Directors and editors using Seedance can fire the film studio.
This is a fundamental shift in how storytelling is funded and made, not in who does the driving.
Same as is happening with code.
Directors and editors using Seedance can fire the film studio.
This is a fundamental shift in how storytelling is funded and made, not in who does the driving.
Same as is happening with code.
Do you even know how films are made?
THe shift in story telling happened a while ago, its moved to youtube and shortform places.
Add to that the lack of 10-70 mill movies, as all that talent and money has shifted to TV series.
But, the kicker is, a lot of indy movies are not funded directly by the studios, they are picked up by the distribution arm.
Anyway, the point about movies is that there are Three types:
1) big name procedurals (as in existing IP, marvel etc. Brand names that'll be ok)
2) Big name actors doing acting (your hanks, cruises, jolies, etc) its either self indulgent wank, challenging, or innovative
3) A strong story that has actual appeal.
The issue is, the way funding works is that they spend a lot of time re-drafting scripts to give it "mass appeal" because its not art, its a money maker.
With the killing of the DVD market, theres no such thing as a cult classic anymore. its theatre release, streaming release, and then death.
>funded and made
I’m curious (admittedly skeptical) what you mean by this. Are you talking about a world where director’s just like…don’t actually make movies and create AI media?
Same thing.
Dude you have been salivating at the thought of seeing developers fired, now film studios, for months now. Give it a rest, this is unhealthy.
> Dude you have been salivating at the thought of seeing developers fired,
I don't think you understand my arguments at all.
I don't want people to lose jobs. I don't want the advantages to accrue to a few hyperscalers.
I want there to be more work, more money, more societal progress. For everyone.
AI currently enables experts in their domains (code, film, game design, music) to get the work of small teams done. It is now possible for dedicated, hard-working ICs in several domains to produce extremely good products in a short amount of time without external capital and without studio meddling. This is a good thing.
> I don't want people to lose jobs. I don't want the advantages to accrue to a few hyperscalers.
Versus:
> It is now possible for dedicated, hard-working ICs in several domains to produce extremely good products in a short amount of time without external capital and without studio meddling
A contradiction exists: lower-capital requirements means less employment all-around and more profit to fewer people.
Like your other comment this is so general I’m not entirely sure what you’re describing.
AI in production has allowed us to salvage bad audio and fix mistakes/not go back for re-shoots or ADR when it’s acceptable. It’s currently a repair/salvage and corner cutting tool. As for video, generative AI is not creating particularly usable stuff and it’s at best useful for short bursts.
If you’re in the commercial game it’s a little more useful - a few seconds of a generic looking kitchen sink and faucet running isn’t a big ask. But also getting quality B-roll isn’t particularly laborious as it is.
It’s great for transcriptions/captioning first passes but we already had great tools for that prior to the ChatGPT era.
It’s not cutting for us, it’s not generating useful shots most of the time and only for a few seconds, it’s not cutting out middlemen. I don’t see what you’re seeing.