Would you watch movies that are AI generated?

Would you watch AI generated movies?

  • Yes, I would have no problem with it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, I only want art created by humans

    Votes: 13 86.7%

  • I would check it out to see what it’s like first

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • Total voters
    15
NachoGPT said:
Part of a debate me and @Lleytonstation are having. I don’t mind it if it’s used for CGI or cool visuals. But fully generated actors and scripts? No thanks.
Click to expand...

A year ago, AI narration was robotic. So phony. Now one can barely tell the difference.
Likewise, human actors will be replaced.
As if 99% of Hollywood actors can even act in the first place.
:rolleyes:

We appreciate that you are set in your ways and change is painful but kindly don't be a Luddite.

original.png
 
Luddite? You're the guy who is not exactly championing the BEV!

Better_Call_Raul said:
A year ago, AI narration was robotic. So phony. Now one can barely tell the difference.
Likewise, human actors will be replaced.
As if 99% of Hollywood actors can even act in the first place.
:rolleyes:

We appreciate that you are set in your ways and change is painful but kindly don't be a Luddite.

original.png
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
Luddite? You're the guy who is not exactly championing the BEV!
Click to expand...
We are fiercely lobbying for the imports of $10,000 BYD BEVs for the common man.
As well as condemning the NFL's obscene $6000 Super Bowl ticket prices that lock out ordinary fans.
Our record of championing for the common man has been consistent.

But if high level officials deem these BEVs to be national security risks, then the matter is out of our hands.

The Biden Commerce Department in 2024 issued new rules targeting Chinese vehicle software and hardware.​
​
Any car that uses Chinese software for vehicle connectivity will be prohibited from the US market. The ban expands to hardware, chips, sensors, and communication units.​
​
The justification is straightforward:​
Allowing Chinese connected cars on American roads would be like handing Beijing a surveillance network on wheels.​
​
Such vehicles could not only track Americans but also map critical infrastructure, follow government convoys, or in a nightmare scenario, be disabled remotely in the event of​
conflict.​
 
A simple two second command to a CCP AI may have just ended Hollywood.
:unsure:

A hyper-realistic AI-generated video of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt in a rooftop fight has gone viral, created using ByteDance's new Seedance 2.0 tool with just a two-line text prompt.
The clip, shared widely on social media, shows the actors trading blows and even includes dialogue in follow-up versions, amassing millions of views.

Hollywood Reactions​

Screenwriter Rhett Reese, called it a game-changer, stating on X, "I hate to say it. It's likely over for us,"
fearing one person could soon produce full movies indistinguishable from studio releases. He described the video's professional quality as terrifying, predicting Hollywood could be "revolutionized/decimated."

Industry Backlash​

The Motion Picture Association denounced Seedance 2.0 for "massive" copyright infringement, citing unauthorized use of protected likenesses and works.
SAG-AFTRA is pushing for AI protections in ongoing contract talks, including fees for digital actors, amid fears of job losses for creatives.
 
Europeans also make BEVs.

Better_Call_Raul said:
We are fiercely lobbying for the imports of $10,000 BYD BEVs for the common man.
As well as condemning the NFL's obscene $6000 Super Bowl ticket prices that lock out ordinary fans.
Our record of championing for the common man has been consistent.

But if high level officials deem these BEVs to be national security risks, then the matter is out of our hands.

The Biden Commerce Department in 2024 issued new rules targeting Chinese vehicle software and hardware.​
​
Any car that uses Chinese software for vehicle connectivity will be prohibited from the US market. The ban expands to hardware, chips, sensors, and communication units.​
​
The justification is straightforward:​
Allowing Chinese connected cars on American roads would be like handing Beijing a surveillance network on wheels.​
​
Such vehicles could not only track Americans but also map critical infrastructure, follow government convoys, or in a nightmare scenario, be disabled remotely in the event of​
conflict.​
Click to expand...
 
NachoGPT said:
I don’t think art can be made by AI anyway. Art comes from human experience and suffering.
Click to expand...
Ai just makes up its own pain and suffering.

I genuinely think the way this plays out is people are angry at first but due to it being way cheaper and way quicker they will eventually allow it. Then eventually it will become good and people wont care anymore.

Music might be the first to get it going.they are arguably already making good music.

People just don't have very strong backbones to stand up for their beliefs especially when it is something that is easier.
 
Lleytonstation said:
Ai just makes up its own pain and suffering.

I genuinely think the way this plays out is people are angry at first but due to it being way cheaper and way quicker they will eventually allow it. Then eventually it will become good and people wont care anymore.

Music might be the first to get it going.they are arguably already making good music.

People just don't have very strong backbones to stand up for their beliefs especially when it is something that is easier.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately you are probably right. The mass consumer won’t care.
 
My idea of AI creating its own pain and suffering is when a random wrestling video comes on my autoplay, and the voice refers to McMahon as MacMain. etc OK, that might not seem like much, but he keeps saying it, then it gets mixed in with some Rakeze, and it's time to change the channel, no matter how interesting the video might have been.

