3 ms·

>Soon, you should be able to put in a screenplay and a cast, and get a movie out. This "fixes" Hollywood's biggest "issues". No more highly paid actors demandi

>Soon, you should be able to put in a screenplay and a cast, and get a movie out. This "fixes" Hollywood's biggest "issues". No more highly paid actors demanding 50 million to appear in your movie, no more pretentious movie stars causing dramas and controversies, no more workers' unions or strikes, but all gains being funneled directly to shareholders. The VFX industry being turned into a gig meatgrinder was already the canary in the coal mine for this shift. Most of the major Hollywood productions from the last 10 years have been nothing but creatively bankrupt sequels, prequels, spinoffs and remakes, all rehashed from previous IP anyway, so how much worse than this can AI do, since it's clear they're not interested in creativity anyway? Hell, it might even be an improvement than what they're making today, and at much lower cost to boot. So why wouldn't they adopt it? From the bean counter MBA perspective it makes perfect sense.

com2kid 1y ago
> Hollywood's wet dream. Except it bankrupts Hollywood, they are no longer needed. Of people can generate full movies at home, there is no more Hollywood. The end game is endless ultra personalized content beamed into people's heads every free waking hour of the day. Hollywood is irrelevant in that future.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  Good point, this is indeed a threat to them. Like how many young people are watching streamers now instead of worshiping present day's music, TV or movie star like in the 90's. The likes of Youtube and Twitch could be more valuable than Hollywood. That's why I think Hollywood is rushing to adopt gen-AI, so they can churn out personalized content faster and cheaper straight to streaming, at the same rate as indie producers.
- jsheard 1y ago
  > Of people can generate full movies at home, there is no more Hollywood. LLMs have been in the oven for years longer than this, and I'm not seeing any signs of people generating their own novels at home. Well, besides the get-rich-quick grifters spamming the Kindle store with incoherent slop in the hopes they can trick someone into parting with a dollar before they realize they've been had.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    > I'm not seeing any signs of people generating their own novels at home Most humans are also not good at writing great scripts/novels either. Just look at the movies that bring in billions of dollars at the box office. Do you think you need a famous novelist to write you a Fast & Furious 11 script? Sure, there are still great writers that can make scripts that tickle the mind, but that's not what the studios want anymore. They want to push VFX heavy rehashed slop that's cheap to make, easy to digest for the doom-scrolling masses of consumers, and rakes in a lot of money. You're talking about what makes gourmet Michelin star food but the industry is making money selling McDonals.
  - com2kid 1y ago
    Look at view counts for short form videos that are 100% AI generated. The good "creators" are already making bank, helped by app algorithms matching people up to content they'll find addictive to view. The content doesn't have to be good it just has to be addictive for 80% of the population.
    - echelon 1y ago
      You're describing the difference between The Godfather and Skibidi Toilet.
      - com2kid 1y ago
        Do you think platforms like YouTube and tiktok care? Whatever gets the views.
- pelagicAustral 1y ago
  I wish I could feed Dan Simmons' books to an AI and watch at my leisure
  - myth_drannon 1y ago
    That's potentially not far in the future. If you can drop a couple of research pdfs and generate a podcast discussion on it, it is even more straightforward to generate a video based on a text. The limit is mostly hardware.
- gh0stcat 1y ago
  Infinite Jest?
quesera 1y ago
Actors will license their appearance, voice, and mannerisms to these new media projects. (Maybe by established Hollywood studios, maybe not). Then the first fully non-human (but human-like) actors will be created and gain popularity. The IP of those characters will be more valuable than the humans they replaced. They will be derided by old people as "Mickey Mouse" AI actors. The SAG will be beside themselves. Younger people will not care. The characters will never get old (or they will be perfectly rendered when they need to be old). The off-screen dramas and controversies are part of the entertainment, and these will be manufactured too. (If there will even be an off-screen...) This is the future, and we've been preparing for it for years by presenting the most fake versions of ourselves on social media. Viewers have zero expectation of authenticity, so biological status is just one more detail. It will be perfect, and it will be awful. Kids born five years from now will never know anything different.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  >Actors will license their appearance, voice, and mannerisms to these new media projects Very few actors have an appearance or a voice worth a lot in licenses. That's like the top 1% of actors, if that. I think if done right, humans could also end up getting emotionally attached to 100% AI generated characters, not just famous celebrities.
  - quesera 1y ago
    Sure, but I'd bet that 1% of actors (of the total pool of SAG on-screen talent membership?) comprise 75%+ of branding/name recognition for consumers. So the appearance licenses for these 1% are valuable in Stage 1 of the takeover. The rest are just forgotten collateral damage. Hollywood is full of 'em.

