Avengers' Joe Russo Says Movies Soon Will Be Made By AI (collider.com) 126
Joe Russo, the co-director of Avengers: Endgame, in an interview on the impact he thinks AI is going to play out in the world of video games, movies and television. He said: This is like a mind-bending question, right? I mean, we've had conversations about how it can be used, and look, Gen Z is very unique because it's a generation that has -- If there were incremental movements in technology over the last, say, 100 years, 150 years, they were the first generation with an exponential movement, right? So there's a real possibility now for technology to become a really important factor in our lives because it's been embraced by Gen Z, and they grew up with it, they understand it, they know how to use it. That's important, right? We're not in a world where, you know, your uncle doesn't know how to send emails anymore. We're in a world where the entire generation has a facile expertise in it, and is also not afraid of it.
So potentially, what you could do with it is obviously use it to engineer storytelling and change storytelling. So you have a constantly evolving story, either in a game or in a movie, or a TV show. You could walk into your house and save the AI on your streaming platform. âoeHey, I want a movie starring my photoreal avatar and Marilyn Monroe's photoreal avatar. I want it to be a rom-com because I've had a rough day," and it renders a very competent story with dialogue that mimics your voice. It mimics your voice, and suddenly now you have a rom-com starring you that's 90 minutes long. So you can curate your story specifically to you.
That's one thing that it can do, but it can also, on a communal level, populate the world of the game, have intelligence behind character choice, you know, the computer-run characters in the game that can make decisions learn your play style, make it a little harder for you, make it a little easier for you, curate the story. Say you want Fortnite to be more of a horror game, right? Then you could ask the AI to ramp up the horror elements of it. So again, you could curate your experience.I think that's where it's going. How quickly we get there, I don't know, but that's where it's going.
So potentially, what you could do with it is obviously use it to engineer storytelling and change storytelling. So you have a constantly evolving story, either in a game or in a movie, or a TV show. You could walk into your house and save the AI on your streaming platform. âoeHey, I want a movie starring my photoreal avatar and Marilyn Monroe's photoreal avatar. I want it to be a rom-com because I've had a rough day," and it renders a very competent story with dialogue that mimics your voice. It mimics your voice, and suddenly now you have a rom-com starring you that's 90 minutes long. So you can curate your story specifically to you.
That's one thing that it can do, but it can also, on a communal level, populate the world of the game, have intelligence behind character choice, you know, the computer-run characters in the game that can make decisions learn your play style, make it a little harder for you, make it a little easier for you, curate the story. Say you want Fortnite to be more of a horror game, right? Then you could ask the AI to ramp up the horror elements of it. So again, you could curate your experience.I think that's where it's going. How quickly we get there, I don't know, but that's where it's going.
With any luck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe AI will do a better job than the hacks that currently deliver re-skin after re-skin of comic book superhero movies that are basically just 2 hours of explosions and CGI.
Re:With any luck... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on how diverse the media can ultimately be that it gets trained on. I mean, if it's just movies, then yeah, you're probably right in what you're implying... but what if it's also (for your Avengers example) the entire history of the relevant comics? Avengers 26 might be pretty interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
but what if it's also (for your Avengers example) the entire history of the relevant comics?
Perhaps, but what will absolutely be included in training is box office return. Find the MCU movies that brought in top dollar, that's getting weighted heavy. Just like social media that weighs on "interactions", what could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
AI recursion, because your "movie AI" for comic book movies will be trained on comic book movies and comic books. But your "comic book AI" will be trained on comic books and comic book movies.
So Avengers 26 will fe
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they aren't also trained on Hallmark movies.
Lonely woman moves from the big city to a farm in the country. She meets Mr. Amazing when she enters a county geranium-growing contest. Just as her prized flowers are ready to take to the fair for judging, Berzerker 7 comes along and destroys her beloved plants with all kinds of explosions and lasers. She mistakenly thinks Mr. Awesome is somehow behind the attack. Brokenhearted, she shuns him, though he keeps trying to win her back. Finally, Ironman sav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which character are you hoping gets executed?
Mr. Right, by Iron Man, accidentally, while high on cocaine, moments before he reaches the platform for the wedding ceremony. It's the plot twist that turns the lonely woman into a supervillain, hence completing the origin story of Miss DeathFlowers.
