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

[Disney Irish]

If AI is good enough to replace his brother, it is probably good enough to replace Tom.

Nice to know you’re fine with replacing America’s Dad with AI.

 

[celluloid]

Nice to know you’re fine with replacing America’s Dad with AI.

Who said fine with it? It is what matters to the company.

Again, you conflate being realistic that it can happen with it happening. He is great, but it is silly to think AI could not replicate Woody the Cowboy when his brother is good enough so much of the time(and investment) for Disney. I think you must concede that Disney would be the ones fine with it.

 

[Disney Irish]

Who said fine with it? It is what matters to the company.

Again, you conflate being realistic that it can happen with it happening. He is great, but it is silly to think AI could not replicate Woody the Cowboy when his brother is good enough so much of the time(and investment) for Disney. I think you must concede that Disney would be the ones fine with it.

So I'll just flat out ask, are you as a consumer of not only movies in general but also Disney content fine with an actor like Tom Hanks being replaced by AI? If not why not? And if so why are you fine with it?

As for conceding Disney would be fine with it, no I'll not concede as they have not yet done such as thing. So I don't know how internally they feel about Tom or his brother or any actor for that matter being replaced by AI for Woody or any other character.

 

[celluloid]

So I'll just flat out ask, are you as a consumer of not only movies in general but also Disney content fine with an actor like Tom Hanks being replaced by AI? If not why not? And if so why are you fine with it?

As for conceding Disney would be fine with it, no I'll not concede as they have not yet done such as thing. So I don't know how internally they feel about Tom or his brother or any actor for that matter being replaced by AI for Woody or any other character.

I think it would be a bummer in certain ways because it was not the world I was born into. As a consumer it is a very different world for me in many ways as well. I have made most of my money off of the live entertainment industry or education of such. Cinema is a close study of mine.

I think it is an inevitible shift that it will become much more common.

What I know is Tom Hanks is 67.(wild to think and more like America's Grandpa) Let's for hypothetical say he and his brother died before they made Toy Story 5 in a tragic accident so Disney is stuck making the choice of AI to profit off of his voice in a database that replicates it to make the film the way they intended to produce it. So whether you concede or not, they show they would be ok with it since Mr. Potato Head in Toy Story 4.

Regardless of how we feel about it, it is growing to be an entirely realistic scenario as they have done this with Software with Don Rickles' previously recorded material and tech tweaks to help it flow. They profiteered off of a dead person's essence through technology (which Hollywood does all of the time of course as things are recorded and synthesized in various mediums. Tech just keeps changing) AI is on its way to continue to assist with this.

So is using the technology to give random recordings a flow into a script wrong when a sound alike could have done it? Is that not wrong to auditioning voice actors? They chose machine, the database, over human.

It is irrelevant to what we think about it. It will go that way more frequently when profitable or creative choice.

It is silly to limit it to only actors or think their work is more resistant or difficult. (Live performance may be somewhat safer for visceral experiences such as touring theater but tech makes smaller casts and such possible too) Crews in post-production and effects have had their world change by AI. As have educators and others. And as frustrating as it can be like any tool, it is not always doom and gloom.
Disney is no longer a man and not a monolith (they just used Tech recently to reproduce Walt and made him say things he never actually said) Disney is now a company, of many people with varying opinions and we can safely figure many are for it full force for profit, many are for it carefully, and some are against it in fear of losing nuances.


I appreciate you flat out asking vs presuming.

 

[brideck]

Any sequel would probably take the story away from the original film series...

This probably needs a spoiler tag. I'm glad I finally saw it Tuesday night.

I agree with this, though. The epilogue is the only part of the movie I didn't like very much -- felt like a totally unnecessary bit that someone made them tack on the end to serve as a backdoor pilot for a follow-on series or sequel. There was already enough in the rest of the movie to tell us who did and didn't make it.

 

[erasure fan1]

Let's for hypothetical say he and his brother died before they made Toy Story 5 in a tragic accident so Disney is stuck making the choice of AI to profit off of his voice in a database that replicates it to make the film the way they intended to produce it.

This is something I wanted to touch base on with this discussion. I think you will see the stars actually wanting AI because of this. They will push to have it that, they, or the estate, will get paid for using "their" voice. They can help train the AI so it's near perfect. And at the same time not have to go into a studio or spend time recording lines and still get paid for generations. So while there's a focus on the "evil" studios I think the higher profile voices might actually push for it to happen and worked in to their contracts. Stars are very often predictable. Even though Ford will never do star wars again after ep. 6, back up the dump truck of money and all of a sudden he's all in! I could easily see ford sell his voice to Disney so they could use it in video games, animation... for Han and Indy. As much as Hollywood likes to virtue signal how much they care about the world and everyone in it. In the end the majority of them are out for the best deal for them and only them.

 

[Disney Irish]

This is something I wanted to touch base on with this discussion. I think you will see the stars actually wanting AI because of this. They will push to have it that, they, or the estate, will get paid for using "their" voice. They can help train the AI so it's near perfect. And at the same time not have to go into a studio or spend time recording lines and still get paid for generations. So while there's a focus on the "evil" studios I think the higher profile voices might actually push for it to happen and worked in to their contracts. Stars are very often predictable. Even though Ford will never do star wars again after ep. 6, back up the dump truck of money and all of a sudden he's all in! I could easily see ford sell his voice to Disney so they could use it in video games, animation... for Han and Indy. As much as Hollywood likes to virtue signal how much they care about the world and everyone in it. In the end the majority of them are out for the best deal for them and only them.

I think there is a difference though, this is actors taking control of their own voice and image and approving and still benefiting from their use for future projects. James Earl Jones has sold his voice for Darth Vader to be used in future SW projects. This was his choice not the studio just automatically replacing him with AI just to save cost as TP had suggested here and in other threads. I know some will find it a fine line, but it is a line none the less.

 

[Disney Irish]

This probably needs a spoiler tag. I'm glad I finally saw it Tuesday night.

I agree with this, though. The epilogue is the only part of the movie I didn't like very much -- felt like a totally unnecessary bit that someone made them tack on the end to serve as a backdoor pilot for a follow-on series or sequel. There was already enough in the rest of the movie to tell us who did and didn't make it.

Its been out long enough that if someone wanted to see it they've had every opportunity to see it.

I'm glad you enjoyed it though.

 

[Disney Irish]

I think it would be a bummer in certain ways because it was not the world I was born into. As a consumer it is a very different world for me in many ways as well. I have made most of my money off of the live entertainment industry or education of such. Cinema is a close study of mine.

As someone who studies cinema and who is apparently a cinephile you would think you'd be more against this as it goes against the purity of the art form.

I think it is an inevitible shift that it will become much more common.

What I know is Tom Hanks is 67.(wild to think and more like America's Grandpa) Let's for hypothetical say he and his brother died before they made Toy Story 5 in a tragic accident so Disney is stuck making the choice of AI to profit off of his voice in a database that replicates it to make the film the way they intended to produce it. So whether you concede or not, they show they would be ok with it since Mr. Potato Head in Toy Story 4.

Regardless of how we feel about it, it is growing to be an entirely realistic scenario as they have done this with Software with Don Rickles' previously recorded material and tech tweaks to help it flow. They profiteered off of a dead person's essence through technology (which Hollywood does all of the time of course as things are recorded and synthesized in various mediums. Tech just keeps changing) AI is on its way to continue to assist with this.

So is using the technology to give random recordings a flow into a script wrong when a sound alike could have done it? Is that not wrong to auditioning voice actors? They chose machine, the database, over human.

The difference here is that the Hanks' family would have to give permission to use either voice. Just like Rickles' family gave permission to use his voice in TS4.

It is irrelevant to what we think about it. It will go that way more frequently when profitable or creative choice.

It is silly to limit it to only actors or think their work is more resistant or difficult. (Live performance may be somewhat safer for visceral experiences such as touring theater but tech makes smaller casts and such possible too) Crews in post-production and effects have had their world change by AI. As have educators and others. And as frustrating as it can be like any tool, it is not always doom and gloom.

I'm not saying actors jobs are resistant. What I'm saying is that as someone who uses this technology frequently there should be limitations put on its use. Use it to bring back actors from the dead, provided their estate approves, that is fine with me. But it should not be used to replace a human just because a human might cost more. That human has a right to their voice and image. To replace them and use their voice without approval is not only wrong, but quite frankly probably illegal. There is the now famous case where Universal got sued and lost because they used Crispin Glover's likeness without permission in Back to the Future 2.

So I can't imagine many actors would be willing to continue to let a studio profit off of their voice, even with AI, without permission and without compensation.

Disney is no longer a man and not a monolith (they just used Tech recently to reproduce Walt and made him say things he never actually said) Disney is now a company, of many people with varying opinions and we can safely figure many are for it full force for profit, many are for it carefully, and some are against it in fear of losing nuances.

I'm sure there are some within the company that are full on-board with AI use for actor replacement. That doesn't mean the company has a whole is yet, if ever. As a said employee of that company, if the company takes a stance on something then you either follow the company or you leave the company. And as Disney has yet to use AI for actor replacement yet, at least to the point of an actor losing their job to save costs, we don't know what the companies stance on it is yet.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Its been out long enough that if someone wanted to see it they've had every opportunity to see it.

I'm glad you enjoyed it though.

This is a box office discussion thread, not a general movie discussion thread, so it should really be common courtesy to put any movie story points in spoiler tags.

 

[erasure fan1]

I think there is a difference though, this is actors taking control of their own voice and image and approving and still benefiting from their use for future projects. James Earl Jones has sold his voice for Darth Vader to be used in future SW projects. This was his choice not the studio just automatically replacing him with AI just to save cost as TP had suggested here and in other threads. I know some will find it a fine line, but it is a line none the less.

