Generative AI is presented as a filmmaking tool comparable to a camera, especially useful during preparation. It supports rapid iteration and helps determine what a movie should become before production begins. Once the creative direction is clear, traditional filmmaking can proceed to realize the final work. AI is described as lacking taste, but capable of executing requests and sometimes producing unexpected results that can be corrected with notes. The commercial future is framed as shifting from flashy monster effects toward stories featuring AI protagonists that audiences can empathize with and support financially.
"“I can't see a reason why you wouldn't become interested in this stuff as a film-maker. It's so clearly a tool that might be up there with the camera. It's going to be better than CGI.” Edwards said that AI is most useful in the preparatory stages of film-making, saying: “It's only good for iteration and discovering what the movie should be, and then once you know what it is, go in and start making it your movie.”"
"“It has no taste whatsoever. It is a fucking genius at helping you. I view it like having a second-unit director who is a billionaire on acid. Like, it'll do anything you ask, not a problem. Sometimes, it'll [go] batshit crazy. And you'll give it notes, and it'll be like, I don't do notes. I'll just do something totally different.' But it's worth it.”"
"“I don't think the real future of AI commercially is in all this flash, all these monsters that's just jacked-up special effects on steroids,” he said. “The real tip of the spear is when we can create an AI protagonist, not a hybrid, and that movie makes money.”"
"“When you do the new Clint Eastwood, but you don't say the words Clint Eastwood' to AI, you just describe him. And he comes up as Clint Eastwood. Schrader added: And the movie comes out, and us carbon-based fools spend our money empathising and caring about silicon-based creations.”"
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]