Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[DKampy]

Annnnnnnnnnnnnyway…..

Did anyone here happen to see Abagail over the weekend? I had been planning to go but we got invited to the Saturday opening night of Cabaret on Broadway at the last minute and on Sunday had another event. Curious what people thought of Abagail if anyone saw it.

I like it….but I think they should of left the reveal out of the trailer…..because it was suppose to be a mystery who the girl was through the 1st half…as such the audience knew where the film was going

 

[Willmark]

Given that transistors on chips are already hitting its natural physical limits before the atomic scale, not sure how its possible to continue Moore's law much longer. NVidia CEO couple years ago said the same thing.

Quantum computing is another matter and it has a lot of possibilities as we've seen over the last couple years. But none that I think will benefit Hollywood anytime soon.

From full blown replacement of actors? Sure that doesn’t happen soon (we can argue how soon, soon is). On say the rendering front? AI could be used for any number of tasks and coupled with enough CPU power to be worth it.

This is straying a bit from my area of IT so just throwing out one possible way this could go. But I will say AI isn’t going anywhere.

Point I’m attempting to make is any industry is likely looking at efficiencies and reduction of costs, the movie industry is no different.

 

[Willmark]

I agree with you that that AI is a co-pilot, but I think its a long way off from complete auto-pilot at least in terms of entertainment.

Creativity just takes a greater understanding of the human brain than we have today. And until that is understood AI won't be able to fully have autonomy in the ability to do anything creative. I do wonder if we'll ever fully understand it, some say no. Anyways so you can program AI to do things today, like a choose your own adventure type of holodeck. But to be able to fully have autonomy, I don't think that'll be coming anytime soon.

Sorry I missed this before my other replies.

The real question is just how “smart” does it need to get? The assumption (not saying you ) is it’s got to get to Skynet levels taking over the world before it becomes useful.

I’m of the mindset it’s much lower of a threshold.

In the scenario we’re talking it just needs to be at the point where it can do what a human can do in certain tasks to be effective. If for no other reason then you can run it 24 hours a day and it doesn’t require sick time, lunch breaks or vacations.

That’s where the immediate focus is.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that in the back of a lot of industries long range plans, the idea is to replace a worker(s). Question is how many, but who says it has to be all? For now just some to be worthwhile.

Perhaps they look at it like the apocryphal olive jar? Profits can be increased by removing that one olive out of each jar right? In this scenario how much do you save if it’s one less worker out of a 100 or whatever the number is.

 

[celluloid]

Why? Characterisation in all animated Disney films is reliant on human skill, from the animators to the voice actors. Would you disagree?

AI designers would too?

It is funny that you earlier stated acting is still primarily a human skill...
In a Disney theme park site where animations have done a live perfornnce job for more than half a century.

 

[LittleBuford]

AI designers would too?

It is funny that you earlier stated acting is still primarily a human skill...
In a Disney theme park site where animations have done a live perfornnce job for more than half a century.

It is a human skill. I have not abandoned that position.

I’m still baffled by your claim that my view is funny. What performances are you referring to in the parks that aren’t dependent on human skill?

 

[Disney Irish]

From full blown replacement of actors? Sure that doesn’t happen soon (we can argue how soon, soon is). On say the rendering front? AI could be used for any number of tasks and coupled with enough CPU power to be worth it.

This is straying a bit from my area of IT so just throwing out one possible way this could go. But I will say AI isn’t going anywhere.

Point I’m attempting to make is any industry is likely looking at efficiencies and reduction of costs, the movie industry is no different,

Yeah no doubt that AI can be used within Hollywood in some form, it is already. ILM Stagecraft for example is using AI generated sets for movies and shows for years now. And yes AI is not going anywhere, I agree. But replacing actors completely, in this context voice actors, I don't see that happening in this decade at least and maybe not even in the next.

But yes I agree that AI can help with improving efficiencies and reducing cost. But then the question is at what cost. Is the cost of replacing an actor for example worth it in the end. I guess we'll see if it ever happens.

Sorry I missed this before my other replies.

The real question is just how “smart” does it need to get? The assumption (not saying you ) is it’s got to get to Skynet levels taking over the world before it becomes useful.

I’m of the mindset it’s much lower of a threshold.

In the scenario we’re talking it just needs to be at the point where it can do what a human can do in certain tasks to be effective. If for no other reason then you can run it 24 hours a day and it doesn’t require sick time, lunch breaks or vacations.

That’s where the immediate focus is.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that in the back of a lot of industries the idea is to replace a worker(s). Question is how many, who says it has to be all?