Yes, but it could be a catalyst to a wider use and pushing out the little guy who doesn't have that contract leverage. Are the James Earl Joneses and Fords of the world going to stick up for the others? I have no idea, but I'm not betting my house on it. We all know that no studio is going to up and replace everyone with AI. So I think that part we can let go. But most of the other points have some validity. As more well known talent embraces it, how does that trickle down? It's a fair thought exercise I believe.

 

[Disney Irish]

This is a box office discussion thread, not a general movie discussion thread, so it should really be common courtesy to put any movie story points in spoiler tags.

What is the statute of limitation on that though? Does a movie need to be out for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 5 years before its ok to not put something in a spoiler tag? At some point one has to understand that people are going to talk about a movie after its been in theaters for awhile. And if you can't tell this has become a general movie discussion thread of sorts.

 

[Disney Irish]

Yes, but it could be a catalyst to a wider use and pushing out the little guy who doesn't have that contract leverage. Are the James Earl Joneses and Fords of the world going to stick up for the others? I have no idea, but I'm not betting my house on it. We all know that no studio is going to up and replace everyone with AI. So I think that part we can let go. But most of the other points have some validity. As more well known talent embraces it, how does that trickle down? It's a fair thought exercise I believe.

Given that all are in the same union, I would bet more often than not the A-list actor will stand up for the "little guy" in this context. As that was the whole basis for the strike last year, the A-list actors standing up for the "little guy" to get a fairer share and better benefits along with some AI protections.

 

[DKampy]

We all know that no studio is going to up and replace everyone with AI. So I think that part we can let go.

The funny thing is this whole conversation stemmed from a user suggesting just that

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

What is the statute of limitation on that though? Does a movie need to be out for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 5 years before its ok to not put something in a spoiler tag? At some point one has to understand that people are going to talk about a movie after its been in theaters for awhile. And if you can't tell this has become a general movie discussion thread of sorts.

My personal opinion would be at least a month or two after a movie is out on home video.

It shouldn't be hard to adhere to a thread topic. It shouldn't be hard to understand that discussing something like the end of a movie should be spoiler tagged.

Just seems like common sense and common courtesy.

 

[BuddyThomas]

My personal opinion would be at least a month or two after a movie is out on home video.

It shouldn't be hard to adhere to a thread topic. It shouldn't be hard to understand that discussing something like the end of a movie should be spoiler tagged.

Just seems like common sense and common courtesy.

Everyone knows the movie is a prequel. It's right there in the title. Since the original movie was released in the 1970's, anyone who wants to know what happens next already knows.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Yes, but it could be a catalyst to a wider use and pushing out the little guy who doesn't have that contract leverage. Are the James Earl Joneses and Fords of the world going to stick up for the others? I have no idea, but I'm not betting my house on it. We all know that no studio is going to up and replace everyone with AI. So I think that part we can let go. But most of the other points have some validity. As more well known talent embraces it, how does that trickle down? It's a fair thought exercise I believe.

The other question is, who makes the choice?

Disney/Lucasfilm specifically said they would not use CGI to replace Carrie Fisher in Rise of Skywalker, and seemed to suggest in their statement that it was at least partially out of respect.

At the same time, Peter Cushing's Tarkin was brought back with special effects. I believe his family okayed it, but if someone dies and has not explicitly given permission, does the estate get to do so?

 

[Disney Irish]

My personal opinion would be at least a month or two after a movie is out on home video.

It shouldn't be hard to adhere to a thread topic. It shouldn't be hard to understand that discussing something like the end of a movie should be spoiler tagged.

Just seems like common sense and common courtesy.

I've added the spoiler tag a bit ago. But to me its a bit silly in a movie forum when people are freely talking about movies. The whole forum should then be in a spoiler tag, or every post should be then, in my opinion as you're always going to have someone that hasn't seen something. If you come in the forum then you should already know that you may stumble across something that maybe a spoiler so either avoid it or accept it. Just my opinion anyways.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Everyone knows the movie is a prequel. It's right there in the title. Since the original movie was released in the 1970's, anyone who wants to know what happens next already knows.

I would still err on the side of caution for anyone who might be interested in a movie and is not familiar with any overall story.

My comment is more general regardless, as it's something that has occurred with plenty of movies in this thread that aren't a prequel to a known story.

 

[Disney Irish]

I would still err on the side of caution for anyone who might be interested in a movie and is not familiar with any overall story.

My comment is more general regardless, as it's something that has occurred with plenty of movies in this thread that aren't a prequel to a known story.

I would agree if the movie was just released or was very popular a couple weeks after release. But we're talking about a movie that has been out almost a month and with (sorry to say as I think its good) limited ticket sales now. People cannot expect that everyone else on the internet has to prevent them from seeing "spoilers" just because one has not gotten around to seeing something.