Extras worry they'll be replaced by AI. Hollywood is already doing body scans(text.npr.org)
text.npr.org
Extras worry they'll be replaced by AI. Hollywood is already doing body scans
https://text.npr.org/1190605685
28 comments
So among the remaining pool of actors, the main qualification is no longer "be attractive", but "be skinny enough to not obstruct the background."
But it looks like shit and we can really tell the difference.
Case in point go watch the latest Top Gun movie. Sooo much better visually.
Case in point go watch the latest Top Gun movie. Sooo much better visually.
I'm surprised this is big news right now as I remember reading in the news all the way back in 2003 that for the Matrix sequels, the role of Seraph(the guardian of the Oracle) was supposed to go to the famous Jet Li, but he turned it down as WB had him sign off the rights to his digital image and Kung-Fu moves which he refused as he considered that his proprietary IP, so his role went to a lesser known actor who had less bargaining power.
So even 20 years ago, before the advent of ML driven deep-fakes, the tech existed to capture, digitize and generate photorealistic copies of actors[1], which they used for the Matrix sequels, so the writing was on the wall for at least that long.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3vbzU1PiE
So even 20 years ago, before the advent of ML driven deep-fakes, the tech existed to capture, digitize and generate photorealistic copies of actors[1], which they used for the Matrix sequels, so the writing was on the wall for at least that long.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3vbzU1PiE
Apparently Peter Jackson did not hire over 10,000 orc extras for the battle of Helm's Deep.
And matte paintings have been taking away jobs from set-builders for some time....
Actually I am in favor of real human actors, practical effects — just pointing out that things are going the way they've always gone.
And matte paintings have been taking away jobs from set-builders for some time....
Actually I am in favor of real human actors, practical effects — just pointing out that things are going the way they've always gone.
The difference is that those orcs were always CGI, not scans of real humans, the exceptions being the orcs in the foreground with speaking or stunt roles.
And matte paintings were always parts of the sets, not in lieu of them.
And matte paintings were always parts of the sets, not in lieu of them.
> The difference is that those orcs were always CGI, not scans of real humans, the exceptions being the orcs in the foreground with speaking or stunt roles.
Not just that, but people are missing the point. It's not about CGIing an extra so they can use them as background characters. What the studios are fighting for is the right to hire a person for a single day's labor, scan them, and use those scans in perpetuity for any purpose.
What that means is, if you suddenly become a big-name movie star, that studio no longer has to pay you to act in their movies, because they have the rights to scans of you from 10 years ago, and they can just use those instead.
Not just that, but people are missing the point. It's not about CGIing an extra so they can use them as background characters. What the studios are fighting for is the right to hire a person for a single day's labor, scan them, and use those scans in perpetuity for any purpose.
What that means is, if you suddenly become a big-name movie star, that studio no longer has to pay you to act in their movies, because they have the rights to scans of you from 10 years ago, and they can just use those instead.
> What the studios are fighting for is the right to hire a person for a single day's labor, scan them, and use those scans in perpetuity for any purpose.
The studios have said multiple times that this is not true. Rather this is a fear that the union brought up, not an actual request from the studios.
The studios have said multiple times that this is not true. Rather this is a fear that the union brought up, not an actual request from the studios.
>The studios have said multiple times that this is not true.
What is said publicly, or even to internal employees, ir even in the course of negotiations is not what is actually said in the boardroom. If you think any executive is straightforward on intent, the only person you're fooling is yourself.
What is said publicly, or even to internal employees, ir even in the course of negotiations is not what is actually said in the boardroom. If you think any executive is straightforward on intent, the only person you're fooling is yourself.
> The studios have said multiple times that this is not true. Rather this is a fear that the union brought up, not an actual request from the studios.
Incorrect. The current contracts (and relevant laws) arguably[0] allow this already. Actors want to explicitly prohibit it, and the studios have said they want to preserve that option.
Whether or not the studios are claiming they want to exercise that option is irrelevant; their insistence on maintaining that option is one of the core sticking points of the entire strike.
https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/PROPOSALS.pd...
[0] Actors claim it is already prohibited by the existing contracts, and AMPTP claims it is not.
Incorrect. The current contracts (and relevant laws) arguably[0] allow this already. Actors want to explicitly prohibit it, and the studios have said they want to preserve that option.
Whether or not the studios are claiming they want to exercise that option is irrelevant; their insistence on maintaining that option is one of the core sticking points of the entire strike.
https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/PROPOSALS.pd...
[0] Actors claim it is already prohibited by the existing contracts, and AMPTP claims it is not.
I read your link, and it does not support what you said.
> I read your link, and it does not support what you said.
I posted a primary source which corroborates everything I explained above. If you'd like to provide a primary source that says differently, go ahead.
I posted a primary source which corroborates everything I explained above. If you'd like to provide a primary source that says differently, go ahead.
Also note how much better the orcs looked in LotR compared to the Hobbit CGI wrecks.
You can kinda see how the actors fight versus their shadows with CGI while in LotR each blow looked heavy.
You can kinda see how the actors fight versus their shadows with CGI while in LotR each blow looked heavy.
The matte paintings are taking the jobs away from camel drivers who would otherwise have transported vast amounts of film equipment across the desert for on-site shoots.
Kubrick was going to actually get 10k+ soldiers for his Napoleon though.
