Honestly, I would think now would be a good time to heavily invest. Leverage AI as an assistant to get a lot more produced. I guess there is only so much the services are willing to buy, but I don't know, I just think the opposite approach right now is the move.

Yeah, that's probably not a bad idea.

Always interesting to consider how quickly "AI" has caught on as a marketing tactic. Kind of at the point where I don't trust anyone's opinion if they aren't predominantly referring to this stuff as either ML or LLMs.

But still, I'd never deter anyone from investing in whichever companies/technologies they think have potential. (And I will say that thankfully even good animation should become much less grueling to create in the short run.)

And like the Tyler Perry news? Who really cares? I'm not that knowledgeable on what his studio produces, but it seems like it's already low effort.

Final little thing, I'm actually optimistic about more things than I let on, but the democratization of the arts/entertainment has really lowered the average. Quality, not just cost. Yet many people either don't care or can't tell or maybe don't agree (and I'm always interested in their perspectives to be clear). So go ahead and invest in the future here and let's see what we get…

Really great podcast episode on the subject (and only 35 minutes long).

The AI-is-probabilistic (what is probably the next right answer) vs Hollywood-is-deterministic (does exactly what you tell it to) point is especially well-made. Yes, at some point down the road AI will be able to create exactly what we tell it to, down to the pixel, but we're still a ways off from that. And even then, there will be stratification between real art/entertainment and fake art/entertainment...

New pod: Where Sora should rank on the entertainment industry’s Freakout Scale. With @benthompson. Listen! https://t.co/0lEGcnVsIQ

— Matthew Belloni (@MattBelloni) February 28, 2024

TCTTS said:

---

Really great podcast episode on the subject (and only 35 minutes long).

The AI-is-probabilistic (what is probably the next right answer) vs Hollywood-is-deterministic (does exactly what you tell it to) point is especially well-made. Yes, at some point down the road AI will be able to create exactly what we tell it to, down to the pixel, but we're still a ways off from that. And even then, there will be stratification between real art/entertainment and fake art/entertainment...

New pod: Where Sora should rank on the entertainment industry’s Freakout Scale. With @benthompson. Listen! https://t.co/0lEGcnVsIQ

— Matthew Belloni (@MattBelloni) February 28, 2024

---

I don't think being able to tell future tools exactly what we want is a good thing for film at all. Most great movies are great because they capture mistakes/imperfections, or "the life energy" as Francis Ford Coppola calls it, better than any other medium. And most actors give good performances when they surprise themselves.

If this comes to pass it'll probably look like making worse versions of video games. Which I guess as a concept already exists with all of these (supposedly) trash adaptations of games/franchises.

Per usual, you're completely missing the point, but whatever.

How so? Making precise prompted live action films seems incredibly boring and misses the point, which is ultimately to have fun while still making something meaningful. Which is why people break down doors to work with those like Tarantino and Lynch.

I'm not sure what the way forward is for Hollywood, but completely acquiescing to the gaming industry (which is what this would entail imo) would be pathetic. But gaming and social media are already the dominant entertainment forms for young people, so what can you do?

And "real" vs "fake" art/entertainment is probably a useful dichotomy now and going forward, but I'm not so sure our culture produces anyone with the ability to make good quality narrative fiction outside of the franchise or gaming milieus. Just look at what happened when someone as talented as Cary ***unaga was on the hook for writing his own scripts. This is everyone his age and younger working outside the boundaries of genre, to be fair to him.

I believe AI, as it exists now and for the foreseeable future, will not be able duplicate the spontaneity of actors that are so good as ad-libbing, or the accidents that occur during a shoot, that create a better scene than what was envisioned.

It would take a self-aware AI for that.

Capybara said:

---

How so? Making precise prompted live action films seems incredibly boring and misses the point, which is ultimately to have fun while still making something meaningful. Which is why people break down doors to work with those like Tarantino and Lynch.

