Deakins: A.I is ok

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

As per the title.

This circulated recently: In the clip he says something to the tune of:  "As long as you have a story I don't care what you use"

Was really mostly sad for the statement coming from someone who shot "The Shawshank Redemption"

That's, aside from the tone-deafness and the banalité of using a cookie-cutter statement that doesn't really mean anything and is of no use to anyone.

 

 

Edited November 16, 2025 by Aristeidis Tyropolis
Clarity

[Tyler Purcell]

Considering you can't actually really make a movie via AI today, I think what he's referring to is the concept that if you are creative but don't have the means to express it, AI does help considerably. The rejection of AI has to come from viewers, not creators. 

[Aapo Lettinen]

Maybe we already lost him when he fell in love with Alexa, I dunno.

Good enough, everything will pass, as long as it has some kind of image. 

The degradation of cinema with people bragging about mounting 100k priced lens on an iPhone for marketing purposes. I mean how many persons watched the zombie flick because of the iphone thing?

AI is not filmmaking at all. Usually not real storytelling either. It is best used for shooting down Russian drones or finding cancer early on. Other users are mainly just lazy ass posers trying to grab the money with zero effort pretending being important

 

[Aapo Lettinen]

23 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

 if you are creative but don't have the means to express it, AI does help considerably 

Then it is not real creativity and self expression.

People who don't have hands paint masterpieces with their feet. People have written books by blinking their eye to express words. People who can't hear are making music just fine.

It is not about tools or availability. Creative people find another way if they don't have a certain brand of oil color or certain brush or certain guitar and amp their idol used. Creative people make the freakin guitar out of an oil can or dried gourd or cigar box or freakin shovel and play just fine.

AI users are like "well I can't play a guitar unless I have Slash's guitar so I am stealing it to be able to play! But I am not really in the mood now to learn to play at all so I am paying this tech bro some money and his robot will play it for me. Then I will fake a video where it looks like I played it by myself and will get millions because people think I am so talented and give me all the money"

It is not about creativity. It is about faking to make oneself look cool on social media and to scam money, ultimately.

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The rejection of AI has to come from viewers, not creators. 

¿Por qué no los dos?

He explicitly said that using A.I to make a movie is not cheating.

What is it then? "Vibing"? Honestly I'd prefer if he'd straight up said he is an announcing a partnership with some A.I movie start-up.Cause that's just business.

 

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

It is not about creativity. It is about faking to make oneself look cool on social media and to scam money, ultimately.

Well yea, again it's about viewers rejecting it, this includes social media sites not allowing monetization. Right now all AI videos have tags present which SHOULD prevent them from being posted on social media, when that day happens, things will change a bit. 

Think of it from a different perspective. 

So you're a creative and you need something, let's say a sunset shot that you will use as a background plate. The cost to go out and shoot that may be way over your budget, maybe it's impossible because the proper shot would be in Hawaii and you can't afford to go. So using generative AI to make that background plate is simple, it's a few buttons on a keyboard. 

Another example, we do a lot of costume design work. We want to create concepts for clients, but hiring an artist for concept art, is very challenging. Sometimes that process takes months and by then, the client has moved on to someone else who can work faster. If you can come up with a concept in minutes, right after a phone conversation with the client, you have a way better chance to get the job. So I was able to use AI and create something which garnished us money so we COULD PAY OTHER ARTISTS including myself. 

I use AI as a tool to get jobs off the ground. I use it for finishing jobs, cleaning up stuff, especially with dialog/audio mixing. We have used AI for film restoration quite a bit, it's very useful at filling in holes. I'm looking forward to using next generation products in music production once it's available for temp music. I think these tools are wonderful because they allow me to fine tune my products way better without delaying and spending a lot of money. 
 

[Aapo Lettinen]

6 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Well yea, again it's about viewers rejecting it, this includes social media sites not allowing monetization. Right now all AI videos have tags present which SHOULD prevent them from being posted on social media, when that day happens, things will change a bit. 

