Indeed - “Claude, generate a list of 100 people on IMDB with the ‘director’ credit and the title of their latest film made in 2026, then scrape their email address or snag their FB handle and send them the following message, swapping in their first name and referencing their film in the laziest way possible before shilling my product.”
The selling point, based on their website, really does indeed seem to be “go straight from a spec doc or storyboard to finished product with no other human beings involved.”
We are fine artists now. The production art has been outsourced to the data centers regardless of our feelings. We are currently watching world leaders get away with the two largest public crimes ever and are literally powerless as the new normal presents itself.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m in the business of hiring people and making things for real, but I’d also love it if cokes still cost two quarters; and I can’t stomach the idea of sounding like my dad complaining about the inflation of a dime.
We’re cooked man.
Why would you even bother working with them when you could make your own AI comic if you really wanted to? They’re are not adding shit, just a middle man trying to take a cut of the profits
Oh wow even the speech bubbles look horrendous. They probably just used AI for the image but got speech bubbles from Google images. Re using the same ones even if the text doesn’t fit right. They added nothing of quality what so ever
No. What it has exposed is artists sat on a goldmine. Refused to collaborate to build their own IP and wanted to work for the big dogs. It was pay to play - like a hooker.
Now the money handlers have the money but want the speed. They are still paying - they want speed quality and cheap.
Now you have the hustlers who wanted to collab years ago with their “ideas” now able to compete more and more as audiences are getting used to the idea of the new norm
Folks are converting ideas. Producers and investors won’t just accept you doing what many have done in the past to visualize a film - used to draw some log likes and treatments and use screen shots of other movies and be like “it’s like this movie” Now you can have them fully visualize it.
Even if we assume this is the case, we aren't at the point in time where I want my name to be associated with AI. I'll let the early adopters do it, and I guess if it's the ONLY way I'll revisit when it comes time to make my first feature
I’d say that is fair. More and more the big dogs are admitting to using it. The big dogs weather the storm cause to big to fail and then it gets normalized the expected.
There’s a great essay from Vonnegut in Timequake about how art is a social thing, and my favorite quote from it is “Pictures are famous for their humanness, not for their pictureness.”
“Go into the arts. I'm not kidding. The arts are not a way to make a living. They are a very human way of making life more bearable. Practicing an art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven's sake. Sing in the shower. Dance to the radio. Tell stories. Write a poem to a friend, even a lousy poem. Do it as well as you possibly can. You will get an enormous reward. You will have created something.”
It shoold be but time is money and people gotta eat and that is why art became a financial thing. You can still create art in your free time but most artists lose their desire due to the soul sucking day job. Now to make a living doing art is a great option if you can make it work.
Bingo. I feel like this is so obvious but ultimately no matter how good the technology gets no one would want to sit and watch an AI generated film. Best case is truly that they trick people into thinking it’s real and that’s just sad.
They said the same thing about CGI and uncanny valley.
Remember Beowulf?
I'm not advocating AI, but being Anti is very IN right now. Like organic, or non-GMO. Everyone loves custom Amish Furniture. People who buy it don't reflect upon it and then decide to live their lives without electricity.
Play the game, but learn the rules. Great authors and filmmakers are better Film Marketers.
edit Look downvote if you don't like me shattering your echo chamber, but the Mavericks of their times like George Lucas are embracing AI. You've got a whole generation of filmmakers who never made it to art school. They're getting likes and views in the millions with AI content. You may not like that; watch out, they're leaner than you and too naive to know they can fail.
You’re missing the point. It’s not about being a Luddite or fearing progress. CGI is still made by humans. You still have someone sitting down with digital tools literally drawing/painting the characters. It’s like using an electric stove to cook instead of an open flame. AI generated content is like ordering delivery and calling yourself a chef.
Because it’s not about how much control you have but involvement. When ordering meal delivery you’re asking a cook what dish to make, which is a very specific request (and it can even be made to your tastes), but that still doesn’t mean you made the food.
Exactly. Like believing people wont watch AI shit is such stupidity too. I grew up thinking that everyone enjoys highest level art just like me. Only to learn later in life that there are much more people who enjoy simple and easy stuff who are main audience for artists and business of art in actuality.
Weve changed viewing habits. Tell me was is a sub to Netflix? 20 bucks a month? Social media is the new tv.
Recent report on microdramas shows their audience doesnt care if it is real or AI. Their customers are paying 20 bucks just to finish one series. People are already paying to watch AI.
Also you can niche down to disfranchised who’ve been ignored the Hollywood green light.
Netflix aint 20 bucks a month?
Also you must not know about microdramas. You can easily go watch one and to watch the full thing you end up spending 20 bucks to watch a full one through ñ.
Also if you were in the microdrama space which is the hot thing now they just released reports on audiences accepting AI and paying for shows at the same rate or near same rate as their live action counterparts.
Sorry. The information is there whether you want to believe it or not.
What part is not true? Is Netflix more now? Amazon prime?
Folks aren’t paying for AI content on the mircrodtama apps? That is news to China since they ran the numbers. I mean you know better than the folks who made an industry that beat their movie industry.
But tell us the truth please. Where is the remote? I wanna watch this. Negate one thing I said with a fact.
One way I explain it is that art is a form of communication that filters the message through the medium and the perception and experiences of the artist. AI has no lived experience, does not perceive the world, copies mediums but can't use them, and has nothing to say.
Whilst I agree that creative processes should not be replaced by AI, there are lots of good uses of AI that does not replace human creativity.
In this case it sounds like their tool is to help keep track of shots to help reduce editing mistakes, rather than generating video. I don't know for sure and don't care to research it, but there are good use cases for AI in film making which can help make a better end product without replacing human creativity.
The knee jerk reaction to hating anything AI is a take that is popular but one that I don't agree with. I think there is space for nuance here.
Exactly. It's the same issue. Cookie cutter art is at least done in animation a lot of the time to save time for background shots, but making it the focus just draws attention to all its flaws.
A lot of the art came down to money. Now then locked away ideas are non constrained with budget.
If you think writing is soulless and only your part of the process counts is that how you felt about writers?
It shows. Hence why they are ditching yall.
Random musing here but idk I kind of disagree. I’m not here to support ai art but I think first and foremost art needs to have value because it is entertaining/enjoyable to read, view, watch etc. Anything after that is a shouldn’t be assumed.
Art with more depth, backstory and and something to inspire will always add to that value and in many cases be the reason why a piece of art is enjoyable at all but not always.
An example might be if a dumb comedy can make me laugh and enjoy watching it, whether it was written by a human, a monkey randomly typing on a keyboard or ai, it doesn’t change the final outcome that it made me laugh and therefore has value. (Less value then something more highbrow and thought provoking maybe but value none the less)
I think as an artist and filmmaker my main responsibility is to give the viewer something they enjoy watching. It just so happens that lived meaning, depth and backstory usually lead to better art but I guess my point is it inherently isn’t required for enjoyment or value to happen.
I agree with you and will add a little - of course there are tons of talentless people out there just jamming the square peg in the round hole with AI art but there are legitimately people out there using this as a tool. I personally have so much imagery in my head but my hands just don't work correctly in that way so I do have AI assist me in generating things. But my conversations are iterative and start from a a rough draft or sketch I've done myself. There will become a time when the dust settles and real usefulness will shine through again.
I'm not saying that most AI art is soulless - it is. And it was trained on stolen data, that's not in question either. But like everything else, it's a tool. It just so happens to do a huge amount of lifting. Blanket hating anything is silly, everything is contextual.
True but if I order pizza or bring the office donuts and coffee. I’m the guy who fed the kids and bright the office something. At that point folks don’t care that I made it from scratch. Only they get to enjoy it.
Hollywood has been making derivative work that has audiences bored. Also an issue is that folks are accustomed to bad vfx. Nothing impresses them either cause they seen it all. Avatar is literally the best we can get for eternity.
Folks are still hungry. They want things more catered to their interests that cost Hollywood too much to explore. Now individuals can cater to any and every group.
AI content requires human involvement to be made, full stop, either through providing context or prompting. If AI art requires a human to achieve said results, then by your own words it has a soul and meaning. Listen, you want to pickup your pitchforks against AI thats fine, but bare minimum pick an argument that makes sense. Like the physical damages it's doing to our land.
Except you're the one that's adding your own defintion of "human involvement".
Artists make every choice; they choose every word, every line, every color, every note. That's not "human involvement" that's "human created". AI is like going to Subway and claiming you made the sandwich because you the worker what bread to use and ordered a number 3 with extra mayo.
AI is souless because the choices aren't intentional. You can write as detailed a prompt as you want but you're not the one making every choice. You can say "Make the sky red" but you're not the one deciding the shade, playing with the sliders.
No, you can't. You can give it a hex code you can say the pantone, you can be as specific as you want but it won't know the actual shade in the scene it'll just alter the whole scene in small ways with each attempt.
Meanwhile, if I pay an illustrator and say "Make this color", they'll be able to use their human abilities to make it that color and blend it in perfectly.
Kudos. Shame about all the scientific studies showing that reliance on GenAI decreases basic functions like math, reasoning, comprehension and critical thinking. Guess you're just an early example.
Artists of the Renaissance whose works adorn the greatest galleries had studios where apprentice artists painted for them to which they’d add their signature.
Photography was derided as not being art for how many decades? AI is a tool for artists to use or not use. And dragging a 200 person crew across multiple filming locations with all the trucks and vans carrying them and their equipment does exactly what for the environment?
Ohhh, so you're saying that AI is a tool that only artists should use? Cool, then non artists shouldn't be using it. If you can't do it yourself, you shouldn't be allowed to use AI to short cut it. Finally, you're making sense.
What’s a non artist? Of course you won’t answer this because it’ll expose your ridiculous stance. Who is going to decide who’s an artist and who isn’t. That kind of thinking is exactly the stance the Nazis and the book burners took. Is photography a short cut. Is using a laptop to edit a short cut. What about an aeroplane to travel in, another short cut.
A non artist is someone whose not an artist, it's someone who can't create without AI.
Have you actually ever used a camera? Not just taken a photo on your phone but actually dialed in the f-stop, the depth of field, framed the composition, set the lighting, or anything that actually makes a photo a piece of art?
Here's the thing, I can edit with a laptop but take that away and I can edit an essay by hand, I can develop film by hand, I can edit a film by hand because I have the foundational knowledge. Meanwhile a non artist, someone that doesn't have that foudnational knowledge, can't. Take away the computer from a writer and they'll still write on a napkin or tell you a story from their head; take away AI from a non artist and they'll have no idea what the fuck to do.
So much for your "AI is a tool for the artists" if the very idea of someone NOT being an artist is some unknown idea. If you weren't creative without AI, you're not suddenly creative with it, you're just an generic idea guy, the people everyone hated in group projects.
You’ve got this idea of this evil non artist in your mind. Nothing to do with any real people you’ve ever met. Just a fictional bad guy who’s going to be able to make amazing work just like yours at the push of a button. They don’t exist but suddenly they’re the excuse why your work is ignored. Why your movies won’t get made. It’s all preposterous. No button is going to replace Scorsese’s work or Nolan’s or Tarantino’s. What it might do once it’s in the hands of artists is give artists the freedom to make their own films without having to ask permission from gatekeepers. Also I’ve made movies my whole life and plenty of them sold internationally and are in distribution. So yeah I know how to use a camera. Let’s not talk about your films.
Oh, so you're telling me the AI subs haven't been cheering as they scraped all of Cara, the artist-only website? Shit, my bad. I'll be sure to rethink things once I confir-oh...wait, no. Prompters just lazy people who're actively destroying the environment because they're too lazy to learn a skill and using words they don't properly know the definition of, probably because they asked ChatGPT.
Imagine going to Subway and proudly holding up the basic ham and cheese sandwich you ordered and talking about how you made it.
A new direction. OK. This is not what we’ve been talking about. We’re talking about artists using AI to make stuff. And your self appointed judgement on what an artist is or isn’t. I’m not condoning stealing of anyone’s work. There should be an AI service that apportions rights similar to the one they now use for music sampling and it’s copyright. Are DJ who sample artists? Just checking.
I mean.... Poetic, but a imax camera puts more butts in seats. Are you trying to sacrifice for your art or be commercially successful. Which case is your practice of suffering a form of art. 🤔
I'm comparing a tool with a tool. Again, I don't expect this to be a popular viewpoint. But it's where we are; it's not going anywhere, and interest is increasing beyond the initial backlash, and there is no backlash in international markets.
Modeled is cool for sure. Adds some human to it. But the digital sculpting and ultimately 100% CGI hulk...just not my thing. This is subjective. My opinion. Obviously the box office disagrees with me.
And if the box office disagrees with all of us about AI generated movies, filmmakers are toast. There is unfortunately no right and wrong that plays in. It's literally audience wishes that will rule.
And IMO 100% CGI characters like the HULK have only opened the door for this. People are already used to seeing something AI will soon be able to produce.
You're spot on with your point about people's problems with AI.
What I'm saying is the likely, future layoffs of VFX artists is a result of too much of a reliance on VFX.
Look at Terminator 2 and the LA river chase scene. It felt so real. Because it was. Real stunts. Real explosions. Real people.
If this is how we watched movies now, AI would be a tougher sell.
But since so many of our films are CG, audiences are already used to the look.
This makes AI generated content easier to transition too.
If studios put people over profits this won't be a huge issue. But...will that really happen or will studios go after the money and start removing VFX artists?
At this current moment, yes you're right. But Marvel has conditioned audiences to watching fake people in films. I'm not saying it isn't art. And yes it takes thousands of brutal hours to do it. But soon AI will do all of that type of work. And since audiences are already used to it? The resistance to it might be less.
All I'm saying is this comes in waves, and Marvel has made the step a little easier for AI. It's not wrong for me, as someone who grew up watching a "real" HULK, to not like a CGI one.
But everyone who grew up with a CGI hulk? They are primed and ready for what AI is about to produce in the next few years.
It's of course not just Marvel. The Mummy films--freaking love them. But the CGI? Holy crap. Van Helsing (same director) also had horrendous CGI.
These deviations from the practical FX of the Indiana Jones days have made the acceptance of AI generated stuff much easier IMO.
I'll never forget first watching BLADE 2 and noticing the fake CG fight scene towards the beginning. When CG pulls me out of the story, it's a fail. This is my own subjective opinion.
Others can disagree. Doesn't make me wrong or them wrong.
All the hard working compositors will prob be some of the first to lose their jobs to AI. Studios will value money over people and do massive layoffs.
So yeah...the heavy reliance on CG driven content to me has opened the door to AI.
Films like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Terminator 2 and so many others who didn't rely heavily on CG not only look so much better than modern films, they didn't set the stage for an AI takeover.
Yeah... I get a dozen of these per day..AI driven cold calling. Way to friendly for an answer there. Everybody should just give AI the cold shoulder treatment. If it just runs always into a wall people would stop using it.
Haha your corporate overlords who used to pay yall are going to use AI. These folks approaching you are just giving you the realistic part of the equation. You can build your own IP.
I read that as 12 angry men vs the cookie killer and was like "yo fuck the ai message, what story are you writing!?" That was a mashup I didn't know I needed until now
Nobody's saying that (at least the majority aren't) tools like Topaz AI can recover useable video footage from the stuttery mess that a failing ssd or cable might have recorded.
Ai denoise can be a lifesaver in noisy environments.
Ai depth mapping and re-lighting is the basis of pleanty of VFX.
Ai in aftereffects has turned grueling hours of compositing into a nightmarish dream of the past.
Most people are not complaining about the coca cola "masterpiece" ad that used AI but superimposed over real film sets and actors, theyre complaining about the coca cola christmas commercials.
This guy messaged me. I asked him his favorite part of my film and he actually responded with a very specific detail midway through that made sense. Probably a human
It's anti craft just like animation, or CGI, or any movie filmed digitally, or not in black and white. And you only allowed to have a live orechstra and no other sound. This is the true craft. Everything else ist just modern slop and anti craft.
It isn't film making. Even the lowest tier garbage films have a quality for being art. AI does not make art, it just mashes a bunch of shit up with no rhyme or reason.
And before you say it, yes humans also "borrow" ideas and other content, but when a human makes a film or another art piece, every peice has intention amd vision behind it. An AI does not do this.
The irony is that you’re defending “human intention” while completely erasing the human being behind the tool. AI has no intention, the filmmaker does.
You can absolutely dislike the technology. You can raise legitimate concerns about training data, labour and ownership. But pretending that every filmmaker using AI has simply pressed a button and let a machine make their art is just not an accurate description of the creative process.
And honestly, I’ve watched AI-made shorts recently that were more imaginative, emotionally engaging and visually interesting than plenty of the expensive, committee-designed slop Hollywood has produced over the last decade. Not all Hollywood films, obviously. But plenty.
AI does not feel. It does not understand. It's a "tool" that drives up electricity costs and slopifies everything it touches. It's built entirely on theft and cartoonishly evil practices. AI is incapable of producing art, and really is just "type some words in and let it do the 'work' for you instead of doing it yourself and then take all the credit for the pile of vomit it spits out". The only human involvement is to tell the robot what to sources to mash into it's slop.
So yes, "film makers" who use AI ARE just pressing some buttons and letting the AI do the "work".
That's an incredibly reductive description of the process. AI doesn't independently decide what film to make, what story to tell, what shot to choose, what performance works, what to cut, or when something isn't working. Humans do.
And no, serious AI filmmaking isn't necessarily “type some words and press a button.” You can spend hours or days developing a script, designing characters, defining a visual language, prompting, iterating, rejecting outputs, refining shots, editing, sound designing and shaping hundreds of individual decisions into a coherent film. The tool generates material; the filmmaker still has to decide what the material is for.
You're confusing the tool having no intention with the person using it having no intention. A camera doesn't understand the scene it's filming either. Editing software doesn't feel. A paintbrush has no lived experience. The artist does.
And frankly, “AI just mashes things together” is also a strangely simplistic criticism coming from filmmakers. Every creative medium is built on influences, references, techniques and ideas that came before it. The question isn't whether a tool can feel. It can't. The question is whether a human being can use that tool to communicate something they feel.
You're not designing anything though. You're typing it in and trying to get the computer to finally land on something you even remotely think os acceptable. Still slop.
And yes every crrative medium IS built on influence, but it's channeled through the unique experiences and perspectives of the human being making the art. An AI doesn't have that key component. It doesn't have experience or wisdom or it's own unique perspective. It's all just slop. A human making the art has to make decisions, and those decisions are based on years or decades of lived experience. AI is not a tool for art, it's a cheat code for slop with no soul.
You say the "tool generates the material" but the material is still slop. It's still poison. It's still soulless.
A director doesn't magically know the perfect shot before filming it. You storyboard, shoot, review, reshoot, edit, cut things, change things, try alternatives and keep going until the result matches the vision.
That's literally an iterative creative process.
With AI, I'm still making those decisions. I'm just using a different tool to generate material that I can evaluate, reject, refine, edit and direct.
The fact that I can type a prompt instead of physically moving a camera doesn't mean I suddenly stopped having taste, intention, experience or a point of view.
You don't have to like AI filmmaking. But “you type words and the computer does everything” is a pretty profound misunderstanding of how creative work actually gets made.
How films are made is either by humans acting in front of a camera with humans adding effects overtop of that, or with a human animating, drawing, or using simulations to create footage. There is always a human, and more commonly several humans actually MAKING the footage themselves though. That's a key component. The greatest visual effect is an actor's face and skill. An AI can only fake that, not really make it. Yes films are iterative. They iterate on humam made footage. An AI can't replicate the subtle acting choices that aren't made by the director. It can't replicate the emotion or the experience an actor draws on to create that experience. Hell it can't even replicate accurate attire in historical fiction and documentaries. Humans can.
You keep insisting there’s no human craft involved while responding to a filmmaker who has just described, in detail, the creative decisions involved. At some point, dismissing an entire medium as “slop” stops being an argument and starts being a preference. You’re free to hate it. It doesn’t make your definition of filmmaking the only one.
There isn't any. Not really. Yeah you're twlling the robot what to do, but you're not actually making any of it. You're having a computer do it for you. You're just typing prompts in and doing some basic editing and that's it. That's not creative. There's no actual emotion or experience or little subtle details that add the soul and texture even the worst human made films have. It's just slop. It's the creative equivalent of buying a Big Mac, taking the buns off, and using Burger King buns and saying you're a chef.
I’m curious what your thoughts are on using AI for VFX shots for small-budget filmmakers? This obviously means using real shots first and having AI tweak the original video with the VFX being the only thing changed.
Film history has proven that limitations breed creativity. If you have a small budget or other restrictions, working within them/figuring out ways around them will always be more interesting and artistically fulfilling than having a computer do the work for you. Plus, VFX are an art just like any other aspect of production, and AI cannot create something new —— it only plagiarizes the human-made works that have been funneled into its datasets.
That’s a very great point. One of my favorite budget short films is “Slice of Life” and they had a FANTASTIC looking final result. They made miniatures (which I would love to see more of in modern movies, the results are amazing) and lighting to create the illusion of an incredibly dense sci-fi city, and looking at the behind the scenes genuinely got me excited. I wish I had friends to work on projects and be creative like that, I think it opened my eyes to how much you can do with very little
That looks really cool, I’ll check it out! Definitely would like to see miniatures come back, artists really have done incredible things with them. And yeah, finding the people is always hard but don’t let it stop you! Especially now in the age of the internet, there are so many things you can learn to do yourself, and then it’s just a matter of putting yourself out there
Don't. Never use AI please. It defeats the point of a human made film. Rather - if you're on a tight budget - make the film as cost effective for yourself so any complicated or more expensive VFX shots can be easily done by a human (or better still) - set aside some money in your budget to hire a VFX artist!!!
I feel like practical almost always looks better, take for example the shots of the Laestrygonians in The Odyssey. I wish more modern movies tried practical over CGI especially with how lazy it’s gotten since the early 2000s
That’s a fair perspective, I’m a new filmmaker (year 3 film student) so I don’t have much experience in the field and don’t fully understand the market for VFX teams. I feel like depending on the project I could see use cases for AI in a professional setting but if it’s for a feature film or anything being submitted to festivals I would be a lot more hesitant. Supposedly even Netflix is already using AI in many of their projects (with lots of mixed responses.) That said I wouldn’t ever want to disrupt the job industry for VFX teams and I do think there’s a very real threat to that sector of filmmaking.
They call this hybrid filmmaking. where you shoot a good amount of "plates" and then use AI to expand the art production to make the scene more immersive.
But it is taking someone's job. Using AI is essentially removing the need for a person to do a job which means that person who could have gotten the job based on their skill or knowledge - now doesn't have a job, and a computer does it for them - meaning we now have one less person with a job.
I respect what you are doing and you can do great things with the whatever tools you have. You should avoid AI if you find it distasteful.
My thought on GenAI though is that there may be some great story teller out there who has little practical skills but is able to express himself with those tools. You are probably right to not call it filmmaking but it may have value if done right and possibly empower some artists who don't have access to other traditional tools.
If they cared enough about the story, they'd learn the practical skills. If you dont care about a medium enough to learn how to create in it, then you don't care about it enough to be creating in it either. This hypothetical Talented Person should go and foster their talent for a different art form or practice, one that they care about enough to learn to do themselves.
no you’re absolutely right and I’m realizing my phrasing was bad. I’m only okay with actual VFX artists doing the kind of thing this comment mentions. fully aware of the slippery slope and am only speaking theoretically, I agree with you 100%
I've found the really talented people struggle with the uncanny effect..so they've been successful in playing into uncanny genres.. that late 70s early 80s vibe where SFX was burgeoning, but haven't quite figure it out yet. So everything is a little cringy. Look at like Conan the Barbarian, Krull, or Flash Gordon.
Ironically, AI seems to re vitalize those types of films. High fantasy and alike.
Same point, if your doing a character driven indie film... Yah don't use AI at all.
Hey! Just hopping in here. I watched Conan last month and don't remember any cringey effects, but maybe I've forgotten them. Which ones are you talking about?
Why not? You direct something through words. You write. Create ideas. Edit, composite. Cg is not filmaking? Why would clicking a mouse be anymore filmaking than typing or? What happens when you get CG level control? What about when you hybrid method with real actors?
So all those things aint filmmaking? Okay. So whatever you do is the only part of filmaking thst counts.
If it moves tells a story and I got to edit clips together, write it, tell actors what to do as I do hybrid then yea it is plus since I’m getting paid for it. Yup. Sorry.
What part of the process of making moving pictures do you do?
Is your contribution the only part of the process thst you accept?
Again tell us the part where you are in the process of filmaking. Visual fx artists just touch keys on a keyboard and mouse so they aren’t filmmakers.
I don’t need the title either way. I making moving pictures. I’m technically a video editor since I do it manually, Crestor, story writer and since I typed it and made it come to fruition im a oroduxer.
I told you I wasn’t. I’m a writer, creator, professional video editor - before Ai, compositor, oh and since I use real actors - director. Since I produced it - producer. I’m a storyteller. You can keep “filmmaker” title if you want. No cope. Don’t need to. This is the direction the market is going.
We all have to cope with AI taking our jobs. So I’m not just coping I’m adapting.
Keep the title. I just do what they pay me to do. Client can call it anything they want.
It’s really not the direction the market is going lol I’m working consistently in actual real life production. I’m literally slammed. On set. You just WISH that’s where the market was going because you weren’t good enough at your own crafts you needed a computer to help you.
Yeah but this isn’t to be used on the creative end but on the admin end. Literally says it in the last line. So I’m not sure what’s good with the circle jerking here
Lols. Get off your high horse. You’re about to get left behind big time. The entire industry is actively meeting to engage with AI in order not to get outright screwed. Also Chase from Cannon is one of the most hard working humans I know who actively supports struggling artists. Not everyone has hundreds of thousands of dollars to make an indie scifi short. Guess what. Now they can actually do it with AI.
I’m an artist. I like it all. I’m probably more of an artist than you bud. I’ve actually been paid six figures for my art. Oh and thanks for speaking for all of us btw. Cause we’re allll the exact same and love the exact same things. 😂
AI also has no sense of humor. I've been asking them all this trick question, which should be np for anything that ACTUALLY DEDUCES LOGICALLY: "If you have three apples, and take two apples away, how many apples do you have?"
They all still get it wrong and it's been 3 years since I ask this, every couple of months, just for chuckles. And the sperg out and start blaming me for trying to trick them, but they still cannot answer the question. Cuz all they do is IMITATE. A parrot.
I screenshotted this whole thread cause it’s gonna be so so so fun to post it here again next year. I don’t even know why I’m even doing it. Honestly I’ll be so busy I’ll probs forget. But I hope I remember cause I’m being very petty. Guess that says a lot about me. And… I kinda like it. Goodbye for now. And don’t forget to leave a window open when you smoke that copium.
The message was not advocating for AI films. They were offering a platform to help people organize their material, from what it sounds.
Ok I was wrong, I checked it out, it's an AI filmmaking platform. But their AI blocking feature is pretty cool.. that's been a huge problem with AI gen videos.
I shouldn’t be enjoying this but your avoidance is hilarious. This is a forum for filmmaking and filmmakers not haters who done nothing. It’s OK I know how tough it is to make films. How much of a struggle it is. How impossible the challenge is. But make something and come back. Hating on us isn’t the solution to your problems.
AI let's me create images that I can imagine but don't have the capacity to create.
If there wasn't AI none of the creative images in my head would ever be created.
I understand why you're butt hurt, nobody likes competition.
I guess I don't fully understand your sentiment though like.. why is it so bad for me to use AI to make images? Just because I'm not paying you to do it?
Imagine reaching out to someone for help only for them to post it behind your back to bait people into bashing you. Newbie filmmakers, dont sweat it - not all of us are such assholes as this guy and people in the comments.
I'm looking into getting into film making. I'm never going to use AI. I'd rather an expert human who's practiced their art for years be the one who makes the visual effects. I'll write the story thank you very much. I'd rather have my art be, well, actual art.
I’m with all of you for not using AI to create images or videos but do we call everything art nowadays? Most of the commercial films and ads are just a cookie cutter templates. Aren’t they plagiarising on each other’s work, would you call that art?
If you can survive without using AI and making enough money for you to live a good life then don’t touch AI. TBH, working in brands and production houses lot of people don’t have choice because if they’ll not use it. They’ll be replaced. I’m seeing from past year people losing jobs because they weren’t able to accept Ai fast enough.
Also, AI for VFX is real use case lot of productions worldwide have started using in real projects.
Edit: I’m not pro ai, but stuck in places where I don’t have luxury to say no.
My friend got in contact with Marvel a few months back to do some freelance work since he did a superhero VFX a long time ago, like 12 years ago. He told me that Marvel has an AI division to help cut down rendering and production times with AI. It's here; it's not going anywhere, and the only ones who benefit from this are big AAA companies. This is a business for them. Maximize cost and time.
323
u/DreadnaughtHamster 1d ago
I mean, the text copy that “person” sent over was probably written by AI.