Christopher Nolan refused to use CGI to add soldiers to the beach for Dunkirk. The end result looks like more of a beach outing than 100k+ soldiers desperate to evacuate.
Christopher Nolan is a notable hold out who never uses CGI though, so this is a pretty extreme & rare example.
Wait, not even Inception? This is crazy
Months of set work to fold that road. I heard they are still rebuilding parts of Paris to this day.
Famously, Waterloo (1970) used 17,000 Soviet Union soldiers and (Cold War-era) cavalry brigade as extras.
They also drilled, slept, and fought like real 1815 infantrymen and cavalrymen, as it was.
They also drilled, slept, and fought like real 1815 infantrymen and cavalrymen, as it was.
"Camelot!"
"It's only a model."
"It's only a model."
The orc union must've been furious!!
The fear, as I understand it, is that an actor will get scanned as an extra background mook in whatever movie, then not own the rights to their image when they get famous later.
With how advanced ML deep-fakes have gotten, digital actors could go from background details that nobody really cares about to "the lead actors are all digital homunculi, their visages the result of blending multiple actors together"
With how advanced ML deep-fakes have gotten, digital actors could go from background details that nobody really cares about to "the lead actors are all digital homunculi, their visages the result of blending multiple actors together"
> The fear, as I understand it, is that an actor will get scanned as an extra background mook in whatever movie, then not own the rights to their image when they get famous later.
Exactly. People are talking as if this is just about background roles, but that's not the point. Studios already use CGI people for background roles. That's cheap and easy, and there's no need to scan individuals for that.
The whole point of doing these body scans is to generate images that look like that specific actor. They're not doing that because they loved Joe Schmoe's performance as Silent Background Witness #4. They're doing that because Joe Schmoe might become a big star ten years down the line, and if that happens, they want to be able to produce movies with Joe Schmoe without paying him, or without even asking him beforehand at all.
Exactly. People are talking as if this is just about background roles, but that's not the point. Studios already use CGI people for background roles. That's cheap and easy, and there's no need to scan individuals for that.
The whole point of doing these body scans is to generate images that look like that specific actor. They're not doing that because they loved Joe Schmoe's performance as Silent Background Witness #4. They're doing that because Joe Schmoe might become a big star ten years down the line, and if that happens, they want to be able to produce movies with Joe Schmoe without paying him, or without even asking him beforehand at all.
> Joe Schmoe might become a big star ten years down the line
The chances of that happening are indistinguishable from zero.
The chances of that happening are indistinguishable from zero.
Not quite because it does happen or there would be no stars. Think of all the actors who played bit parts in TV shows from years ago. For instance, Pedro Pascal was on Buffy. He's a household name now, but then he was nobody waaaay before he was on GoT. The vast majority of famous actors earned their stripes via bit parts. It would behoove a studio to be making these scans just in case they happened to work with the next Brad Pitt at some point.
Would you be as excited to see a hologram of Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible, as opposed to see the real Tom doing his own stunts?
Besides, if technology could create a CGI actor as good as a real actor, the screen actors' guild is finished anyway, one way or another.
Besides, if technology could create a CGI actor as good as a real actor, the screen actors' guild is finished anyway, one way or another.
People pay a lot of money to go see Avatar.
the odds that any individual extra will become huge are slim to none. the odds that a huge actor started their career with a role as an extra is pretty high.
>The chances of that happening are indistinguishable from zero
Yeah, no. John Krasinski was waiting tables and struggling to make ends meet before getting his part as Jim in The Office that made him a household name today.
The casts of Friends and The Big Bang Theory were mostly nobodys before getting their parts which made them multi-millionaries that everyone recognizes today.
It's survivorship bias, but some of those "nobodys" actually do end up becoming very big "somebodys" later on, and the movie studios want to own their digital likeness for cheap early on, just in case, so that if they do become somebodys, they can pump out and monetize valuable ML generated content based on their likeness without having to pay them.
Yeah, no. John Krasinski was waiting tables and struggling to make ends meet before getting his part as Jim in The Office that made him a household name today.
The casts of Friends and The Big Bang Theory were mostly nobodys before getting their parts which made them multi-millionaries that everyone recognizes today.
It's survivorship bias, but some of those "nobodys" actually do end up becoming very big "somebodys" later on, and the movie studios want to own their digital likeness for cheap early on, just in case, so that if they do become somebodys, they can pump out and monetize valuable ML generated content based on their likeness without having to pay them.
> The chances of that happening are indistinguishable from zero
The chances that it is what happened, given a big star, is near unity.
The chances of it happening for any given extra are near zero.
But that means capturing the data (EDIT: and, more importantly, rights; the data on its own is mostly harmless) on every extra means destroying the negotiating power of basically everyone who might become a star with any negotiating power, even though each capture is unlikely to have long term value of that kind.
The chances that it is what happened, given a big star, is near unity.
The chances of it happening for any given extra are near zero.
But that means capturing the data (EDIT: and, more importantly, rights; the data on its own is mostly harmless) on every extra means destroying the negotiating power of basically everyone who might become a star with any negotiating power, even though each capture is unlikely to have long term value of that kind.
You can always turn fame into cash in other ways.
For example, Carrie Fisher (I'm reading her biography) lived off of her fame from Star Wars for the rest of her life (and she got the role in Star Wars because her mother was famous). Her movie roles after SW were not particularly memorable. But, like the Kardashians, she made a lot of money by being famous. Even her novels were autobiographical. Her show (Wishful Drinking) was about herself. When she needed money, she'd go to a SW convention and sign autographs.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
For example, Carrie Fisher (I'm reading her biography) lived off of her fame from Star Wars for the rest of her life (and she got the role in Star Wars because her mother was famous). Her movie roles after SW were not particularly memorable. But, like the Kardashians, she made a lot of money by being famous. Even her novels were autobiographical. Her show (Wishful Drinking) was about herself. When she needed money, she'd go to a SW convention and sign autographs.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Your example is just survivorship bias.
99% of people starring in movies don't have nowhere near the fame and bargaining power to demand royalties from past work the way stars like Carrie Fisher does.
Yes, some unknown actors got super lucky and struck big the first time, which gave him/her leverage to negociate deals to live off the royalties off one single great movie/franchise for the rest of their lives because they became invaluable to the franchise, but the vast majority don't, and need to bounce around begging for parts in mediocre movies to make a living.
It's why unions and regulations are important otherwise unscrupulous movie studios will just screw everyone entering the industry into signing off the rights to their visual likeness for pennies just so they can monetize them down the line.
For every Tom Cruise there are thousands of talented people whose careers didn't go anywhere.
99% of people starring in movies don't have nowhere near the fame and bargaining power to demand royalties from past work the way stars like Carrie Fisher does.
Yes, some unknown actors got super lucky and struck big the first time, which gave him/her leverage to negociate deals to live off the royalties off one single great movie/franchise for the rest of their lives because they became invaluable to the franchise, but the vast majority don't, and need to bounce around begging for parts in mediocre movies to make a living.
It's why unions and regulations are important otherwise unscrupulous movie studios will just screw everyone entering the industry into signing off the rights to their visual likeness for pennies just so they can monetize them down the line.
For every Tom Cruise there are thousands of talented people whose careers didn't go anywhere.
I don't know what royalties Carrie got from Star Wars, but (according to her biography) she did run out of money at times and used her fame to get money. Carrie would have been wealthy even if she'd worked for Lucas for free. Would she have been famous without Lucas? Unlikely.
Do you think anyone would pay to have a hologram of Carrie sign your t-shirt? Would anyone watch Larry King interview a hologram of Carrie? Would anyone pay to hire a hologram of Carrie to sing at their wedding? Would you pay to see a broadway show starring Carrie the Hologram?
Do you think anyone would pay to have a hologram of Carrie sign your t-shirt? Would anyone watch Larry King interview a hologram of Carrie? Would anyone pay to hire a hologram of Carrie to sing at their wedding? Would you pay to see a broadway show starring Carrie the Hologram?
Well, would this hologram be smuggled cross-country and delivered by a robot?
I mean, I thank the GP for choosing the most interesting example possible, because Fisher is literally famous for being a hologram.
I mean, I thank the GP for choosing the most interesting example possible, because Fisher is literally famous for being a hologram.
But if this is the fear, why should we care? If John Doe, who is currently a bartender, wants to concede to Warner his appearance in perpetuity in exchange for $1000, that's his business.
If John Doe, who is currently a bartender, wants to concede to Warner his appearance in perpetuity in exchange for $1000, that's his business.
Aside from the whole question of consent to the "in perpetuity" side of the issue, the law does actually care about fairness when it comes to contracts.
Aside from the whole question of consent to the "in perpetuity" side of the issue, the law does actually care about fairness when it comes to contracts.
The Matrix Reloaded credits include 550+ VFX artists. Yes it was possible to fully render people 20 years ago, but it took a well paid army. We are quickly approaching the point where a team of 3 can procedurally generate crowds in minutes. It's a whole different beast.
>We are quickly approaching the point where a team of 3 can procedurally generate crowds in minutes
Have you checked the VFX in recent movies? Most look worse than 20 years ago precisely because clueless directors have been tricked to believe that one guy with a computer can do the work of 100 VFX artists used to do by hand in the past, so VFX get rushed and end up looking like dogshit.
Yes, modern tech can get you 80% there of what used to be long painful manual labor, but you're still in uncanny valley so you still need the careful eye of experienced artists to do the rest to make it actually believable.
Have you checked the VFX in recent movies? Most look worse than 20 years ago precisely because clueless directors have been tricked to believe that one guy with a computer can do the work of 100 VFX artists used to do by hand in the past, so VFX get rushed and end up looking like dogshit.
Yes, modern tech can get you 80% there of what used to be long painful manual labor, but you're still in uncanny valley so you still need the careful eye of experienced artists to do the rest to make it actually believable.
At least amateur hour(ie. Youtube) is about to go up a major notch.
Yes. But people who acted in that movie were told ahead of time their bodies were going to be digitized and manipulated and their agents were able to negotiate terms surrounding the use of those 3D models.
Imagine you were an extra in a Star Trek : Next Generation episode where the editor didn't notice you were caught on camera picking your nose. In the modern era, decades later, someone notices it on blue-ray and the scene goes viral. Should Paramont have the rights to generate a collection of NFTs based on your image? [Forget for the moment that NFTs are stupid.]
The law in this case leans towards "no" because it recognizes that as an actor, your image is a valuable asset actors usually control. Also, the idea of an NFT didn't exist in a form made manifest or even predictable in 1987 when you were an extra. Who owns the rights to your image applied to new technology? That question has been a little harder to answer recently.
