Scorcese understands that Hollywood's ultimate limiting factor is the number of available actors. A finite pool of actors means a finite pool of movies. Removing this limitation means that, just like an AI image generator can generate any image imaginable, a future movie generator will be able to generate every movie imaginable, at the click of a button.
There's a shortage of actors that you can star in movies to sell enough tickets to justify making $200m movies that have traditionally been the backbone of studio profits.
The studios probably killed themselves going all-in balls-to-the wall on making the exact same blockbuster movie 12 times a year, every year, for 25 years straight.
It is a refreshing breath of relief to see all the Indie stuff absolutely killing it as of late, and the Action Hero movies consistently underperforming studio expectations by a mile.
I've noticed a tendency among people who have built careers known for visionary, forward-thinking work that they hesitate to make the natural move into more "conservative" positions/approaches as they age. This leads to missteps, because as one ages, one inevitably becomes further removed from the zeitgeist. On paper, embracing AI might seem like a great idea if you don't want to become an old fogey, but not all changes are positive and I doubt this decision will age well
AI is just the next step in VFX. Game studios are leaning into it heavily for asset generation as well. These assets are still hand touched for style and composed by humans, but a lot of this work was previously done by outsourced workers/art grunts/asset packs so it's not really a quality loss.
Honestly, I don’t think Marty’s “decision” to use generative AI to storyboard will even become a thing that ages.
But let’s say it doesn’t “age well”. What would that mean? Would it mean we’ve turned into a society that looks down on people on using AI tools at ANY stage in a creative process?
I am also curious whether a knee-jerk reaction to seeing the word A.I and assuming the worst will age well. It's not just you, this is media writ large now.
Martin Scorsese is using AI to build better pre-viz tools not create scenes and write scripts, but that detail is completely lost on the literati. The reactions roll in.
I think talented people will make great use of AI. They don't just prompt "make me a movie about stereotypical Italian Americans, and make it good". They observe the end result, tweak and do the manual work when needed. It's just another tool in the toolbox. Same as with coding.
That's right. All their computers will have grammarly installed by default now. /jk
Ai is too broad a term even when it comes to movies. Which part of the pipeline will include an AI tool? Or are we saying he is going to prompt Seedance to generate an entire movie?
TFA says he's using it for storyboarding. This doesn't seem like a huge deal, but film is a visual medium! The closer your pre-viz and storyboarding looks to reality, the more you're going to tend to stick to it when you're actually filming.
You want your rough drafts to have a roughness that conveys your level of confidence. If your AI first draft looks polished people may feel more pressure not to deviate.
I find these hand-drawn Taxi Drivers storyboards very charming even though they obviously don't map cleanly to shots in the film. This is what you're giving up if you just tell an AI "give me a close up of Travis Bickle's face"
My comment won't add anything meaningful to the discussion, but this does seem to validate the new AI slop being generated on YouTube and other social media platforms, with influencers starting a new wave under the motto. If Marty embraces it, why not us? /s
An imo fascinating wrinkle that the article doesn't get into, Black Forest's main use case for their Flux models is "analytical" (modifying the user's pre-existing material, storyboards in this case) rather than "generative" (modifying stored material from the model's training corpus). In my experience with these tools so far, the analytical approach is more filmmaker-friendly, with image models fitting comfortably into well-established rendering and compositing roles. Meanwhile my current guess is that creative applications of the generative approach are going to end up looking a lot more like gamedev than filmmaking.
> “…modifying the user's pre-existing material, storyboards in this case…”
Let me understand this. You’re saying this Flux model takes as input your own images and drawings and then modifies them only?
If I understand this correctly, then it would get past the authorship safeguards public llms put up every time you ask for an illustration in the “style of”. Yes?
25 comments
[ 5.4 ms ] story [ 46.2 ms ] threadThere's a shortage of actors that you can star in movies to sell enough tickets to justify making $200m movies that have traditionally been the backbone of studio profits.
The studios probably killed themselves going all-in balls-to-the wall on making the exact same blockbuster movie 12 times a year, every year, for 25 years straight.
It is a refreshing breath of relief to see all the Indie stuff absolutely killing it as of late, and the Action Hero movies consistently underperforming studio expectations by a mile.
Honestly, I don’t think Marty’s “decision” to use generative AI to storyboard will even become a thing that ages.
But let’s say it doesn’t “age well”. What would that mean? Would it mean we’ve turned into a society that looks down on people on using AI tools at ANY stage in a creative process?
Is that where you think we’re going?
Martin Scorsese is using AI to build better pre-viz tools not create scenes and write scripts, but that detail is completely lost on the literati. The reactions roll in.
AI means a lot of different things, I wish I could read the article.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4jl4htAcuM
(Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1tur7ku/comment/opb...)
Ai is too broad a term even when it comes to movies. Which part of the pipeline will include an AI tool? Or are we saying he is going to prompt Seedance to generate an entire movie?
You want your rough drafts to have a roughness that conveys your level of confidence. If your AI first draft looks polished people may feel more pressure not to deviate.
I find these hand-drawn Taxi Drivers storyboards very charming even though they obviously don't map cleanly to shots in the film. This is what you're giving up if you just tell an AI "give me a close up of Travis Bickle's face"
https://boords.com/blog/martin-scorseses-hand-drawn-taxi-dri...
That's some ChatGPT-level glazing. No one thinks this. Unless they also think that, like, Bob Dylan is the voice of Gen Z.
Let me understand this. You’re saying this Flux model takes as input your own images and drawings and then modifies them only?
If I understand this correctly, then it would get past the authorship safeguards public llms put up every time you ask for an illustration in the “style of”. Yes?