I understand what you mean. But for me, nothing can replace movies and TV series as a hobby. Of course, this doesn't apply to those who read books or follow performing arts (theatre, ballet, opera). But people who don't have these kinds of interests either need to find new hobbies or get used to watching AI-generated films and shows.
Will AI character such as Tilly Norwood replaces TV shows and movies to AI only and replaces all human actors?
it's a scam. In the original announcement, they talked about how much interest there was from big Hollywood studios and agencies, without naming names or any quotes from these supposed interested parties. Since then, nothing. Now these news is once again their company hiring somebody who used to work somewhere, but again, no evidence of actual interest.
Because there isn't any. Because using this AI "actress", even if it were capable of all the things they promise, would still be more work and more costly than just using an actual human actor. It's easier to create a whole scene in AI than to use an AI "actor" in a regular scene, so the whole idea of an AI actor is absurd.
They are trying to fool people into investing in their company by making big promises that are simply not realistic.
Totally agree, and yet have they managed to get any solid investors that everyone knows? Has any new footage of Tilly been produced? Beyond this thread I would never have even heard of her. I think the whole thing is a giant con job and once they do get whatever money they are after they vanish.
Hopelessly naive perhaps but even if AI in movies does take off there'll always be a large number of films that'll be AI free, they may be lower budget indie films rather than blockbusters but people will continue to want the real deal, hell it'll probably wind up a selling point.
And if the absolute worst does happen, well you know I've still never seen the majority of films that have been made up to this point so there'll always be something new (to me) to watch I guess.
And if the absolute worst does happen, well you know I've still never seen the majority of films that have been made up to this point so there'll always be something new (to me) to watch I guess.
If you're worried about generative AI movies, just imagine a producer talking about the next Mission: Impossible movie and revealing that they did all the stunts with AI. It's hard enough to find someone who admits they're using visual effects for action scenes these days! People want to see real locations, real people hanging off planes, real martial arts... real kisses too actually, unlike that recent film that used CGI to fake it.
Authenticity is a selling point and has been forever, I remember Patrick Stewart bragging on a behind the scenes video about how First Contact's sets had all been actually built and weren't just green screens.
Authenticity is a selling point and has been forever, I remember Patrick Stewart bragging on a behind the scenes video about how First Contact's sets had all been actually built and weren't just green screens.
I mean Hollywood has been using visual effects since the very beginning, it's always great to see those explanations of how Chaplin and Lloyd et al pulled off their terrifying looking stunts back in the day, but at least they had real people at the core of them.
I'm not violently opposed to CG being used in place of stunts, hell if only John Landis could have used CG on the set of the Twilight Zone! And I don't necessarily enjoy an MI film more because Cruise actually clung onto a plane but there are times where you have to use real people (same with model work, a model spaceship will always look more real because it has weight).
Hollywood used to be cleverer, that's all (for all that he gets slagged off for lens flare etc, I remember watching a documentary on the making of Trek09 where J.J. Abrams showed off all the clever low-fi tricks they used to film some scenes.)
I'm not violently opposed to CG being used in place of stunts, hell if only John Landis could have used CG on the set of the Twilight Zone! And I don't necessarily enjoy an MI film more because Cruise actually clung onto a plane but there are times where you have to use real people (same with model work, a model spaceship will always look more real because it has weight).
Hollywood used to be cleverer, that's all (for all that he gets slagged off for lens flare etc, I remember watching a documentary on the making of Trek09 where J.J. Abrams showed off all the clever low-fi tricks they used to film some scenes.)
CGI, through its overuse (even lazily replacing handheld props, simple manual tricks, and editing, etc), had been becoming the AI slop of the mid to late 2010s to very early 2020s just before the actual AI slop of today, when people slowly started turning against the MCU when it got increasingly rushed and oversaturated on Disney+....
Last edited:
That doesn't sound so bad.
Reading about Tilly the one thing I keep seeing people comment on is why did they make her a girl that looks very young. Interesting how some people have locked onto this point, at least to me.
I wonder if people who noted this were expecting her to look older. I was one of those too.
Just like NFTs. It's all one big grift.
Man. When they released that BTS video from "Dead Reckoning Part 1" I was floored by just how much was CGI
They really pulled the wool over your eyes
This is a great video series if you want to see the visual effects shots that movie producers would rather people not be aware of:
Those are really interesting and I love behind the scenes things showing how they make a scene in movies
Also a pathway for borderline psychopathic CEOs, chairmans, and shareholders to try to break their social contract with everyone, arrogantly assuming they can replace millions of employees and consumers with a AGI network connected to robots.
The American Epstein class' wealth and power is so insanely concentrated and entrenched now, it's now seriously short-circuiting or degrading their decision making processes, and so they'll keep pushing inane crap like this onto all of us against our wishes until it explodes in their faces (reminiscent of WW2 Germany & Japan crossed with 1980s Soviet Russia).
Even the AI craze amongst office workers and students, etc, feels like a digital psychological equivalent of the Chernobyl catastrophe for the USA (reading and writing degrading, overproduction of AI "slop", the dissolving of a skilled workforce, more social fracturing, the sense of reality distorted, etc).
Why not reboot the Demi Moore movie Striptease with Tilly Norwood?
You can't do what Robert Downey Jr. does and neither can your AI.
Your whole premise is wrong. You ignore the basic question: Why do they pay Downey 50 million dollars now, rather than hire any one of thousands of other competent actors who would work for far less?
Unfortunately, within a few years this truth will no longer be correct.
Because AI is still in its early stages, and people still want to watch real movies with real actors. And I hope we’ll continue to watch real movies with real actors in the years to come.
Yes it will be.
If you could "AI bottle" someone, they'd soon cease to be a scarce resource - in our current world, there's only one RDJ, or Cruise, or ScarJo or whoever commands a lot of money because of who they are. And when they become commonplace, they may become less expensive to "employ," but people will become unwilling to pay to watch them.
Last edited:
true.