And that's sort of what's going on. It's not that CGI and AI exist, it's that they're being applied in a non-traditional way without an explicit agreement ahead of time to divvy up the cash.
Imagine you were an extra in a Star Trek : Next Generation episode where the editor didn't notice you were caught on camera picking your nose. In the modern era, decades later, someone notices it on blue-ray and the scene goes viral. Should Paramont have the rights to generate a collection of NFTs based on your image? [Forget for the moment that NFTs are stupid.]
The law in this case leans towards "no" because it recognizes that as an actor, your image is a valuable asset actors usually control. Also, the idea of an NFT didn't exist in a form made manifest or even predictable in 1987 when you were an extra. Who owns the rights to your image applied to new technology? That question has been a little harder to answer recently.
And that's sort of what's going on. It's not that CGI and AI exist, it's that they're being applied in a non-traditional way without an explicit agreement ahead of time to divvy up the cash.
This debate should have started in earnest even before the Matrix sequels - digital crowds were used extensively throughout the 90s (Digital Domain's work on Strange Days and Titanic being the big examples) and the guilds have at least had some knowledge of these processes.
Hunh. I wonder if the "inauthenticity" of AI generated CGI will lead to a resurgence of live theater? I was a drama dork as a kid so still get out to see live shows on a semi-regular basis, but I wonder if "normal people" will eventually tire of the uncanny valley. Can AI/CGI exit the uncanny valley fast enough?
Modern movies are choc full of CGI - most of it people simply do not notice.
David Fincher's movies / shows is a good example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di4Byf1EzRE
David Fincher's movies / shows is a good example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di4Byf1EzRE
Its definitely going to lead to some pushback I think. People crave the bespoke and the niche. Films that bother shooting in 70mm see these showings booked up a month out because there's so much demand for something a little bit more refined. It just depends on the willingness of money to invest into these things, and that tends to ebb and flow over time. Right now we seem to be at a highly commercialized crossroads with what sorts of films are being produced, but maybe in the future the pendulum will shift again and we will see something like Reservoir Dogs from the next Tarantino.
I am not a fan of modern movies. More and more, movies look visually artificial. Like they try to make it look too aesthetically pleasing with no flaws. Most look like they are done in a studio with green screen.
But I must be in the minority bc the whatever-marvel-movie part 8 sells a lot of tickets.
I think for folks like me, there will still be a market for real actors in real scenes. Especially for live theatre / broadway. I refuse to let Disney choke me with fast-food visuals and marketing gimmicks.
But I must be in the minority bc the whatever-marvel-movie part 8 sells a lot of tickets.
I think for folks like me, there will still be a market for real actors in real scenes. Especially for live theatre / broadway. I refuse to let Disney choke me with fast-food visuals and marketing gimmicks.
>fast-food visuals
That a good way to describe it, I think I'm gonna steal this term and start using it myself.
That a good way to describe it, I think I'm gonna steal this term and start using it myself.
There's going to be a market for "verifiably produced by humans".
Theater is already a semi-luxury, not easily replaced by A.I. It's interesting to see theaters survive when movies in many ways produce a better experience. It's my belief that will see something similar for other types of content, we will have the generic A.I. powered entertainment and news and then we'll have a smaller, more expensive, "made by humans" segment of movies, books, news and theater.
A.I. content is for the masses, not upper echelons of society and the hippies.
A.I. content is for the masses, not upper echelons of society and the hippies.
I'd bet on the same that AI generated content proliferation will increase the premium value for authentic, curated human-generated content.
Is it a societal good to pay a bunch of people to loiter in a coffee shop pretending to talk in the background of every coffee shop shot?
There are parts of what AI is doing that feels like it could harm artistic expression, but I'm not sure I care about this very much.
There are parts of what AI is doing that feels like it could harm artistic expression, but I'm not sure I care about this very much.
> Is it a societal good to pay a bunch of people to loiter in a coffee shop pretending to talk in the background of every coffee shop shot?
I'd wager that more societal good comes from paying actual humans actual money than it does to digitize those humans' likenesses so that money can instead remain in producers' pockets.
I'd wager that more societal good comes from paying actual humans actual money than it does to digitize those humans' likenesses so that money can instead remain in producers' pockets.
Playing devil's advocate here: do you feel the same when you use a calculator instead of a human computer who could be getting paid money instead of saving you some?
That's a devilish bit of advocacy, one that I couldn't argue until I remembered exactly what I was replying to. The commenter I replied to was pondering the "societal good" of replacing humans with digitized versions of those same humans.
I don't believe your calculator example was written as a way to compare "societal good" as much as it was written to be an example of a tool that replaces a human.
To answer your question, I don't feel the same when using a calculator. When I use a calculator I'm not putting someone out of a job. If I don't have a calculator, I don't go hire a human computer - I just use different tools (my brain).
That's not the say calculators, or similar, haven't put people out of jobs in the past.
I think digitizing someone's likeness so that you don't need to hire them again is a different thing entirely. When talking about that in the context of "societal good", replacing an entire segment of jobs that humans can get paid for (so that studios can keep a few bucks) doesn't seem like it increases "societal good", and actually decreases "societal good."
