• UpAndAtThem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    6 days ago

    The people who love using Gen AI want easy shiny things, they want every area of every image to have detail, they want to use all those shots that they pumped their prompts and cash into, regardless of how well it serves the story.

    This isn’t compatible with the kind of measured, thoughtful approach to storytelling that makes a good film.

    • James R Kirk@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      Yeah exactly. Generative software makes a lot of sense for advertising and other short term distractions, but not much else. I think there will be a contingent of people who get addicted to LLM outputs and are willing to pay for it (like we’re seeing with some chatbot boyfriends/girlfriends) but on the whole it’s just… boring.

  • AeronMelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 days ago

    Cost the same a regular movie, used up a lot more power and water than a human-generated movie would have, and failed in a market that historically watches just about anytihing.

    The FUTURE!

    • boonhet@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      Ah yes the historically accurate version of that story with vengeful gods and a cyclops and everything

  • 🍉 DrRedOctopus 🐙🍉@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 days ago

    my fear is that this is only because AI videos look like uninspired trash.

    So only the people who like it are people with zero taste, resulting in a shitty movie.

    My fear is that it’s temporary, that in a few years AI video would be indistinguishable from artist made one, and by then, I don’t know what will happen with movies

    • James R Kirk@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 days ago

      I mean, if a computer creates an artistic work that is truly indistinguishable from a human work, then that would imply the AI possesses sentience and is sharing it’s individual perspective via said work. And honestly I consider that something to be celebrated, not feared.

      LLMs might be able to fool us for a minute or two into believing it is alive, but unless I’m fundamentally misunderstanding the technology they can’t actually ever share a perspective and make art because they don’t possess a perspective.

      • [deleted]@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Or it just copied human works and made the sources it copied from obscure enough to not be sued, which is the best it can do.

        • James R Kirk@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          But I’m not talking about a copy machines. I’m saying that if a hypothetical synthetic being was able to retell an existing human story using its own voice then that qualifies as an original artistic work. Just as we don’t consider Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” to be a “copy” even though the story has been told before. Without an artist you definitionally don’t have art.

          • [deleted]@piefed.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            Copy machine output doesn’t count as original works.

            Movies that retell stories openly are adaptations that give credit to the original source. AI slop does not give attriution to what it is copying.

            Movies that are inspired by prior works, which is basically everything, but intentionally do a new take are art because they have intent and meaning even if done poorly. AI slop is just regurgitating stuff.

            • James R Kirk@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, I agree that a copy machine is not sentient. You can’t just decide that an inanimate object is “art” and then work backwards to say that the non-sentient tools that were used to create the work are the real artist.

    • jacksilver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      It took some effort, but this seems to be a trailer of the movie.

      It runs into a lot of issues tied to AI (bad voices, glossly/weightlessness to everything, art style all over the place). Some things will be fixed over time, but I don’t think the current AI trend can replace someone with a good eye for art direction, it certainly can’t write scripts on its own, and the voices tied to the video frames will probably continue to prove challenging.

      That being said, this definitely wasn’t created with some of the better models out there, and articles I was reading said something like 2/3rds of Chinese micro-dramas have heavy AI usage. So, maybe not the end of the world, but not great either.

    • MousePotatoDoesStuff@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      I’m more worried that it will become passable enough to make a profit at the box office, even if less people see it than if it wasn’t AI. And movie quality will plummet.

  • entirely ai generated

    Why would I want to watch someone else’s slop? I can prompt slop well enough myself, and it will be more interesting to me because it’s my characters in my setting and my plot.

    So yeah, no wonder it flopped. They literally advertised it as having zero creative passion behind it.