Re: With any luck... (Score:2)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Fa... [youtube.com]
Re: With any luck... (Score:2)
I think this would be an improvement.
Church lady, Trump voting grandma might not share my views.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it could be worse.
Without AI and CGI, we know where things are headed
Ow, My Balls" [youtube.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
It's trained on hollywood blockbusters, so it too will vomit out 2 hours of CGI and explosions. You're doomed.
Re: (Score:2)
But this is on steroids....just scan the people you want in....AI moves and voices them.
Then, ditch the person so you don't have to pay royalties.
If someone did this today with taking photos while you are in public, and AI's you...would they have to pay you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think an AI would come up with if it were trained on The Longest Day, How the West was Won, Around the World in 80 Days, The Ten Commandments and The Wizard of Oz?
A war movie set entirely within a saloon with a large globe decorated with little moving ships being chased by a tornado while lecturing you about what a poor human being it thinks you are.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that's not entirely unlikely!
The point of doing a movie with AI is making it drastically cheaper. If you can get a movie done for $30M instead of $300M, maybe that makes it a bit more viable to take some risks.
When you spend $300M on something you need to be sure it won't flop, and that means doing a bland plot that's palatable and understandable world-wide.
Re: (Score:2)
...re-skin of comic book superhero movies that are basically just 2 hours of explosions and CGI.
Yeah... that way we can nitpick how they didn't follow the source material! /s
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so far-fetched to believe movies like the Avengers will be totally AI generated in the near future, because in a way blockbuster movies already are made by a machine. Corporations are legal machines; people are the hardware and the rules, policies and incentives that govern the corporation are the software. As movies become ever more vast and expensive, they feel less and less like personal artistic statements. *The Avengers* was not a great movie, although many *components* of the movie were gre
And still waiting for my hoverboard (Score:2)
Fanciful predictions about future technology are always just that.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Right now we're still at the stage where AI can barely stitch together a show about nothing without going off the rails
( https://www.twitch.tv/watchmef... [twitch.tv] )
Re: (Score:2)
"Soon but how quickly idk" (Score:2)
Facile (Score:5, Insightful)
Love the backhanded compliment.
"We're in a world where the entire generation has a facile expertise in it, and is also not afraid of it"
Facile (Oxford): " appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial."
This is in line with my view. Your child is not smart and "good with technology" because they can use an iPad. A bunch of people, a lot of them with gray hair, did such a good job making a usable device that your stupid child can use it.
Re:Facile (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just "your stupid child." We have an entire generation or more that don't understand the tiniest bit of what's happening under the covers. I grew up needing to develop the programs I used on old hardware, so as systems advanced, I at least have a fundamental understanding that files exist, what a database is, how memory is addressed, and so on. Whereas the younger generations just see a device and expect it "to work," without any real understanding at all. Didn't we just have some stories in the last few months about how a lot of kids don't understand filesystems, or how to organize them, since "the system takes care of that for them?"
We've got at least a full generation, probably more, that are way TOO comfortable with machines, and way, WAY, too trusting of machines with no fundamental understanding of what they are, how much work went into making them, or how badly and spectacularly they can fail when they do. They have absolute faith in them, as if they were a religion unto themselves and the machines are their god. Every story about self-driving cars is filled to the brim with true believers telling anyone with doubts that humans are worse than machines, with all sorts of "but but but" when people point out we simply don't have the data to back that up yet. AI won't have to be that good to impress this generation of people. They already believe in the inherent superiority of machines. Human = shit. Machine = god. Meanwhile, those of us that grew up developing our own systems know that the machines, up to and including now, are only as good as the people behind them. And that self-driving and the current version of AI take A LOT of people, and in some cases a lot of funding, and corners absolutely *WILL* be cut anywhere a company involved sees the opportunity to save money.
As much as I don't want to see the machines in charge, I fear these people combined with the onslaught of AI idiocy that barely qualifies as an overly overcomplex database search, will lead us into a very dangerous spot. But, there's little we can do to stop it. The ball is rolling downhill already. We're just not sure where it will end up landing just yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas the younger generations just see a device and expect it "to work," without any real understanding at all. Didn't we just have some stories in the last few months about how a lot of kids don't understand filesystems, or how to organize them, since "the system takes care of that for them?"
I actually think this is great. The computer as appliance is a terrific evolution. But it does mean that the ability to use a computer is no more impressive than the ability to set up ARC on a television. Perhaps less so. My mother doesn't need to know where her outlook PST file is - and she needs to know even less about how her phone stores emails.
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas the younger generations just see a device and expect it "to work," without any real understanding at all. Didn't we just have some stories in the last few months about how a lot of kids don't understand filesystems, or how to organize them, since "the system takes care of that for them?"
I actually think this is great. The computer as appliance is a terrific evolution. But it does mean that the ability to use a computer is no more impressive than the ability to set up ARC on a television. Perhaps less so. My mother doesn't need to know where her outlook PST file is - and she needs to know even less about how her phone stores emails.
While I see zero problem with that, the problem lies in the prognosticators that have lived with "it just works" long enough to believe the machines completely infallible. I've watched the business world go from, "Machines are the devil," to, "machines are alright in moderation," to, "gotta have all the computers all the time," to, "HOLY SHIT, MORE MACHINES LESS HUMANS OMG!" in my lifetime, and the faith-based version of this reality is frighteningly unappealing to those who know what's going on behind the
Re: (Score:2)
I guess, but the paper-thin assumption of infallibility is what lets us drive cars, get on planes, or pay our bills online. Even when it's demonstrably false, it's still useful illusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Your child is not smart and "good with technology" because they can use an iPad
Most parent with young and not so young children grew up with tech, I can't image they think that, this world doesn't exist anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's just my extended family then. :)
exponential movement in technology? (Score:3)
What exponential movement in technology would this be? And where are these gen Z who know how to use it?
Gen Z certainly know how to be used by it.
Self-insert fanfic ahoy! (Score:3)
So...if you do not have enough imagination to play an RPG, or enough skill to write fanfic, you can then ask an AI to make you a Mary Sue character and render it out.
I can see the appeal. Hey, I want a 3-hour movie about a network engineer who fights crime.
Re: (Score:3)
I can see the appeal. Hey, I want a 3-hour movie about a network engineer who fights crime.
Hackers version of Cobra Kai: they're now all in their 50s except Mr The Plague who's 70. Tell me you wouldn't watch that.
Re: (Score:2)
Rights to likeness (Score:3)
I fully expect that lawsuits governing rights to likeness to ensue.
If I understand the nature of what actors in franchises sign away, it's typically for the company to use their likenesses for things like toy lines and other materials that are secondary to the actual motion pictures, and that they generally retain the rights to their own likenesses when it comes to new work, meaning that the studio cannot simply generate their own faux-actor that looks just like the original actor to portray the character going forward, they either have to hire the actor again, or they have to negotiate a new license with the actor to use the actor's appearance.
And I don't think that this is unfair either. Even in a Big-Budget Special Effects Extravaganza the quality of the acting contributes to how well the franchise endures. At some point all the fancy FX in the world don't overcome a weak cast. Even for entirely animated movies, the voice-actors performances are critical. If the actual acted performances are lackluster then odds are pretty good that the franchise will be weak or will close down entirely.
So it would make sense that at least for sequels, movie production would require either actors, or actors being compensated for the use of their likenesses even if they're no longer involved but the characters based on their looks and performances still are.
I could well see entirely original films made with entirely generated content, including voices. But that doesn't mean that these will replace conventional movies. After all, there's still an industry for live stage performances to the extent that many productions even still tour.
I don't think movie stars are going anywhere (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Background actors who don't need to interact with the main cast are going to get AI'd out of existence.
A big problem with real people is they screw up, or just do a less than perfect job. That's why multiple takes are common. And then later the director and editor piece things together from multiple takes into one. Each take has to have all the background actors and every prop they interact with match on the resulting timeline or there can be noticeable continuity errors... those errors all go away if yo
And very soon (Score:2, Troll)
And the shitty boomergenxmillenials will blame gen z for killing the movie industry for being unable to connect with AI created films.
Money (Score:5, Interesting)
Certainly will be cheaper. No paying expensive Hollywood stars. No expensive shoot locations, insurance, expensive camera equipment, or paying for high-dollar special effects and the people who create them.
In a few years, you'll simply sit down and say, "Show me a 2 hour and 10 minute movie about aliens who fight epic battles, in the style of Dickens, and wear fancy hats." and it'll be provided. You'll be able to adjust and modify the plot as you go, and if you like it, you can have the sequel the following day when you have time. Certainly not hard to imagine given where AI is currently at.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What Lebron can do right now is only unique because other tech hasn't gotten to where it could replace him. His value increasing has nothing to do with the fact other tech can't. If that were true, then Jordan's value wouldn't have increased as it has since he retired.
Part of the value a sports player has over a movie star, is that people likely value that their abilities are human. While most of the time, we won't watch sports events in person, we never watch a movie in person. Does it truly matter if a re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm gonna trust the experts, rather than some random Slashdotter. We're already seeing it achieve far more than many expected and it's only just beginning to grow.
Re: (Score:2)
Rom-com? (Score:2)
>>Hey, I want a movie starring my photoreal avatar and Marilyn Monroe's photoreal avatar. I want it to be a rom-com because I've had a rough day
A rom-com? Anyone requesting a movie featuring themselves and Marilyn Monroe is after a hardcore porno.
Seriously though, does anyone want to see a movie staring themselves? Most actors don't even watch their own movies. Unless it is interactive, in which case it's not really a movie, it's a videogame.
Re: (Score:2)
>does anyone want to see a movie staring themselves? Most actors don't even watch their own movies.
One assumes the AI will also make me better looking and tweak my voice so it sounds how I hear it rather than how everyone else hears it. And AI-me will definitely be smoother, and more physically capable.
I'd watch that. My wife might not appreciate me putting her on the screen though - whether I change her avatar or not, it won't go well for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
does anyone want to see a movie staring themselves
I suspect that would be a highly "tuned" version of themself. A profile of good looks, no flab, resonant voice, genius comic timing and with a full head of hair!
Basically, the same AI generated profile of themself that they will use on dating sites, if they don't already do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Mona laughing to herself as a guy was scanned for a new suit and he didn't seem to notice the enhanced 'reflection' on the full size screen that showed him how various suits would look on him.
Please... (Score:2)
to be fair (Score:4, Insightful)
....have you seen Marvel movies?
I'm pretty sure ChatGPT *today* could write those scripts and those plots.
I mean it's
(medium setpiece scene with explosions, deafening music, etc)
title sequence
trivial dialogue. Insert random quips. Reference something from last film. Product placement set A.
(giant setpiece scene with explosions, deafening music, etc)
narrative connection transition from first major battle to second. Additional quips. Product placement set B
(giant setpiece scene with explosions, deafening music, etc)
narrative connection transition from first major battle to second. Engage full quip-delivery. Ensure all A-listers have had contractually-agreed screen time agreements filled. Product placement set C
(giant setpiece scene with explosions, deafening music, etc and BOSS FIGHT)
open ended narrative dialogue implying next film. Closing quips.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh - the beats are very easy to see in most Marvel movies, but they're hardly the only movies sticking to a formula.
People like movies that follow certain structures. Even "serious" movies hew pretty close to the established lines. Hell, even biographies are contorted to have the normal beats at the normal times. This is not new or a secret. If you want to learn what the standard structures are, and what the beats' "proper names" are, you can read stuff here - https://savethecat.com/beat-sh... [savethecat.com]
If you're
Re: (Score:2)
"What do you want me to be?"
"Don't be a dick!"
Yay. That's no longer a scene, it's the plot description.
Seriously? (Score:2)
"Gen Z is very unique because it's a generation that has..."
Lost me right there... I'm not going to waste time reading something written by someone with such a shallow grasp of the English language.
"Unique" is an absolute... there are no shades of unique, something is either unique or it's not.
Sigh!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, but they got the apostrophe right, so partial credit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When somebody says literally your head must explode...
It's fine to add emphasis by restatement but that is repetitive so another word or phrase can be used. The minor error can take the place of the TONE of speech lacking in the written word.
Literally was fine as an occasional emphasis (done over a century at least) but today it's gone so far I wonder if people know it's meaning anymore.
New product (Score:2)
I plan to use AI to watch the movies for me. This will save a lot of time.
Zuckerberg was right (Score:2)
It seems Mark Zuckerberg was right about the metaverse but he missed the shot: it was not about living as an avatar in a virtual world but using AI to create stories which your avatar is a part of.
