Despite the recent labor actions to combat it, Hollywood has already started using artificial intelligence, presenting the industry with the existential threat that many had predicted.
ABOVE: one of the many “Civil War” movie posters, all created with AI. None of the scenes are from the movie itself.
22 May 2024 — As I wrote yesterday, last week OpenAI introduced a new feature, a voice character, with a sexy breathy voice that was supposed to remind you of Scarlett Johansson’s AI agent character in the fabulous film “Her”.
Except, well, too many people noticed the coincidence and not everyone was happy. Some wondered whether ScarJo had been compensated. Under pressure, OpenAI pulled the ScarJo-like voice, alleging that the resemblance was purely a coincidence:
As I wrote, OpenAI’s position was complete bullshit. And stupid, obviously refuted bullshit at that. You can read my analysis by clicking here.
I also noted that …
If Hollywood was wondering why actors held out against AI in the contract negotiations … this is it. If someone voice clones you, that’s not just “training content”, mate.
Except that the use of AI in Hollywood is, well …
The arguments have started. Let’s start with the kindling driving the fire-to-come.
For horror fans, “Late Night With the Devil” marked one of this year’s most anticipated releases. Embracing an analog film filter, the found-footage flick was praised for its “top-notch production design” by leaning into a 70s-era grind-house aesthetic reminiscent of “Dawn of the Dead” or “Death Race 2000”.
Note to readers: the movie is framed as a “found-footage” film about a 1977 live broadcast of a late-night talk show where the host – the Johnny Carson also-ran Jack Delroy (played by David Dastmalchian of “Suicide Squad” and “Oppenheimer” fame) – decides to go big for a Halloween night edition during sweeps week with a guest who claims to commune with the devil. It had all the makings of a cult hit.
Except now the movie has fallen into controversy surrounding its use of cutaway graphics created by generative artificial intelligence tools. One image of a dancing skeleton in particular incensed some theatergoers. Leading up to its theatrical debut this past March, it faced the prospect of a boycott, though that never materialized.
The movie’s directors defended the AI usage, explaining the AI art was “touched up by human hands”. In a statement, they said, “We experimented with AI for three still images which we edited further and ultimately appear as very brief interstitials in the film”.
Less than a month later, five images, all generated by AI, teased out post-apocalyptic scenes in the current movie hit “Civil War” and sparked similar outrage by a segment of fans. There were a few telltale signs that the graphics were AI-created in landmark accuracy and consistency blunders: the two Chicago Marina Towers buildings in one poster are on opposite sides of the river; in another, a shot of wreckage shows a car with three doors. And none of the poster ads showed scenes from the actual movie.
In response, readers on the movie producer’s Instagram page were writing backlash comments like “yeah, go ahead and use AI, but transparency. Otherwise WE DO NOT WANT THIS STUFF”.
But in the entertainment industry, the Pandora’s box of AI has likely already been unleashed. Behind closed doors, most corners of production, from writers’ rooms to VFX departments, have embraced generative AI tools. For every project that has faced blowback for using AI in some part of the production pipeline, there are dozens more that have quietly adopted the technology. David Stripinis, a VFX industry veteran who has worked on “Avatar”, “Man of Steel” and all of the Marvel titles has said:
Look, there are tons of people who are using AI, but they can’t admit it publicly because you still need artists for a lot of work and they’re going to turn against you. So right now it’s a PR problem more than a tech problem.
And that follows with other conversations I have had. Producers, writers, everyone is using AI, but they are scared to admit it publicly. Many use Genario, a bespoke AI software system designed for film and television writers. But it’s being used because it is a tool that gives an advantage. If you don’t use it, you’ll be at a disadvantage to those who are using AI.
One of the reasons for the backlash to AI usage in “Late Night” and “Civil War” could be the precedent it appears to set. Hiring or commissioning a concept or graphic artist would’ve been a negligible cost for the productions involved. If companies are willing to use AI to replace such peripheral tasks – in the case of “Late Night” and “Civil War”, jobs that could have been accomplished by anyone on their production design teams – what positions are next? Writers? VFX artists?
I watched an interview with David Kavanagh, executive officer of the Federation of Screenwriters in Europe, a group of writers guilds and union representing more than 8,000 writers across 25 countries. He said:
Most writers who have tried out AI have found it’s not a very good writer. So I don’t see it replacing us yet, but the impact on other areas of the industry could be very damaging. Look at areas like kids’ animation and soap operas, where there is a lot of repetition of similar situations by the same set of characters. Those are sectors that could be hard hit.