Maybe that could have been said about calculators ages ago, and maybe 20 years from now the notion of hiring extras will feel a lot like replacing human computers with electronic calculators.
I don't believe your calculator example was written as a way to compare "societal good" as much as it was written to be an example of a tool that replaces a human.
To answer your question, I don't feel the same when using a calculator. When I use a calculator I'm not putting someone out of a job. If I don't have a calculator, I don't go hire a human computer - I just use different tools (my brain).
That's not the say calculators, or similar, haven't put people out of jobs in the past.
I think digitizing someone's likeness so that you don't need to hire them again is a different thing entirely. When talking about that in the context of "societal good", replacing an entire segment of jobs that humans can get paid for (so that studios can keep a few bucks) doesn't seem like it increases "societal good", and actually decreases "societal good."
Maybe that could have been said about calculators ages ago, and maybe 20 years from now the notion of hiring extras will feel a lot like replacing human computers with electronic calculators.
> I think digitizing someone's likeness so that you don't need to hire them again is a different thing entirely. When talking about that in the context of "societal good", replacing an entire segment of jobs that humans can get paid for (so that studios can keep a few bucks) doesn't seem like it increases "societal good", and actually decreases "societal good.
I don't know. We have automated a ton of jobs with technology, and while that makes some rich people richer there is great societal good in it. In fact I think keeping any job that can be automated artificially existing through regulation decreases societal good, in my opinion.
I think pushing for regulation here can actually backfire. A big studio can handle the logistics and costs of hiring extras, while a smaller one may not.
I don't know. We have automated a ton of jobs with technology, and while that makes some rich people richer there is great societal good in it. In fact I think keeping any job that can be automated artificially existing through regulation decreases societal good, in my opinion.
I think pushing for regulation here can actually backfire. A big studio can handle the logistics and costs of hiring extras, while a smaller one may not.
Do you feel the same knowing that a company can steal your thought patterns, keystrokes, likeness in manner of speech and thought and appearance, and build an AI that codes about as good as you or will one day, without giving you a dime or needing you? Effectively cutting off your legs too since you won't even be able to monetize your own likeness anymore since they can just preempt you in that area too, via alterations to the likeness.
It's not just Hollywood extras who are victims here - it's everyone.
It's not just Hollywood extras who are victims here - it's everyone.
We need to implement UBI in this country.
I don't think laws requiring that extras in films be real humans is a very effective social safety net.
I don't think laws requiring that extras in films be real humans is a very effective social safety net.
That's true but what's more simple? Implementing UBI or banning this practice? Right now the latter is more simple and feasible. The former takes more time and investigation into how to do it properly so it scales forever.
I don't think a law mandating human extras will be very effective in guaranteeing jobs. More likely, filmmakers will just change shots so there are less reasons for people to be in the background, because it is mandated to be expensive.
banning non-human extras is completely unfeasable. do you think it makes sense to stop every indie filmmaker with a small budget who can't afford to hire a lot of actors and extras from using computer generated characters? how about a fully computer animated film with a few real human characters?
computer generated characters are not the problem. scanning real humans and keeping the perpetual right to use the data without paying is the problem.
computer generated characters are not the problem. scanning real humans and keeping the perpetual right to use the data without paying is the problem.
I think the real problem isn't scanning the humans and keeping perpetual rights to use the data without paying.
It's scanning humans without telling them that's what they're being scanned for.
While the stories I've heard may be anecdotal, I've heard people who, as extras on a production, tell stories about being scanned with zero explanation as to why.
If people want to sign away their likeness, fine, but they need to be the ones agreeing to that.
It's scanning humans without telling them that's what they're being scanned for.
While the stories I've heard may be anecdotal, I've heard people who, as extras on a production, tell stories about being scanned with zero explanation as to why.
If people want to sign away their likeness, fine, but they need to be the ones agreeing to that.
If people want to sign away their likeness, fine, but they need to be the ones agreeing to that.
not until we have laws that make sure that those rights can not be signed away exclusively. no contract should be able to prevent someone using their own likeness to make a living.
it's the same problem as with non-compete clauses.
not until we have laws that make sure that those rights can not be signed away exclusively. no contract should be able to prevent someone using their own likeness to make a living.
it's the same problem as with non-compete clauses.
UBI is just a way for techbros to help quell the eventual calls for their heads. It will effectively be another way to cut off the masses from ever leaving their societal strata. I guess its already rare enough that people escape their parents income level but at least with tech there was some hope because the elites didn't see the technology coming. Now that they are awake they will do everything they can to close that door. UBI is one method. I don't have a good solution to the problem that UBI solves though. :/
> UBI is just a way for techbros to help quell the eventual calls for their heads.
> I don't have a good solution to the problem that UBI solves though
These sentences are at odds, you admit that UBI solves a problem, but since it doesn't end classism altogether is's not worthwhile?
> I don't have a good solution to the problem that UBI solves though
These sentences are at odds, you admit that UBI solves a problem, but since it doesn't end classism altogether is's not worthwhile?
It solves a massive problem while at the same time creating another massive problem. Was my comment really that unclear?
An enjoyable old movie on this topic - https://www.inverse.com/culture/hollywood-sag-strike-ai-the-...
So now we're calling a 10-year-old movie "old"?