And in case anybody is interested, it wasn't very interesting.
 
Poisoned Slice said:
My idea of AI creating its own pain and suffering is when a random wrestling video comes on my autoplay, and the voice refers to McMahon as MacMain. etc OK, that might not seem like much, but he keeps saying it, then it gets mixed in with some Rakeze, and it's time to change the channel, no matter how interesting the video might have been.

And in case anybody is interested, it wasn't very interesting.
Click to expand...
If I click on a video and hear “did you know” in this guys voice..I click off.
 
Most movie plots are generated using LLM algorithms (by human writers). And have been for a really long time.
 
Mraz said:
Art cannot be completely AI generated. It still has to be at least edited by humans.
Click to expand...
That's a very important point.
I don't know if you've seen the sculptures of Barbara Hepworth, but there are a few that resemble pebbles you might find on a beach. So, imagine a beach pebble that was indistinguishable from a piece by Hepworth. Although it might have some aesthetic interest, it wouldn't have the same cultural significance as something Barbara had created, because no human being called Barbara Hepworth was involved in it's creation.
The biography and historical context of a Van Gogh is as important as the brushes and canvas used to crate the art. AI generates moderately convincing Van Gogh 'art', but then so could a competent artist, but it's the originality and conscious engagement with the materials that makes what Van Gogh produce so admired - or not in his lifetime, proving the point.
The value of something, is determined by a social context and often common knowledge relating to the 'something' in question. Gold or money are valuable, not intrinsically, but because of their symbolic value and the fact that we share that understanding of their transactional capacity. If we stop valuing currency tomorrow, it would have almost no value.
 
Art is one thing but Hollywood is an industrial system and has always been such. Shifting from an industrial model to an AI-generated one is a step in the same direction.

A Van Gogh is not a Pitt/Cruise fight scene.

taster said:
That's a very important point.
I don't know if you've seen the sculptures of Barbara Hepworth, but there are a few that resemble pebbles you might find on a beach. So, imagine a beach pebble that was indistinguishable from a piece by Hepworth. Although it might have some aesthetic interest, it wouldn't have the same cultural significance as something Barbara had created, because no human being called Barbara Hepworth was involved in it's creation.
The biography and historical context of a Van Gogh is as important as the brushes and canvas used to crate the art. AI generates moderately convincing Van Gogh 'art', but then so could a competent artist, but it's the originality and conscious engagement with the materials that makes what Van Gogh produce so admired - or not in his lifetime, proving the point.
The value of something, is determined by a social context and often common knowledge relating to the 'something' in question. Gold or money are valuable, not intrinsically, but because of their symbolic value and the fact that we share that understanding of their transactional capacity. If we stop valuing currency tomorrow, it would have almost no value.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
Art is one thing but Hollywood is an industrial system and has always been such. Shifting from an industrial model to an AI-generated one is a step in the same direction.

A Van Gogh is not a Pitt/Cruise fight scene.
Click to expand...
It doesn't logically follow that because something is an industry it must inevitably become an 'AI-generated one', whether that be Hollywood or any other industry. Saying that's so, doesn't make it so.
Hollywood might be amenable to the use of AI as a tool - that seems perfectly plausible, but a complete transition is unlikely. And, Hollywood isn't all movies.

An appreciation of acting is an appreciation of human beings being something they are not, and doing it convincingly. Whether in the theatre, soap opera, opera or films etc
The artifice is understood and sublimated almost unconsciously - this is what most art is - something that looks like one thing, but is in fact another. By removing the human being, art cannot stand at a representational distance from that which it seeks to describe because it's no longer an engagement with a human mind. When we see Pitt and Cruise, we see their characters and the humans behind the characters, we know and hold them both simultaneously.
Use the idea of an AI generated tennis match as an analogy. The match might be fascinating in it's realistic depictions, but what makes a tennis match interesting is human prowess. The fact that we know the players have an emotional world and are human, makes them more compelling than an artificial facsimile.
The prowess of the actor is part of how we view what we see - even at an unconscious level.
There may be some attraction to entirely AI generated movies, but I think they would be understood differently, as a sub-genre of film, just as cartoons are. And judged accordingly.
 
When tennis robots get better than human players, will you watch a match between the robots?

More importantly, will you watch a match between human pros which will be at a much lower level compared to robots?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bud
sureshs said:
When tennis robots get better than human players, will you watch a match between the robots?

More importantly, will you watch a match between human pros which will be at a much lower level compared to robots?
Click to expand...
Gladiators [supposedly much lower level] versus wild animals?
 
Vcore89 said:
Gladiators [supposedly much lower level] versus wild animals?
Click to expand...
I don't think highly of chess champions anymore. I am like, well, a computer can easily beat you.

It is not new. At one time, merchants who were able to rapidly do arithmetic including fractions in their head were highly regarded. Scribes who could copy documents perfectly were highly prized. People with good handwriting were valued. Tennis linespeople whose calls were confirmed by clay marks were applauded.

