I can't get too angry at a microbudget movie like this that uses AI art for a total of like 5 seconds. If it was Disney or Warner, I'd be all for boycotting a movie. They have tons of money to pay people and there's no excuse. Marvel using it for the entire opening credits of Secret Invasion was completely wrong.I hear you, but this kind of cynicism is what allows it to be the norm. I too am looking forward to large multinational corporations squeezing us and the planet dry before I die, but I’m still going to tell them where to shove it at every available opportunity.
I don't find the financial argument particularly convincing when this film clearly had the budget for a name star and presumably an art department that designed many of the period-element costumes and sets. However, I also I don't think any of us can truly speak to the financial conditions under which this film was made.I can't get too angry at a microbudget movie like this that uses AI art for a total of like 5 seconds. If it was Disney or Warner, I'd be all for boycotting a movie. They have tons of money to pay people and there's no excuse. Marvel using it for the entire opening credits of Secret Invasion was completely wrong.
This is how I feel as well. If you can’t afford to pay someone to do the work, you either change what you need or you don’t do the work at all.However, I think that irrespective of budget level, using A.I art speaks to a level of cynicism and avarice that I just can't abide by. If you can't adequately compensate your artists or your crew, either find an alternate means of making your movie (removing the intertitles, less crowd shots, whatever), or don't make it at all.
The 4K of Aliens isn't even a new scan, it's just the 2010 SDR HD release augmented (allegedly, with scarequotes and bunny ears) with A.I. It's not even revisionism, it's just laziness (5:10):the recent 4K releases of ALIENS, THE ABYSS, and TRUE LIES went through this process)
The 4K of Aliens isn't even a new scan, it's just the 2010 SDR HD release augmented (allegedly, with scarequotes and bunny ears) with A.I. It's not even revisionism, it's just laziness (5:10):
I feel like there has to be more to this LATE NIGHT WITH THE DEVIL situation. The movie clearly had a design department staffed with actual people, and the images in question apparently only appear a few times, and briefly. That leads me to believe it was not a budgetary consideration, but something else that has yet to be fully illuminated. I don't particularly like it, and I don't begrudge anyone if it's a bridge too far, but I intend to see the movie.
The stuff Peter Jackson has been doing in terms of using A.I. to "restore" older film is more troubling to me. His Beatles documentary, GET BACK, probably doesn't contain a singe frame that wasn't touched by A.I. in some way, and he's letting other filmmakers like James Cameron use the technology to "restore" their library (the recent 4K releases of ALIENS, THE ABYSS, and TRUE LIES went through this process). Do the results look "good" in most of these cases? I think so, yes. But we're not really seeing the image as it was actually captured by the camera. It's revisionism, with the program literally inventing new "detail" in the frame that wasn't captured, and while most people might not notice it, it's there.
Yeah, I'd be more bothered if it was made recently after the AI craze took over. But it was made 2 years ago, well before AI really became a widespread thing. If it was experimental for a fairly indie movie, it's alright with me.Seriously disappointed at the outrage over such a minimal use of AI. Completely disregarding a truly great film for what amounts to maybe 5 seconds of screen-time is downright idiotic. It’s akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don’t like AI myself, but this over-reaction is just ridiculous.
I just have an irrepressibly hard line with generative AI. I cannot, will not, support something created by it or anything that uses it. And I won’t allow it to be minimized for myself.Seriously disappointed at the outrage over such a minimal use of AI. Completely disregarding a truly great film for what amounts to maybe 5 seconds of screen-time is downright idiotic. It’s akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don’t like AI myself, but this over-reaction is just ridiculous.
"Damn why do you guys care so much about people's jobs and artists having their work stolen by silicon valley freeloaders??"Seriously disappointed at the outrage over such a minimal use of AI. Completely disregarding a truly great film for what amounts to maybe 5 seconds of screen-time is downright idiotic. It’s akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don’t like AI myself, but this over-reaction is just ridiculous.
Very nuanced. Very thoughtful. Great job."Damn why do you guys care so much about people's jobs and artists having their work stolen by silicon valley freeloaders??"
This is a fair point. Relatively speaking, it’s not quite the same case as the more egregious examples we’ve seen. That said, the filmmakers also had plenty of time to rectify this misstep as the AI issue grew, but they didn’t, which (as the kids say) is pretty sus.Yeah, I'd be more bothered if it was made recently after the AI craze took over. But it was made 2 years ago, well before AI really became a widespread thing.
I'd argue calling people idiotic for caring about this when he personally didn't is even less nuanced but sure.Very nuanced. Very thoughtful. Great job.
I'd argue with a wallI'd argue calling people idiotic for caring about this when he personally didn't is even less nuanced but sure.