With the technology of Deep Fakes and how they de-aged Harrison Ford for IJ, the sky is the limit. I sat there watching DoD thinking, we could have unlimited IJ movies starring a young Harrison Ford.
Hollywood’s current state of failure and the reasons for it
- Thread starter Pepperbone
- Start date
- Status
joberg
Legendary Member
The agenda/propaganda/lecture has to be subtle! Lord knows that Hollywood had some kind of agenda/propaganda/lecture from the get go...but it was soft and subtle. Now, it's in your face and feels like patronizing and condescending
Lightning
Master Member
The agenda/propaganda/lecture has to be subtle! Lord knows that Hollywood had some kind of agenda/propaganda/lecture from the get go...but it was soft and subtle. Now, it's in your face and feels like patronizing and condescending
Soft and subtle? Have you seen the films they were making during WWII? It just doesn't bother people if they agree with the message.
joberg
Legendary Member
Barbie is made by a woman and is the story of women seen by mostly...women (66%)
Oppenheimer is the old type of historical reconstruction made by a man for mostly...men (77%)
joberg
Legendary Member
That was some of my comments in another response. I should've said that the propaganda during the WW times was in your face for sure...and for good reason.
adamszki427
Active Member
i find i can go either way... movie looks promising, see the trailer and i dont like the actor, or the CGI looks terrible etc. i totally get your point... and i agree its rare for someone to want to see movie just for the props and effects etc. i suppose its a bit like a restaurant owned by say gordon ramsay but is he really in the kitchen cooking for you? that kind of thing.
ghostryder
Legendary Member
Former Amazon Studios Executive Ted Hope Lambasts Studios and Streamers: ‘Two Film Unions Striking Proves the System Is Built to Be Unfair’
Former Amazon Studios film executive Ted Hope delivered a blistering takedown of the studios and streamers during an “out-of-the-box” keynote at the Locarno Film Festival. The veteran U…
variety.com
Hollywood during WWII echoed the times, it didn't drive it. My Grandfathers on both sides were WWII veterans. I've always been intrigued by the WWII era and was blessed to have grandparents who lived through it so I was probably a pest to them, asking questions all the time.
Americans were predominantly patriotic during WWII and Hollywood reflected it. That's why the communist threat was such a big deal. The studios knew that America would not tolerate that ideology, especially in the movies.
Big name actors don't draw me to a movie. Sure it might be a bonus if I enjoy a certain person in a role, but they themselves are not the impulse that motivates me to see the movie. The premise has to look interesting. If I get a sense of what the story is about, or the tone, that's what draws me. While I've watched a lot of Harrison Ford films, I don't know if I can say that he was the only reason why I would watch a movie with him in it. He just happens to be in some of my favorite films. Story comes first for me. It always has and always will. There might be the occassional B-movie or totally escapist story (Barbie being the most recent example for me because it was so off the wall silly) but if the premise sucks, I don't bother.
Some form of that will eventually become a major part of whatever Hollywood evolves into.
Within the next decade we'll start seeing [new] movies with Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, Sidney Poitier and Audrey Hepburn.
Once they're able to nail the look and performances, it'll be even more difficult for new "stars" to break into the business.
Some might think "yeah but they'll never be able to replicate the spirit and magic of those actors." And to that I say LOL!!
--
I also think - and this might seem crazy - we'll see new forms of remakes.
I've been seeing a lot of relatively good looking* AI-generated images like the ones below.
*considering AI is still a newborn baby
Once the tech is able to reproduce and uprez existing frames without any flickering, I don't see why a studio wouldn't process a film like The Terminator or Predator and make them look like this. "Enhanced."
No need to reshoot anything - just submit each frame, enhance, and done.
Same goes for voices, sound and score. Why go through the pain (and union contracts...) of physically remaking a film when you can digitally remake it from a server room.
The Terminator ('84) for example already has a great story, editing, pacing, etc. It's easy to imagine an enhanced film like that generate some serious box-office $ and attract fresh streaming subscriptions.
Here's something crazier: they could even generate variants of those remakes for different audiences.
A visually enhanced original cut, for those whole loved the original release.
