Hollywood’s current state of failure and the reasons for it

Status
Not open for further replies.
so the people working with the original creator want the work respected while new-fangled untested writers want to change it because its “problematic.” Not surprised again.

Snow White is not my favorite fairy tale or even my favorite of the Disney classics but you cant deny its significance not only to Disney as a corporation but to animated film as a whole. Its one of Disney’s holy grails in a sense. You would thinknthey would have more care with one of the IPs that made their company.

The movie just shouldn't have been remade. It's iconic but the subject matter is not what Disney wants to be doing in 2023.

If it had to happen then Disney should have compromised less and made their intent clearer. Call it 'Snow White: Magical Creature Protocol' and change the costumes & names & storyline. Make something new out of it in a broader (and unmistakable) way.
 
Last edited:

AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, Judge Says in Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause

A federal judge on Friday upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
www.hollywoodreporter.com

. . . . and now it starts getting "interesting" . . .


What if it's a live-action movie but the script was AI'd?

What about AI-generated footage of a real live actor?
What if they AI-generated an altered version (age/race/gender) of a real live actor? Are we into percentages?

What if a creative work was AI-generated but then a human creator made a final pass over it? Like a human traced over the animation cell, or a human musician performed a song after an AI program came up with it?

What about a program that is borderline but it doesn't officially qualify as AI?
What DOES officially qualify as AI? How is that defined?

How do you verify what was AI or not? Whose word is taken?

What if a big corporation uses an employee to be a creative patsy? Like, they give him credit for the creative work (that the AI did) with an agreement that he will immediately "sell the rights" of the AI work back to the corporation for $1?


Let the legal games begin.
 
Last edited:
. . . . and now it starts getting "interesting" . . .


What if it's a live-action movie but the script was AI'd?

What about AI-generated footage of a real live actor?
What if they AI-generated an altered version (age/race/gender) of a real live actor? Are we into percentages?

What if a creative work was AI-generated but then a human creator made a final pass over it? Like a human traced over the animation cell, or a human musician performed a song after an AI program came up with it?

What about a program that is borderline but it doesn't officially qualify as AI?
What DOES officially qualify as AI? How is that defined?

How do you verify what was AI or not? Whose word is taken?

What if a big corporation uses an employee to be a creative patsy? Like, they give him credit for the creative work (that the AI did) with an agreement that he will immediately "sell the rights" of the AI work back to the corporation for $1?


Let the legal games begin.
Its going to be hard to maintain but there may be emphasis on more “originality” in work as a result. If something is derivative, it could be argued that it was made by AI and thus not applicable for trademark. Judging sufficient “originality” would be difficult, especially as AI evolves.

Fastest answer is probably the big studios will lobby politicians to overturn this ruling and change the laws so AI-generated stuff will be trademarkable. They will think this is a good idea until there are AI farms that rise up and just use AI to generate ideas that they trademark sit on and demand money/sue if a studio produces “their” idea without credit.

Regardless, this is a discussion in the flaw of the law not keeping up with the times and is going to be hampered by the fact that politicians are idiots when it comes to concepts like originality in art or anything to do with technology. I remember a Japanese politician mocking kids for being doing dances on tiktok and saying it was a waste of time and not art. While I agree, everyone needs to start somewhere and saying that there is nothing productive is stupid if you know anything about how art is created. Many great bands today started off as cover bands for more famous bands at the time before they started writing their own music.

Regardless, this is going to be interesting how things play out.
 
Yup. Despite the idea of everyone being equal under the law, its a sad fact that rich people operate under “different” laws due to innate advantages like having better lawyers that are able to spend their full time on the case, ability to negotiate, etc. making corporations “people” was stupid.


so the people working with the original creator want the work respected while new-fangled untested writers want to change it because its “problematic.” Not surprised again.

Snow White is not my favorite fairy tale or even my favorite of the Disney classics but you cant deny its significance not only to Disney as a corporation but to animated film as a whole. Its one of Disney’s holy grails in a sense. You would thinknthey would have more care with one of the IPs that made their company.
Snow White numbers:
  • Through 1947: $6,000,000 (@ $13.4 mil gross)
  • 1953 re-release: $1,400,000 (@ $3.0 mil)
  • 1958 re-release: $500,000 (@ 1.1 mil)
  • 1962 re-release: $2,650,000 (@ $5.83 mil)
  • 1967 re-release: $4,850,000 (@ $10.67 mil)
  • 1970 re-release: $450,000 (@ $1.0 mil)
  • 1976 re-release: $10,500,000 (@ $23.1 mil)
  • through 1982: $26,900,000 (@ $59.2 mil)
  • 1983 re-release: $14,500,000 (@ $31.9 mil)
  • 1987 re-release: $21,352,000 (@ $46.97 mil)
  • 1993 re-release: $18,136,993 (@ $39.89 mil)
The total numbers do come close to the BOM numbers but they are a matter of numerous re-releases. Somehow, BOM has calculated that as selling approximately 109 million tickets and calculated that to an adjusted 2020 total of $1.021 billion, good enough for 11th place.
 
. . . . and now it starts getting "interesting" . . .


What if it's a live-action movie but the script was AI'd?

What about AI-generated footage of a real live actor?
What if they AI-generated an altered version (age/race/gender) of a real live actor? Are we into percentages?

What if a creative work was AI-generated but then a human creator made a final pass over it? Like a human traced over the animation cell, or a human musician performed a song after an AI program came up with it?

What about a program that is borderline but it doesn't officially qualify as AI?
What DOES officially qualify as AI? How is that defined?

How do you verify what was AI or not? Whose word is taken?