I thought they already were? (Score:2)
There's a sameness about new movie and tv offerings that really seemed like it followed some simple procedural formula. Kinda what you would get if you asked Alexa for script ideas.
nope (Score:2)
I stopped reading TFS after the quote, "very unique."
He's right (Score:2)
I predicted this a long time ago... (Score:2)
I've known a few minor film, video, and TV director/producers, and THEY say, there are only a handful of plot arcs. The Quest. The romantic comedy. The spy thriller. etc.. One of them went as far as to say there is only ONE plot arc. It's a template. You just fill in the specifics. Sorry, I'm too lazy and busy to offer supporting links, but the are out there.
So "AI" is basica
Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant (Score:2)
Screenwriters and comedians Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon are out with a new guide for hopeful screenwriters: “Writing Movies for Fun and Profit: How We Made a Billion Dollars at the Box Office and You Can, Too!” They talk to Renee Montagne about their book.
Mr. GARANT: What people need to embrace and accept, if you’re going to be a writer in Hollywood, is that every single movie has the exact same structure, exactly, whether it’s
the Hanna Barbaration of quality (Score:2)
I'm not going to spend any money on what amounts to animated films with humans placed over CGI, and the humans probably going to be replaced soon by Generative AI characters.
I was repelled by creepy blue aliens, riding on CGI space dragons, in a certain movie that was nothing but a 120 minute video game. As for Endgame, the less said the better.
Also, all you kids get off my lawn and don't touch my Torino or my Zune.
Is this a bad thing? (Score:2)
From what I've seen of the last Marvel movies, an AI might bring more originality, flair and (dare I say) humanity to the franchise than the writers have been providing.
Fancasting Fandango (Score:2)
Can finally have Peter O'Toole as Gandalf and Patrick Stewart as Denethor.
Or make that 40's Noir Lord Of The Rings like that poster someone did a few years ago.
It will democratize those fields (Score:2)
AI makes medium, not great, not bad. (Score:2)
First, what we call AI now is not movie AI. There is no consciousness, no sapience, and therefore no real creativity. Real world AI is just a formula.
The thing about formula Movies and formula TV, is that it is always good, never great. The really great movies break the formula and create new ones. So a real life AI will always follow the formula it finds (not creates) and will always create a good work, never a great one, never a bad one.
sounds great (Score:2)
Maybe I can get an AI to watch this garbage for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is new (Score:2)
This is one thing I like. (Score:2)
Re:Arguably AI could do a better job (Score:5, Insightful)
but couldn't get through the battles because I couldn't be arsed to care which side won.
That's the whole deal with MCU. The character backgrounds are fleshed out in other movies. Avengers seires are the ones where all them come together - it's the payoff.
So if you *only* watched Avengers, you don't really know anything about Tony Stark as a character - you need to watch the Ironman movies for that. Same with Thor. Or Dr. Strange. Or Hulk. Or Captain America. The Avengers movies are really just the big explosions-filled payoff flicks where the characters you've come to know in the *other movies* get together. They don't introduce the heroes or villains in them - they assume you already know them.
Or you can just skip the origin stories if you just want the big explosions. Or if you don't want the big explosions, skip the Avengers.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a real pain in the ass. They should list the dependencies up front if you're really expected to have watched like 30 other movies ahead of time.
It could also just be bad writing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah garbage totally gets nominated for best picture (and should have won).
It's not unknown. Looking through a list of nominees, looks like Les Miserables was nominated. It was awful. I remember sitting through all 39 hours of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Arguably AI could do a better job (Score:4, Insightful)
All of the MCU movies are absolute garbage, so your assertion that the avengers movies are "payoff" is nonsense. The only payoff we can hope for is for the avengers movies to stop, along with the rest of that dogshit
You apparently don't like MCU movies, but they are objectively not garbage by any reasonable definition. Hundreds of millions of people enjoyed the movie, and the latest Avengers movie won 35 awards and 114 nominations, with 94% of critics and 90% of audience members approving it on rotten tomatoes. It was an objectively good movie. Like you there are plenty of good movies which I didn't enjoy watching, but that doesn't make them garbage.
Re: Arguably AI could do a better job (Score:2, Insightful)
Hundredyof millions enjoy fast food, which doesn't make it any less junk food.
Re: (Score:2)
Hundredyof millions enjoy fast food, which doesn't make it any less junk food.
Very poor analogy. That Avengers movie ticket cost roughly the same as any other movie ticket. Your analogy only holds up if a quality steakhouse (or other quality restaurant) was the same cost as McDonalds and served food as quickly, but people still chose McDonalds far more often.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My wife and I once went to a local restaurant that came highly recommended by multiple people. It was absolutely packed. We had to wait for a table.
Long story short, the food was so bad neither one of us could stomach more than a bite of anything. We left and ate somewhere else. We did take the world's worst steak home, thinking that at least our dog would appreciate it. Now, we knew the food was bad, but neither one of us expected the dog to refuse to eat it!
A similar thing happened when a Chinese rest
Re: (Score:2)
> The moral of these true stories? People have bad taste. Just because something is popular doesn't mean its good.
That doesn't seem to be the moral of the story to me - I'd say it's that people have /different/ tastes.
Good and bad are subjective; who are you to tell someone that their taste buds are broken because you ate a steak and thought it was bad and they thought it was good?!
Re: (Score:2)
How can a movie (or any art) be objectively good? It can be widely considered good, but that's a summation of subjective opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
How can a movie (or any art) be objectively good? It can be widely considered good, but that's a summation of subjective opinions.
You can have objective facts which are based on subjective opinions. The collection and interpretation of those opinions would simply need to be free from personal feelings or opinions. When the vast majority of critics like a movie, and the vast majority of the audience like it, and that audience contains a significant portion if not a majority of the movie watching public, and the relevant awards committees select the movie for awards consideration, stating that a movie is good is no longer a subjective o
Re: (Score:2)
When the vast majority of critics like a movie, and the vast majority of the audience like it, and that audience contains a significant portion if not a majority of the movie watching public, and the relevant awards committees select the movie for awards consideration, stating that a movie is good is no longer a subjective opinion.
I guess we disagree on what objective and subjective mean.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we disagree on what objective and subjective mean.
How about this. Do you think the statement "the majority of humans believe murder is morally wrong" is an objectively true statement? It is absolutely based on subjective moral beliefs of individual humans, but I still consider this an objective statement of fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, but that's a different type of statement. "The majority of humans believe The Avengers is a good movie" is an objective statement. "The Avengers is a good movie" is not.
Re: (Score:2)
For the Avengers series in particular, the characters just lack any sort of je ne sais quoi. There's nothing that made me care about them. Contrast this with superhero movies like X-Men (2000)
X-Men was two old men talking AND IT WAS AWESOME. If Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen are taking at each other it's going to be good. More please.
I'd also say it's not the characters per-se. the first Thor: that was good. Same with Iron man. I mean OK now we have 20 indentikit origin stores, but that aside, the troubl
Re:Arguably AI could do a better job (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For the Avengers series in particular, the characters just lack any sort of je ne sais quoi. There's nothing that made me care about them.
Yes, that was my immediate response.
"Hey, I want a movie starring my photoreal avatar and Marilyn Monroe's photoreal avatar. I want it to be a rom-com because I've had a rough day"
Great, is it going to be at all compelling? Movies struggle to do that now.
Re: (Score:2)
For the Avengers series in particular, the characters just lack any sort of je ne sais quoi. There's nothing that made me care about them.
Yes, that was my immediate response.
"Hey, I want a movie starring my photoreal avatar and Marilyn Monroe's photoreal avatar. I want it to be a rom-com because I've had a rough day"
Great, is it going to be at all compelling? Movies struggle to do that now.
Yeah, that quote in particular stuck out as hyping the same tired vanity retread of FB, Insta, Snapchat, etc. It shows how creatively bankrupt the entertainment industry has become, that they are out there flogging procedural graphics-filter iterations as if this were those AT&T ads from the early 1990s -- "Ever watched yourself save the world as Iron Man? YOU WILL!!!"
Clumsily shoehorned "fan service" already kills the spark in most movies in the post-2010 Recyle/Reskin Age Of Cinema. You can have heroe
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations! You're in luck. Just download the appropriate file [youtube.com] and you're all set.
Re: (Score:2)
>It renders a very competent story with dialogue that mimics your voice. It mimics your voice, and suddenly now you have a rom-com starring you that's 90 minutes long. So you can curate your story specifically to you.
