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

[TP2000]

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.

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!

 

[TP2000]

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.

That scene was exactly the scene described in the article I read about that movie. And it's what made me cringe and think "Thank God I'm happy just watching The Crown and The Gilded Age and I don't have to go see movies like that!"

 

[TP2000]

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.

What if the technology becomes so good that you can't tell whether the talking squirrel is voiced by a human or A.I.?

They used to get humans to physically paint using airbrushes over each frame of a movie for a special effect. Now a computer does that with work automatically. Many would argue that the computer does it better than a human with an airbrush, and the computer certainly does it faster and cheaper than the human ever could.

Should we return to the lower quality and higher costs of airbrushing because we'd have to hire humans back to do that?

It seems the future of A.I. in Hollywood, especially animation, is exactly the same scenario as all other tech advances.

 

[Disney Irish]

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!

Yes you did, here's an example with regards to replacing Rachel Zegler and even Margot Robbie with AI -

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.

 

[TP2000]

Yes you did, here's an example with regards to replacing Rachel Zegler and even Margot Robbie with AI -

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.

 

[BuddyThomas]

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.

 

[TP2000]

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.

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.

 

[BuddyThomas]

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.

 

[TP2000]

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.

Oh, Broadway plays. Did you know I once went to a Broadway play in NY? Phantom Of The Opera around 1988-ish. It was fun.

But back OT, the first time you notice or are told about an A.I. voiceover of some talking frog or something, please don't forget to yell "Curse you TP2000!!" at the screen. And yell it loud, so I can hear you.

 

[Disney Irish]

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, especially since there are Bills currently working its way through various state legislatures and even congress on limiting AI's use.

 

[TP2000]

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.

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 typists. 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.

 

[Disney Irish]

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.

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.

We know the costs, but besides making Studios richer by not having to spend on talent what benefit is it to society to have AI replace actors? Does it make the content better? Does it make the entertainment industry better or worse? Many questions here.

So just saying X technology can just replace Y so flippantly you aren't doing a proper cost analysis on the subject.

 

[TP2000]

So just saying X technology can just replace Y so flippantly you aren't doing a proper cost analysis on the subject.

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.

 

[Disney Irish]

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.

But I'm asking you since you're the one who brings up its use here, so I'm putting it to you.....

We know the costs, but besides making Studios richer by not having to spend on talent what benefit is it to society to have AI replace actors? Does it make the content better? Does it make the entertainment industry better or worse?

 

[BuddyThomas]

But I'm asking you since you're the one who brings up its use here, so I'm putting it to you.....

We know the costs, but besides making Studios richer by not having to spend on talent what benefit is it to society to have AI replace actors? Does it make the content better? Does it make the entertainment industry better or worse?

As someone who trashed Wish harder than almost anyone on this board, even though he had not seen it, can you imagine how much harder he would have trashed it if all the voices were AI? I’m almost sure of it. And yet here he is, rooting for AI to take over. It’s almost unbelievable.

 

[Ghost93]

Just saw Challengers, which was an EXCELLENT movie. It's a very juicy drama, he three leading performances are terrific, and the score is phenomenal. Might be the best movie of 2024 so far. But I have no idea how it will do at the box office. I also wonder how audiences will react to it as I think the marketing has been pretty misleading (trying to sell it as some type of sex film when it's not like that at all). I think it's a better movie than what the trailers have sold but I guess we'll have to see how audiences react.

Haven't seen it yet, but I'm also rooting for Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt's The Fall Guy to do well. I just want non-franchise movies to have a chance of success at the box office. With Disney, the mid-range budget movies used to be somewhat profitable. But ever since the streaming era and launch of Disney Plus, it seems like the company is incapable of releasing anything that isn't a $200 tentpole. That strategy worked when all of the tentpoles were hits (from the 2010s) but it's proven to be quite costly the past few years.

 

[brideck]

Just saw Challengers, which was an EXCELLENT movie. It's a very juicy drama, he three leading performances are terrific, and the score is phenomenal. Might be the best movie of 2024 so far. But I have no idea how it will do at the box office. I also wonder how audiences will react to it as I think the marketing has been pretty misleading (trying to sell it as some type of sex film when it's not like that at all). I think it's a better movie than what the trailers have sold but I guess we'll have to see how audiences react.

