| General > General Technical Chat |
| Are Cinemas_Theaters still Alive in your Area? |
| << < (11/20) > >> |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: tom66 on July 23, 2023, 05:04:57 pm ---The outcome of the first set of strikes in 2007-2008 was reality TV. The barely-scripted format with drama and overacting from non-professionals who are coaxed into creating scenes required little to no union staff involvement, proved cheap to pump out and disappointingly successful with the general public. I hate to see what will come out this time, but probably more low cost reality shows are likely. Short term the streaming networks will just increase their back catalogue and buy content in from other distributors, which will probably lead their revenue to stagnate as subscribers leave. --- End quote --- It can't really get worse. We are still in that period of barely scripted shows, with no real plot and lots of cliched ideas tossed out an random. The exceptions to that are just that - exceptional. --- Quote from: tom66 on July 23, 2023, 05:04:57 pm ---I understand why writers and actors are afraid of GPT/chatbots and AI image generation. However, this is going to happen regardless of their strike. I doubt serious writers will be replaced any time by AI, because it takes genuine talent and generalised intelligence to come up with an original and gripping story. --- End quote --- Even if ChatGPT cannot produce originality and gripping stories its still ready to replace 90% of the script writers today. --- Quote from: tom66 on July 23, 2023, 05:04:57 pm ---AI is very good at regurgitating ideas and tends to create short stories accurately with little adventure or surprise in them. In other words, it would probably be pretty good at writing modern episodes of the Simpsons, but it is not going to create new dramas with millions of viewers tuning in to watch. Comedy is also likely a safe area for now; AI sucks at comedy, because it requires a proper human understanding of why a joke is funny (and also context-dependent, like political or current affairs comedy). --- End quote --- No originality? Sucks at comedy? ChatGPT fits in perfectly with current Hollywood. --- Quote from: tom66 on July 23, 2023, 05:04:57 pm ---For actors, there's the star factor... I don't think fake actors generated by AI would cut it. I can see a risk for extras, there is one studio already that is famous for getting their extras on set for a day but the contract assigns all rights to their image for the remainder of the shoot and CGI is used to add them into scenes as needed. So suddenly you go from having someone being paid a reasonable amount for a month's worth of shooting, getting only one or two day's pay. That's quite bad for those guys. But the major A- and B-list stars are safe for some time, no one wants to see AI Tim Cruze, they want to see human Tom Cruise because they know he's a real guy and they see him on the red carpet and on chat shows and all sorts. CGI could, with enough effort, already replace a lot of these actors, but it hasn't. That's because these actors are as much actors as they are marketing for the film. --- End quote --- They've been trying hard to destroy star factor for a number of years, with varying success. Things like the Marvel universe have been moderately effective at moving the focus from the actor to the character. It seems to have worked with some of them, and not with others. ChatGPT has great potential where an actor can't continue a franchise due to ill health or death. It could also be great for stories where someone has to play both an old and young version of a character. Various successful series have seen the actors pay skyrocket. Other successful series have been canned while still very popular to keep down the studio's salary bill. Actors who won't play ball contractually for sequels better watch out. |
| tom66:
--- Quote from: mendip_discovery on July 23, 2023, 05:34:59 pm ---I can see why they are worried as with the deepfake abilities they may no longer be needed other than to provide samples for the CGI experts to use. Who holds the copyright on your image/likeness etc. even after your death? --- End quote --- This has been established in the past. If you want to use the likeness of Einstein for instance, you need to pay his estate money. From the Guardian (UK newspaper for those unaware); --- Quote ---Albert Einstein died in 1955. In article 13 of his last will and testament, he pledged that his “manuscripts, copyrights, publication rights, royalties … and all other literary property” would, upon the deaths of his secretary, Helen Dukas, and stepdaughter, Margot Einstein, pass to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an institution that Einstein cofounded in 1918. --- End quote --- This has been interpreted by courts and copyright lawyers to include his likeness, even though Einstein made no mention of it. It didn't make sense to copyright such a likeness at a time where the only way you could replicate it would be through makeup and a lookalike. And Einstein wasn't the kind of person who cared about celebrity or personal appearance that much. So this is an absurd outcome really, but the estate's lawyers will bankrupt you if you try to use it without paying the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Realistically, it's not an issue in the short term that an actor could be replaced by AI. Tom Cruise, for lack of a better example, would be able to sue any studio out of existence for using his living likeness. The risk is that studios create their own actors, who work essentially for free. I think these aren't going to be as successful as the A-listers because of the lack of star factor (especially considering the idea of having an AI actor appear on live television is certainly quite some time