Well, slap my @$$ and call me "The Ancient"...
https://youtu.be/-KSXxJoYU3c
Well, slap my @$$ and call me "The Ancient"...
https://youtu.be/-KSXxJoYU3c
Ever since Hollywood started using the more modern but still manual "de-aging" tech, as seen in "The Irishman" - I've kept thinking: Consumer-grade deep turned out better. I remember when deep fakes became mainstream, some youtube hobbyist showcased his deep fake de-aging of Robert DeNiro, compared to what the movie makers did - and the deep fake looked better.
One problem was that DeNiro - while still a fine actor - was a man in his mid 70s trying to portray a man in his 20s/30s, as seen in the somewhat cringy fight scene.
So why not just do this: Get some cheap no-name actor / double do the acting, and let DeNiro license his face to the movie.
FWIW, I don't like that idea - but it seems to make sense? Especially with actors that are long gone. That's already been done. Speech synthesis is also becoming pretty remarkable, so you can also provide voice.
In fact, I'm surprised this tech hasn't completely taken over dubbing yet. Both the deep fake tech to get the right mouth movement, and speech synthesis to match the voice.
Anyway, I think that in 5-10 years this will be case. Unless SAG-AFTRA is powerful enough the curb that kind of use of tech.
One problem was that DeNiro - while still a fine actor - was a man in his mid 70s trying to portray a man in his 20s/30s, as seen in the somewhat cringy fight scene.
So why not just do this: Get some cheap no-name actor / double do the acting, and let DeNiro license his face to the movie.
FWIW, I don't like that idea - but it seems to make sense? Especially with actors that are long gone. That's already been done. Speech synthesis is also becoming pretty remarkable, so you can also provide voice.
In fact, I'm surprised this tech hasn't completely taken over dubbing yet. Both the deep fake tech to get the right mouth movement, and speech synthesis to match the voice.
Anyway, I think that in 5-10 years this will be case. Unless SAG-AFTRA is powerful enough the curb that kind of use of tech.
If having someone's likeness requires, by Federal law, consent in the form of a licensing agreement where the person receives compensation then that's more okay.
I would still prefer a full ban on this. Maybe it'd be okay if theater or non-CGI film end up becoming their own booming industries owing to people enjoying being together in a place and seeing the limits of modern practical effects. With these deep-fake films and shows being labeled as "CGI" and letting the market decide.
I would still prefer a full ban on this. Maybe it'd be okay if theater or non-CGI film end up becoming their own booming industries owing to people enjoying being together in a place and seeing the limits of modern practical effects. With these deep-fake films and shows being labeled as "CGI" and letting the market decide.
>Unless SAG-AFTRA is powerful enough the curb that kind of use of tech.
Unlikely. after the '78 commercial strike most studios made sure to keep a buffer of more than a year of content. animation studios are effectively immune to strikes since most animators arent unionized, and most of the voice work isnt either.
SAG also routinely spent time trying to turn acting into a racket. Membership was notoriously difficult and hasnt evolved with content creation in the 21st century. Ultra Low Budget, Student, or Short Films do not qualify towards SAG-AFTRA eligibility (Youtube/TikTok/etc...) SAG-AFTRA membership is also restricted to SAG-AFTRA job sites, so it doesnt really "grow" per say. Were you a grip or gaff on the set of a Ford commercial and it wasnt a SAG-AFTRA job? you're not eligible to join.
SAG's demands in the current strike are nearly as unreasonable as the studios.
Unlikely. after the '78 commercial strike most studios made sure to keep a buffer of more than a year of content. animation studios are effectively immune to strikes since most animators arent unionized, and most of the voice work isnt either.
SAG also routinely spent time trying to turn acting into a racket. Membership was notoriously difficult and hasnt evolved with content creation in the 21st century. Ultra Low Budget, Student, or Short Films do not qualify towards SAG-AFTRA eligibility (Youtube/TikTok/etc...) SAG-AFTRA membership is also restricted to SAG-AFTRA job sites, so it doesnt really "grow" per say. Were you a grip or gaff on the set of a Ford commercial and it wasnt a SAG-AFTRA job? you're not eligible to join.
SAG's demands in the current strike are nearly as unreasonable as the studios.
Maybe they have been infiltrated by studio supporting people? Too many conspiracies to keep track of in this day and age.
Modern movies then look to continue down this path of looking fake and getting worse.
I watched some movies from the 80s recently, kids movies, and I was blown away with the special effects. IMO they were more enjoyable than what's being output today from a special effects POV and the overall cinematic experience and skills involved.
Today's movies just seem so fake, empty and forced.
Obviously there are some exceptions if you go looking.
I watched some movies from the 80s recently, kids movies, and I was blown away with the special effects. IMO they were more enjoyable than what's being output today from a special effects POV and the overall cinematic experience and skills involved.
Today's movies just seem so fake, empty and forced.
Obviously there are some exceptions if you go looking.
I think this is being unfair to modern movies and I say this as someone who loves old 70s-90s horror movies. They do have a very real
quality to them on account of the very good practical effects, comically bad "cgi", little in the way of studio staging, and often very little in the way of soundtrack. It creates a vibe that is really hard to replicate.
But modern movie style has its pros, the dreamlike quality that once your brain adjusts to the clean unreality makes it feel far more real and lets movies push further in bending reality, the truly incredible soundtracks that amplify emotional moments and build such beautiful tension, modern cgi that puts even the best horror makeup to shame, waaaaay better audio compression and mixing making jump scares truly terrifying and action hit harder, the ability to bend or break the rules of camera focus to create movies where the whole screen is sharp to show off the set or build dramatic irony for someone paying attention.
There is a lot to love about movies in the last 15 years. People seem to have forgotten how fucking good the first two Iron Man movies were, how mind boggling the first Avatar was visually. We've been eating so well we're sick of the taste.
But modern movie style has its pros, the dreamlike quality that once your brain adjusts to the clean unreality makes it feel far more real and lets movies push further in bending reality, the truly incredible soundtracks that amplify emotional moments and build such beautiful tension, modern cgi that puts even the best horror makeup to shame, waaaaay better audio compression and mixing making jump scares truly terrifying and action hit harder, the ability to bend or break the rules of camera focus to create movies where the whole screen is sharp to show off the set or build dramatic irony for someone paying attention.
There is a lot to love about movies in the last 15 years. People seem to have forgotten how fucking good the first two Iron Man movies were, how mind boggling the first Avatar was visually. We've been eating so well we're sick of the taste.
I have to say I disagree. But I also did say there are some exceptions. Personally I wouldn't include Iron Man in that list of exceptions. The first Avatar I would.
I follow a TV writer and show runner on Instagram, and he pointed out a consequence of AI that I think a lot of people are missing.
You know how people get really creeped out with ultra-targeted ads? Imagine if you had an entire TV show that was ultra-targeted. How creeped out would you be?
You know how people get really creeped out with ultra-targeted ads? Imagine if you had an entire TV show that was ultra-targeted. How creeped out would you be?
About Black Mirror season 6 episode 1-level creeped out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Is_Awful
Ah, yes, Black Mirror, otherwise known as "Business Plan of the Week."
Yes he mentioned that too.
I don't think most people get really creeped out by targeted ads. That's a pathology that seems to only exist within the tech community.
I don't even know what an "entire TV show that was ultra-targeted" would even be, shows that could be customized by personal preference? That seems like something people would actually like.
I don't even know what an "entire TV show that was ultra-targeted" would even be, shows that could be customized by personal preference? That seems like something people would actually like.
> I don't even know what an "entire TV show that was ultra-targeted" would even be, shows that could be customized by personal preference? That seems like something people would actually like.
Yes, but full of product placement and other marketing messages.
Yes, but full of product placement and other marketing messages.
>Yes, but full of product placement and other marketing messages.
So like a regular show.
So like a regular show.
A movie like "Being John Malkovich" except it's you!
[deleted]
I wonder how long we'll have to wait for them to be used in porn.
Who needs deepfakes when you have a 3d model?
The aneccdotes at the beginning really seem like the filmmakers are capturing 3D models of extras to make changes in post look more realistic on the same production, and then the extras are misreading the situation.
The whole article puts "extras fear" up front, and then follows up with a whole cascade of them not having evidence for those fears, studios dismissing those fears, CGI extras being something used for decades, etc.
Not sure what the story is supposed to be here.
The whole article puts "extras fear" up front, and then follows up with a whole cascade of them not having evidence for those fears, studios dismissing those fears, CGI extras being something used for decades, etc.
Not sure what the story is supposed to be here.
well... there is this whole labor action currently occurring where embodied actors want (among other things) more of a cut of profits generated from digital representations of actors. That might be where the fear's coming from.
IMO, the story is the studio is pushing for digital extras based on real actors with no compensation to those actors, and the technology is proven to exist.
Combined, it implies that the threat to actors’ livelihoods is quite real.
Combined, it implies that the threat to actors’ livelihoods is quite real.
I think the issue is that the extras have to have trust in ALL of the production companies involved to not misuse that data in the future. Why pay for processing power to create a sea of extras when you have the full body from your previous 25 productions? "I'm sure no one would notice... Let's do it just this once."
Although clearly even if it is codified in the union contract it just adds a layer of security for the actors... they still have to trust the production companies to do the right thing.
Although clearly even if it is codified in the union contract it just adds a layer of security for the actors... they still have to trust the production companies to do the right thing.
The extras are not misreading the situation at all. Every single action taken is up to the individual, if a director wants to suddenly use the actors image in any way or something they'd disagree with, well they waved their rights so.
To say that fears are baseless because corporate will not take advantage of new methods and technology in spite of the workers is beyond ignorant. It's quite suspect, especially from a forum about the automation business.
To say that fears are baseless because corporate will not take advantage of new methods and technology in spite of the workers is beyond ignorant. It's quite suspect, especially from a forum about the automation business.
This is a story about exorbitantly rich actors. It impacts nobody else whatsoever, and if it does it's less than 1% of the total impact. The extras angle is just there so you will side with the actors over the studio. Otherwise you might get a very rich actor arguing with a only-sorta-rich studio exec, and then the public doesn't know who to side with.
Alexandria Rubalcaba is not an exorbitantly rich actor.
Right, she's someone you could actually care about in terms of a bad financial deal.
This is so irrelevant. There is no need at this point to scan real people to make fake people. The entire thing is a term to be negotiated and let the union win one.