I'm not sure what the way forward is for Hollywood, but completely acquiescing to the gaming industry (which is what this would entail imo) would be pathetic. But gaming and social media are already the dominant entertainment forms for young people, so what can you do?

And "real" vs "fake" art/entertainment is probably a useful dichotomy now and going forward, but I'm not so sure our culture produces anyone with the ability to make good quality narrative fiction outside of the franchise or gaming milieus. Just look at what happened when someone as talented as Cary ***unaga was on the hook for writing his own scripts. This is everyone his age and younger working outside the boundaries of genre, to be fair to him.

---

The prevailing opinion has been that AI/Sora basically spells the end Hollywood as we know it, that human-made art as commerce will soon be dead, etc, etc. And this interview simply points out that it's all much more complicated than that, and that any kind of freak out is way too premature, for a number of reasons. That's what the discussion here has mostly been about, and that's what this podcast is about.

You're of course free to make whatever point you want, but in typical Debbie Downer/Eeyore fashion, you then took an off-handed half sentence in my post and found a way to start complaining about that now instead. When no one here, myself included, is promoting artists eventually being able to pixel-f/ck their films to death with AI. I simply acknowledged that it will one day be possible.

As for your Cary F/kunaga point, ha, I literally have no idea what you're talking about. He hardly ever writes, but more importantly, he was basically cancelled like two years ago. In fact, I'd be surprised if he finds legit work again, after Masters of the Air, the promotion for which he's been completely absent from.

TCTTS said:

---

Capybara said:

---

How so? Making precise prompted live action films seems incredibly boring and misses the point, which is ultimately to have fun while still making something meaningful. Which is why people break down doors to work with those like Tarantino and Lynch.

I'm not sure what the way forward is for Hollywood, but completely acquiescing to the gaming industry (which is what this would entail imo) would be pathetic. But gaming and social media are already the dominant entertainment forms for young people, so what can you do?

And "real" vs "fake" art/entertainment is probably a useful dichotomy now and going forward, but I'm not so sure our culture produces anyone with the ability to make good quality narrative fiction outside of the franchise or gaming milieus. Just look at what happened when someone as talented as Cary ***unaga was on the hook for writing his own scripts. This is everyone his age and younger working outside the boundaries of genre, to be fair to him.

---

The prevailing opinion has been that AI/Sora basically spells the end Hollywood as we know it, that human-made art as commerce will soon be dead, etc, etc. And this interview simply points out that it's all much more complicated than that, and that any kind of freak out is way too premature, for a number of reasons. That's what the discussion here has mostly been about, and that's what this podcast is about.

You're of course free to make whatever point you want, but in typical Debbie Downer/Eeyore fashion, you then took an off-handed half sentence in my post and found a way to start complaining about that now instead. When no one here, myself included, is promoting artists eventually being able to pixel-f/ck their films to death with AI. I simply acknowledged that it will one day be possible.

As for your Cary F/kunaga point, ha, I literally have no idea what you're talking about. He hardly ever writes, but more importantly, he was basically cancelled like two years ago. In fact, I'd be surprised if he finds legit work again, after Masters of the Air, the promotion for which he's been completely absent from.

---

****, had something typed out but then swiped tabs and it was wiped. I'll be more succinct.

I'm only an eeyore on two things really: the arts (mostly film and writing) in America and the hatred or fear of true individuals here as well. (Can't believe so many still criticize the US for being "individualistic".)

Really with directors (and sometimes writers, but we have so few going on their own anymore), I've always been able to tell if someone has it just from one or two minutes of an interview. Like I think I was in high school when I discovered a Lynch interview and was immediately intrigued. Had to get through his works to know what his deal was. Similar with QT and Scorsese and PTA and Kubrick. Talent plus an idiosyncratic personality.

Now our most visually talented young filmmakers are more or less boring when not behind the camera. ***unaga, Ari Aster, Greta Gerwig, and more. Like even with ***unaga, I had no idea what the allegations were until you mentioned them and I looked them up. The guy even makes grooming seem dull and ordinary.

Really what I've realized is all of the talented idiosyncratic personalities in the arts (visual and literary but honestly probably musical by now as well) now work in relative obscurity, often only on social media. But if you aren't careful that environment as it exists today can burn you to a crisp, or just make you more jaded.

AI can remove or greatly reduce the cost of entry to the industry currently dominated by the wealthy or dna legacy.

There is a large amount of creative talent that can't afford or doesn't have the connections to pursue the entertainment industry that will now flood the market.

Fantastic creativity won't be as scarce of a commodity as it is now.

This is the industry's iTunes moment when combined with YT/content creators.


https://www.vulture.com/article/hollywood-nepotism-babies-list-taxonomy.html

The speed at which this technology is improving is astounding. I'm pondering about the future.

One thing I can imagine happening is virtual movie stars. That it will start out as existing movie stars allowing their likeness to be used in AI videos for a fee. That fee will be expensive. So others will simply make fully AI characters. But somebody will make an AI character that goes viral. They will trademark that character to disallow others from using it in their AI videos. They will use that character over and over in their own videos, but will also be approached by 3rd parties who have a really good story, and would like to use the character in it. Since such an arrangement would be mutually beneficial they would allow it. So then we would have virtual movie stars that the owner carefully cultivates and allows in only the best movies they can negotiate.

Perhaps it'll just be dead actors…

James Dean in a Scream sequel, Harrison Ford (after he dies) in an Indy sequel.

If it goes down this way, it'll be a lot more palatable to the audience…

Average joes don't have the vision or talent or personality to create anything good and lasting, no matter the tools available. Unless you think average stuff is actually good. Then yeah your dream will be realized.

MasonStorm said:

---

AI can remove or greatly reduce the cost of entry to the industry currently dominated by the wealthy or dna legacy.

There is a large amount of creative talent that can't afford or doesn't have the connections to pursue the entertainment industry that will now flood the market.

Fantastic creativity won't be as scarce of a commodity as it is now.

This is the industry's iTunes moment when combined with YT/content creators.


https://www.vulture.com/article/hollywood-nepotism-babies-list-taxonomy.html

---

Music streaming and the explosion of content creators has lowered the income available to these people by a good amount. I mean if you want to make money on yt or tiktok or ig, then you better be ad-friendly because that's your only hope of even earning a living wage.

How do you expect those locked out currently to make money if these tools and future ones really are good enough to best or match the good/great stuff today? Creating a good movie or show wouldn't mean anything anymore. Just more content to be forgotten as nearly everyone's tastes erode.

MasonStorm said:

---

Capybara said:

---

MasonStorm said:

---

AI can remove or greatly reduce the cost of entry to the industry currently dominated by the wealthy or dna legacy.

There is a large amount of creative talent that can't afford or doesn't have the connections to pursue the entertainment industry that will now flood the market.

Fantastic creativity won't be as scarce of a commodity as it is now.

This is the industry's iTunes moment when combined with YT/content creators.


https://www.vulture.com/article/hollywood-nepotism-babies-list-taxonomy.html

---

Music streaming and the explosion of content creators has lowered the income available to these people by a good amount. I mean if you want to make money on yt or tiktok or ig, then you better be ad-friendly because that's your only hope of even earning a living wage.

How do you expect those locked out currently to make money if these tools and future ones really are good enough to best or match the good/great stuff today? Creating a good movie or show wouldn't mean anything anymore. Just more content to be forgotten as nearly everyone's tastes erode.

---

exactly, that is coming to Hollywood now. The pay will be reduced across the industry. (anyone can put out an album etc)

It is hilarious to assume Hollywood is full of the best content creators when the talent pool is severely limited by wealth and nepotism. A poor person is taking a humongous risk to peruse the arts in college vs a person from a wealthy family that can afford a worthless degree if the "arts" don't pan out.

