I thought this was a Joke

[EddMarkStarr]

Chad Nelson was remastering his 2023 short film, "Critterz".
But, with all the enhanced tools available for animation, Chad now wants to turn "Critterz" into an A.I. generated feature length animated movie.

Well - if this is not a joke, please share your thoughts on OpenAI coming to a theater near you in 2026.

 

[pigface]

I won't be watching it.
But I suspect very few audience members or ticket buyers give a thought to who wrote a screenplay, who directed it, who did the set design, sound design, and so on.
If there's colour and movement, they'll pay and be transfixed, and clamour for sequels and merchandise.

 

[unloadonme]

Well - if this is not a joke, please share your thoughts on OpenAI coming to a theater near you in 2026.

My thoughts? As I don't expect I'll be going to the cinema in 2026, I really couldn't care less.

There's no getting away from the fact that filmmakers are always going to experiment with the latest technology. Can't turn the clock back.

 

[rareboy]

It is welcome to come.

I won't be there to watch it, but I am sure that if it is well done, others will.

It really isn't any different than the bloated CGI action films or even stuff like Avatar.

 

[EddMarkStarr]

My thoughts? As I don't expect I'll be going to the cinema in 2026, I really couldn't care less.

There's no getting away from the fact that filmmakers are always going to experiment with the latest technology. Can't turn the clock back.

With OpenAI onboard there will be hours of fun creating new scenes with new characters. The point seems to be using the latest tech toys, the end result may be less important.

 

[EddMarkStarr]

It is welcome to come.

I won't be there to watch it, but I am sure that if it is well done, others will.

It really isn't any different than the bloated CGI action films or even stuff like Avatar.

I wish you were with me at the last Transformers movie. During the "epic" battle scene, the movie screen was a riot of sound and color.
Laughter broke out in the theater as no one in the audience could tell who was who - and which side was winning!
I've seen better choreography at a Demolition Derby.

 

[unloadonme]

With OpenAI onboard there will be hours of fun creating new scenes with new characters. The point seems to be using the latest tech toys, the end result may be less important.

The film industry is commercial and relies on its films being profitable. If films just become vehicles for computerised special effects and the end results suffer, so I suggest will the financial bottom line. Film makers have to cater for their audiences.

 

[EddMarkStarr]

The film industry is commercial and relies on its films being profitable. If films just become vehicles for computerised special effects and the end results suffer, so I suggest will the financial bottom line. Film makers have to cater for their audiences.

You nailed it!

And with all the recent flopbusters the entire industry is on thin ice. Somebody better start caring about the finished product or studios and theaters will be history.

 

[pigface]

One notable change is that 50, 60, 70 years ago you needed huge amounts of money to pay for the equipment and staff and sets, moving actors and equipment to locations around the world, and kilometres of film stock, to produce a specticular film. Now anybody with a cheap desktop computer can create the equivalent visuals or better in a few hours.

 

[Peloso]

AI or not, today's animated films creep me out. I can't get past the sluggish movement and complete lack of subtlety in the "artwork". Give me old fashioned cel animation anyday.

As for big, bloated studio films, AI has completely destroyed the magic for me. Suspension of belief can only go so far. A well staged train wreck, for example, done with practical effects can garner awe in relation to how it affects the story, as well as the "wow, that looked real" or "how the hell did they do that?" aspect. It adds an element of appreciation that a production would spend weeks and weeks countless hours of manpower (not to mention money) to produce an effect that may last less than a few seconds on film. An impressive and brave gamble.

Now it's just a guy with Cheeto dust all over his mouth pushing a mouse around.

The magic is gone. But hey, people are making wads of cash.

But not us. We pay.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

One notable change is that 50, 60, 70 years ago you needed huge amounts of money to pay for the equipment and staff and sets, moving actors and equipment to locations around the world, and kilometres of film stock, to produce a specticular film. Now anybody with a cheap desktop computer can create the equivalent visuals or better in a few hours.

Have you any idea how much computing power is needed to generate Hollywood quality special effects of even a minute?

 

[pigface]

Have you any idea how much computing power is needed to generate Hollywood quality special effects of even a minute?

Yes, but it doesn't need to be done on your computer anymore. The calculations are done on the AI hosting platform and your home computer is just a terminal to issue the start instruction - much like mainframe computing was done in the 1960s.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

Yes, but it doesn't need to be done on your computer anymore. The calculations are done on the AI hosting platform and your home computer is just a terminal to issue the start instruction - much like mainframe computing was done in the 1960s.

And of course you have no real control over what you're doing.

 

[Thad1527]

I'm in favor of more family-friendly entertainment. But I worry AI will cheapen the quality. Character and plot will be unimportant, special effects may be magnificent.

I hate that "kids will watch anything" mindset.

 

[EddMarkStarr]

From the year of my birth, 1957, Hanna-Barbera's first cartoon series.

From 2023, computer creations for "Critterz".



If anyone can simply ask OpenAI to "make talking animals", can they at least be attractive?
Am I asking too much?

 

[pigface]

I hate that "kids will watch anything" mindset.

Not only but also, the current state of streaming services and cinema is "Adults will watch anything".

 

[rareboy]

From the year of my birth, 1957, Hanna-Barbera's first cartoon series.

From 2023, computer creations for "Critterz".



If anyone can simply ask OpenAI to "make talking animals", can they at least be attractive?
Am I asking too much?

Why attractive?

Children need to learn that the monsters are friendly...and I think this has been a good move in kids' books and video.

 

[rareboy]

Not only but also, the current state of streaming services and cinema is "Adults will watch anything".

In fairness, streaming has allowed us to only watch the best television and movie making from past and present and we no longer watch the slop on network TV. In fact the only channels we still watch on cable TV are PBS and Colbert on CBS.

 

[EddMarkStarr]

Why attractive?

Children need to learn that the monsters are friendly...and I think this has been a good move in kids' books and video.

What I really was after are characters with "style", not generic fuzz balls with big eyes.
Jim Henson's Muppets are not a universal standard for animated animals, nor is Disney's "The Lion King" remake that just looks creepy.
If A.I. creations are reviewed by artists, show some artistry and fine tune the characters to look unique.

There are animal simulators in video games that people have been using for years, but some want characters that are more "cartooney".

 

[rareboy]

Oh...if you are looking for an explanation, amorphous fuzzy figures with cute expressions have nailed it. Young kids are really mostly about faces and facial expressions as cues.

They don't care about finely detail.

And of course, even animation today is about saving money. These fuzzy characters, even rendered in AI, are much cheaper and faster to produce.