In video games, we've been using digitized people for ages, often not based off of a person at all. Nobody but a 3d modeller and a voice actor involved, plus some detailed texturing work, an animator, often from mocap
Newer tools are making the modelling part way easier, Eg, epics human making kit. Libraries like mega scans are enough for many projects too, and mixamo has replaced a lot of animator hours alone
Weird contrast, considering recent events
Newer tools are making the modelling part way easier, Eg, epics human making kit. Libraries like mega scans are enough for many projects too, and mixamo has replaced a lot of animator hours alone
Weird contrast, considering recent events
[deleted]
This really wouldn't be that big of a leap to make. I remember seeing a behind the scenes special years ago about one of the star wars prequels. They'd have like a half dozen people in a wookie suit and then basically use software to copy and paste those people into an army. That was years ago. I imagine the only reason why they don't use pure AI now is that its cheaper to pay an extra their day rate and film them in costume to use as an initial template for cgi copy and pasting, than it is to pay a cgi artist to make that initial template extra design and copy and paste that. Maybe AI now changes that math.
This isn’t surprising by any means, look how far NPCs have evolved since GTA3 to GTA4.
Hollywood doesn’t need a bunch of blah blah men to sit in a coffee shop and pretend to talk.
Hollywood doesn’t need a bunch of blah blah men to sit in a coffee shop and pretend to talk.
So basically eliminate every movie genre except animation?
I’m not sure how I led you there. I simply meant it’s
only a matter of time until physical background characters become obsolete.
If it were a matter of time, it would've happened by now. Yet we are seeing one after another CGI-overdosed marvel movies starting to flop.
A matter if time until accurate replication is more affordable.
It exists, but you often see crap like this https://youtube.com/shorts/naDRRFFVNZM?feature=share
It exists, but you often see crap like this https://youtube.com/shorts/naDRRFFVNZM?feature=share
That's interesting, thanks for sharing!
Remember when we were all talking about how bad "Big Tech" is? Hollywood's like "Hold my beer".
This affects everyone. It represents your boss making demands of your likeness for ownership. Some of us already had to politely decline to sign away our likeness and alterations to it for no compensation in return. It's clear what they want to do. They want to just take the likeness of the most beautiful and the most productive. They know every keystroke on company hardware and your general performance patterns, and they want to steal your patterns and thought processes especially if you go full bore and give them 100% all the time as a rockstar. They want you without paying you.
The only way against this is Federal legislation making it illegal. The Federal Government should also create steep fines levied against any company that already tried to push this envelope. Awful bosses will never learn otherwise. You cannot pretend to say things about inclusion, equity, diversity, only to then make a move like this. This move signifies attempted ownership of a person's entire being, and some groups have no gall at all and make it clear that they don't even intend to give you any money for it. It is out-in-the-open broad daylight theft while they laugh at the majority of the people who have no power to say or do anything since in these economic times they can just coerce you into doing it because of necessity.
They want your productivity, appearance, style, and abilities and they want to give you nothing. Don't be fooled into a sense of pride because you're an engineer or a designer or a director or an executive or even a CEO - don't be someone who thinks that an extra in Hollywood is far below you and that this doesn't affect you. The technology is the same and will be applied to everyone's likeness unless you say no and unless the Federal Government gets involved to issue laws with serious teeth against this brazen theft.
They want your productivity, appearance, style, and abilities and they want to give you nothing. Don't be fooled into a sense of pride because you're an engineer or a designer or a director or an executive or even a CEO - don't be someone who thinks that an extra in Hollywood is far below you and that this doesn't affect you. The technology is the same and will be applied to everyone's likeness unless you say no and unless the Federal Government gets involved to issue laws with serious teeth against this brazen theft.
If it comes to that, Federal law won't be enough. The producers will just go offshore to search for talent they can exploit.
You can't fix this problem with guns.
You can't fix this problem with guns.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Presumably they want to replace people with AI/CGI to reduce costs (also convenience and speed, etc, but it seems those could be reduced to costs too). And yet, it seems the modern CGI-heavy movies budgets keep increasing?
It's important to control the flow of money. As long as it flows into your companies, you can charge whatever amount you want, and drive the system to your benefit. Hollywood-accounting at it's best.
All Hollywood needs now is for all of the actors to parade up and down in lines outside their Studio offices with their arms above their heads for TSA style "full body scanning".
/s
/s
In the end the whole economy can run on one server. And all the guys to whom it still matters can visit it or sleep near there "monopoly" all cozy and happy. Like a zoo of greedy and needy. The normies can occasionally drop by and feed them odeuvre and watch them chang a suit for another. We need zookeepers who prevent the whole post scarcity panic to set in ..
Imagine growing up to be an extra in a film
AI is good for this industry.
[deleted]
Some of the complaints here seem to be focused on the idea that specific actors are being scanned and reused elsewhere. That's kind of silly of course. Maybe it is happening, but it's not like the background actors have any value to their individual image and if this is the hill to die on, just wait for some generative model to create a bunch of new ones.
Regardless... I can't see this really going anywhere. Background actors are just not important enough to matter.
Regardless... I can't see this really going anywhere. Background actors are just not important enough to matter.
[deleted]
And that's just what's available off-the-shelf, not what specialized studios are doing with huge budgets. The Marvel movies are already close to being "animated movies in a live-action style". Even basic helicopter shots flying over real-life locations like the coast of California are totally CGI because it's easier to animate than get a permit. Actors entire bodies will be replaced on a whim because they didn't like the costume choice. Putting a new face on someone is not that big of a deal.