What if a big corporation uses an employee to be a creative patsy? Like, they give him credit for the creative work (that the AI did) with an agreement that he will immediately "sell the rights" of the AI work back to the corporation for $1?


Let the legal games begin.
Welcome to "The Brave New World":eek: Lawyers/courts are going to have a field day with those types of litigations:rolleyes::oops::whistle:
 
Snow White numbers:
  • Through 1947: $6,000,000 (@ $13.4 mil gross)
  • 1953 re-release: $1,400,000 (@ $3.0 mil)
  • 1958 re-release: $500,000 (@ 1.1 mil)
  • 1962 re-release: $2,650,000 (@ $5.83 mil)
  • 1967 re-release: $4,850,000 (@ $10.67 mil)
  • 1970 re-release: $450,000 (@ $1.0 mil)
  • 1976 re-release: $10,500,000 (@ $23.1 mil)
  • through 1982: $26,900,000 (@ $59.2 mil)
  • 1983 re-release: $14,500,000 (@ $31.9 mil)
  • 1987 re-release: $21,352,000 (@ $46.97 mil)
  • 1993 re-release: $18,136,993 (@ $39.89 mil)
The total numbers do come close to the BOM numbers but they are a matter of numerous re-releases. Somehow, BOM has calculated that as selling approximately 109 million tickets and calculated that to an adjusted 2020 total of $1.021 billion, good enough for 11th place.

I think it is worth mentioning that in 1939 the population in the US was 131,000,000 vs. today’s population of 333,000,000. Added to that, there were fewer theaters and less access to a global market in 1939.

To reach the comparative numbers that a modern blockbuster may reach, a film in 1939 would have to be seen by a far larger percentage of the domestic population in a more limited number of venues. The box office, alone, does not yield an apples-to-apples comparison of a film released in 1939 vs. 2020.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the reason why there continues to be movies that require:
- No thought or story
- One CGI spectacle after another
- Constant jump-cutting from set piece to set piece
- Rinse and repeat franchise formulas

Logan Paul Says He Walked Out of ‘Oppenheimer’: “Nothing Happened”

“I walked out of Oppenheimer,” Paul said to shock from the Philippous and his podcast co-host. Asked why, Paul rambled, “I didn’t know what they were trying [to do]. ‘What are you doing?’ Everyone’s just talking. It’s just an hour and a half, 90 minutes, of talking, just talking, talking.”


Star Trek Applause GIF
 
Last edited:
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the reason why there continues to be movies that require:
- No thought or story
- One CGI spectacle after another
- Constant jump-cutting from set piece to set piece
- Rinse and repeat franchise formulas

Logan Paul Says He Walked Out of ‘Oppenheimer’: “Nothing Happened”

“I walked out of Oppenheimer,” Paul said to shock from the Philippous and his podcast co-host. Asked why, Paul rambled, “I didn’t know what they were trying [to do]. ‘What are you doing?’ Everyone’s just talking. It’s just an hour and a half, 90 minutes, of talking, just talking, talking.”


Yeah, but this is the guy you're talking about.

Nd9GcR4Jwm1rSmJHEl4nXVmfYBind8l9Z8ssiz0Qw&usqp=CAU.jpg
 
. . . . and now it starts getting "interesting" . . .


What if it's a live-action movie but the script was AI'd?

What about AI-generated footage of a real live actor?
What if they AI-generated an altered version (age/race/gender) of a real live actor? Are we into percentages?

What if a creative work was AI-generated but then a human creator made a final pass over it? Like a human traced over the animation cell, or a human musician performed a song after an AI program came up with it?

What about a program that is borderline but it doesn't officially qualify as AI?
What DOES officially qualify as AI? How is that defined?

How do you verify what was AI or not? Whose word is taken?

What if a big corporation uses an employee to be a creative patsy? Like, they give him credit for the creative work (that the AI did) with an agreement that he will immediately "sell the rights" of the AI work back to the corporation for $1?


Let the legal games begin.

This case only went to court because he listed the AI as the sole creator. He would then be the owner under work for hire. But a camera can't copyright something, only the person holding it can. That said, we have yet to hash out how much modification an AI work requires by a human to qualify for protection.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the reason why there continues to be movies that require:
- No thought or story
- One CGI spectacle after another
- Constant jump-cutting from set piece to set piece
- Rinse and repeat franchise formulas

Logan Paul Says He Walked Out of ‘Oppenheimer’: “Nothing Happened”




View attachment 1730983
Yeah, but this is the guy you're talking about.

View attachment 1731050
I cant remember is he the WWE guy or the Boxer ?
 
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the reason why there continues to be movies that require:
- No thought or story
- One CGI spectacle after another
- Constant jump-cutting from set piece to set piece
- Rinse and repeat franchise formulas

Logan Paul Says He Walked Out of ‘Oppenheimer’: “Nothing Happened”

“I walked out of Oppenheimer,” Paul said to shock from the Philippous and his podcast co-host. Asked why, Paul rambled, “I didn’t know what they were trying [to do]. ‘What are you doing?’ Everyone’s just talking. It’s just an hour and a half, 90 minutes, of talking, just talking, talking.”


View attachment 1730983
Part of the business problem is the evolution of the market where it is now a bifurcation between pop and prestige films with a large portion of both audiences mostly abandoned by the opposite genre. I don't know how/if we get back to a more diverse landscape for features/mainstream with the current economic and talent climates. Most of the solutions involve employing fewer actors/writers/FX artists, etc., while folks at the top will still want a sizable cut of anything to be released at scale. I hope streaming could be a solution offering a place for creators to expirament, but most of those platforms have the same problems now as the traditional studios (or they ARE the traditional studios)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top