3 ms·

It's funny, having recently watched the Boba Fett series on Disney. At one point, there's Luke Skywalker. But it's the young Luke Skywalker, not the current Ma

It's funny, having recently watched the Boba Fett series on Disney. At one point, there's Luke Skywalker. But it's the young Luke Skywalker, not the current Mark Hamill. It was a synthetic Luke we were seeing on screen. Mark Hamill did not participate in the filming, it was someone else with a CGI Luke head. Mark Hamill gets a credit in casting, but as I understand it, much of the dialog was synthetically generated based on his original voice in the original trilogy. Now, maybe he did voice the lines and they just used the training to process them and change the sounds and such. But in the end, what were were seeing and hearing on screen was not Mark Hamill, it was Something Else. Similarly, but perhaps more mundane, there were episodes with the original Mandalorian character. As I understand it, what we see on screen is not the Mandalorian actor, but a double in the suit. The original actor, Pedro Pascal, was not available during the shoot. But he did come in later and dub the lines. So, it just seems to me that in some cases, we are already "there", and the AIs don't even need to come into play at all.

UberFly 3y ago
If you watched "The Jungle Book" remake, it was astonishing that there was only 1 actor (the boy who played Mowgli), and everything else was generated. I ripped that movie and while putting in my KODI collection, I couldn't decide whether to put it in Movies or Animated Movies. I think soon everything will go into the Animated Movies folder.
nimbius 3y ago
The problem with AI generated actors isnt in the fact that they disenfranchise real actors, but in the purely capitalist direction studios have chosen to move. new characters, new actors, new stories and new roles all incur significant and unproven investment over time. building a hit --no matter how easy pixar makes it appear-- is nontrivially difficult. so conversely studios have decided that ever more barrel-scraping is not only a more consistent effort, but a safer one as well. Hence there have been twelve star-wars films, five indiana jones films, Fifteen batman movies, and enough marvel flicks to rend dull groans from home movie collectors cabinets just pondering them. This is a downward spiral because people change over time but a franchise without end has nothing new to offer. panic buttons like gender swaps and race swaps come across as hastily constructed, hamfisted attempts to peddle relevance to an increasingly disinterested audience of gen Z while alienating older fans of a series. Scripts become more predictable, plots become more dependable, and all the while profit --while safe and quantifiable-- dwindles lower. So AI is here to take that last bit of capital preventing realization of a purely and endlessly profit-driven effort by armies of disconnected studio executives clamoring for ever less pie. faces names places and likenesses in perpetuity, and in exchange, the customer can consume another dozen Star Wars movies just as flavourless as the packaging theyre shipped in. content will be created, until the last skywalker picks up the last light saber and delivers his 45th speech in which the dark side and the force are forever memorialized in a 90 minute recitation of the owners manual for some executives old porsche. traditional "hollywood" film will have died by its own pocked withered hand. The new currency will become the ability to generate new content; ideas themselves. Fewer films but with greater quality and less reliance on enchanting special effects will command the attention of the consumer after these goliaths of the post-vaudeville cinema are gone. real actors and cinema will still exist to some degree but gone will be the days where actors championed themselves as stuntmen, pandemics arrested production, and studios could crank out endless rehashes of old properties until the last star falls from heaven.
jarjoura 3y ago
Yes, but something like that costs productions a boat load of capital to pull off. They can't really half-ass it either because then you run up against Uncanny Valley and people end up rejecting the movie or show, wasting your investment. So the bar is high. Second, I'm not yet worried about this for credited actors, as audiences right now go see movies because they actually have the real actor of their choice in it. It asks a lot of your audience to be fine with a movie that "stars" someone who wasn't actually in it, and it's too early to see how well an AI credited actor would bring people to the theaters. My current guess is that it would cost a lot to make, not really bring anything new to the screen and turn off a sizable chunk of the audience. HOWEVER, the actors strike is calling out that background actors who have only a line or two of dialog are getting paid for 1 day of work so that their likeness could be scanned in and they are used in perpetuity. You're diluted if you think this benefits college film projects, or your favorite YouTube channel. This stuff is expensive and time consuming to adopt. I mean, it is super cool that scenes like in House of Dragon, where they need to fill stadiums of citizens, can use this to make worlds seem much richer and larger than life. Still, it's not about compensation from what I understand, it's that actors worry this is gating off new actors from getting experience and exposure since many of them started out as background characters.

UberFly 3y ago

If you watched "The Jungle Book" remake, it was astonishing that there was only 1 actor (the boy who played Mowgli), and everything else was generated. I ripped that movie and while putting in my KODI collection, I couldn't decide whether to put it in Movies or Animated Movies. I think soon everything will go into the Animated Movies folder.

nimbius 3y ago

The problem with AI generated actors isnt in the fact that they disenfranchise real actors, but in the purely capitalist direction studios have chosen to move. new characters, new actors, new stories and new roles all incur significant and unproven investment over time. building a hit --no matter how easy pixar makes it appear-- is nontrivially difficult. so conversely studios have decided that ever more barrel-scraping is not only a more consistent effort, but a safer one as well. Hence there have been twelve star-wars films, five indiana jones films, Fifteen batman movies, and enough marvel flicks to rend dull groans from home movie collectors cabinets just pondering them. This is a downward spiral because people change over time but a franchise without end has nothing new to offer. panic buttons like gender swaps and race swaps come across as hastily constructed, hamfisted attempts to peddle relevance to an increasingly disinterested audience of gen Z while alienating older fans of a series. Scripts become more predictable, plots become more dependable, and all the while profit --while safe and quantifiable-- dwindles lower. So AI is here to take that last bit of capital preventing realization of a purely and endlessly profit-driven effort by armies of disconnected studio executives clamoring for ever less pie. faces names places and likenesses in perpetuity, and in exchange, the customer can consume another dozen Star Wars movies just as flavourless as the packaging theyre shipped in. content will be created, until the last skywalker picks up the last light saber and delivers his 45th speech in which the dark side and the force are forever memorialized in a 90 minute recitation of the owners manual for some executives old porsche. traditional "hollywood" film will have died by its own pocked withered hand. The new currency will become the ability to generate new content; ideas themselves. Fewer films but with greater quality and less reliance on enchanting special effects will command the attention of the consumer after these goliaths of the post-vaudeville cinema are gone. real actors and cinema will still exist to some degree but gone will be the days where actors championed themselves as stuntmen, pandemics arrested production, and studios could crank out endless rehashes of old properties until the last star falls from heaven.

jarjoura 3y ago

Yes, but something like that costs productions a boat load of capital to pull off. They can't really half-ass it either because then you run up against Uncanny Valley and people end up rejecting the movie or show, wasting your investment. So the bar is high. Second, I'm not yet worried about this for credited actors, as audiences right now go see movies because they actually have the real actor of their choice in it. It asks a lot of your audience to be fine with a movie that "stars" someone who wasn't actually in it, and it's too early to see how well an AI credited actor would bring people to the theaters. My current guess is that it would cost a lot to make, not really bring anything new to the screen and turn off a sizable chunk of the audience. HOWEVER, the actors strike is calling out that background actors who have only a line or two of dialog are getting paid for 1 day of work so that their likeness could be scanned in and they are used in perpetuity. You're diluted if you think this benefits college film projects, or your favorite YouTube channel. This stuff is expensive and time consuming to adopt. I mean, it is super cool that scenes like in House of Dragon, where they need to fill stadiums of citizens, can use this to make worlds seem much richer and larger than life. Still, it's not about compensation from what I understand, it's that actors worry this is gating off new actors from getting experience and exposure since many of them started out as background characters.