A visually enhanced, updated cut, for younger audiences who prefer fast-paced editing.
A visually enhanced, short cut, for those with short attention spans who can't go more than 30 minutes without moving onto something else.
A visually enhanced, customized cut, for those who prefer seeing a jacked-up Tom Holland playing Dutch instead of Arnold. Or Taylor Swift playing Sarah Connor instead of Linda Hamilton.
--
No, I am sober.
But just think about it.
Think about Richard Donner's Superman with Reeve - but upped to 8K and visually enhanced.
Think about The Watchmen movie but in the style of Alex Ross.
Think about a continuation of the original Star Trek show with Shatner, Nimoy & Co, but in the directing style of Christopher Nolan, or David Fincher, or Martin Scorsese.
Crazy?
No. That's what's coming.
And here's the 'punchline'...you won't even need Hollywood to do it. You'll eventually be able to do it yourself on your own computer.
As much as I'm frustrated by the entertainment industry as it exists today, I don't want to see it made obsolete. Art comes from artists. AI calculates numbers. AI 'art' will never be true art and for that reason it would never interest me. I don't doubt that one day it will make a completely simulated movie that's indistinguishable from a real one. It will be a fascinating thing to see...and ultimately meaningless.
When CGI was first used in the 80s and even more in the 90s, it was really expensive. Although I don't know what the cost was, or how they even determined a price. Maybe per scene.
Not sure what the price is now a days....but I wonder, this Deep Fake technology is similar to CGI in the 90s and how everyone wanted it for their picture.....so I wonder, is it making a film go way up in price to de-age an actor now?
I know there was a ton of reasons that Indy 5 got to 300 million, but did de-aging him be a big player in that?
Have they even given an amount that it costs to do that?
Not sure what the price is now a days....but I wonder, this Deep Fake technology is similar to CGI in the 90s and how everyone wanted it for their picture.....so I wonder, is it making a film go way up in price to de-age an actor now?
I know there was a ton of reasons that Indy 5 got to 300 million, but did de-aging him be a big player in that?
Have they even given an amount that it costs to do that?
ghostryder
Legendary Member
yaris
Sr Member
- Failure to take chances
- Wanting to maximize profit and minimize risk
- Repetitive nonsense that appeals to the lowest common denominator...Avengers No. 27 will still get an audience.
It's actually not a 'Hollywood' problem...it's a business reality...another real problem is that 'entertainment' is highly subjective.
I always find it interesting that Hollywood sometimes gets it really right and it's a success across multiple levels and then....when they try to copy it they F it up.
Q. What has widespread photoshop access (and the internet) done for visual images?
A. It has made anything possible, for amateurs, for basically no cost . . . and it has taken the big meaning out of still images. They aren't considered factually accurate anymore by default. We are awash in beautiful artwork and we don't even care for the most part. Most of the top creatives in the culture are not that interested in messing with it anymore. Etc. If you wanna create a still image that goes viral, you have better odds with a funny cat meme than with something worthy of Renaissance art.
All this is why I say filmmaking itself is in real trouble.
CGI + deepfaking + AI content generation . . . taken togther, it does for moving footage what photoshop did for stills.
A. It has made anything possible, for amateurs, for basically no cost . . . and it has taken the big meaning out of still images. They aren't considered factually accurate anymore by default. We are awash in beautiful artwork and we don't even care for the most part. Most of the top creatives in the culture are not that interested in messing with it anymore. Etc. If you wanna create a still image that goes viral, you have better odds with a funny cat meme than with something worthy of Renaissance art.
All this is why I say filmmaking itself is in real trouble.
CGI + deepfaking + AI content generation . . . taken togther, it does for moving footage what photoshop did for stills.
Last edited:
Cephus
Master Member
You already can. A lot of lower-budget movies and TV shows are already done on home computers. They might not be as flashy but it can be done with enough creativity.