away). But it's certainly possible to imagine a future where a lot of the middle ground actors just don't exist any more. Nobody really cares who plays passenger #3 on the train, so why not replace them with AI? It's not so great for aspiring actors though, as they no longer have any chance to perform. In a different field, this is where I see the risk of AI for programmers coming in. AI can't replace most programmers, and probably won't replace all programmers until generalised intelligence exists (which is itself an existential danger). But, it could replace a lot of junior/entry level roles. Generating test cases for an implementation for instance. This makes it ever harder for juniors to enter the field. You'd be left with a job market with not enough candidates for senior positions because there are little or no opportunities available for promotion. --- Quote from: coppice on July 23, 2023, 05:54:07 pm ---No originality? Sucks at comedy? ChatGPT fits in perfectly with current Hollywood. --- End quote --- Meh, your opinion but I've watched a number of shows recently and quite enjoyed them... there's never been quite so much selection, the problem is 90% of it is crap, but the 10% that is good has never been better in my opinion. Nothing forcing you to watch the crap especially with streaming services it's just pick something good and watch it, you don't need to be aware of the politics or drama just enjoy the show. --- Quote from: coppice on July 23, 2023, 05:54:07 pm ---They've been trying hard to destroy star factor for a number of years, with varying success. Things like the Marvel universe have been moderately effective at moving the focus from the actor to the character. It seems to have worked with some of them, and not with others. ChatGPT has great potential where an actor can't continue a franchise due to ill health or death. It could also be great for stories where someone has to play both an old and young version of a character. Various successful series have seen the actors pay skyrocket. Other successful series have been canned while still very popular to keep down the studio's salary bill. Actors who won't play ball contractually for sequels better watch out. --- End quote --- Yup, the bill from the A-listers is often a huge part of the budget of a film. Even if they can't eliminate the best actors, they minimise their screen time. As in your Marvel example, Iron Man is often hidden in a suit. That's CGI and/or a lower paid stunt actor, Downey Jr. would only get paid for the scenes with his face in, and even many of those are done CGI in a studio with little or no time on set. As for actors not playing ball for sequels, these things tend to be negotiated upfront in secret deals, so when they got Downey Jr. in for the Iron Man film, I expect they had an agreement to option N further sequels at pre-agreed price within M years. Studios aren't stupid. Actors have good agents too and wouldn't agree to any contract that obsoleted them, so no AI generated likeness for example. This doesn't stop the estate agreeing after death. Paul Walker appeared in a Fast-Furious sequel many years after he died, they used a body double, his brother, and existing footage to recreate him. But that was agreed with the family, who I am sure got a decent payout for using his likeness. |
| jonovid:
when everything is taken into consideration movies in cinemas are just public entertainment that can be replaced by new types of entertainment. times change! we new live in a flood of 24/7 entertainment from our phones to our 4K television. meanwhile politics has entered much of hollywood in recent years destroying many beloved movie franchises. with poor or confusing plot or story's , character deconstructions. the end result is movies that are not as entertaining when compared to previous movies of the some franchise. even though CGI has made todays movies look amazing. there's no getting past the obvious. much of hollywood is slowly going down the toilet of political correctness, and it shows. :'( there are so many boxes that must be ticked before anything gets a green light nowadays. as for why I do not see movies in public cinema since 2018, is been interrupted by others , expensive snacks and no pause button so one can go to the bathroom. the movies I watch if any are on HDD IMO the golden age of hollywood movies in cinemas was in the 70, 80s and 90s when Boy meets Girl the good guys win & the bad guys lost. the average movie plot made sense back then. today hollywood has lost the plot and no amount of AI or CGI can save it. |
| mendip_discovery:
--- Quote from: jonovid on July 23, 2023, 06:44:30 pm ---meanwhile politics has entered much of hollywood in recent years destroying many beloved movie franchises. --- End quote --- It has always been there. Its just that we are seeing it pushed into our faces a lot. One of the things we may miss is the small budget film that does OK at the Cinema but makes a killing on DVD. Now they will just go straight to streaming, the two Extraction films are a good example. How many Sci-Fi films/shows do we know that failed when first out but ended up with a cult following a few years later. |
| Kim Christensen:
--- Quote from: tom66 on July 23, 2023, 06:36:51 pm ---Tom Cruise, for lack of a better example, would be able to sue any studio out of existence for using his living likeness. The risk is that studios create their own actors, who work essentially for free. I think these aren't going to be as successful as the A-listers because of the lack of star factor --- End quote --- "Star factor" matters less than you think. An example is a cartoon movie like Shrek. AI actors are no different. If something jells with the audience, it doesn't really matter how it was created. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |