That's not even AI is it? It's like a 90s Windows movie maker CG model
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
183 points (93.8% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
2 readers
2 users here now
General discussion about movies and TV shows.
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain
[spoilers]in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:
::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::
Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!
Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [!thebear@lemmy.film](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)
Related communities: !entertainment@beehaw.org !moviesuggestions@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I really don’t understand why everyone uses AI as a term to describe anything generated by a computer.
Because technical literacy levels have never really improved.
It's why every game console is "a Nintendo" to people over 50.
I like to play Nintendo on my PlayStation.
Someone who's 50 today would've been 12 in 1985 when the NES was released in North America. Basically the target audience.
You're thinking of their parents (Boomers).
load more comments
(1 replies)
The same way they convinced everyone that they should say "cloud" instead of 'on our servers."
They stopped saying "algorithm" and started saying "AI"
Once it's used as a marketing term, the technical term loses all meaning in conversational language.
If it's in your server it's not in "the cloud", the cloud is code for "someone else's server."
I was thinking more from the marketing perspective " We keep your data on our servers!" verses "We keep your data in the cloud!" since the point was that the marketers of these things in particular are fucking up the terminology.
If you are already in possession of a server then you're probably aware it's not a cloud.
that's what they said
load more comments
(1 replies)
Thanks to all the clickbait headlines, a lot of people suddenly think everything is AI.
Just like every aircraft with 4 rotors is a drone.
This specific thing is not AI, but that's not actually relevant because this is still an example of the issue at hand. Namely, it's now cheaper to just throw some shitty CG in the background than it is to pay people to be there and executives don't see a problem with this. While this particular example of four or five models may not seem like much (especially using stock-ass animations like that), it's not long before you'll be seeing scenes where fifteen or twenty background extras are replaced by AI driven CG that behaves like someone that played a similar role five years ago whose motions were cataloged and reused.
THAT is the crux of the issue. The studios basically want to scan and own everyone that ever appears onscreen. It's fucking gross, and it needs to die on the vine.
CGI crowds have been a thing for literally decades. I think the last time you needed 100% extras to fill a scene was the 90s.
But this is so... janky. Usually, they put actors in the front, a couple of "layers" of extras, and then CGI where it's harder to notice.
This is so obvious it almost looks like those intentionally janky CGI shorts or music videos and intended to be humorous.
load more comments
(1 replies)
You’re wrong. Everything in a headline about a technology story is automatically AI.
AI? Looks rather like low tier CGI instead. Most "crowds" are CGI, have been for many years. They're just usually made in a higher quality to hide it better.
In The Phantom Menace the crowds for the podracing scenes were just painted cotton swabs. They blew a fan at them to make them move.
That's actually really cool. Practical effects and creativity >>>>>> lazy CGI.
https://youtu.be/bxN1xx-bdpM?si=4cn0Jzlh6LiHjfmk more at 17:57
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/bxN1xx-bdpM?si=4cn0Jzlh6LiHjfmk
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
That's the funniest thing I've seen all week.
This technology will get better, to the point I imagine most of us won't be able to see the difference. Scary stuff all around.
Though this shot is rather telling because that background character is "Center right" which basically gives it a spotlight. At that point, it is no longer a background, it is the scene.
Though, it is a high-school teen sports Disney movie, so I am not expecting much in the form of creativity or effort.
load more comments
(1 replies)
How the fuck can they be so greedy?
They make bazillions of dollars per year (if not per month), and they are unwilling to pay just a bit of money for extras.
Fuck film execs, I hope there is another strike.
We reach a new, comical level of greed, and then they find a way to top it.
This kind of thing isn’t new. [Here's a clip](https://youtu.be/Zh7eAG2jJkA} from Three Amigos from 1986. The background characters are just a static painting.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Because we live in a system where paying more for doing the right thing will get fired and sued for lost profits as a CEO. If you run a publicly traded company, you are legally beholden to make the decision that yields the most profit, full stop.
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I've watched that clip probably a dozen times and laughed every time. They have an entire row of fake mannequin people in the middle of the shot surrounded by lots of real actors and extras. Utterly bizarre.
This is why I don't use the word "content" to describe this stuff. That's the word execs use, and it's because they see this kind of thing as fine. It's just mass-produced product to them.
I had a look as well, and that's gotta be 1995 dancing baby tier CGI. The effects department must be dusting off the old SGI indys because the budget clearly went to Bob's next yacht
load more comments
(3 replies)
What a bunch of manufactured outrage. Holy shit.
Yes, it's outrageous that they manufactured some CGI actors rather than paying actual humans AND didn't even bother upgrading their Poser-tier textures or animations.
If you're going to do it, at least don't suck at it.
I'm guessing they noticed the sits empty only after filming.. But this looks like a dogshit lol
Genuinely, I wonder what the cutoff will be for calling something live-action.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Are we sure that isn't a crash test dummy?
Slightly used
I can hear the executive after they got the crowd shot and somebody noted the stands looked pretty empty: "Just have the AI fill it in"
CGI is AI now? I guess if you really want to go out of your way to find something to complain about-
This would be something.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
While the WGA has since come to an agreement with studios, SAG-AFTRA's strike is still ongoing — and the use of artificial intelligence in the industry has remained a huge point of contention, with actors calling for protections against studios using AI-generated versions of their voices or likenesses — and for good reason.
The clip, which first made its rounds on social media back in April, shows an audience seated on bleachers watching a high school basketball game.
The clip reignited a heated debate surrounding the use of computer-generated imagery in film, and how the tech could eventually replace human actors, a major talking point during SAG-AFTRA's ongoing negotiations.
In a press conference immediately following the union's call for a strike in July, executive director and chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland revealed that the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers proposed to have background performers scanned, "get paid for one day's pay, and their company should own that scan their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity."
"Disney is insane and just more reason why the AMPTP needs to ditch this plan to replace background actors with AI," freelance writer Christopher Marc, who recently shared the "Prom Pact" clip, tweeted.
This week, SAG-AFTRA proposed a bill to lawmakers called the NO FAKES Act, "creating new and urgently needed protections for voice and likeness in the age of generative artificial intelligence."
The original article contains 431 words, the summary contains 237 words. Saved 45%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
But you're AIIIIII.
The AI summary was coming from inside the house
I remember this set in 3D Movie Maker
"Those bullies won't bother me now"
“What’s up Wanda?”
For the folks saying this is nothing new and nbd - Id watch the animated version first lol
I don't have any issue with CGI extras in general (plenty of movies have done it well), but this shit is just bad lol
This is not new and has nothing to do with AI. AI is like 5G, but for mass audience.
view more: next ›