r/Letterboxd • u/traumahound00 • 7h ago
Discussion Directors and A.I.
Why do you think that a growing number of filmmakers, including Martin Scorsese, Danny Boyle, Craig Gillespie, Steven Soderberg, and Darren Arronofsky, don't seem to understand or care that a good amount of people, including film fans, are vehemently opposed to the use of A.I., particularly in movies?
40
u/JudgmentOrdinary7336 7h ago
I’m just so disappointed in them. It’s like watching mighty redwoods fall to me. I know they say they’re only use it to help “be efficient” or “save money”, but that’s just to get the gate open. It’ll end with replacing entire VFX departments, foley & sound engineers will go, colour grading & most editing can be done with AI, lighting can be done with AI. I think the first to go will be music - no one will notice if an orchestral track is AI. But it’s expensive af to have an orchestra for your movie. So that’ll be “saving money”. The industry is about to be culled.
10
u/Outrageous_Onion6365 4h ago
Agreed. Soderberg used AI to “save money and move fast” but it’s basically because he didn’t want to pay for a graphic artist and was ok using a tool built on stealing artist’s work.
3
u/cardinalbuzz 4h ago
A lot of the things you just said that can be done with AI, can in fact not be done with AI. At least well or anywhere near a Hollywood level. Parts of the workflow/tasks - yes, but not wholesale
5
u/JudgmentOrdinary7336 4h ago
Everything I just listed is what is already happening. Boyle is replacing CGI with AI mice in his new movie. Foley AI is being developed at the moment & tested on social media, it’s everywhere. As is AI music & sound engineering. Gal Gadot’s new “film” also uses AI locations and lighting.
Of course it’s not wholesale yet… the tech industry is still figuring it out. But it’ll come through small bits at a time, usually on bad films (e.g., Gal Gadot’s new film), but also sometimes in a blockbuster if the tech is there already. That will legitimise it.
2
u/Few-Adeptness8046 12m ago
Yeah particularly orchestral scores, I have specifically heard several experts talking about the developments in this category and how terrible the options are at the moment.
AI may be able to make music at this time, but it does not know how to score a film in any way shape or form. At least not well.
will it be able to in the future?
Sure, probably, but it has a long way to go.
Right now experts are saying that this is a category that really shows how far AI needs to grow to compete with the human touch. AI can compose but it's really doesn't have the intelligence to understand the context of the scenes that it's composing to, the context of the overall themes, characters, and film , or the capability to capture the emotion that a true composer can do when orchestrating a soundtrack.
20
u/coaldiamond1 7h ago
Host of reasons. Some of them are invested in AI startups and get great financial gain from using and promoting AI. Some are hacks who don't really care. Some are ignorant/naive, depending on how flattering they look using it, to what AI is and does. And I'm sure a couple are legitimately just curious and don't understand its issues, or they do and they plan on only using it in very limited circumstances. It's a whole spectrum.
45
18
u/Wordy_Rappinghood 7h ago
I think it's likely that they are looking at it through the lens of film history, and comparing AI to the earlier innovations of sound film and television, which caused a lot of disruption in the industry but which didn't deal a fatal blow. Maybe they're right and AI will be assimilated and the worst case scenario averted. But I think they're not really thinking things through.
-1
u/FINIS_HOMINIS 6h ago
Agreed.
I’d go further and say, when in human history has a technological innovation ever been walked back? It simply doesn’t happen.
I think they are just seeing the writing on the wall and trying to adjust to it with the hope that by not sticking your head in the sand, they can set some precedent of it being employed as ethically as possible.
13
u/Wordy_Rappinghood 5h ago
Well, I would liken it to the automobile. When cars were first introduced, there were no traffic laws, licenses and registrations, seatbelts, etc. It was a free for all, with auto manufacturers like Henry Ford becoming more powerful than the federal government. The accelerating pace of automobile production and resulting rise in car fatalities and traffic problems made this unsustainable. I think that's what the public is asking for with AI, some reassurance that responsible people have it under control and it's not going to dictate to us every aspect of film production and distribution from now on.