Think of it from a different perspective. 

So you're a creative and you need something, let's say a sunset shot that you will use as a background plate. The cost to go out and shoot that may be way over your budget, maybe it's impossible because the proper shot would be in Hawaii and you can't afford to go. So using generative AI to make that background plate is simple, it's a few buttons on a keyboard. 

Another example, we do a lot of costume design work. We want to create concepts for clients, but hiring an artist for concept art, is very challenging. Sometimes that process takes months and by then, the client has moved on to someone else who can work faster. If you can come up with a concept in minutes, right after a phone conversation with the client, you have a way better chance to get the job. So I was able to use AI and create something which garnished us money so we COULD PAY OTHER ARTISTS including myself. 

I use AI as a tool to get jobs off the ground. I use it for finishing jobs, cleaning up stuff, especially with dialog/audio mixing. We have used AI for film restoration quite a bit, it's very useful at filling in holes. I'm looking forward to using next generation products in music production once it's available for temp music. I think these tools are wonderful because they allow me to fine tune my products way better without delaying and spending a lot of money. 
 

So basically AI is replacing Pinterest-style "moodboards" and stock footage used for background plates. 

for audio cleanup it can actually be useful sometimes. desperate restoration stuff, maybe if there is no other choice like the original negative and prints destroyed and only partial version available. 

making concept stuff for gaining funding is somewhat acceptable depending on the budget level. If there IS budget then hiring an actual artist is the right thing to do. Often though, if there is no money even for concept art then it is very unlikely that anyone would give MORE money to make the actual product. If they notice the concept art is cheap-ass AI generated nonsense then even less likely to gain any interest.

Making music with AI is just lazy, even more so than purchasing stock music already used on bazillion other movies and documentaries and web video content and whatever. Basically one makes AI music to replace stock music libraries and the "originality" is approx the same. also the expression and artistic value is about the same. Like using elevator music as the background track for one's movie. In most cases it would be better just to leave the freakin bad song out entirely and concentrate a little more on the sound design. I mean if the elevator music is used to keep a soundtrack busy so that audience's farts can't be heard then it is halfway understandable though the smell would still be evident 🤣

 

I'm a little bit purist of making my own music on stuff but it is not that hard to arrange really. I don't have a "home studio" either, just finding a place where there is no excessive reflections and using household stuff like mattresses, blankets, laundry racks etc. strategically placed to get the acoustics good. Then marking down the times when the house is completely silent (no traffic noise or noisy neighbours etc) . I could have afforded 'better' microphones but I still use these 21 year old mediocre quality ones and the 11 years old basic H6 recorder for most of the stuff. No one can see from the sound what it was recorded on anyway so why bother buying some Neumanns etc when I can use the money on film and occasionally on some new instruments if wanted? 

 

[Jon O'Brien]

2 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

Maybe we already lost him when he fell in love with Alexa, I dunno.

I spoke with John Seale after a talk he gave at Brisbane's Gallery of Modern Art. He was DP for Witness (1985), Dead Poets Society, The Firm, and The English Patient. More recenlty, Mad Max: Fury Road. He's now retired. An Australian, he came from Warwick not all that far from me. He politely brushed aside talk of film as if he didn't care for it at all. Not an issue at all. I got the impression that he couldn't see what all the fuss was about and that digital is fine. I was both surprised, and yet not surprised.

The thing is, AI is the logical end-point of digital filmmaking.

It's why I keep saying to anyone who listens that film is the future of cinema.

The other thing is that cinema is dying. If anyone can't see that they are living in a dream world.

Edited November 16, 2025 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

I will make a prediction.

In a few short years, even the 'hipster' class of videographers will fall away. Even handheld, digitally-stabilised wedding video production on little Sony mirrorless cams will become 'old school' and the new breed of filmmakers will be too lazy for even that.

It will actually be a good thing. I will be so old school by then that I will be back in fashion, and in demand, because everyone else around here will be too lazy to even lift up a mirrorless camera. Too much work even to do those overblown and overused handheld tracking moves. Too much work to figure out how to video record at high rate for super boring uber slow motion shots of wedding confetti spirallying through the air as the bride glides past the lens at 40X slower than normal speed.

[Aapo Lettinen]

8 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I spoke with John Seale after a talk he gave at Brisbane's Gallery of Modern Art. He was DP for Witness (1985), Dead Poets Society, The Firm, and The English Patient. More recenlty, Mad Max: Fury Road. He's now retired. An Australian, he came from Warwick not all that far from me. He politely brushed aside talk of film as if he didn't care for it at all. Not an issue at all. I got the impression that he couldn't see what all the fuss was about and that digital is fine. I was both surprised, and yet not surprised.

The thing is, AI is the logical end-point of digital filmmaking.

It's why I keep saying to anyone who listens that film is the future of cinema.

The other thing is that cinema is dying. If anyone can't see that they are living in a dream world.

on Fury Road using digital was the exactly right thing to do. for the logistics for one part but other reasons too. I don't think one could have gotten the same intensity out of the storytelling if trying to use film the same way. Film is not good for everything and all every time. But it is good for certain type of storytelling and one should always choose it when it actually matters. Fury Road was a popcorn flick but for example certain types of drama films NEED film origination, in most cases even 16mm rather than 35mm. The stuff where one shoots lots of MCUs and closeups with deep emotions. It just cannot be done with same magnitude with digital. For some reason S16 is often the best format for that. 

-------

Analog vs digital is about resonance for the most part. People who play some instrument understand it immediately. I have talked before about playing a melody on synth with emulated guitar or piano etc sound for example, or playing with the real acoustic instrument. It is not the same, not at all. the expression, the timing, even the melody itself becomes different. the instrument starts to resonate with the human body and affects how you "tell the story" , it changes the nuances but also more dramatic changes. The end result changed, you kind of started to communicate with the instrument and are singing in unison now. Trying to play the exact same melody on synth sounds soulless. Trying to imitate with AI sounds a bad copy of the soulless synth playing. When shooting with a film camera for the "right stuff" which is actually best to be shot on film, the workflow resonates, the camera itself, the lenses, the different lighting choices affected by the film, the constant ticking of the footage counter until it reaches zero, the falling light which cannot be compensated by raising digital ISO endlessly. 

It affects everything. People who just listed to the lyrics, or who listen to the basic melody instead of the full expression miss it entirely. They think it is the same if the instruments are changed or everything replaced with AI because the melody and lyrics were the same. 

The big question is, do we really need that kind of audiences? are the art forms dividing to "slick, generic, digital with occasional AI" subculture and to the "embraced, traditional, analog, expressional, deeply touching" traditional "real" arts? 

 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

Does a precious Steinway of 80 years sound the same to the likes of Alfred Brendel or Daniel Barenboim, vs. a Yamaha Grand of 6 years ago? 

Can all tell the difference? 

Conversely, just because someone is old and experienced, it doesn't mean that they respect the medium as much as we would like to think they do, it's just business after all...

38 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I got the impression that he couldn't see what all the fuss was about and that digital is fine

Of course digital is "fine" no one said it wasn't, it's just a "pivot" in not answering the question 

Digital had made certain documentary work around nature and science possibile in a way that should be celebrated.

 

 

[Aapo Lettinen]

though Deakin's look was very very "digital" to begin with, he was always after the smooth slick balanced and "easy to watch" image with minimal grain and minimal film artifacts whatsoever. Nothing extreme, just super smooth and silky and kind of "boring" in a way. I think digital is perfect for him because he "looked like Alexa imagery" to begin with and switching to the actual Alexa just relieved him from the great frustration of uneven lab results and non-ideal lighting conditions messing up his slick creamy smooth no-grain idea of the perfect movie look 😅

When thinking about it, we have always had the divide between "popcorn mainstream stuff" which is slick and smooth and virtually grainless, and the more "art house" type of cinema which takes risks technically and other ways to tell deeply emotional stories better. Has always been like that, no matter if 1950's or 2025. For that "popcorn" stuff the switch to digital was no-brainer because they were after that kind of imagery to begin with and always done stuff like that. 

on the "traditional cinema" it is not that simple. they are more like classical music of arts, switching from acoustic instruments to synth music just does not work out so easily. depends on the style of stories you tell and what kind of resonance one is after but often the analog way is just better working for the effect on the audience one is after. Replacing this stuff with digital or AI just for budget reasons is just maddness and cheap and hurts everybody. 

Edited November 16, 2025 by Aapo Lettinen

[Tyler Purcell]

29 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

So basically AI is replacing Pinterest-style "moodboards" and stock footage used for background plates. 

I haven't ever seen or used that, so can't comment. 

I can comment on the use of Sora 2 to create backgrounds and it's stunning how good it is. Major motion pictures are using the same techniques for their movies today, because plate photography is challenging when all you have is a camera. With Sora you can create a photorealistic world that's 10x larger than your frame, lock it's position in space (on the green screen shot) and wherever the camera moves, it's going to have coverage. Plus, because it's photorealistic and not from unreal engine, it's way easier to convince the public. Consumers don't have access to this tech, only professionals who pay a pretty penny (several thousand a month) for early access. It is a total game changer for the industry and when it trickles down to the low-budget filmmaker, it will allow lower budget movies to have a bit more production value without sacrificing cash for locations they literally can't get. To me, that is a game changer and it's a positive for the industry not a negative. 
 

29 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

making concept stuff for gaining funding is somewhat acceptable depending on the budget level. If there IS budget then hiring an actual artist is the right thing to do. Often though, if there is no money even for concept art then it is very unlikely that anyone would give MORE money to make the actual product. If they notice the concept art is cheap-ass AI generated nonsense then even less likely to gain any interest.

Concept art takes time, a lot of time. Working in Hollywood, everyone wants answers now, not in 15 minutes, but now. Being able to type in a prompt and get some answers right away, even if they aren't perfect, absolutely helps sell yourself as a problem solver. Waiting weeks to get 20 samples from a professional artist, makes no sense anymore. In fact, most pro's I know use AI anyway and simply trace the art from the tablet screen onto paper. If you're good with the prompts, you can get incredibly close to final results with a few tries and present them as concepts to the company. Everyone wants instant results and if you can't deliver those, then they'll move onto someone who can. 

29 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

Making music with AI is just lazy, even more so than purchasing stock music already used on bazillion other movies and documentaries and web video content and whatever. Basically one makes AI music to replace stock music libraries and the "originality" is approx the same. also the expression and artistic value is about the same. Like using elevator music as the background track for one's movie. In most cases it would be better just to leave the freakin bad song out entirely and concentrate a little more on the sound design. I mean if the elevator music is used to keep a soundtrack busy so that audience's farts can't be heard then it is halfway understandable though the smell would still be evident 🤣

I have been blown away by some of the AI generated music. Obviously you have to pay for the high quality samples, but it's a total game changer, especially for temp music. Stock music never works in a narrative, it's always too repetitive or doesn't have the emotional connection, so editors are forced to use other soundtracks. This really sucks because now your favorite score is basically what the composer is going to mimmic. At least with AI generated music, you can dial in different moments and moods early on and get a unique sound for your film that matches the action without being married to your favorite soundtrack. As a creator, the last thing I want to do is go grab instruments I'm not good at playing and create some sort of composition off the top of my head for a professional to then hear and translate, makes no sense. Some of the AI tools can even give you notation, which is critical to working with any composer. Then when you bring on the composer, you can hand them unique ideas you already like, so there is no real translation between filmmaker and composer, which can sometimes take multiple drafts. Where I agree, using the final music that comes out of the AI, is probably not a great idea, for people who can't afford a composer in the first place, who is effected by it's existence? Maybe library music guys, but as you said, who wants to use library music if others can as well? 

I think that's my point, if you're a no budget production using AI to help turn your production into a final product and you don't have the wherewithal to pay people, then who are you hurting? In the long run, nobody. You weren't going to hire a creative to help you anyway, so all the AI does is enhance what already exists. It may seem lazy, but so is cutting on a computer or even shooting with your iPhone. Those are all lazy as well, but everyone does it. 

[Tyler Purcell]

48 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

The other thing is that cinema is dying. If anyone can't see that they are living in a dream world.

Warner is about to be bought by the Saudi's, so yea cinema is dead. 

It's not dead because of digital technology. 

It's dead because business (money) is the only thing that actually matters in the long run. 

Originality is too risky. The business people are too scared of that word. 

The business people dictate what goes into the cinema, so if they reject originality, then the cinema dies. 

They clearly don't care if it dies either, Paramount and Warner going belly up in the same year? I can't think of a better analogy. 

Solution? Let it die. 

The rebirth will be epic. 

 

 

[Jon O'Brien]

7 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

It's not dead because of digital technology. 

I'm not sure of that.

At any rate I don't think any form of 'total digital' production will revive cinema. Let's put it that way. That method of making 'films' will continue as an excellent medium for what it does best, and for what it does rather poorly it will continue to function at the same failing level. It will be true to itself in other words.

[Aapo Lettinen]

10 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I haven't ever seen or used that, so can't comment. 

I can comment on the use of Sora 2 to create backgrounds and it's stunning how good it is. Major motion pictures are using the same techniques for their movies today, because plate photography is challenging when all you have is a camera. With Sora you can create a photorealistic world that's 10x larger than your frame, lock it's position in space (on the green screen shot) and wherever the camera moves, it's going to have coverage. Plus, because it's photorealistic and not from unreal engine, it's way easier to convince the public. Consumers don't have access to this tech, only professionals who pay a pretty penny (several thousand a month) for early access. It is a total game changer for the industry and when it trickles down to the low-budget filmmaker, it will allow lower budget movies to have a bit more production value without sacrificing cash for locations they literally can't get. To me, that is a game changer and it's a positive for the industry not a negative. 
 

Concept art takes time, a lot of time. Working in Hollywood, everyone wants answers now, not in 15 minutes, but now. Being able to type in a prompt and get some answers right away, even if they aren't perfect, absolutely helps sell yourself as a problem solver. Waiting weeks to get 20 samples from a professional artist, makes no sense anymore. In fact, most pro's I know use AI anyway and simply trace the art from the tablet screen onto paper. If you're good with the prompts, you can get incredibly close to final results with a few tries and present them as concepts to the company. Everyone wants instant results and if you can't deliver those, then they'll move onto someone who can. 

I have been blown away by some of the AI generated music. Obviously you have to pay for the high quality samples, but it's a total game changer, especially for temp music. Stock music never works in a narrative, it's always too repetitive or doesn't have the emotional connection, so editors are forced to use other soundtracks. This really sucks because now your favorite score is basically what the composer is going to mimmic. At least with AI generated music, you can dial in different moments and moods early on and get a unique sound for your film that matches the action without being married to your favorite soundtrack. As a creator, the last thing I want to do is go grab instruments I'm not good at playing and create some sort of composition off the top of my head for a professional to then hear and translate, makes no sense. Some of the AI tools can even give you notation, which is critical to working with any composer. Then when you bring on the composer, you can hand them unique ideas you already like, so there is no real translation between filmmaker and composer, which can sometimes take multiple drafts. Where I agree, using the final music that comes out of the AI, is probably not a great idea, for people who can't afford a composer in the first place, who is effected by it's existence? Maybe library music guys, but as you said, who wants to use library music if others can as well? 

I think that's my point, if you're a no budget production using AI to help turn your production into a final product and you don't have the wherewithal to pay people, then who are you hurting? In the long run, nobody. You weren't going to hire a creative to help you anyway, so all the AI does is enhance what already exists. It may seem lazy, but so is cutting on a computer or even shooting with your iPhone. Those are all lazy as well, but everyone does it. 

Yes the industry has changed to kind of "corporate video style" thinking and methodology. The cheapest way to fool the audience is always used and it is not about emotional connection on anything. Just faking stuff the cheapest and fastest possible to get the next gig and enough money to buy food. Cheap tricks in the toolbox and two or three of them used most of the time. If people don't complain then more of the slop they will get! 

I forgot to mention that using virtual studio stuff is part of the cheating game as well, just one step away from faking everything with AI including actors. Saves money yes but that is about everything it does. Easier to understand and use than greenscreen from director and actors point of view but that is about it. Efficiency is the key and saving couple of bucks always wins. 

 

Letting AI "compose" the music is exactly what I was talking before... distilling the human expression out of the end result so that it becomes soulless elevator music. Does not help much if giving it to a real composer and a symphony orchestra plays it. The soul was already lost. Not meaning it would not be useful, it is just not connecting and deeply touching anymore.

 

About low budget productions being happy for being able to "access locations impossible to access before". One of the things I have always wondered... why the heck they need those locations and previously-expensive vfx and cgi characters in the first place? in 99.9% cases they are trying to mimic stuff they have seen on big budget movies. Why the heck one wants to make a shoestring movie which looks like a big budget popcorn flick? what is the actual point? they won't get any money from it because everyone else is doing the same so the "market" is so flooded that no one gets distribution and it is dumped to web anyway after no one bought it. So why all the effort? why not making movies which actually NEED low-budget production and make something truly original and entertaining and outstandinding? with the potential distributors being like "wow I have never seen anything like this before in my life" instead of the typical "oh it is another wannabe-james-cameron-mashup with everything-AI for budget reasons" or the typical two actors + guns + tons of talking crime story

[Jon O'Brien]

28 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Does a precious Steinway of 80 years sound the same to the likes of Alfred Brendel or Daniel Barenboim, vs. a Yamaha Grand of 6 years ago? 

No one can play the Beethoven or Tchaikovsky or any of the Mozart concerti for violin on a digital keyboard with 'violin sound' no matter how well sampled. No live audience would want to pay for tickets to see/hear someone play them on a digital gadget. Those works will continue to stand as art that can't be achieved any other way than by a combination of talent and hard work of preparation and sacrifice. Ai can't play them. It might be able to compose something that would work ... I don't know about that. I would imagine that might be possible, since composition does follow logical forms that can be copied. But AI can't play that music, nor can any robot. Does this relate to filmmaking? Yes I think it does.

[Jon O'Brien]

Btw I don't think any composition that was AI generated would have much worth. Because no sweat and tears went into the production. Therefore no soul. Isn't it weird how suffering (work) is necessary.

Perhaps AI will be a blessing to art and entertainment. Finally we will all see and understand what is truly worth a lot. It might actually hit the posers and the 'hipsters' (or whatever they are now called) the hardest.

Edited November 17, 2025 by Jon O'Brien

[Aapo Lettinen]

one other thing is that everything is so fake nowadays that people want to see something real. A cheap magician with soulless AI tricks entertains them a little but then the emptiness fills them again and they are looking for the answers again. 

The whole world we live in is fake. The politicians, the social media stuff, the influencers and celebrities, the people at work claiming they care about you really much. The fake smile you put on your face every day even when feeling horrible and having so much stuff to bear silently and alone because you can't break the character. One's true self cannot be seen or something terrible happens... one may lose one's job, their friends, even their family. Everything is fake. If a politician or celebrity is claiming to care about you they are truly only after your wallet, and getting even more influence, more power. 

There is no real world seen everywhere, not for the most part. Only rare glimpses, just the blink of an eye and it's gone. Glitch in the matrix so to speak. You are not even sure if it was there after all. 

That is why the real arts, the traditional ones, the true expressions are so important. They show something real, even for a split second but enough that you recognize it was there. They bring back the human soul lost behind so many masks you did not know it was there anymore. 

The popcorn flicks are the exact opposite. they are pure entertainment, designed to strenghten the illusion and embrace the fakeness rather than exposing it and breaking the character. You are escaping fake in your life by absorbing more fake from the pop culture slop, then returning to fake life again without anything really changed other than some 2 hours of your lifetime lost to nothingness. 

 

Edited November 17, 2025 by Aapo Lettinen

[Jon O'Brien]

A real thing about art that's important is risk. Digital is low risk and therefore low art, and therefore lower entertainment. Film is higher risk. The lowest risk in filmmaking is AI. That will never go away. That's burned into AI.

Think on your sins, film industry.

[Aapo Lettinen]

45 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

one other thing is that everything is so fake nowadays that people want to see something real. A cheap magician with soulless AI tricks entertains them a little but then the emptiness fills them again and they are looking for the answers again. 

The whole world we live in is fake. The politicians, the social media stuff, the influencers and celebrities, the people at work claiming they care about you really much. The fake smile you put on your face every day even when feeling horrible and having so much stuff to bear silently and alone because you can't break the character. One's true self cannot be seen or something terrible happens... one may lose one's job, their friends, even their family. Everything is fake. If a politician or celebrity is claiming to care about you they are truly only after your wallet, and getting even more influence, more power. 

There is no real world seen everywhere, not for the most part. Only rare glimpses, just the blink of an eye and it's gone. Glitch in the matrix so to speak. You are not even sure if it was there after all. 

That is why the real arts, the traditional ones, the true expressions are so important. They show something real, even for a split second but enough that you recognize it was there. They bring back the human soul lost behind so many masks you did not know it was there anymore. 

The popcorn flicks are the exact opposite. they are pure entertainment, designed to strenghten the illusion and embrace the fakeness rather than exposing it and breaking the character. You are escaping fake in your life by absorbing more fake from the pop culture slop, then returning to fake life again without anything really changed other than some 2 hours of your lifetime lost to nothingness. 

 

The real world looked like this yesterday evening on one specific point on Earth. There was no one else to witness it, only me and the cheap old gh5s. Strong wind from open sea far away. Walked back about 2 miles in the darkness, there was no one on the small dirtroad in the dark forest but felt like I was observed the whole time. there has been bears and wolves in those forests now and then so maybe they were close, don't know. 

Images don't express the moment well but music maybe could. AI would not know a thing because it was not there.

 

[Jon O'Brien]

Btw when I'm talking about entertainment I'm referring to the context of cinema release feature movies. I'm not talking about television, or at least traditional television. I think digital works fine for television drama. I've always said that. It would be nice though to see some tv shows filmed on film.

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Jon O'Brien said:

At any rate I don't think any form of 'total digital' production will revive cinema. Let's put it that way. That method of making 'films' will continue as an excellent medium for what it does best, and for what it does rather poorly it will continue to function at the same failing level. It will be true to itself in other words.

A little company in Rochester is also not going to key to reviving global cinema failure sadly. 

How the consumer consumes media needs to change first. 

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

Yes the industry has changed to kind of "corporate video style" thinking and methodology. The cheapest way to fool the audience is always used and it is not about emotional connection on anything. Just faking stuff the cheapest and fastest possible to get the next gig and enough money to buy food. Cheap tricks in the toolbox and two or three of them used most of the time. If people don't complain then more of the slop they will get! 

When creatives are being paid to be creative, our money trickles down to everyone round us and we can go out and shoot more of our own stuff. Everyone today expects you to utilize all the tools available, if you don't, then you're already behind the curve. 

1 hour ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

I forgot to mention that using virtual studio stuff is part of the cheating game as well, just one step away from faking everything with AI including actors. Saves money yes but that is about everything it does. Easier to understand and use than greenscreen from director and actors point of view but that is about it. Efficiency is the key and saving couple of bucks always wins. 

I did a lot of virtual production at my last company, we used 100% real talent. I have never seen AI talent before in that sector, but you're right that some YouTubers do that and its kinda BS, but again those videos should be removed from Youtube, that's just an easy thing to change in the guidelines. 

1 hour ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

Letting AI "compose" the music is exactly what I was talking before... distilling the human expression out of the end result so that it becomes soulless elevator music. Does not help much if giving it to a real composer and a symphony orchestra plays it. The soul was already lost. Not meaning it would not be useful, it is just not connecting and deeply touching anymore.

You should pay for the service, my experience has been the polar opposite. You have to pay for it tho, so there is some startup costs involved in order to test it. I have worked with a few vendors, they're excellent and they have adjustments as well, which work well. Again, not a "finished" piece of music, but a starting point so you can get a unique vibe for your projects, so the composer knows where you wish to go. I wouldn't use it for a finished piece of music unless it was some throw away project, but reality is, most of what everyone does IS throwaway. 

1 hour ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

About low budget productions being happy for being able to "access locations impossible to access before". One of the things I have always wondered... why the heck they need those locations and previously-expensive vfx and cgi characters in the first place? in 99.9% cases they are trying to mimic stuff they have seen on big budget movies. Why the heck one wants to make a shoestring movie which looks like a big budget popcorn flick? what is the actual point? they won't get any money from it because everyone else is doing the same so the "market" is so flooded that no one gets distribution and it is dumped to web anyway after no one bought it. So why all the effort? why not making movies which actually NEED low-budget production and make something truly original and entertaining and outstandinding? with the potential distributors being like "wow I have never seen anything like this before in my life" instead of the typical "oh it is another wannabe-james-cameron-mashup with everything-AI for budget reasons" or the typical two actors + guns + tons of talking crime story

I mean, I've literally spent my entire life shooting films on motion picture film that very few people will ever see. Even the stuff I've been a hired DP on, is any of it more than a consumable? That sunglasses commercial we spent 3 days shooting for a 30 second cut, now completely out of fashion. That feature film the director really put every dime he had into, just to run out of funding. Those music videos the talent had no connections to properly released and faded into history. Heck, all the narrative short films I've DP'd, I have to look through my iPhone pictures to remember them because I did so many over the years, none of them went to festivals or were ever released anywhere.

Heck, I even worked full time as an editor for 6 years doing narrative features, music videos, documentaries, industrial films, education films and training films, none of it had much merit. It was a job, the company existed to make money. I worked there to pay my bills. It had nothing to do with creativity, it was classic soulless work and I just dealt with it because I had nothing else at the time. 

So I ask everyone; why put in the effort to make anything, if in the end nobody is going to see it anyway? You could have the most original story imaginable, but if you don't have the wherewithal to create it properly, nobody is going to see it anyway. The fact we have more tools available today, really doesn't change much. The AI revolution is similar to the digital cinema revolution. Cinema didn't change because someone could suddenly shoot a feature film with a phone. Having access to proper tools, simply allowed more people to be creative. The creme still rises to the top in the end and young filmmakers have been learning that lesson for generations. 

[Marcos Cooper]

6 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Fret not. This is the kind of thing you say when you are a master of your art and you have the skills, knowledge, and experience to reshoot “The Asassination ofJesse James” with just a Home Depot floodlight and an iPhone 7 and you would never be able to tell it from the original
I bet a lot of the veterans here could push A.I. to create Russell Metty-levels of splendorous beauty, we whose talent remains earthbound would never be able to understand how they can do it but they do. 
 

6 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

As per the title.

This circulated recently: In the clip he says something to the tune of:  "As long as you have a story I don't care what you use"

Was really mostly sad for the statement coming from someone who shot "The Shawshank Redemption"

That's, aside from the tone-deafness and the banalité of using a cookie-cutter statement that doesn't really mean anything and is of no use to anyone.

 

 

Qbeauty