Nice. I've been a fan of most of Guadagnino's recent stuff, so I've been looking forward to this one. I was surprised that it's getting pretty much all of the IMAX & Dolby screens around me, so someone definitely thinks it might do well. I see a prediction of around $17m out there, which is pretty good for an original character drama.

Also, there's a Disney movie (of sorts) opening this weekend, the 45th anniversary release of Alien. It's a re-release showdown between that and The Mummy.

 

[TP2000]

We know the costs, but besides making Studios richer by not having to spend on talent what benefit is it to society to have AI replace actors?

What benefit to society was gained by replacing typists, stenographers and dittos with email and desktop printers?

Does it make the content better?

Did it make the content of the memorandums better when the bosses went to emails instead of stenographers?

Does it make the entertainment industry better or worse?

That's yet to be seen, because A.I. is still in its infancy, and I'm not aware of Disney or Pixar replacing voiceover actors with it yet. But if a voiceover monologue for a movie preview, or a talking squirrel in a Pixar movie, or what have you, gets replaced by an A.I. voice instead of a human, will you know?

If it's done so well we can't tell the difference between human and A.I., but A.I. is much cheaper and more efficient, then perhaps we'll have our answer. At least for the Sharp Pencil Boys, even if the theater audience is unaware anything changed.

 

[Disney Irish]

What benefit to society was gained by replacing typists, stenographers and dittos with email and desktop printers?



Did it make the content of the memorandums better when the bosses went to emails instead of stenographers?



That's yet to be seen, because A.I. is still in its infancy, and I'm not aware of Disney or Pixar replacing voiceover actors with it yet. But if a voiceover monologue for a movie preview, or a talking squirrel in a Pixar movie, or what have you, gets replaced by an A.I. voice instead of a human, will you know?

If it's done so well we can't tell the difference between human and A.I., but A.I. is much cheaper and more efficient, then perhaps we'll have our answer. At least for the Sharp Pencil Boys, even if the theater audience is unaware anything changed.

So no answers, got it. I know you like "just asking questions", but I often times wonder if you really even think about the answers....

Oh and yes we'll know when an AI replaces an actor, especially the first time, as there is this little thing call the credits at the end of the movie. I know I watch them to see who is in the cast, and know many that do the same. So unless its credited as a specific actor, in which case they will be paid for the usage of their voice (is that really a cost savings), then it'll stand out as not being a real actor. And even if its a named actor I'm sure they'll let the world know it was AI that was used instead of them, and so it'll be know it wasn't a real actor nonetheless.

And I think you missed what I said earlier.... There are already Bills making there way through various state legislatures and even in Congress right now on limiting AIs usage. Some passing as recent as yesterday. There are even lawsuits and other legal things going on right now surrounding the usage of AI too, from copyrights to likeness rights. Once all this shakes out in the months and years ahead I'm fairly certain that we're not going to have this take over that you seem to envision is going to happen with AI in Hollywood.

Hollywood’s AI Concerns Present New and Complex Challenges for Legal Eagles to Untangle

Hollywood's legal eagles are on the vanguard of protecting clients about issues related to artificial intelligence.

variety.com

Hollywood Guilds Come Out Strong For “Ethical & Transparent” AI Bill From Adam Schiff

Along with a new bill just introduced in the US Congress, moves to put up new guardrails around AI are gaining traction

deadline.com

 

[Disney Irish]

Just saw Challengers, which was an EXCELLENT movie. It's a very juicy drama, he three leading performances are terrific, and the score is phenomenal. Might be the best movie of 2024 so far. But I have no idea how it will do at the box office. I also wonder how audiences will react to it as I think the marketing has been pretty misleading (trying to sell it as some type of sex film when it's not like that at all). I think it's a better movie than what the trailers have sold but I guess we'll have to see how audiences react.

Haven't seen it yet, but I'm also rooting for Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt's The Fall Guy to do well. I just want non-franchise movies to have a chance of success at the box office. With Disney, the mid-range budget movies used to be somewhat profitable. But ever since the streaming era and launch of Disney Plus, it seems like the company is incapable of releasing anything that isn't a $200 tentpole. That strategy worked when all of the tentpoles were hits (from the 2010s) but it's proven to be quite costly the past few years.

I saw Challengers tonight too. I thought it was really good, but agree the marketing is more misleading than is should be. Something we've seen often from many studios these days.