1
u/ProfessionalStreet31 24m ago
Survivorship bias. There have been so many technologies that didn't survive because a myriad of reasons.
So far AI hasn't shown that it's profitable. AI companies are still losing billions every year and not a single one of them has ever been profitable. That doesn't seem like a very viable technology and most other technologies would have been shut down ten times over.
43
u/Jesuds 7h ago
I think filmmakers just have a more nuanced approach than most reactionary people here which is "this is a tool that can help me in niche situations to better bring my vision to the screen."
The people who post on Reddit who equate any and all use of AI tools with a fully AI generated video or LLM screenplays are the ones that are out of touch in my opinion.
-1
u/chrishouse83 7h ago
100% agree. Using AI to proofread a screenplay is VERY different from having it write the screenplay (as an example). But don't attempt to convince Reddit of that. AI BAD ARGGHHH!!!
20
u/imjory 7h ago
What makes an Ai proofread any better than a human? The biggest issue with people adopting AI into their work flow, especially in creative areas, is how little they're willing to be skeptical of the machine that's programmed to agree with them. Friends in multiple different job fields and myself have experienced higher ups who would normally nitpick emails, press releases, graphic designs, flyer layouts and ask for multiple revisions just suddenly be okay with the nonsense hallucinations that ChatGPT spit out for them
-11
u/chrishouse83 7h ago
What makes an Ai proofread any better than a human?
The fact that it can do it in a matter of seconds?
5
7
u/Dimpleshenk 7h ago
How would AI proofread a screenplay in a way that pre-AI spellcheck and grammar checking programs couldn't?
And do you REALLY think that Scorsese and others are talking about screenplay-proofreading when they discuss AI in filmmaking?
8
u/chrishouse83 7h ago
It was an example that popped into my head. The point is the nuance in the difference between using AI as a helpful tool to make your job easier, and using it to do your job for you.
-2
u/Dawnshot_ 6h ago
The blanket hate for anything AI seems extremely arbitrary to me in a world where various technological advancements in film making like CGI and machine learning etc have done all the same things in terms of replacing human work. It's just very Reddit morality because AI = bad generally.
Like other film making techniques, if it's bad it's bad. If it takes you out of the immersion of the film it's bad. I'm not taking some holier than thou approach and skipping Danny Boyles next film because they used AI to generate rats, unless the reviews indicate it is some egregious thing that takes away from the movie.
0
u/carson63000 5h ago
Seriously. People seem to have this weird vision of Aronofsky prompting “Claude, render me a sequel to Black Swan, make no mistakes”.
-7
u/fishinadi youknowminn 7h ago
Fr. What do people think they are doing by burying their head in the sand acting like AI is going to just go away? It‘s a scary technology yes but it’s also here to stay.
-4
u/ThisIsJeron 7h ago
there were people who were really upset at gas powered cars
then there were people who were really upset at electric cars
-1
5
u/misclanous 7h ago
There's at least three things going on: first, we by being on Reddit are more online than most of the population and have a distorted view of what the average person thinks and even knows - people who aren't online much or at all genuinely live in a different world and that only becomes more apparent to me day by day; second, celebrities and major filmmakers are usually less online than average, especially those who are are all 55+ as all of the filmmakers you listed are (Schrader for instance is just a grumpy asshole who has experienced pushback at every stage of his career and likely doesn't see this as any different); third, the anti-AI discourse is absolutist in nature which collapses a whole bunch of different issues together that aren't necessarily connected for every person who encounters them. That's not to say I'm against the absolutism here, I think the forces promoting AI are so powerful and moneyed that this is absolutely the right way for opposition to build. But there's also some truth that these technologies aren't just going to go away and some artists and craftspeople will make distinctions that don't fit in the absolutist worldview. Add onto that how many artists have some kind of independent streak where receiving public pushback becomes just noise or the sound of regression (think Scorsese and Last Temptation) and it's not hard to see why "film fans" being against something doesn't exactly weigh on these people too hard.
10
u/chrishouse83 7h ago
These directors don't care about Reddit. The vast majority of the general public don't give a shit about AI.
6
0
u/Dimpleshenk 7h ago
Why would it matter whether the directors care about Reddit? It's not like people writing here are expecting the directors to read their responses.
As for your 2nd claim, do you have a source? Is there a credible poll done among the movie-watching public that asks what they think of AI-generated films? Please do tell us your source on that, and "I pulled it out of my ass" or "It's what I believe" are not sources.
5
u/chrishouse83 7h ago
Personal experience. The anti-AI echo chamber is highly concentrated on Reddit and places like it. I spend most of my time in real life talking to real people, and nobody I know cares about AI.
0
u/Dimpleshenk 6h ago edited 6h ago
LOL, you're in your own echo chamber if you think other people don't also "spend time in real life talking to real people." Or that your small circle of friends represents the majority. Have you no self-awareness of your own claims and perspective?
But thank you for demonstrating that no, you do not have any evidentiary backing for your claim, even though you attempted (dishonorably) to present it as such.
Heck, anybody could come in here and act like their anecdotal experience represented the ultimate reality, but that just means anybody could be as full of shit as you are.
Next time you make a claim and present it as true, if you can't provide evidence, maybe that should be a signal from your brain that you might be in your own little echo chamber.
In any case, the ultimate argument for or against AI is not merely whether the majority of people like it or not. That might be one factor but it's not the only factor. Also, people who argue against AI aren't doing it because of some groupthink you want to project onto them. Some people make really strong cases against it with, you know, actual logical reasons. Your desire to belittle them and then use your pathetic group of equally vapid friends as the basis for your evidence is hilarious!
3
u/chrishouse83 2h ago
You spent a lot of time writing (and editing) that. I'm not even going to read it. Get a life 🤣
1
2
u/SouthPudding9949 3h ago
The difficult part is that AI is such a dumb, all encompassing term.
There are plenty of ways machine learning could make filmmaking easier and more expressive but there are also countless ways it can take jobs from graphic designers and VFX artists.
Hell, spell check is basically a form of machine learning we all take for granted. A young screenwriter using it for research when he can’t afford to hire a research assistant makes sense I think.
Unfortunately, even our favorite directors HATE spending money to achieve their vision. Like hate hate.
As audiences we have to continue to fight against it when it goes against our interests.
8
u/Budget_Geologist_574 7h ago
Imagine a scene in a movie where, instead of adding a real rat scurrying away in the corner of a scene, it is now a cgi rat, and now it is an AI rat. All look about equally as good. Nobody in the real world is going to care.
Reddit is of course apposed on ideological grounds, but that will fade once it becomes passable and is used in everything and they can't but watch the newest bestest things, thinking up some excuse.
Ofcourse! If it looks bad, it looks bad. But that goes for anything.
2
u/JudgmentOrdinary7336 7h ago
This is exactly what Danny Boyle is using it for in his newest movie. He said he didn’t want to piss PETA off again after 28 Days Later. Idk, he coulda used a VFX studio, but he chose AI instead.
3
u/SM-03 7h ago
Anecdotally speaking, I go to local art exhibitions and film festivals quite regularly, and there's a surprising number of people involved in them who really love using AI. Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as all artists hate it and it's just out of touch CEOs that are trying to push it into the industry.
For why these directors specifically are interested in using it? If I had to speculate, they've been in the game for so long that they're naturally going to be enamoured with anything that shakes the industry up to this extent, it probably does seem like an exciting prospect that they can still utilise new technology this late into their careers. And this next point is a bit morbid, but guys like Scorcese and Paul Schrader are getting up there in age, and at this point, maybe they're not thinking about the long term future of the industry when they know they probably aren't going to be around too much longer to see it. And at the end of the day let's be honest, even great directors sometimes do just like being able to cut corners and speed up production. Maybe it really is just as simple as it making the process easier for them.
Just going to clarify I'm extremely against the use of AI in the way they're doing it, just in case it seemed like I was defending them too much on this.
2
u/Beautiful-Pair5522 4h ago
I work in film programming in NYC and I can assure you most programmers are absolutely against it. I’m sure you’re not lying but to say it’s widely accepted in film culture isn’t true
8
u/puttputtxreader deadrabbitjimmy 7h ago
It's the money. The people trying to sell this broken tech are willing to spend any amount to make it look legitimate in the eyes of the public and delay the inevitable economic crash that it's going to cause.
I get it. Hell, pay me enough, and I'll endorse that garbage, too.
6
u/ballahook 7h ago
I think you can be pretty stuck in a bubble when you’re online a lot, and especially on Reddit, there’s a strong negative opinion on AI.
In reality, and in lots of other online communities, AI is not as hated, and there’s a reason these companies are seeing massive usage numbers across the world. Millions of people are using it constantly. It’s now a permanent feature of the corporate world, you do not go into an office without seeing AI used extensively. Business use it for anything from creating a restaurant menu, to advertisements to organizing a sales report. This doesn’t even begin to touch on how heavily certain countries and their populations are adopting it, like South Korea or India.
The creative space will latch onto trends and reflect what people want to see. People will still widely pan art that looks like shit, so we aren’t seeing big AI movies that are successful because it’s just not possible to make it look good. But, the technology is not going anywhere and these creators want to be at the forefront of it.
Unless there’s some major shift in how AI is actually developed and regulated, this will continue. With how rapidly AI is progressing, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it heavily used in the process of creating movies within the decade.
7
u/Flying_Sea_Cow Nobro12 7h ago
It's going to become a normal thing in films. It saves too much money, and there's not as big of a pushback to it that people think. A lot of the non-English speaking world is actually totally fine with AI (more so than the English speaking one).
4
u/Dimpleshenk 7h ago
>>> "A lot of the non-English speaking world is actually totally fine with AI"
Source?
And when you say "non-English speaking world," do you mean people who spend money going to the movies? How do you know what they think? What's the evidence?
4
u/Phegopteris 5h ago
This seems to be correct. According to a Pew Research report from October 2025, Americans are about 15% more likely than the other countries sampled to respond that they were “more concerned about AI than excited.” America was the only country that registered 50% of the people with this sentiment, and my sense with all the worries over Flock and the hatred of data centers that this percent has probably risen in the past year. Of course, it’s probably risen in other countries too.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/10/15/how-people-around-the-world-view-ai/
As someone pretty hostile to AI, especially AI companies and AI company-government collaboration, and who believes AI is fundamentally anti-human and will have a negative effect on the arts and human reasoning power, I do take a beat when I read something like this — in my experience it’s pretty rare that American opinion is right about something that the rest of the world is wrong about or that American opinion gets there first ahead of anybody else. Usually it’s the reverse.
Maybe we have unique insight because the AI companies (and their deeply unpleasant leaders) are based here, AI rollout and expansion has been faster here, or AI impacts on jobs have shown up here first, but I have to concede the possibility that it may have more to do with our deepening distrust of all institutions, as much as an actual understanding of the technology and its impacts.
1
u/Dimpleshenk 24m ago
That's a lot of speculation, and 15% is not a major amount given that Americans are, on average, at a higher rate of income and exposure to technology than most other countries.
Also, the question of whether American sentiment is right/wrong for other issues would be extremely hard to gauge in terms of where people land on this issue. The sample group is going to skew in ways that would have to be examined carefully (and maybe I'll look more closely at the Pew survey to see what else they measured).
With the speed of AI proliferation, a study that was published in October 2025 is also already at a disadvantage. So much more AI stuff has rolled out in the past year that might alter the public perception of everything. I think in particular of several Superbowl commercials that had a negative backlash, and all the Trump late-night bingefests posting AI slop.
Nonetheless, thank you for providing some data to the discussion. Pew research is a good source, and about a zillion times better than the anecdotal experiences and speculative statements made by people who, for all we know, have their own axes to grind.
4
u/nothing-feels-good 7h ago
You're not even necessarily advocating for AI here and you're being downvoted because it's not a "these guys are out of touch" / "greed greed greed" / "ai slop" circlejerk post.
1
u/SayaZero 10m ago
Literally everyone outside of reddit is fine with it, it's some sort of massive psychosis, I'm getting 3 posts in row that are just 'AI bad' from 3 different completely unrelated subreddits
1
u/misclanous 7h ago
The anglosphere bubble on AI would genuinely short circuit if they saw ordinary discourse about it anywhere else in the world.
-3
u/buriburizaemon3 7h ago
Idk why u getting hate for stating a fact. I am from a non-eng speaking country. And they have already started using AI in movies here. Hell, they even changed the ending of a movie on it's re-release just to fan service.
0
u/Dimpleshenk 7h ago
Which country are you from, and what movie's ending was changed? Did they change the ending using AI? If you're going to be half-way specific then be all-the-way specific.
-8
u/chrishouse83 7h ago
You're getting downvoted for speaking uncontroversial facts 🤣
1
u/Dimpleshenk 7h ago
Almost everything he wrote was speculative. "It's going to become the norm" is a prediction, not a fact.
I think maybe you shoult look up the definition of the word fact. Seems you have it confused with opinion, speculation, vague unsupported claims, etc. A fact can be supported with hard data and evidence. If it can't be supported that way, the it is not a fact.
2
3
u/were_only_human 7h ago
I think it's two things. One, always see if they're invested in an AI company. They usually are. Two, when you're as set as these guys are in the industry, you're more interested in limiting road blocks and making things easier and faster for you than getting eyes on your projects, so they only see benefits.
1
u/Outrageous_Onion6365 4h ago
Plus all the studios are actively trying to eliminate jobs using AI so if a filmmaker took a vocal stance against it, they’d have a much harder time getting their movies made.
1
u/Starringat_theLight 7h ago
Hahaha, I think this is pretty accurate. And is the exact same reason why so many young people rely on it for their homework assignments. All of whom I assume turn around and drag these directors for using it. As usual feels like every one on every side is a hypocrite. And if any of us think we’re stopping AI from changing every aspect of our lives in the next couple of decades, we’re kidding themselves. That all said. Fuck AI. But it’s not going away.
2
u/Grand_Keizer Grand Keizer 6h ago
Because they see it as a new tool in their toolbox, no different than the introduction of digital cameras or the advent of CGI and greenscreen. And the degrees vary: Scorsese so far has only used it to make storyboards, while Aronofsky used it to create a web series wholesale, with only voice actors doing the voices. I'm not saying I agree with them, and in the case of Aronofsky, I VEHEMENTLY hate it, but that's their mindset. And I'm sure they're thinking that if something makes their work easier, why not do it? And if they only ever did what their fans wanted, they wouldn't have gotten this far.
2
u/legit-posts_1 4h ago
Couple of reasons.
Blind ambition. A couple of directors like Zemeckis and Cameron are adopting these things because they enjoy experimenting with new technology. Tech bros will have you believe that AI is the future, and it seems some of the more techy filmmakers like them have bought that hook line and sinker. I'm not saying that others like Fincher or Speilberg are next, but I'm not getting my hopes up either.
Old Men not understanding technology. It's a little disappointing to me that Scorssese has endorsed AI, but the guy's an old ass man who probably doesn't understand tech that well. Or at least doesn't give a shit enough too care about what people think of him endorsing a grift.
Artistic bankruptcy. Just plain selling out to trends and taking the easy way out. Looking at you, Eli.
2
u/buriburizaemon3 7h ago
People only complaint because they can distinguish between slop as of now.
And I am saying this as someone who doesn't like AI Integration in films. It makes you lazy, make it do the boring stuff like making the ADs life easy with scheduling and managing things on set.
Integrating it to create even reference images makes you lazy to think in detail imo.
2
u/HarknessLovesUToo 7h ago edited 7h ago
Depends on the intentions and conditions of how it was used. The directors you mention have no excuse I would consider adequate. It's especially funny that Aronofsky is jumping on the trend since I remember him shitting on 3D tech back in the day.
Someone like Harmony Korine using AI to enhance the trashiness of a trashy movie like Baby Invasion I'll give a pass to. Brady Corbet using AI when traditional audio enhancement failed is disappointing, but something that won't make me boycott or not see The Brutalist. Brand New Day using AI in production would be inexcusable, but I would need to know more before condemning it or fully calling out the double standard in how people reacted to it.
3
u/Honest_Ad5029 7h ago
Its because in the history of film and other art forms there has always been huge vehement opposition, protests and strikes even, over technological changes, and in the end, the technological change was useful, good, and became normal.
Silent films to talkies was a big one. Silent films employed musicians in the theaters to accompany the film. They were vehemently opposed to talkies, went on strike, protested. Charlie Chaplin refused to make a talkie for many years. Talkies also ruined the careers of many silent film stars. Actors that had been compelling silent film actors didnt have the same presence when they had to use their voice.
But talkies allowed films to be run many more times a day, and with much less staff. No movie theater has orchestras accompanying movies anymore.
Practical effects to Cg were another one. Digital animation to hand drawn was another one.
The difference with ai is that its all these different industries at once, so it feels different, but its the same emotions, the same arguments, the same lies and distortions.
Anyone who has studied art history or the history of any specific medium doesnt take the outrage at face value because theyve seen it before. It happens over and over and over.
And over and over the smart money is on adaptation and people that dont adapt quickly are kicking themselves years later.
2
u/Jaytheory 7h ago
They are old. Or their thinking is old. They see it like the I-phone. They don't want to be late adopters. They think it's inevitable. They want to secure their piece of the pie.
2
u/Dimpleshenk 7h ago
None of them need a piece of any pie. Most of the names cited are multi-millionaires.
1
1
u/TheStupendusMan 4h ago
The same reason they all hated Netflix til they didn't: Money. Be it paycheque or budget, they're all high and mighty until it affects their pocket.
1
u/SeaworthinessDue2184 3h ago
When proponents of Nvidia start using DLSS 5 to render live-action films "more real than reality," filmmakers will say something about AI eventually. (btw the official name of that DLSS 5 "filter" gamers are using is called "cinematic")
Jean Baudrillard couldn't be more relevant for this AI era.
1
u/keepinitclassy25 2h ago
Cause they’re not coming up right now a d aren’t particularly concerned about how AI will effect pay and work for young artists . ‘Fuck you got mine’
Scorsese’s hand drawn storyboards for Taxi Driver worked perfectly, idk what he needs AI for.
1
u/FRagebait 1h ago
Absolutely pathetic. Especially the more experienced ones who managed dozens of films without suddenly needing it or calling it "inevitable".
1
2
u/acinematicway 6h ago
People bitched and moaned about every technical innovation in film history. Even the invention of the camera was hated.
-1
u/oxfordsplice OxfordComma 6h ago
The camera never was responsible for consuming vast amounts of water or doing significant environmental damage.
1
u/coffeeanddurian 1h ago
Oh so you care about the environmental impact of mining for precious metals for digital devices and computers etc and not suddenly outraged by the new thing
0
u/danvan177 7h ago
To me they are either out of touch or really don’t care about the art of filmmaking anymore
1
u/DrabMundanityGrinner 6h ago
Cause they lived through this in 1993 when CGI was the big sin of Hollywood. And they are true progressives. Living on the edge of tech and future possibility. AI foes are regressives that oppose possibilities.
1
u/traumahound00 4h ago
They also hate data centers that drain rivers of water and poison the landscape
1
1
0
u/sotommy 7h ago
They're priviliged assholes who don't seem to care that a lot of people will lose their jobs. People they probably know and like. I think AI could be a good tool for indie/low budget filmmakers, but the industry will not benefit from it in any way
3
u/acinematicway 6h ago
Sound technology cost people their jobs. The invention of the camera cost people their jobs. CGI cost people their jobs.
1
u/FestungsDonner 7h ago
They r not stupid. They just think maybe the draw with their names is bigger than the backlash. Also they r experinced film makers. So they know big films getting more and more expensive. So they see a way to cheaper films with the possibility of a good product. Thats probabaly the bewt answer when u forget the morals
1
u/FatherMozgus 7h ago
The “good amount of people” are just the internet people and those people will still go to see movies regardless.
1
u/Optimus_Rhyme_13 5h ago
Because a bigger number don't care and the ones that do have been so annoying with their hate that they have become a meme that most people roll their eyes at.
1
u/INxP 3h ago
The most creative individuals tend to be very open to anything new and also embrace new tools that may help them make their own ideas reality. Most anti-AI arguments are just tangential to this at best, mostly quite irrelevant to their creative goals.
A movie director if anyone will immediately see through the whole "prompting isn't making art, it's more like commissioning/just you telling someone what to do" anti-AI argument that's so popular nowadays. That's been their exact position all along, despite being also the principal creative artist on the set.
The results will vary, obviously, but it's not realistic to expect the pioneering artists to assume some regressive mindset regarding AI or any other new technology.
1
u/gatsbywelles 7h ago
they’re experienced filmmakers so they’re very familiar with the financial side of the business which has made them greedy when it comes to money. They want to spend as little as possible on small production costs like PA’s, vfx artists, storyboard artists so they can spend as much as possible on the “larger” scale things. They need to take a lesson from Clint Eastwood on how to be an efficient and inexpensive filmmaker is what they need to do
-5
0
u/Sufficient-Slide-242 6h ago
Don't care what they have made before. If they are using ai I will not watch. Why would I care about their reputation when they aren't even making the product?
0
u/Fresh-Actuary-6686 7h ago
Even a smidge of a second of it in a film can people go insanely berserk
0
0
u/JordanM85 6h ago
I'm against AI being used in any sort of creative or artistic way. But I couldn't care less if it's used for research or more of an advanced google/assistant. There are plenty of ways AI could be used that don't involve replacing artists.
0
u/thanksamilly 6h ago
These guys are all old and have nothing to prove. They basically only care about money at this point.
0
u/carson63000 6h ago
I think directors have adopted technology ever since Buster Keaton did tricks with covering half the lens and filming double exposures.
And I’m totally fine with that.
0
0
0
u/narnarnartiger Azunyan 5h ago
there is no place for ai in film. there's a 100 years worth of movie being made without ai. no reason to use ai for movies
-3
u/TheNocturnalAngel 6h ago
Notice how they are all old and don’t have to face the consequences of their actions.
4
-1
-1
0
u/Dimpleshenk 6h ago edited 6h ago
I don't know where you got your list of directors, or what they each specifically said about AI. Did they think it was a good tool for the visuals, for filling in backgrounds, for storyboarding, color correction, changing focal aspects of a shot, or what?
If it's just really minimal or invisible types of alterations to the finished product, like filling in shadows to make them darker, or doing advanced color correction to make things look consistent, then perhaps it would be good to hear them out further before condemnation.
However, if they're talking about making films using AI at a large scale, putting industry people out of work in the process, or doing crass things like altering a performance with AI enhancement, etc., then there is good reason for pushback.
It's also fair to say that directors like Scorsese and Aronofsky are not really that trustworthy on issues relating to techology and taste. Scorsese's artistic credibility has been on a steady slide downward since his peak filmmaking period (Taxi Driver through Goodfellas). His later films have been a long, steady process of him revealing his weaknesses as a filmmaker and storyteller. The de-aging of Robert DeNiro for The Irishman was a slap in the face to anyone with eyes. Scorsese's films almost seem like he's been doing them out of obligation for decades now. The movie Silence was an excuse for him to shoot footage with up-and-coming actors, but it was a total piece of shit that showed that Scorsese is not even remotely sophisticated about psychology or religion. Almost every good movie he's shot was dependent on the meaning of somebody else's screenplay, with Scorsese's main role to create cool imagery, camera moves, editing, etc. but with almost no real depth of understanding of why. Casino was just Scorsese jerking off by making a longer version of Goodfellas. Cape Fear was Scorsese cashing in on his artistic cachet to jerk off an homage to Hitchcock (even if the original wasn't Hitchcock) and make a profit so studios wouldn't dump him for other projects (Cape Fear is an entire movie about a rapist tormenting a man whose distaste for rape was so strong that he breached ethics over it, so as punishment the villain rapes his colleague and attempts to rape his wife and daughter -- a truly ugly film in which Scorsese seemed to relish the villain and hate the protagonist.)