How can it be that a movie exec, someone responsible for a lot of money in the industry has such a facile understanding of his own domain? People don't want movies about themselves. I mean sure, one time, it's kind of a fun, cute gimmick. But people are not going to see Avengers because they think it is a reflection of their own lives. They don't go to a rom-com because they view themselves as the lead character.
It's ESCAPISM. It's TO GET AWAY from real life.
Mind blowing.
I see a fundamental misunderstanding of just how fare escapism can go. If it's "you, but idealized" people will FLOCK to it. Shove a muscle-bound version of "you" into your favorite action sequences with a few moments of down-time to bed your comely $sexual_prefence_here in between explosions and firestorms? Hell yeah, bring it. It's escapism+. If they can manage to make a half-decent plot with believable character, they'll have already beaten out most of current Hollywood.
Re: (Score:3)
If it's "you, but idealized" people will FLOCK to it.
It doesn't even have to be "you but idealized". Ever since Die Hard (the first one, for the others John McClane turned into action hero) you have had the action hero everyman who does not have any special skills or stamina or magic powers - but powers through anyway. In other words, relatable.
Even MCU has one - Hawkeye. Just archery skills but nothing much more, just a guy who really would prefer to get home to be with his family.
Or heck, doesn't have to
Re: (Score:2)
>It renders a very competent story with dialogue that mimics your voice. It mimics your voice, and suddenly now you have a rom-com starring you that's 90 minutes long. So you can curate your story specifically to you.
How can it be that a movie exec, someone responsible for a lot of money in the industry has such a facile understanding of his own domain? People don't want movies about themselves. I mean sure, one time, it's kind of a fun, cute gimmick. But people are not going to see Avengers because they think it is a reflection of their own lives. They don't go to a rom-com because they view themselves as the lead character.
It's ESCAPISM. It's TO GET AWAY from real life.
Mind blowing.
I see a fundamental misunderstanding of just how fare escapism can go. If it's "you, but idealized" people will FLOCK to it. Shove a muscle-bound version of "you" into your favorite action sequences with a few moments of down-time to bed your comely $sexual_prefence_here in between explosions and firestorms? Hell yeah, bring it. It's escapism+. If they can manage to make a half-decent plot with believable character, they'll have already beaten out most of current Hollywood.
I believe you are incorrect. I believe you have fundamentally misunderstood human psychology.
I do not think significant numbers of people will come home from a hard day at work and watch a generated movie with their face and idealized body as the superhero. That's not how vanity works.
VANITY TYPE A:
The desire to watch someone hotter, stronger, funnier, richer, smarter, more popular, more successful, more important; and experience what it's like to be them as they experience their story. If you want to actua
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the Xbox360/PS3 days it was a popular feature in a few games: use the (optional) console web cam to map your face onto your character in a shooter. People LOVED it, but there were a couple of issues (needing an optional camera, people mapping stuff that wasn't a face onto them) that meant it sort of went away.
But yes, people really did like seeing "themselves" in video games. No reason they wouldn't today.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember that as far back as Quake3. I thought it was kinda silly, I'd rather play as a neon skeleton or walking eyeball
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the Quake 1 days I made skins for my competitive clan, "The Gib Geezers" (you can see where my Slashdot ID came from). They weren't our faces, but they were custom skins that made us look like senior citizens complete with: balding head with wrinkles and a little grey hair, waffle-shirt underwear tops with brown pants/black belt pulled up under our armpits, pantlegs too short ofc, white tube socks and black comfy sandals, and the axe replaced with a cane. This sort of customization was pretty common
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the Xbox360/PS3 days it was a popular feature in a few games: use the (optional) console web cam to map your face onto your character in a shooter. People LOVED it, but there were a couple of issues (needing an optional camera, people mapping stuff that wasn't a face onto them) that meant it sort of went away.
But yes, people really did like seeing "themselves" in video games. No reason they wouldn't today.
Yes, people sometimes like the avatars that they are controlling as they move around in a way that feels first-person, to look like them. And sometimes they want to control and perform actions as a six-armed blue-skinned goddess.
That is not at all the same category of psychological experience as passively watching a third-person-perspective movie while you sit on the couch eating popcorn and playing candy crush on your phone.
The thrill in playing games comes from playing the game. Nobody plays a game for th