While $500k 90m movie done in two weeks is an accomplishment, looking at the trailer it's very dubious to me on the quality of it. Plot, characters, audio - everything screams "I've already seen this somewhere", there's no substance here, at least for me. And while computer visuals are nice, it's nowhere "Love Sex Robots" quality where they're driven by computer graphics as well.
The trailer is also awful. A slopfest impossible to follow. The editing is nauseating, the sound design is uninspired and the visual quality is hallucinatory.
I suspect their next movie will get nominated for an award at some academy, bonus points if Oscar Micheaux[1] or anyone else with that given name gets mentioned.
As long as BS sells, BS will get produced I guess.
What other industry regularly acts in such bad faith with respect to claims made? In the securities industry, material misstatement of fact lands people in jail.
Instead of chasing a "serious" AI movie, we need a comedy movie that parodies the worst of AI slop, just takes it to ludicrous extremes. That could actually entertain me.
Now, Cannes specifically – and entertainment generally – is rife with hucksters and people who started off as hucksters only to later become credible. Culture jamming is often looked back on as innovative!
But the difference between this and, say, Adbusters is that Adbusters and artists in general tend to punch up, whereas this – regardless of merit – is looked at by other artists as punching down, simply because it doesn't carry any intangibles.
And art is intangibles.
Time, culture, sweat, friction, a personal POV; art is an inherently human-to-human communication tool anyway. When you strip all of that away you lose something, in the same way a Big Mac is not the same as your mom's spaghetti.
I think that AI filmmakers, if they believe they can make films of high critical and/or or commercial success, need to avoid engaging in culture jamming and take a more honest approach. "This is my chosen medium" and then develop in public while treating the intangibles as legitimate, instead of something to be hacked around.
If they had been selected for the actual festival, people with respected names would have seen it and talked about how bad it is. But releasing it at some obscure festival that nobody actually goes to wouldn't have been worthy of a company valued at $1.3bn. Pretending to show it at the Cannes festival is the obvious solution. Maximum media attention, none of the criticism
And if it comes out that you lied you still get lots of trailer views, maybe even people checking out the full movie. All numbers you can show off to future investors about how successful your movie was
That said, I wonder if in a couple years it'll be capable of making decent films. Maybe by then the costing of AI will be more realistic and people will choose not to spend the money on slop.
Game of thrones like scenes, with a suicide squad team to save the world. The goofy jokes are about as bad as any recent blockbuster action movie. At 500k at least it's well priced.
Was hoping to see some detail about just how good/bad the film was at that budget. Disappointed to see it was just harping on how "official" it was, which I doubt many interested in seeing a film care about.
> The creators of “Hell Grind” are also making striking claims. The film supposedly took just two weeks and $500,000 to make, per the WSJ. A full 80 percent of that went to compute costs; its creators describe it as a proof-of-concept for how AI can empower creatives who wouldn’t otherwise have the means to make a movie
I thought AI was supposed to be democratizing creativity and putting the power of Hollywood into the hands of regular people? What regular person can afford that kind of price tag? Isn't inference supposed to be cheap?
between this and the 'ai actress' who got press in variety; and with the 'friend.com' bits. The ai industry has gotten good at stunt marketing, or maybe it's payola
28 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 40.5 ms ] threadTesla Robo Taxi, the clean up robot that break AirBnB furnature, this Ai Movie compani ..
All news from THIS week about companies that just lie to get ahead. I'm tired of move fast and break things.
I suspect their next movie will get nominated for an award at some academy, bonus points if Oscar Micheaux[1] or anyone else with that given name gets mentioned.
As long as BS sells, BS will get produced I guess.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Micheaux
We just meant in the city of Cannes.
Now, Cannes specifically – and entertainment generally – is rife with hucksters and people who started off as hucksters only to later become credible. Culture jamming is often looked back on as innovative!
But the difference between this and, say, Adbusters is that Adbusters and artists in general tend to punch up, whereas this – regardless of merit – is looked at by other artists as punching down, simply because it doesn't carry any intangibles.
And art is intangibles.
Time, culture, sweat, friction, a personal POV; art is an inherently human-to-human communication tool anyway. When you strip all of that away you lose something, in the same way a Big Mac is not the same as your mom's spaghetti.
I think that AI filmmakers, if they believe they can make films of high critical and/or or commercial success, need to avoid engaging in culture jamming and take a more honest approach. "This is my chosen medium" and then develop in public while treating the intangibles as legitimate, instead of something to be hacked around.
And if it comes out that you lied you still get lots of trailer views, maybe even people checking out the full movie. All numbers you can show off to future investors about how successful your movie was
https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/cannes-not-show...
My vibe from this film.
That said, I wonder if in a couple years it'll be capable of making decent films. Maybe by then the costing of AI will be more realistic and people will choose not to spend the money on slop.
I thought AI was supposed to be democratizing creativity and putting the power of Hollywood into the hands of regular people? What regular person can afford that kind of price tag? Isn't inference supposed to be cheap?