Perhaps they look at it like the apocryphal olive jar? Profits can be increased by removing that one olive out of each jar. In this scenario how much do you save if it’s one less worker out of a 100 or whatever the number is.

Keeping this in the context of voice acting and acting in general. You can get a simple voice program today to read out a script and sound passable. But acting is more than that, there is the creative aspect, the improv. That AI cannot do, at least not today. And I'm not sure it'll happen this decade either. Will it require Skynet level of intelligence, not sure. But the ability of AI creativity beyond pattern recognition is something is that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. And that is why AI should and will continue to be limited to assisting rather than to supplant.

 

[Willmark]

Yeah no doubt that AI can be used within Hollywood in some form, it is already. ILM Stagecraft for example is using AI generated sets for movies and shows for years now. And yes AI is not going anywhere, I agree. But replacing actors completely, in this context voice actors, I don't see that happening in this decade at least and maybe not even in the next.

But yes I agree that AI can help with improving efficiencies and reducing cost. But then the question is at what cost. Is the cost of replacing an actor for example worth it in the end. I guess we'll see if it ever happens.


Keeping this in the context of voice acting and acting in general. You can get a simple voice program today to read out a script and sound passable. But acting is more than that, there is the creative aspect, the improv. That AI cannot do, at least not today. And I'm not sure it'll happen this decade either. Will it require Skynet level of intelligence, not sure. But the ability of AI creativity beyond pattern recognition is something is that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. And that is why AI should and will continue to be limited to assisting rather than to supplant.

Certainly an interesting discussion and how it ends, who is to say except to say that AI doesn't go away from entertainment. Its here to stay whether people want it to or not.

On thought to the sub-discussion of when/how this all happens that a few of us have been pondering?

The answer might be as simple as to how close is AI to passing a Turing test consistently? Or perhaps when it can do it on its own unprompted? Of course if it can do that we might have bigger issues than worrying about replacing voice actors. I don't think that is happening tomorrow per se, but just how long/far of is it?

 

[Disney Irish]

Certainly an interesting discussion and how it ends, who is to say except to say that AI doesn't go away from entertainment. Its here to stay whether people want it to or not.

On thought to the sub-discussion of when/how this all happens that a few of us have been pondering?

The answer might be as simple as to how close is AI to passing a Turing test consistently? Or perhaps when it can do it on its own unprompted? Of course if it can do that we might have bigger issues than worrying about replacing voice actors. I don't think that is happening tomorrow per se, but just how long/far of is it?

Well so far no AI has passed the Turing test that I'm aware. But you're right if that day comes we're all in trouble, singularity approaching.....

 

[Willmark]

Well so far no AI has passed the Turing test that I'm aware. But you're right if that day comes we're all in trouble, singularity approaching.....

In a few specific instances it has. There is of course arguments as to whether it has or not passed on the web. But in a few cases a machine has been able to fool a Turing judge as it were.

What Is the Turing Test? (Definition, Examples, History) | Built In

In the Turing Test, a computer and human are asked questions to determine which is human. If the computer is indistinguishable from the human, it passes.

builtin.com

Perhaps the bigger question is does it just need to get close to sapience rather than true sentience. That alone opens up a whole realm and lowers the bar. If AI doesn't need to get to a truly higher level, but just close enough? In that case I don't think something as simple as the Three Laws is saving us. It will likely have thought a way around those, so I agree, Singularity indeed.

 

[Disney Irish]

In a few specific instances it has. There is of course arguments as to whether it has or not passed on the web. But in a few cases a machine has been able to fool a Turing judge as it were.

What Is the Turing Test? (Definition, Examples, History) | Built In

In the Turing Test, a computer and human are asked questions to determine which is human. If the computer is indistinguishable from the human, it passes.

builtin.com

Perhaps the bigger question is does it just need to get close to sapience rather than true sentience. That alone opens up a whole realm and lowers the bar. If AI doesn't need to get to a truly higher level, but just close enough? In that case I don't think something as simple as the Three Laws is saving us. It will likely have thought a way around those, so I agree, Singularity indeed.

Yes I'm aware of some like Google's AI "passing" the test, but its been debated on if it really was successful enough to be considered a "pass" or if it just got enough inputs through its trials to be able to fumble its way into "passing", ie the pattern recognition was able to see a path to get a "pass".

And then there is the debate on whether current AI has made the Turing test obsolete anyways. Larger discussion I rather not have.

 

[celluloid]

It is a human skill. I have not abandoned that position.

I’m still baffled by your claim that my view is funny. What performances are you referring to in the parks that aren’t dependent on human skill?

Even AI will be dependent on human skill.

You said earlier acting is uniquely a human skill.

