4 ms·

> Who decides You still aren't getting it. Movie directors aren't making these decisions either. What they are doing, is listening to market focus groups and

by stale2002 2y ago

> Who decides You still aren't getting it. Movie directors aren't making these decisions either. What they are doing, is listening to market focus groups and checking off boxes based on the data from that. A market focus group driven decisions for a movie is just as much, if not more so, of an "algorithm" than when a literal computer makes the decision. Thats not art. Its the same as if a human manually did an algorithm by hand and used that to make a movie.

adamc 2y ago
Some of it is done that way, but by no means all of it. You can easily see the differences, because, say, Wes Anderson movies are not the same as Martin Scorsese movies. If it were really all just market decisions, directors would have no influence. This is not remotely the case. Nor are they paid as though that were true.
- stale2002 2y ago
  > This is not remotely the case. Yes I agree that it is not remotely the case that AI videos involve zero creative input. Thats my point. If anything, there could be a lot more creative input into AI videos, than a bog standard hollywood film. > Some of it is done that way, but by no means all of it Oh? So just like how that is the case some of the time for AI videos, but by no means for all of it? Yes, thats my point.
  - chefandy 2y ago
    When you fabricate points and statements that work better with your counterpoint than what they actually said, it's a straw man argument. That's what you've got there. That man is definitely made of straw.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
chefandy 2y ago
This is a common perspective among people that don't realize how much goes into making a movie. That stuff informs which movies get approved and it certainly can inform broader script changes, casting changes, and in some cases editing decisions, but there's a UNIVERSE of other artistic decisions that need to be made. Implying that the people involved are mere technicians implementing a marketing strategy is exponentially more reductive than saying developers and designers aren't relevant to making software because marketing surveys dictate the feature development timeline. A developer's input is far more fungible than an artist working on a feature film. I assure you, they don't do surveys on the punchiness and strategy used by foley artists; the slope and toe of the film stock chosen for cut scenes by the DP or that those cut scenes should be shot like cut scenes instead of dream sequences; the kind of cars they use; how energetic the explosions are; clothing selection and how the costumes change situationally or throughout the film; indescribably nuanced changes in the actor's delivery; what fonts go on the signs; which props they use in all of the sets and the strategies they use to weather things; what specific locations they shoot at within an area and which direction they point the camera, how the grading might change the mood and imply thematic connections, subtle symbolism used, the specifics of camera movements, focus, and depth of field, and then there's the deeeep world of lighting... All of those things and a million others are contributions from individual artists contributing their own art in one big collaborative project.
- stale2002 2y ago
  > Implying that the people involved are mere technicians implementing a marketing strategy Well no. Instead, I am implying that they are as much of a "technician" so someone who is putting in a huge amount of effort into making AI videos. If you want to say that it is perfectly possible for someone to put a high amount of vision and make a large amount of creative decisions into AI videos, then I agree. > All of those things and a million others are contributions Yes I agree that there can be a million other contributions to making AI videos. Glad you agree too.
  - chefandy 2y ago
    Your sarcastic, bad faith, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I-level statements attack positions I dont hold, yet avoid addressing anything I said— all of which is based on my professional experience with using generative AI in media creation, and also film production pipelines and workflows. Your retort might have made you feel better about making baseless statements but it certainly didn't lend credibility to those statements or you in anybody else's eyes.

adamc 2y ago

Some of it is done that way, but by no means all of it. You can easily see the differences, because, say, Wes Anderson movies are not the same as Martin Scorsese movies. If it were really all just market decisions, directors would have no influence. This is not remotely the case. Nor are they paid as though that were true.

stale2002 2y ago
> This is not remotely the case. Yes I agree that it is not remotely the case that AI videos involve zero creative input. Thats my point. If anything, there could be a lot more creative input into AI videos, than a bog standard hollywood film. > Some of it is done that way, but by no means all of it Oh? So just like how that is the case some of the time for AI videos, but by no means for all of it? Yes, thats my point.
- chefandy 2y ago
  When you fabricate points and statements that work better with your counterpoint than what they actually said, it's a straw man argument. That's what you've got there. That man is definitely made of straw.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

chefandy 2y ago

This is a common perspective among people that don't realize how much goes into making a movie. That stuff informs which movies get approved and it certainly can inform broader script changes, casting changes, and in some cases editing decisions, but there's a UNIVERSE of other artistic decisions that need to be made. Implying that the people involved are mere technicians implementing a marketing strategy is exponentially more reductive than saying developers and designers aren't relevant to making software because marketing surveys dictate the feature development timeline. A developer's input is far more fungible than an artist working on a feature film. I assure you, they don't do surveys on the punchiness and strategy used by foley artists; the slope and toe of the film stock chosen for cut scenes by the DP or that those cut scenes should be shot like cut scenes instead of dream sequences; the kind of cars they use; how energetic the explosions are; clothing selection and how the costumes change situationally or throughout the film; indescribably nuanced changes in the actor's delivery; what fonts go on the signs; which props they use in all of the sets and the strategies they use to weather things; what specific locations they shoot at within an area and which direction they point the camera, how the grading might change the mood and imply thematic connections, subtle symbolism used, the specifics of camera movements, focus, and depth of field, and then there's the deeeep world of lighting... All of those things and a million others are contributions from individual artists contributing their own art in one big collaborative project.

stale2002 2y ago
> Implying that the people involved are mere technicians implementing a marketing strategy Well no. Instead, I am implying that they are as much of a "technician" so someone who is putting in a huge amount of effort into making AI videos. If you want to say that it is perfectly possible for someone to put a high amount of vision and make a large amount of creative decisions into AI videos, then I agree. > All of those things and a million others are contributions Yes I agree that there can be a million other contributions to making AI videos. Glad you agree too.
- chefandy 2y ago
  Your sarcastic, bad faith, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I-level statements attack positions I dont hold, yet avoid addressing anything I said— all of which is based on my professional experience with using generative AI in media creation, and also film production pipelines and workflows. Your retort might have made you feel better about making baseless statements but it certainly didn't lend credibility to those statements or you in anybody else's eyes.