Not everyone has a Dad who can buy 3% of a record label and release their daughter's album (Swift)

You are correct in identifying Hollywood losing their exclusivity and prestige in the realm of content creation. Some may have to get jobs in the real world.

---

What's the point of paying attention to any of this stuff if it's just "content creation". Images and sounds to quickly be forgotten.

And yes it's a shame that the arts in America all but lock out those from the lower (honestly now even middle) class. I have no idea what can be done to reverse this because lots of art and taste making is just signaling wealth and avenues to launder money.

Back to "content creation", what's the point of all of this when you look at the current landscape and realize anyone doing well is putting out the most anodyne stuff imaginable? Like this is partly why I'm planning on leaving LA. I don't work in the industry, but it's incredibly expensive and there just aren't any young people here doing anything that will ever come close to having the impact Lynch or Tarantino or Scorsese or Spielberg and many more have had. I mean all of the big young or young-ish video game designers are so boring.

Capybara said:

---

Average joes don't have the vision or talent or personality to create anything good and lasting, no matter the tools available. Unless you think average stuff is actually good. Then yeah your dream will be realized.

---

Not every average Joe, but there are plenty diamonds out there who will produce good stuff without having to go through Hollywood. How many modern day Sylvester Stallones are out there who don't have Hollywood connections? With AI, those guys can produce good content too.

This already exists with social media though. And it's arguably more of a lie than Hollywood ever has been. How do you make a return without being an ad vehicle?

Capybara said:

---

This already exists with social media though. And it's arguably more of a lie than Hollywood ever has been. How do you make a return without being an ad vehicle?

---

What exists today is the ability to make vlogs and short skits in your house to post online. What doesn't exist yet is for average Joe's to make videos, shows, movies that look like they were filmed with million dollar cameras on million dollar sets, with professional soundtracks, a gazillion extras, costumes, props, and all of that. For damn cheap. That is coming.

Yes, that is coming, but IF any of those movies are actually good/up to snuff, there will still be a massive barrier of entry to get those movies properly marketed, in theaters, on streaming, etc. Now, if these people are cool with only having their movies on YouTube and the like, and making money mainly from ads, more power to them. Either way, making the movies is only half the battle. Getting them seen by the masses is a whole other ballgame, which is why the studio system exists in the first place. There still has to be some kind of system that vets the material, so to speak, serving as a filter for movies to "earn" the finite marketing resources/distribution avenues.

Capybara said:

---

MasonStorm said:

---

AI can remove or greatly reduce the cost of entry to the industry currently dominated by the wealthy or dna legacy.

There is a large amount of creative talent that can't afford or doesn't have the connections to pursue the entertainment industry that will now flood the market.

Fantastic creativity won't be as scarce of a commodity as it is now.

This is the industry's iTunes moment when combined with YT/content creators.


https://www.vulture.com/article/hollywood-nepotism-babies-list-taxonomy.html

---

Music streaming and the explosion of content creators has lowered the income available to these people by a good amount. I mean if you want to make money on yt or tiktok or ig, then you better be ad-friendly because that's your only hope of even earning a living wage.

How do you expect those locked out currently to make money if these tools and future ones really are good enough to best or match the good/great stuff today? Creating a good movie or show wouldn't mean anything anymore. Just more content to be forgotten as nearly everyone's tastes erode.

---

That just isn't true. The amount of people making money in music has exploded since Spotify and other streaming services. The amount of people making Paul McCartney money has probably gone down a little bit. The money the producers and distributors were making has cratered. That's exactly what will happen with this technology in the film industry too.

The movie theatre distribution model is similar to the CD distribution model, and that will change. Streaming services are already kicking movie theaters in the ass, AI will make that worse. But you will still have big blockbusters available in theaters for those that desire the experience. You will just pay a lot more.

TCTTS said:

---

Yes, that is coming, but IF any of those movies are actually good/up to snuff, there will still be a massive barrier of entry to get those movies properly marketed, in theaters, on streaming, etc. Now, if these people are cool with only having their movies on YouTube and the like, and making money mainly from ads, more power to them. Either way, making the movies is only half the battle. Getting them seen by the masses is a whole other ballgame, which is why the studio system exists in the first place. There still has kind of system that vets the material, so to speak, serving as a filter for movies to "earn" the finite marketing resources/distribution avenues.

---

IMO, it's not IF, it's WHEN. The strides they have made from nothing to where they are now has been farther than they need to go to cross the uncanny valley and all of that. I think the new required expertise will be in getting AI engines to render what the author wants it to render.

Once somebody has good content ready to go, I think they will merely need to put it up for auction. Streaming services, cable channels, studios, distributors, etc. would compete for the rights to market and distribute it. And their price would be far less than content that required a million people to create.

My "IF" was in regards to the quality of storytelling, not if the technology will ever be there or not, which I clearly said it eventually will be.

Still, just because one has finally has the tools to create life-like video out of thin air, doesn't mean they'll suddenly know how to tell effective, properly paced, three-act stories, with compelling characters, twists, turns, the proper blocking, editing, music, etc.

Technology aside, it takes years of EXPERIENCE and dozens of different expert's hundreds of IDEAS to make a movie truly sing. One guy sitting in his basement simply won't be able to bring to a movie what so many experts, working together in tandem, currently do, even if that person doesn't have to physically film anything.

Now, will teams of amateurs with various talents/skillsets/ideas be able to pull off compelling movies? No doubt.

Will movies be infinitely cheaper to make than they are now? Obviously.

I'm just saying, even then, movie-making is still SO MUCH MORE than any given frame of video.

That, and I still maintain that audiences will, ultimately, want to watch other human beings on screen. The sheen will eventually wear off, and even if subconsciously, we'll experience an eventual disconnect if not a real person behind any given performance. Even today, with animation and the Avatars of the world, we inherently know there are real human beings voicing those characters, providing motion capture, providing the emotions, etc. And I'm a firm believer that this stuff will start to feel hollow without those connections.

The people that produce and act in and make movies are SO SPECIAL and UNIQUE, no AI could EVER recreate such complicated and nuanced art. Do you REALLY think an AI could ever make a fart smell like roses?!?!

Do you ever not speak in unhinged gibberish? Or will that always be a staple of the character?

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Capybara said:

---

MasonStorm said:

---

AI can remove or greatly reduce the cost of entry to the industry currently dominated by the wealthy or dna legacy.

There is a large amount of creative talent that can't afford or doesn't have the connections to pursue the entertainment industry that will now flood the market.

Fantastic creativity won't be as scarce of a commodity as it is now.

This is the industry's iTunes moment when combined with YT/content creators.


https://www.vulture.com/article/hollywood-nepotism-babies-list-taxonomy.html

---

Music streaming and the explosion of content creators has lowered the income available to these people by a good amount. I mean if you want to make money on yt or tiktok or ig, then you better be ad-friendly because that's your only hope of even earning a living wage.

How do you expect those locked out currently to make money if these tools and future ones really are good enough to best or match the good/great stuff today? Creating a good movie or show wouldn't mean anything anymore. Just more content to be forgotten as nearly everyone's tastes erode.

---

That just isn't true. The amount of people making money in music has exploded since Spotify and other streaming services. The amount of people making Paul McCartney money has probably gone down a little bit. The money the producers and distributors were making has cratered. That's exactly what will happen with this technology in the film industry too.

The movie theatre distribution model is similar to the CD distribution model, and that will change. Streaming services are already kicking movie theaters in the ass, AI will make that worse. But you will still have big blockbusters available in theaters for those that desire the experience. You will just pay a lot more.

---

Making money? What amount of money? Anything close to recouping the time costs? Yeah someone like Drake does better than he would've in any other era. The sensible young indie musicians need an active bandcamp with good promotion. Not the streamers.