The displacement of labor by lower-level workers in Hollywood likely plays a part in which AI uses are seen as acceptable, and which are beyond the pale. Much of the discourse around the issue is filtered through the lens of Hollywood’s historic dual strikes last year. The utilization of AI tools in “Civil War” and “Late Night” meant artists missed out on work.
Some sectors of the industry are already threatened with extinction. Dubbing and subtitling employment in Europe is finished. There are scores of AI technology that can produce lip-synced dubs in multiple languages, even using versions of the original actor’s performance. It’s hard to see how they will survive this.
And to be up front, we are using similar AI to subtitle and/or lip-synch our own films. I can now create multiple language versions of my work for any market.
Over the weekend, at the Cannes Film Festival, indie producer/distributor XYZ Films presented a sizzle reel of AI-translated trailers of international films, including Nordic sci-fi feature “UFO Sweden”, French comedy thriller “Vincent Must Die” and Korean action hit “Smugglers”, which showcased TrueSync dubbing technology from L.A.-based company Flawless. Flawless and XYZ are pitching the tech as a chance for hit international films to cheaply produce a high-quality English-language dub that will make them more attractive for the global market. Flawless, XYZ Films, and Tea Shop Productions plan to roll out “UFO Sweden” worldwide in what they are calling the first large-scale theatrical release of a fully translated film using AI.
It is a tsunami. Janet Markie, a long-time media friend, has been covering the Cannes Film festival for me this year (and who opportunely lives in Cannes) says the AI technology on display this year is incredible.
Meanwhile, “Putin”, a new political biopic from Polish director Besaleel, which is being shopped to international buyers in Cannes, uses AI tech to re-create the face of Vladimir Putin over the body of an actor with a similar build to the Russian leader. A clip:
Besaleel says he plans to use the same technology, developed in-house by his postproduction company AIO, to create deepfake actors to play extras and supporting roles. At his press conference about the film he said:
I foresee that film and TV productions will eventually employ only leading and perhaps supporting actors, while the entire world of background and minor characters will be created digitally.
In Hollywood, the specter of AI casts a daunting shadow. A study surveying 300 leaders across the entertainment industry issued this past January reported that 3/4 of respondents indicated that AI tools supported the elimination, reduction or consolidation of jobs at their companies. Over the next 3 years, it is estimated that nearly 204,000 positions will be adversely affected. Concept artists, sound engineers, and voice actors stand at the forefront of that displacement. Visual effects and other postproduction work were also cited as particularly vulnerable.
There is also an imbalance in the resistance to AI usage in “Civil War” and “Late Night” but not, for example, Robert Zemeckis’ upcoming Miramax movie “Here”, which will feature a de-aged Tom Hanks and Robin Wright.
Note to readers: the transformations by Zemeckis were accomplished using a new generative AI-driven tool dubbed Metaphysics Live. If you subscribe to my entertainment industry newsletter, I have discussed it. Or if you have watched “Britain’s Got Talent” you have seen what it can do. For some Youtube clips, click here.
Deploying AI to allow actors to play younger or older versions of themselves could entrench A-list talent because they’re now suddenly eligible to play roles of all ages. Like with graphic artists who could’ve lost out on work in “Late Night”, a young Tom Hanks look-alike similarly could’ve missed an opportunity to be cast in a major studio movie. Why hire Sophie Nélisse to play a younger version of Melanie Lynskey’s Shauna in “Yellowjackets” when the production can just de-age the established star?
But where many see a threat, some see an opportunity. Like at the advent of CGI in the 1990s, when the technology entered the mainstream after the popularity of “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” and “Jurassic Park”, some VFX artists are leaning into AI. Legal constraints put guardrails on how the technology can be used, and there is no copyright on AI-generated material, but artists can get around these issues by training open source AI systems on their own works. This bypasses some of the concerns posed by AI systems that have been trained on copyright-protected material.
What is happening is we are taking the generative models to a certain point, and accelerating workflow. Some of this AI is allowing the entertainment industry to train on its own data, too. That’s why a lot of open source models and datasets they can train themselves are a bit more alluring. The industry knows they own whatever is created from that.
But many have said they have a policy of not using AI in anything client-facing, because they don’t want to put themselves on any kind of spurious legal ground until that thicket is cleared a bit.
But for most, they see AI as a tool and one that will unlock creativity and opportunity, that will create jobs, not eliminate them. Well, so long as guardrails are in place and copyright is protected, of course.
For me, AI can do amazing things, especially in enhancing storytelling.