-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs
- Thread starter Disney Analyst
- Start date
I am laughing at the fact that you don't call Disney Animatronics actors, when Disney does.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
I was under the impression that you were referring to animatronics currently found in the Disney parks.
Yes. The ones in the parks currently are actors.
And ones in the park in the past and presnet have featured various forms of AI.
Different and varying degrees.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
I don’t make the rules; I’m merely reminding you of them.
I did not break them. I will let you know if a Moderator says I did.
Haven't yet. This weekend was Wicked Little Letters (Jessie Buckley is just too much fun) and Housekeeping for Beginners (a found family story from North Macedonia -- we're big fans of all 3 of Goran Stolevski's movies) for us. We're a good 2-3 weeks behind on mainstream releases at the moment -- haven't even seen The First Omen yet, though we did watch the original trilogy for the first time ever while on vacation recently.
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
Encouraging the use of AI instead of actual actors is just trolling right?
Wish was criticized for being a bland by the numbers movie that tried to just tick off boxes for an animated Disney film. Using AI in lieu of actors would just make it more generic and lifeless.
To say nothing about franchises that were built around a human performance(s). The trajectory of the MCU is likely very different if they didn't have Robert Downey Jr. anchoring that series. See also, Jack Sparrow.
Wish was criticized for being a bland by the numbers movie that tried to just tick off boxes for an animated Disney film. Using AI in lieu of actors would just make it more generic and lifeless.
To say nothing about franchises that were built around a human performance(s). The trajectory of the MCU is likely very different if they didn't have Robert Downey Jr. anchoring that series. See also, Jack Sparrow.
But Casper Gutman and others agreeing with him have said that the star system is dead.
Abigail was fun. It did a little bit more than just monster in the house one by one which was nice.
Could make a decent hhn house.
Last edited:
Wow… I am surprised you like Abigail since you complained about supposed gore scenes in The First Omen
TP2000
Well-Known Member
"Got some protections from"? That's your big win? The current SAG/AFGTRA contract goes through (I Googled this) June, 2026. Or roughly two years from now.
You don't think A.I. is going to be a factor in those negotatiatons again in 2026? And then again in 2029? Etc.?
Because I do. The Hollywood actors and actresses were obviously scared of A.I. taking their jobs in 2023. That isn't going to go away. Especially as the A.I. technology improves and shows it can do more and more jobs, cheaper and faster than humans can.
This is the same thing that almost all human labor has been dealing with since about 1750. It's just the Hollywood labor was one of the last ones to be challenged directly by new technology.
Last edited:
TP2000
Well-Known Member
This is an interesting point.
But your analogy is stuck in 1964, and it's now 2024. In 1964 Walt created several shows for sponsors at the World's Fair that used animatronic humans to perform their shows, over and over and over again, 16 hours per day. Most notably, the Caroursel of Progress show at the General Electric Progressland Pavilion. With more rote or more minor animatronic roles in the Ford Motor Company or State of Illinois pavilions; i.e. Mr. Lincoln from Illinois and the cavemen at Ford's Primeval World.
Meanwhile, at the same fair, some companies had non-stop shows that required humans to perform. Most memorably, the DuPont Pavilion and its World of Chemistry shows that performed repeatedly in two differnent theaters for 16 hours per day with 4 different sets of human performers.
Walt seemed to be way ahead of his time (again) by using technology to replace humans to perform a task. DuPont, a fine and forward looking American company that still exceeds to this day, stuck with the rather old fashioned way and spent a lot more money employing dozens of humans for 2 years when they could have just used Walt's animatronics to do their show 16 hours per day at the fair.
Walt seemed to be 60 years ahead of the rest of us when he used technology to replace human actors and actresses.
Funny how that worked, isn't it?
Last edited:
TP2000
Well-Known Member
"Encouraging", much like "advocating" is the wrong word. I am simply acknowledging that the technology exists, that it is growing rapidly and exhaustively, and that it will obviously replace many current human jobs in Hollywood.
If you'd like to pretend A.I. doesn't exist, be my guest. You can sit next to the man from Consolidated Buggy Whips.
Wish seemed to fail at the global box office in part because it was a vapid and shallow tale that had no meat to it. No one knows who the girl is who voiced the Princess in Wish. No one seems to care. Has her career skyrocketed since Wish debuted to global silence? Nope.
So what would it have mattered if at least the goat and the backup characters in Wish were voiced by A.I. instead of C Listers and union contract actors no one knows? If they could have shaved $50 Million off the Wish production budget by using A.I. instead of humans, at least it would have gotten closer to breaking even. It still would have lost money, I admit, but at least it would have lost less money that way.
I think @Disney Irish did a good job of showing how specific A Listers like Robin Williams can, and likely will continue to, benefit and improve an animated movie. But not all of the roles can be on a Robin Williams after a Coke break level of performance. Nor should they, if the HR and onsite medical teams have any say.
Is every townsperson and every talking squirrel and every chambermaid required to be a human actor in the 2020's and beyond? Nope. Technology is now ready to replace those jobs. And will likely improve further to the point that it will do the job better. And certainly cheaper and faster.
You don't even have to reserve a parking space for A.I. on the studio lot.
Unless most people would view a statement as an obvious joke, do not use the laughing emoji. It is to be used for laughing with a post, or because someone has made an obviously humorous statement; not laughing at a post because you personally think it's funny.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
I’ve read interviews with the director where she suggests this film could touch off an entirely new series within the franchise.
You would know this if you had bothered to do some research on the film instead of just pick fights.
Is ‘The First Omen’ Setting Up a New Series for the Classic Horror Franchise?
Spoilers: Arkasha Stevenson's prequel is set before the first "Omen" film, but any future follow-ups have some serious timeline freedom.
www.indiewire.com
That was not me. I said I don't hunt for gore like I used to in special effects as a teen.
That being said, the gore in Abigail is akin more to Cocaine Bear. It is pretty over the top horror comedy brutal and once you see it, you will see it is not comparable to what is in The First Omen.
Plus, it was a decent horror-brutal comedy retelling of Dracula's Daughter. Where as The First Omen did not bring much different than many other demonic child of devil films.
Although I like Abigail too… I preferred The First Omen
That's fine. That is called subjectivity. I would appreciate it saying you are surprised I like it because of something I never stated or presuming me to be monolithic in taste.
For those wondering: Monkey Man set out what it did both in story and back to thread topic, financially.
I don't think I ever need to see it again but gave it a whirl last week. It knows what it is and did not the typical revenge flick. There was some cool cinematography in those fight scenes though. I can see why Jordan Peele related his taste to it and wanted it.
Last edited:
I agree all film is subjective…the way you worded your comments it came off as “ I liked gore as a teen and now that I am an adult I am over it”
That goes for the monolith part. Nah. I said I used to be a gore hound, which is a somewhat euphemism in the industry for people who look for those effects all the time. I enjoy horror.
I think you are conflating things and other users with me as well.
No worries either way.
Last edited: