• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    6 months ago

    In the future, “prestige television” will just be TV that uses real people in the production cycle.

    Maybe we even get a channel that’s “100% Human” and you need to spend $40/mo to subscribe

  • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    He’s not wrong, but I don’t think the James Cameron of the last decade has any room to criticize others for not creating sufficiently “sacred” art.

  • Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    Of course he is scared, he’s been coasting on rehashing Pocahontas but with blue aliens for a decade. He might actually have to put effort into it if anybody can make a movie.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    Man, remember when CGI replaced animation, after animation replaced actors? It’s a real shame we don’t have actors anymore, since the moment they weren’t strictly necessary. It would’ve been so much cooler if technology simply allowed new things to exist when they’d otherwise be implausible or unfundable.

    • hydrashok@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      You’re not wrong, and I think I understand your point, but what is the current balance of CGI animated movies released per year versus hand drawn and painted? Now what does film landscape look like if we applied those same release ratios to live action films?

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Does that seem likely? Pointing a camera at actors is not inherently difficult or expensive. Even when AI is involved, it’s best at turning whatever you have into whatever you describe - so you film real people in real costumes, and let CGI-for-dummies make up elaborate sets. Or you hire three great actors to play a dozen characters.

        Even for CGI films, ‘have’ into ‘describe’ just means you can half-ass the animation and rendering. Productions can focus on writing, character design, and cinematography, then feed in some footage of actors in VR Chat, to get out a scene approaching Pixar quality. Is Pixar itself going to use that process? Probably not. But it’s a million miles from typing ‘funny scene high quality’ and crossing your fingers.

  • bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Agree.

    If its truthful (which will be impossible to tell) i will actively support any project that explicitly states no ai used in its making.

  • Semisimian@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    You don’t need AI to create soulless depictions of humanity, James Cameron already does that. I think he is just protecting his bread and butter from automation.

    Snark aside, I grew up loving his movies. As a film student, I loved taking them apart in critique for his mastery of technical filmmaking. As a professor, I used the DVD extras from his films to show just how forward-thinking his knowledge was of VFX. But this Avatar garbage is just the result of a kid who finally leveled up enough to produce the comic book he wrote when he was 8. It’s awful.