com2kid 1y ago

> Hollywood's wet dream. Except it bankrupts Hollywood, they are no longer needed. Of people can generate full movies at home, there is no more Hollywood. The end game is endless ultra personalized content beamed into people's heads every free waking hour of the day. Hollywood is irrelevant in that future.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
Good point, this is indeed a threat to them. Like how many young people are watching streamers now instead of worshiping present day's music, TV or movie star like in the 90's. The likes of Youtube and Twitch could be more valuable than Hollywood. That's why I think Hollywood is rushing to adopt gen-AI, so they can churn out personalized content faster and cheaper straight to streaming, at the same rate as indie producers.
jsheard 1y ago
> Of people can generate full movies at home, there is no more Hollywood. LLMs have been in the oven for years longer than this, and I'm not seeing any signs of people generating their own novels at home. Well, besides the get-rich-quick grifters spamming the Kindle store with incoherent slop in the hopes they can trick someone into parting with a dollar before they realize they've been had.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  > I'm not seeing any signs of people generating their own novels at home Most humans are also not good at writing great scripts/novels either. Just look at the movies that bring in billions of dollars at the box office. Do you think you need a famous novelist to write you a Fast & Furious 11 script? Sure, there are still great writers that can make scripts that tickle the mind, but that's not what the studios want anymore. They want to push VFX heavy rehashed slop that's cheap to make, easy to digest for the doom-scrolling masses of consumers, and rakes in a lot of money. You're talking about what makes gourmet Michelin star food but the industry is making money selling McDonals.
- com2kid 1y ago
  Look at view counts for short form videos that are 100% AI generated. The good "creators" are already making bank, helped by app algorithms matching people up to content they'll find addictive to view. The content doesn't have to be good it just has to be addictive for 80% of the population.
  - echelon 1y ago
    You're describing the difference between The Godfather and Skibidi Toilet.
    - com2kid 1y ago
      Do you think platforms like YouTube and tiktok care? Whatever gets the views.
pelagicAustral 1y ago
I wish I could feed Dan Simmons' books to an AI and watch at my leisure
- myth_drannon 1y ago
  That's potentially not far in the future. If you can drop a couple of research pdfs and generate a podcast discussion on it, it is even more straightforward to generate a video based on a text. The limit is mostly hardware.
gh0stcat 1y ago
Infinite Jest?

quesera 1y ago

Actors will license their appearance, voice, and mannerisms to these new media projects. (Maybe by established Hollywood studios, maybe not). Then the first fully non-human (but human-like) actors will be created and gain popularity. The IP of those characters will be more valuable than the humans they replaced. They will be derided by old people as "Mickey Mouse" AI actors. The SAG will be beside themselves. Younger people will not care. The characters will never get old (or they will be perfectly rendered when they need to be old). The off-screen dramas and controversies are part of the entertainment, and these will be manufactured too. (If there will even be an off-screen...) This is the future, and we've been preparing for it for years by presenting the most fake versions of ourselves on social media. Viewers have zero expectation of authenticity, so biological status is just one more detail. It will be perfect, and it will be awful. Kids born five years from now will never know anything different.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
>Actors will license their appearance, voice, and mannerisms to these new media projects Very few actors have an appearance or a voice worth a lot in licenses. That's like the top 1% of actors, if that. I think if done right, humans could also end up getting emotionally attached to 100% AI generated characters, not just famous celebrities.
- quesera 1y ago
  Sure, but I'd bet that 1% of actors (of the total pool of SAG on-screen talent membership?) comprise 75%+ of branding/name recognition for consumers. So the appearance licenses for these 1% are valuable in Stage 1 of the takeover. The rest are just forgotten collateral damage. Hollywood is full of 'em.