It is not. Animatronics have been programed to act humanoid very well since the 1960s. It is funny considering you are on a WDW based website saying acting is unique to human portrayal. There are collaborative arts that program robots to act. And AI doing this exact thing.

Of course human skill is still involved along the line and in various capacities. As would AI film making. It will not remove human skill entirely. It will just introduce more and more software and hardware.

 

[celluloid]

The second omen is “The Omen”, the original film. You would know this if you had bothered to see the film instead of just blab.

There is no reason why there can not be an infanite number of Omens. And an Omen 1 and a 1/2 and a Multiverse of Omens. It is Disney owned now after all.

What halted it was it coming full drop to tenth place in the box office.

 

[LittleBuford]

Even AI will be dependent on human skill.

You said earlier acting is uniquely a human skill.

It is not. Animatronics have been programed to act humanoid very well since the 1960s. It is funny considering you are on a WDW based website saying acting is unique to human portrayal. There are collaborative arts that program robots to act. And AI doing this exact thing.

Of course human skill is still involved along the line and in various capacities. As would AI film making. It will not remove human skill entirely. It will just introduce more and more software and hardware.

Animatronics reproduce pre-programmed actions on a loop; their voices are provided by humans. You’re conflating them with AI under the rather simplistic label “robot”.

Yes, AI is itself the result of human skill, and yes, I’m sure AI performances (such as they are) will become increasingly common and stronger as the technology improves. That doesn’t change the fact that human actors will always have the edge in reproducing believably human behaviours and emotion, something that I hope Disney continues to recognise and value in the years to come.

 

[celluloid]

Animatronics reproduce pre-programmed actions on a loop; their voices are provided by humans. You’re conflating them with AI under the rather simplistic label “robot”.

Yes, AI is itself the result of human skill, and yes, I’m sure AI performances (such as they are) will become increasingly common and stronger as the technology improves. That doesn’t change the fact that human actors will always have the edge in reproducing believably human behaviours and emotion, something that I hope Disney continues to recognise and value in the years to come.

That is a definition of acting.
Disney has less and less live entertainment every year. Another thing that made your comments earlier funny. The pay has been rougher for those roles than ever and reduced in many ways. So not a value that has continued or increased. From performance roles to spielers.

There are many animatronics that perform actions through AI programing and voice with AI responses and cues.

 

[LittleBuford]

That is a definition of acting.
Disney has less and less live entertainment every year.

I’m referring to films, and animated films in particular.

There are many animatronics that perform actions through AI programing and voice with AI responses and cues.

Do you mean the new droids they’re testing?

 

[celluloid]

I’m referring to animated films.



Do you mean the new droids they’re testing?

Disney is not the only company.

Now you change what you said to say you focus on animation. I told you why it was funny on a DIsney site. I bolded what you said about animatronics. Now you say you meant animation.

Also animation literally replaces a roll an actor could do, but do things that an actor could not perform.

Coding animation to animate without human performing every task would also fall under AI as it learns what calbirates and works best.

 

[LittleBuford]

Disney is not the only company.

Now you change what you said to say you focus on animation. I told you why it was funny on a DIsney site. I bolded what you said about animatronics. Now you say you meant animation.

Also animation literally replaces a roll an actor could do, but do things that an actor could not perform.

Coding animation to animate without human performing every task would also fall under AI as it learns what calbirates and works best.

The whole conversation began with the suggestion that voice actors in animated films could and should be replaced with AI. So no, I have not changed my focus.

Which animatronics were you referring to in your previous post?

 

[celluloid]

The whole conversation began with the suggestion that voice actors in animated films could and should be replaced with AI. So no, I have not changed my focus.

Which animatronics were you referring to in your previous post?

From the start of the 60s until now.

You said acting is uniquely a human skill. Which is it not.

It is funny considering it is on a WDW site. Sorry if the humor in that bothers you.

 

[LittleBuford]

From the start of the 60s until now.

You said acting is uniquely a human skill. Which is it not.

It is funny considering it is on a WDW site. Sorry if the humor in that bothers you.

To clarify, you were talking about traditional animatronics from as far back as the 1960s when you wrote the following?

“There are many animatronics that perform actions through AI programing and voice with AI responses and cues.”

If not, which animatronics are you referring to?

 

[celluloid]

To clarify, you were talking about traditional animatronics from as far back as the 1960s when you wrote the following?

“There are many animatronics that perform actions through AI programing and voice with AI responses and cues.”

If not, which animatronics are you referring to?

There are many companies every year at IAAPA and elsewhere using AI to scan and focus as they interact or even in some cases move.

Going back to the 60s, that would be since when animatronics have been actors.