AI generated Super Panavision 70 trailers

renaissance_man

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I recently found an interesting YouTube channel that has reimaginings of TV shows and films in a very specific style.

I know AI art and moving images are a bit of a contentious subject given their potential to replace VFX artists but I thought the way these have been produced are interesting and at times very freaky.
If you look closely in a lot of these clips you can see the very distinct flaws of AI in generating moving images, hands, mouths and often legs moving in a backwards motion whilst the character is moving forwards are all there.

Just a small sample of the videos on the channel.
I have no affiliation with them, I just found them recently and thought it would be interesting to share.

 
600px-Creating_Bugs_Bunny's_-No-.jpg
 
It's been a rapid jump in what someone on a computer can do alone and quickly. We're at the cusp of reedits and reimagining of existing media on a professional level. I'm not talking this form of "AI" generated content but full films and TV shows. That may be 20 years on but the ground work is being plowed and paved over faster than we can comprehend. Imagine being able to remake Dial of Destiny with a Short Round and a better ending...
 
Even better…use the awesome, colossal powers of our AI overlords to master space and time and travel back to the past to ensure that The Dial Of Destiny never happens at all.

Some of us were spared by you brave ones who went first, and we skipped it entirely. ;)
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I think this has potential, both good and bad.

I have an old clip of Doug Henning performing on the Merv Griffin Show. I don't like all the shots the director chose, but it was shot live, so that's all there is. I'd like to see AI generate a theoretical b-roll so you could create a "super edit".
 
Most of the characters in those videos look just a bit odd, but somehow, very familiar. Then it occurred to me. They look like characters straight of a Norman Rockwell painting!
 
It's been a rapid jump in what someone on a computer can do alone and quickly.
Here are some resources:



More:

 
Last edited:
Alright, here's the deal.

1. Most people don't actually understand how AI works. They can't tell you the difference between machine learning, neural networks, or deep learning. To them, it's all just fancy buzzwords, and they see ChatGPT as a super-powered search engine (it's not -- please don't use it like that).

2. At the core of it, AI is a tool that recognizes and reproduces patterns. That's it. That's all it does. It's a very fancy, very powerful way of gathering information, sorting for patterns, and reproducing what it has determined is a pattern. AI is not creative. AI is derivative, and -- what's worse for artistic purposes -- AI has a tendency to genericize everything.

3. This is the reason why AI art looks both weirdly unreal, and very, very samey. That's because AI is, fundamentally, ill-suited to the actual creation of artistic works. Art requires creativity, and all AI does is spit back common denominators at you. The most creative that an AI gets is when it actually hallucinates and produces something that looks like it crawled out of an H.P. Lovecraft story.

4. The true problem with AI and the arts, and the real reason why AI is so controversial, is not simply that the stuff it produces looks like generic uncanny valley trash. It's that it's all based on copyright infringement. The way AI's "learn" (and I want to say that I am loath to use "alive" terminology to describe what AI actually does, because AI IS NOT ALIVE OR SENTIENT, but we're stuck with this terminology until people are more careful about it) is by inputting a bunch of data into the AI, from which it begins to build ability to recognize patterns. This is often referred to as "training data," which I think conveniently masks what's actually happening. The AI is described as "training" on the data, which makes it sound like the AI is sitting there, reading books, saying "Hmm. Yes, yes. Very interesting. I must remember that part. What an excellent example of metaphor..." But it's not. It's plugging this data into a ****ing computer program so that the program can build derivative works from it.

Anyone who works in a creative field, who makes their living off of their own creativity, should be absolutely infuriated at the notion that an AI might've been trained on the sweat of their brow, and they get nothing for it.

And in the end, it still looks like ass.
 
Back
Top