, and then man-made movies and shows for the cinema/prestige TV/we-want-something-good/real crowd. Almost like it is now, but even further separated. That said, even then, after a few years, I still think people will ultimately check out on the 100% AI stuff that's not cartoons and the like...

The problem isn’t just AI, it’s also the general/quality taste level plummeting amongst general audiences. I don’t worry about AI being as good as me at my job, I worry more about no one caring about an inferior product cause their taste has been programmed to accept mediocrity.

— 𝕾𝖊𝖙𝖍 𝕸 𝕾𝖍𝖊𝖗𝖜𝖔𝖔𝖉 (@SethMSherwood) February 15, 2024

---

That guy is the typical Hollywood type, "It didn't sell well? What do you mean? It didn't connect with the audience? What do you mean? But my farts smell so good!! They must be racist…"

Sure, it's the audience fault…

And you're the typical TexAgs poster who's reading WAY MORE into that tweet than what's there, looking for things to sh*t on.

Come on, you can do better than that, TTCCCSP…

TCTTS said:

---

And you're the typical TexAgs poster who's reading WAY MORE into that tweet than what's there, looking for things to sh*t on.

---

Since you didn't respond to the PM I sent you, I'll continue:

You see he's saying he's better than AI, he knows he is, he ain't afraid of it outshining him, his work is of higher quality. You see when things go bad for him, it's gonna be the audience to blame, "They're just so low, stupid and inferior that they'll lap anything up, well except my awesome crap that no one wants to watch."

And you say I'm reading too much into the X post, but it probably never occurred to you that you're perhaps a bit biased or blind…

aggiephoenix02 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I don't need to. Your tired schtick speaks for itself.

---

Let's take this off the board and go to PMs…

---

Nah, I'm good. The last time you did that you specifically PMed me to tell me you're essentially hamming it up in order to get a reaction out of people, and that you wanted me to go along with it, which is... weird, but whatever. It's when you kept playing that character, or whatever it is you think you're doing - with me - that I got kind of annoyed, and now I'm simply letting you know that I don't want to participate.

Dude, this is a first. What you just posted is so freakin' weird I'm gonna self ban. I'm gonna from here on out ban myself from responding to your ridiculousness.

Do you realize how far gone you are!?!

TCTTS said:

---

Neat.

But is it good? Is it something that can rise above the noise and penetrate the zeitgeist? Make people think? Truly entertain them? Connect with them? Does it have a singular vision? And how are you going to cover marketing costs? Get it in theaters?

---

It's a drama/comedy about a group of nerds coming together to tell a story about their favorite sci-fi character, only to have a mega corp beat them to the finish line and produce a piece of crap, and how they all deal with defeat and pain individually.

TCTTS said:

---

I still hold firm that, ultimately, what audiences want to see - what they connect with - are actual human beings telling and performing these stories. No matter how great this technology becomes, and how life-like it ultimately looks, if there's not a human being authoring the story, and behind the eyes of an "actor," there will eventually be a disconnect. It might not happen at first, but once the novelty wears off, I truly believe people will ultimately seek out/prefer the real deal.

Not to mention, it would otherwise erase celebrity pop culture, having a favorite actor, etc, and for millions that's an essential part of the experience - not only knowing these are real people, but becoming fans of/having an interest in them (even if a morbid curiosity) outside of the movies/shows themselves. That, and actors aren't ever going to stop acting. For many of them, it's in their DNA.

Instead, where I think we land with all of this is that it becomes more of an essential, cost-cutting tool. It'll be the definitive way to create establishing shots, landscapes, environments, and replace most traditional VFX work (if not meld with it in some new way). I'm sure it'll even be used to replace actors in certain wider shots, or in certain action sequences. But for the actual, traditional, movie star acting, I think that job forever belongs to human beings.

Beyond that, though, there will be some combination of AI and The Volume that will ultimately replace so many sets, locations, sequences, shots, etc, thus drastically streamlining the filmmaking process.

---

Since most of my preferred storytelling is novels I do think it would be interesting to see some novels brought to screen where the AI makes the characters true to their in book description. While someone like Emma Watson was great as Hermoine Granger, in the books she's described as being buck toothed which really affects the character development aspect in the books vs the screen.

One series that would be ideal for AI would be Brandon Sanderson's Cosmere books. So many epic books that would look awesome onscreen, but for it to be film traditionally would take probably several billion to flesh out properly. There are so many great stories out there that are limited to pages permanently because they do not have the built in audience to get a proper adaptation.

I think this AI film making will be the creative equivalent of what fanfiction is to books. There are some great stories out there that will never be adapted that may be created now that AI rendering is cheaply available.

TCTTS said:

---

Personally? I'm not too worried for my job, specifically. There will ALWAYS be a need for producers. Writers and actors are the ones who have the most to lose, potentially. But the industry will always need people who know/can read the market, conceive of the project on a macro scale, pitch it, provide "prompts," see that it holds to a certain artistic vision, see that it gets proper distribution, etc. IMO, producers and directors are "safe" in that regard. The jobs will certainly change, but they won't go away.

---

I wouldn't be so sure. In the not too distant future there will probably be an engine that creates an entire movie or show for you based on what you ask for. Audiences might not even need writers, actors, directors, or producers because there might not be movies or even shows made for wide release. Imagine a Netflix equivalent that creates custom content based on what you ask for, your perceived mood, and how you react to what's being created. Why invest in movies and shows hoping to reach a wide enough audience when you can just create individual movies and shows catered to specific viewers for the low cost of processing power? If people want to share with friends, they can just save their content to a library.

I could totally see audible using AI to show scenes in books as you are listening to them.