BuddyThomas
Well-Known Member
I still maintain that what I posted was not any sort of spoiler and that’s the last thing I’m going to say on the matter.You're right, expecting common sense or common courtesy from others is a losing proposition.
I still maintain that what I posted was not any sort of spoiler and that’s the last thing I’m going to say on the matter.You're right, expecting common sense or common courtesy from others is a losing proposition.
Common sense and courtesy here should go both ways though. It should be common sense that spoilers tags aren't going to be used for forever.You're right, expecting common sense or common courtesy from others is a losing proposition.
I still maintain that what I posted was not any sort of spoiler and that’s the last thing I’m going to say on the matter.
This is a bit ironic, as there’s a whole segment of the voice acting community that exists because some of those voice actors do a reasonable facsimile of more famous actors, who aren’t used because to pay them would be prohibitively expensive.
But @TP2000 is right, a lot of traditional animation artists lost their jobs to digital. A lot of effects artists doing model work an stop motion... lost work to cgi. You can argue it just replaced one job with a different one. But can't the same be said with AI? The tech costs money and needs developers. Personally I don't see it as the downfall of voice work because I don't see it as a replacement of most voice talent. Sure some will be impacted, but that unfortunately part of life and has always been a part of Hollywood.
At the end of the day, being angry that it will happen does not mean people should rip TP2000 apart for bringing it up.
And its not just voice actors, if you go back to the 2023 Strike thread, he suggests replacing all actors (his target at the time was Rachel Zegler) with AI.
Looking for something else in the past and I rediscovered this post... After now having seen it, I would have to guess that the NC-17 was actually for a birthing sequence that went a bridge too far in the original cut.
I can’t speak for others, but my objection to AI isn’t about people losing their jobs (unfortunate as that would be); it’s about the loss in quality that would inevitably result from ditching actual voice actors.
I did? I thought all actors should be fired? I don't remember that. Although, I suppose technically, you could eventually make a movie with nothing but A.I. actors and actresses if you really wanted to.
I do remember in that strike thread there was talk of studios wanting to pay people a nominal fee, like 100 bucks, to get scanned into their database so they could use their likeness as background extras via A.I.
And I thought that kind of sounded like fun. Imagine how cool that would be for tourists at Universal Studios to get a free ticket or something to be scanned as an extra for use in future movies? That would beat trying to get picked to push the stewardess into the water tank at the Airport '75 Stunt Show by a mile!
Insufferable is just one of the words I can think of to describe this young lady.
This kind of bratty nonsense is why movie studio executives are investing in AI, not just to replace background actors with AI generated fakes, but to also replace title role characters with AI generated fakes. Who knew Rachel Zegler existed 5 years ago? (Heck, I didn't even know she existed two weeks ago). So why in the year 2030 when the technology is more advanced could you not program an actress to act in a movie for you? Replace it with a fake human, and once the technology is visually good enough, who would know or care if it was Rachel Zegler or not if the movie is good?
If the Barbie movie didn't exist in 2023 but instead was released in the Summer of 2033, you wouldn't need Margot Robbie to play her. You could just program an actress out of thin air to be Barbie. Lots of money saved there.
Yes you did, here's an example with regards to replacing Rachel Zegler and even Margot Robbie with AI -
Sweetie, Rachel is playing Juliet in Romeo and Juliet on Broadway this fall. She is a bankable and talented star whether you like it or not.That quote is exactly what I remember my opinion being, and that opinion is not "TP2000 wants to fire actors and replace them with bots because he's very mean!"
It seems that A.I. will be able to replace human actors in the future. It's a technology that is evolving quickly, and I've read several articles that say that's exactly what may happen with the technology in Hollywood. The technology is already there in basics, and as it refines and evolves you'd be able to recreate a Margot Robbie or a Rachel Zegler on the screen and no one would know the difference.
I imagine A.I. replacements for human voices and characters will start small; in Saturday morning cartoons and TV commercials and background roles. But it won't stop there.
Will movie studios in the 2030's still want to pay Rachel Zegler the big bucks? There's a question she probably doesn't want to have to answer.
Sweetie, Rachel is playing Juliet in Romeo and Juliet on Broadway this fall. She is a bankable and talented star whether you like it or not.
It’s not a movie. It’s Broadway as previously stated but you just go ahead on your deplorable campaign to get creative talent replaced with AI.Got it. And I'm sure she'll do well in that movie.
But it would be folly to pretend that a decade from now A.I. can't replace actresses entirely on screen.
It would be the same as claiming in 1980 that your typist sitting at her Selectric could never be replaced by a computer.
It’s not a movie. It’s Broadway as previously stated but you just go ahead on your deplorable campaign to get creative talent replaced with AI.
As someone who uses AI daily I have no fear of the technology. But I do think its usage should be limited, as I've said now numerous times. I think it has its place in society, but replacing human actors with AI generated ones is not it. I think there are specific use cases where it can be used in entertainment, as I mentioned, like to revive an actor that died provided the estate gets compensated for its use. But beyond that it should be limited in how its used. To me there is no benefit to replacing actors, and AI should be used to benefit humanity not replace it. And I'm sure its a sentiment that I'm not alone in, especially since there are Bills currently working its way through various state legislatures and even congress on limiting AI's use.Got it. And I'm sure she'll do well in that movie.
But it would be folly to pretend that a decade from now A.I. can't replace actresses entirely on screen.
It would be the same as claiming in 1980 that your typist sitting at her Selectric could never be replaced by a computer.
As someone who uses AI daily I have no fear of the technology. But I do think its usage should be limited, as I've said now numerous times. I think it has its place in society, but replacing human actors with AI generated ones is not it. I think there are specific use cases where it can be used in entertainment, as I mentioned, like to revive an actor that died provided the estate gets compensated for its use. But beyond that it should be limited in how its used. To me there is no benefit to replacing actors, and AI should be used to benefit humanity not replace it. And I'm sure its a sentiment that I'm not alone in.
And those technological advancements all came with a cost but the benefits outweighed the cost. So we have to weigh the benefits vs the costs here.I totally get all that. It's a noble thought.
It's just important to remember that sentiment didn't have any impact before technology got rid of the ladies in the Steno Pool. And the stenographers. And the telephone operators. And the milkmen. And the taxi dispatchers. And the airport ticket agents. And the film developers. And the assembly line workers. And the entire Mimeograph department. And the newspaper delivery boys. And the Red Caps at the airport. Etc., etc., etc.
So just saying X technology can just replace Y so flippantly you aren't doing a proper cost analysis on the subject.
But I'm asking you since you're the one who brings up its use here, so I'm putting it to you.....That's exactly what those Sharp Pencil Boys that Walt was always talking about are for. You can bet they're on it.
Just as with all other industries on the planet, Hollywood studios will do a cost/benefit analysis on A.I. and determine exactly what jobs it will replace. The voice of the talking squirrel could eventually improve with A.I., I'd imagine.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.