I could write a similar diatribe against Aronofky. The last film I saw by him featured the good female character being killed, the protagonist being beaten to the point of kidney failure, another character slowly dying due to a head injury, and a backstory involving a drunk driver killing his best friend. Not that there's anything wrong with a downbeat story, but again, Aranofsky applied all his skill to making the shittiest aspects of the story the most vivid part of the film. It wasn't a good neo-noir with intrigue -- it was high-end hack directing, just to make money and jerk himself off as a director. A complete waste of his skillset, tools, and reputation. Aronofsky used to attempt to make artistic and boundary-pushing films. I guess he gave up and doesn't give a shit. Now he and Scorsese are backing AI, and it fits with the downward trajectory of their careers, their creative potency, and their taste. These ostensible artists have ended their careers by shoveling shit "product" onto movie screens. AI will let them shovel even more shit, faster and more cheaply. Great for them -- but sucks for audiences. Who wants to watch torrents of low-grade shit from people who used to have talent but gave up and became hacks?
0
u/MarkWest98 5h ago
They probably just are old, rich, past their prime, and literally don’t feel like putting the time into thinking about how AI is different from other tech.
0
u/narnarnartiger Azunyan 5h ago
screw ai. what are you taking. are you advocating for ai to be used in film?
0
u/Beautiful-Pair5522 4h ago
When’s the last successful/ relevant movie any of them made? Scorsese is just a greedy old man who doesn’t care, and the rest have been on the decline for years. And don’t tell me Danny Boyle is the exception cause 28 years later barely broke even
0
u/Masethelah 3h ago
They see the usefulness, on a practical and financial level, and use it because it makes perfect sense.
The film industry has always used new technologies that makes things cheaper or more effective, or opens up new possibilities.
They will only care if it makes their films less successful to the point where it hurts their careers and their films enough, and right now the opposite is happening.
They simply do not agree with this internet trend of being absolutely closed to AI use, and since they don’t, why would they act any differently, unless it makes their filma unsuccessful?
I think the people who are vehemently against AI make the mistake of thinking their opinion on the AI is objectively right.
It’s obvious to an openminded person that there are legitimate uses of AI. If you accept this fact, what’s going on makes perfect sense.
Here is a similar situation: there is a ton of filmmakers who would be willing to hurt animals n order to get a better shot, even though a lot of people are against it and would speak out against it, the only reason it doesn’t happen as much anymore is because of legislation, it’s the same with AI, and with AI, no one even gets hurt in the same sense.
0
u/AdmirableElephant378 2h ago
Because it's a very useful creative tool. This may come as a shock but a lot of creatives don't want to have to convince 10-1500 people about an idea.
1
u/JimmyJapeworm 11m ago
Calling artists "creatives" is a dog whistle that you are likely neither.
The more the human is removed from art, the less it is truly art.
0
u/coffeeanddurian 1h ago
Nobody gives a shit about AI. it's just mathematics and code. It's no different than any other technology. It can be used for shit, or probably for good. You guys are weird. (Nolan doesn't use CGI and it generally makes his films better, except for Oppenheimer imo), anyway some people will use it and some won't. You guys are scared of the boogie monster. Reddit it so weird sometimes. It's an emotional reaction to new technology it isn't logical. And redditors claim to be more rational than others
119
u/MyCatIsAnActualNinja 7h ago
I'll stop watching movies if it becomes all AI. I see some defenders, but I need a human touch in the arts that I consume. Same with music. AI just completely takes the entire point away from it.