Also, who says the artists are in Hollywood? I don't remember seeing a lot of artistry in any films of late. The future of AI might bring about the biggest creative boom in human history. It could actually make everyone happy (except the people who get rich off of movies today). Imagine telling an AI exactly what you want in a movie, and an hour later, you can watch it, Any characters, any actors, any scenario you want, you get precisely what you are looking for from the privacy of your own home. I think it would be glorious, except, of course, to the people who are only in it to make money.
cboath
Master Member
That began before the pandemic frankly. It's just now a game of one-upmanship. One guy gets 20M for a flick, someone else says 'i'm better i should get more', then it devolves into that was the rate last year, etc. There's no way anyone allows it to stabilize or go back down.
There's no cap on anything for movies (or TV), but there's sort of one. They're not going to pay just anything for a show, well, anyone not named Bezos, so there's a limit. Moving over to sports for a second, there's been a story this summer from the NFL that running backs aren't getting paid well and yeah, it's another story, but, there's a parallel. There IS a cap on salary per team. It's less than 250M, but i'll use that for simple math. There are 53 guys getting paid by the 250, but again, call it 50 for math. That makes the average 5M a player. Well, you've got qb's now hit the 50M mark. With in a year or two, that'll be the low end for a top 10 QB. So, you give that guy 50, the other 49 just saw their average pay drop to 4M. Everyone isn't getting that, that team will have at least 4 other guys at 15M, so, your top 5 guys are at 110M, leaving the remaining 45 guys to split 140. It continues to work down, and the majority get 2M or less so the handful can have unlimited earnings. Now, that's not a social comment, it's how that system works.
Flipping it back to movies, sure, there's no official cap, but if they're going to spend say 200M on a movie and you hand the star 50M, that cuts 25% of your budget right off the top for that. Right there, you have to sell over 100M worth of tickets to make any profit. That's a big hole to start from and you are still having to pay for everything else. I don't know how many movies gross over 600M in a theater these days. Clearly not all of them. So, you start with a 200M for your movie then factor in advertising and yeah, you're looking at 600M to break even. I don't have an MBA but that doesn't sound like a sound business plan. I'm sure Disney and LFL thought, Indy 5? 600M should be a piece of cake. Yet, in history, the number of flicks to cross 1B isn't a super long list. The list crossing 600 is longer, sure, but it's far from a guarantee - Especially with the way the run things.
So, yeah, hitting 600 isn't guaranteed, but all you do is undercut yourself when everyone knows it'll be on their living room TV for next to nothing 2-3 months after release. What's my motivation to go see it in a theater plucking down 15-20 bucks a seat in a theater that has a good chance of having rude and/or annoying people in it when it'll be in my living room, basically free in 8-12 weeks? Sure, in the 70's and 80's, Star Wars made the top 10 for what? a year or more? because it was good and in no small part to having very few other options for entertainment in those days. However, even with limited options, would it have lasted in that top 10 over 2 or 3 months if it was able to be in your living room in 2-3 months? Nope. Avatar had a really long run to nearly 20 years later. Cell phone's weren't smart phones yet, but there was cable internet and there were tons of video games, etc. There were plenty of other things competing for your entertainment dollar. In those days, home video and/or HBO was still a year or more after initial release. You want box office success you have to have some exclusivity to the initial run or it becomes basically worthless. I'll also add, theaters need to stop bending over backwards allowing people to be flaming @$@@$%!$'s in the theater. One way to help get people back in would be to throw out loud and rude people and people who won't shut off their damn phones. They won't, though, because they want every cent they can get. The irony there being they'd have better attendance if the rules were enforced.
But, in the end, it comes down to simple points:
-Be financially responsible making and marketing movies
-don't undercut yourself
-get theaters to shape up their acts.
However, i think its too late for that. They won't hold things in theaters longer because they have to have them for their precious streaming services and the suits are too arrogant to believe they're doing anything wrong with pay, budgets, or marketing.
cboath
Master Member
I'd also add there aren't any computers left really that aren't essentially home computers. Sure, you'll need specialized hardware for some super high end FX systems. But, editing, recording, basic to medium level FX? no. You can go to a dell, HP, etc and buy the same machine used by pro's and it's essentially a home PC with a higher end chip (though not really required), maybe more RAM, and fancier video card.
However, do you need that $6000 machine? No. It can all be done just as well on on a $2000 machine, it just may take a little longer to process. The actual work the person does won't take any longer.
- Status
Similar threads
