I admit, I don’t keep up with current technological advances. Like I said, I just watched Avatar last week.
Can you watch a current Star Wars film and think “That’s Mark Hamill” even though Hamill never stood before a camera? Or are you thinking “Pretty realistic cartoon version of Hamill”?
See for yourself:
I’m impressed.
It’s certainly possible that cinema trends could see a switch back to less flashy, more serious, artistic work. We’ve seen it before, with the collapse of the studio system and rise of auteur cinema in the late 60s and 70s, the wave that gave us Francis Ford Coppola, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, and so forth. Comic book movies are already not doing as well as they used to.
My field is AI, not law, which is why I didn’t originally weigh in. For some US states (e.g. CA) I don’t think intent matters. You’re not allowed to use someone’s likeness in a commercial context (with some exceptions). In a case of a cartoon where the likeness will not be a 100% match, it is possible that showing intent could help the infringed person’s case.
I’m sure it is very complicated, varies by jurisdiction, and varies based on the gumption of the celebrity’s legal team. Elvis’ team is probably more energetic about protecting his image than Urkel’s.
In any case it’s short-term issue. As the technology improves to the point of generating an entire movie, there may not be a lot of demand for using real likenesses except for nostalgia pieces. A studio could generate dozens of composite likenesses then screen-test them to find the most popular. Then let the viewer select which to use. No need to risk lawsuits or pay royalties.
I can’t imagine ever wanting to see an AI/CGI film.
For decades, studios have had the opportunity of hiring unknown actors who would be cheaper than the top name box office draws - they haven’t done so, because Tom Cruise sells more tickets than Peter Robot.
While there are still Helen Mirrens, Judy Denches, Sir Anthony Hopkinses, and Sir Ian McKellans out there, I’ll pay whatever it takes to watch their work.
So none of these?
Or actors, makeup artists, stuntmen, special effect wizards, catering staff…
I’ll put it a better way - I’ve just finished watching all of Ted Lasso in the last couple of weeks. How do you think that show would be improved by replacing its actors with AI replicants?
I find that many of the people in this thread don’t really understand acting, and what good acting contributes to a show.
If you’re counting me among those, I should add that I’ve done a little acting, and gave some decent performances, and worked my butt off to do so, but I think most people don’t appreciate the work or the subtlety. Movie producers view actors as interchangeable, and fussy, and expensive, stubborn obstacles they must endure, and I think they in particular yearn for a time when they can dispense with live actors.
I know squat about CGI. How much does it cost to place one actor’s face over another, for example/ Say one person dies or a scandal comes up and they choose to put in someone else. What’s the cost vs. reshooting with the new actor?
The cost is rapidly approaching $0.
In addition, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it as a feature on your phone soon just like the googly eye filter.
I think the following is a safe general view of the future of (AI-driven) CGI:
To see where the movie industry is going, we need to look at the video game industry, which is much more cost sensitive. That is where we will first see fully synthetic characters, because video-game customers don’t demand to see recordings of real people. Video games currently use synthetic images synchronized with voice actors and motion-capture actors. Once video games regularly use fully synthesized voice and motion to go with the synthetic images, expect to see fully synthetic movies.
You keep pounding on the incorrect claim that this thread is about AI and not about CGI, which you seem to have no understanding of.
CGI in of itself is done. The ability to create and animate images that viewers cannot distinguish from reality is available and becoming highly economical, with the exception of two particular aspects of the process, original human facial expressions and natural motion, and mainly human motion at that. AI is not there yet, although predicting how close it is to simulation is difficult to say. In the mean time combining real imaging of facial expressions from human actors and capturing motion in combination with those images has already surpassed the point of visual discernment. The is the basis of DeepFake technology, the genuine aspects of human action can be applied to images of real or artificial people. This technology analyses the motion and image qualities in great detail and generative processing. Systems integrating this technology are being created and put into use. Numerous people are now striving to produce what will be considered a first in the history of motion pictures where all live action is produced with CGI based on human image and motion models. And those people are in a race with others attempting to produce a movie where there will be no humans original human acting at all.
Arguing that something will happen doesn’t necessarily mean that something should happen. I think there was a consensus that even with fully CG productions, there would be a boutique market of human-acted films.
However aren’t there a lot of productions that do not have particularly deep acting? Some kids programs, soap operas, action blockbusters, etc. Haven’t we seen this trend in kids programming since the late 80’s (e.g. Les fables Geometriques and Veggie Tales)?
Similarly aren’t there a number of productions that have a few scenes with dramatic depth while the rest are less subtle? Certainly movies use stand-ins; are Pedro Pascal and Robert Downey Jr. always under the helmet? Is generating these scenes with CG so different?
I think if Marvel had the ability to turn the crank and generate a new, low-cost superhero movie every month, even if the acting was a little flat, they would. Especially since they would be generating the movie in 23 languages with localized ethnicities. Presumably they would still produce big-budget, marquee movies as well.
Good point. We certainly see this now in cut-scenes. They might not be photo realistic with completely natural motion yet, but it is getting there.