Now automation has made them all worthless.
 
AI generated movies would be no worse categorically than the old animated movies from Disney. No one takes animated films seriously as a full representation of a person or people, it is merely entertainment.
It is like comparing comic books to Michelangelo.
 
Bartelby said:
Art is one thing but Hollywood is an industrial system and has always been such. Shifting from an industrial model to an AI-generated one is a step in the same direction.

A Van Gogh is not a Pitt/Cruise fight scene.
Click to expand...
Your knowledge of professional tennis is amazing.
 
I didn't talk about a complete transition. The number of Hollywood films mutilated at birth by industry executives is indicative of an industry, not artistry.

Movies today are B-movies or movies oriented to spectacle for a young adult audience. Packing these vehicles with AI makes sense. Other types of film will continue.

taster said:
It doesn't logically follow that because something is an industry it must inevitably become an 'AI-generated one', whether that be Hollywood or any other industry. Saying that's so, doesn't make it so.
Hollywood might be amenable to the use of AI as a tool - that seems perfectly plausible, but a complete transition is unlikely. And, Hollywood isn't all movies.

An appreciation of acting is an appreciation of human beings being something they are not, and doing it convincingly. Whether in the theatre, soap opera, opera or films etc
The artifice is understood and sublimated almost unconsciously - this is what most art is - something that looks like one thing, but is in fact another. By removing the human being, art cannot stand at a representational distance from that which it seeks to describe because it's no longer an engagement with a human mind. When we see Pitt and Cruise, we see their characters and the humans behind the characters, we know and hold them both simultaneously.
Use the idea of an AI generated tennis match as an analogy. The match might be fascinating in it's realistic depictions, but what makes a tennis match interesting is human prowess. The fact that we know the players have an emotional world and are human, makes them more compelling than an artificial facsimile.
The prowess of the actor is part of how we view what we see - even at an unconscious level.
There may be some attraction to entirely AI generated movies, but I think they would be understood differently, as a sub-genre of film, just as cartoons are. And judged accordingly.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
I didn't talk about a complete transition. The number of Hollywood films mutilated at birth by industry executives is indicative of an industry, not artistry.

Movies today are B-movies or movies oriented to spectacle for a young adult audience. Packing these vehicles with AI makes sense. Other types of film will continue.
Click to expand...
Industry and artistry aren't mutually exclusive, everything else you've said is essentially what I said - is that you're idea of recycling? Doing your bit for the planet?
 
Dan Lobb said:
AI generated movies would be no worse categorically than the old animated movies from Disney. No one takes animated films seriously as a full representation of a person or people, it is merely entertainment.
It is like comparing comic books to Michelangelo.
Click to expand...
This might be the most wrong post I’ve ever seen on here.
 
They are mutually exclusive in practice so our views are not the same.

taster said:
Industry and artistry aren't mutually exclusive, everything else you've said is essentially what I said - is that you're idea of recycling? Doing your bit for the planet?
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
Meta-commentary is a bit boring. As I wrote above, industry and artistry are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
As I wrote 'Industry and artistry aren't mutually exclusive'. There you see, meta-commentary can be quite interesting - you just need to learn how to incorporate it into a stinging put-down the way I do.
 
That is not meta-commentary. It is a comment on the topic.

taster said:
As I wrote 'Industry and artistry aren't mutually exclusive'. There you see, meta-commentary can be quite interesting - you just need to learn how to incorporate it into a stinging put-down the way I do.
Click to expand...
 
The public likes trash, apparently, so they'll like AI:

Either way, with an 87% difference between critics and the public, Melania will now go down in history as the film with the biggest gap between critical and popular scores. Nobody will be sadder about this than the people behind Five Nights at Freddy’s 2, which held the title until recently. Professional critics gave that film a lowly score of 16%, while its audience loved it enough to score it 84%. Prior to that, according to research by digital entertainment platform JB.com, the film with the biggest gap was 2024’s Emilia Pérez. Despite winning the jury prize at Cannes and gaining a 70% critical score, the film’s audience gave it just 17%. There are others. The 2021 Dwayne Johnson-starring Red Notice scored 37% with critics and 92% with the public. Saw sequel Jigsaw scored 32% with critics but 88% with the public. Jonathan Glazer’s Under the Skin scored 83% with critics and 55% with the public.

- The Guardian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TripleB
Movies that are Perfect?
2 3 4
Replies
164
Views
5K
onehandbh
onehandbh
movdqa
What would you do with extra stuff in your order that you didn't order?
Replies
49
Views
2K
Vcore89
Vcore89
AgassiSuperSlam11
Five Films you would like to be seen remade
Replies
26
Views
2K
Bhagi Katbamna
Bhagi Katbamna
P
How exactly are you hitting your forehands?
Replies
12
Views
1K
jiejenn
J
DavaiMarat
Creating Powerful 2HBH’s – the ‘Flex’
Replies
16
Views
2K
Power Player
Power Player
Back
Top