I'm 100% with the actors. Keep it up.
writers' strike and Trek
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
I'm 100% with the actors. Keep it up.
People are saying the AI "we own your likeness forever" thing the studios are pushing for would mean the end of acting and all the support professions like lighting, makeup, wardrobe, etc., but it wouldn't really, would it? Despite the hype, what we call "AI" isn't actually intelligent at all and still needs a lot of human mediation. If you wanted to create a "performance" from a virtual double of a dead actor, you'd probably still need a real actor's performance to base it on, and you'd need animators to adjust and polish the results.
Then again, the executives have probably bought into the hype and believe AI could do it all with the push of a button, so they may be hoping for a world where they can eliminate actors, writers, and production staffs and the need to pay them all. But if they tried it, they'd quickly find that it wouldn't actually work that way, that they'd still need to hire people to create and refine the digital performances. But the people creating the performance wouldn't be on camera anymore, so they'd probably get paid a lot less and not be given recognition for their hard work. So it would still be a very bad deal for actors etc.
Then again, the executives have probably bought into the hype and believe AI could do it all with the push of a button, so they may be hoping for a world where they can eliminate actors, writers, and production staffs and the need to pay them all. But if they tried it, they'd quickly find that it wouldn't actually work that way, that they'd still need to hire people to create and refine the digital performances. But the people creating the performance wouldn't be on camera anymore, so they'd probably get paid a lot less and not be given recognition for their hard work. So it would still be a very bad deal for actors etc.
Right now, you're right. Ten years from now (or longer), we don't know how many people it would really take if the technology gets better. Obviously the studios are betting that eventually it will be good enough to just create a whole scene using only the cgi animators who create the performance completely from scratch using digital environments and digital models alone. (They probably even dream of a day where even the animators aren't necessary, but that's a whole separate thing.)
Also, even in the world where the studio doesn't ever get the full dream, allowing this ai stuff would still kill tons of jobs outright.
No actors on camera? No make-up or costuming people, either. Possibly no or far fewer sets, with all the jobs tied up in that, and far fewer camera crews as way more of the movie is being created digitally. In terms of the number of jobs involved, some of this might be made up by more jobs in the cgi companies, but it also still means way fewer people on set at the same time which will heavily damage the bottom line of the craft services departments, too.
I'm pretty sure this stuff has been in the works longer than two years.
And I'd say that picture probably makes a better argument that it will take a lot longer than a decade to achieve what you're talking about, since it clearly still isn't good enough to make the human face look fully believable. And a movie is a *hell* of a lot more complicated than a still picture, so in order to reach that point AI will have to learn how to perfectly generate fully realistic 3d environments and characters and have them all perfectly interacting with each other and inserting all their dialogue so it sounds natural and fits perfectly with the facial movements and generate a full score and place it properly throughout the film. Not to mention write a decent script to begin with.
There is a huge, huge difference between a single still image and a coherent narrative. Not to mention that the computer doesn't "make" a goddamned thing -- it steals what humans made and mixes it together to create the illusion of something new. Hopefully the law will catch up and prohibit the use of such theft to generate content.
It'll also in all likelihood destroy the emotional passion and parasocial connection the viewing the public has with the entertainment industry and their productions. Even animation is a "machine" with many people inside or behind it.
Last edited:
Oh, well.
All good things must come to an end.
All good things must come to an end.
Let the hype train for Section 31, Starfleet Academy and Star Trek Legacy start rolling again!
I'm still betting we never see that set used on screen ever again. I mean..... where could they even use it?
Is this a joke?
Yes, but not because of any future production. Dave Blass said a few parties were interested in it.
But Legacy isn't a thingLet the hype train for Section 31, Starfleet Academy and Star Trek Legacy start rolling again!
Not an official thing that's been announced.
However, straight of out Alex Kurtzman's mouth on October 14th, 2023:
Alex Kurtzman Gives ‘Section 31’ And ‘Academy’ Updates, Teases “Exciting” New Star Trek Projects – TrekMovie.com
“I have to say, our friends at Paramount Plus have been unbelievable, truly unbelievable. They have supported all of these shows in the most extraordinary ways. I will tease that I did meet with everybody at the top this week. And there’s a bunch of new things now in the works, which is really, really exciting. So there’s no shortage of support from Paramount Plus for the Star Trek universe.”
Also what he said earlier on April 24th, 2023:
"Fans Heard Loud And Clear" About Star Trek: Legacy, Says Executive Producer (screenrant.com)
At the Television Academy screening of Star Trek: Picard's season 3 finale in Los Angeles, Alex Kurtzman was interviewed by Fox LA's Elex Michaelson, who brought up the growing fan outcry for Star Trek: Legacy. Read what Kurtzman said in response:
"Anything is possible. We’ve heard the fans loud and clear. There’s obviously more story to tell. So, we’ll see."
So? He's just making vague, empty pronouncements that people can project their own assumptions onto. They're not evidence of anything.
This is what's wrong with journalism today. People have forgotten the difference between actual news and empty chatter. The 24-hour news cycle demands constant updates, so we get inundated with meaningless "stories" that contain no actual news, that are just people trying to give noncommittal answers to the leading questions reporters ask in the hopes of manufacturing stories where none exist.
I didn't say it was evidence, I just think it doesn't mean there's nothing going on behind-the-scenes which they're not prepared to talk about yet.
Similar threads