And the movie/film streamers do an excellent job of providing things for people to have on in the background as they scroll their phones. But sometimes I really think David Chase and Peter Biskind are right: the quality is dropping and Succession might've been the last excellent and ambitious series for a while. If this is indeed true, I'd personally place more blame on worsening education and the hyperreality of life today that makes stringing together good longform narratives set in the present a daunting task.

And btw I maintain an open mind wrt to AI/ML in the arts and entertainment. It's just that the stuff I've seen utilize it - -mostly art installations, but some places on social media. Kanye's latest videos too - - has been just kind of bad. Idk, new media is supposed to be awe-inspiring, or surprising at the very least. I will say that Harmony Korine's latest movie, while not good, was incredibly interesting to look at, and he utilized something in house. But you get the feeling that sort of stuff will mostly be used in gaming. Who knows though.

aTmAg said:

---

Capybara said:

---

This already exists with social media though. And it's arguably more of a lie than Hollywood ever has been. How do you make a return without being an ad vehicle?

---

What exists today is the ability to make vlogs and short skits in your house to post online. What doesn't exist yet is for average Joe's to make videos, shows, movies that look like they were filmed with million dollar cameras on million dollar sets, with professional soundtracks, a gazillion extras, costumes, props, and all of that. For damn cheap. That is coming.

---

But what's the point if way more people can make good stuff? You'll have to do it on the side because of how little money will be at stake. Which lots of people are willing to do, but time is finite.

And I think you're completely wrong wrt to soundtracks. Part of the reason why something like tiktok is so huge is that we don't have public privacy laws (at least that I'm aware of) so you can just go anywhere and film something with unwilling people and whatever sounds or music is in the background. It's exploitative, but there's always money to be had in exploitation.

When you envision any sort of service (that's open sourced if average joes are going to use it) with whichever/whatever soundtracks and extras and costumes and props at your disposal that looks professionally shot, where's the money to be had? You need some sort of service that integrates ads, or one that is free or low cost to use for at least a few years before they crave returns. And then you'd just have an arguably worse version of what we have today, which is an increasingly antisocial non-live entertainment environment. It'd just be Brave New World. Not Shangri La.

TCTTS said:

---

My "IF" was in regards to the quality of storytelling, not if the technology will ever be there or not, which I clearly said it eventually will be.

Still, just because one has finally has the tools to create life-like video out of thin air, doesn't mean they'll suddenly know how to tell effective, properly paced, three-act stories, with compelling characters, twists, turns, the proper blocking, editing, music, etc.

Technology aside, it takes years of EXPERIENCE and dozens of different expert's hundreds of IDEAS to make a movie truly sing. One guy sitting in his basement simply won't be able to bring to a movie what so many experts, working together in tandem, currently do, even if that person doesn't have to physically film anything.

Now, will teams of amateurs with various talents/skillsets/ideas be able to pull off compelling movies? No doubt.

Will movies be infinitely cheaper to make than they are now? Obviously.

I'm just saying, even then, movie-making is still SO MUCH MORE than any given frame of video.

---

Believe it or not, I'm not an AI expert. But, based on the examples, it seems that the storytelling aspect is still in the hands of the human writer. They had human authored prompts that described what the characters on screen would do, and the AI generated the video. They don't simply write "make me a compelling movie."

So lots of scripts out there, that currently never see the light of day, will now get the chance. As the authors themselves can have AI make their content. And rather than Hollywood only banking on guarantees (sequels, remakes, etc.) lots of formerly risky scripts will become reality. There will be a TON of new content. Most of it will suck, but plenty will be great.

Agree. There are pretty dense philosophical considerations to consider here. I mean if this is going to reach its potential, you'll need a tool as significant as the camera. Some sort of epistemological camera, as awkward as that sounds. Something that harnesses massive webs of knowledge, not just information or data, and can track and record movements and voices and personalities as well as a camera does. I think it's a mistake to just envision something that mimics extant cameras, like many in this thread are doing.

That would be awesome if that happened!