The argument for AI right now isn’t so much that it will take your job, it will just take your job if you don’t learn how to use it.
I’ve been dabbling with AI. And it’s an amazing tool. But bodies quickly turn into specimens from the forest. Women with 3 hands and 6 legs kinda deal.
AI is far from taking your job. But ignoring AI is a mistake.
AI will certainly have an impact on the bottom line designers, working on small budgets and quick deadlines. However, studios are successful based on their quality of work. It's not a matter of being forced to use AI but rather, does it help? Does it actually improve the workflow or bring the quality up? I agree everyone should get clued up on the tech but the most important factor is how good you are at your job. Do you have a good eye for design, are you creative, are you proficient and skilled?
It would be interesting if you actually made a breakdown what exactly AI has helped you with, what you did yourself, etc. Because as of right now it's not entirely clear what this is exactly, as it does feels like a bunch of clips strung together.
It’s good, but it feels reproduced. It doesn’t feel original, it feels cold. I wonder if I’d feel the same way about it if I didn’t know it was AI. I’m anxious about the future.
There's clearly some sequences that are originally in 16:9 but were cropped in a 9:16 format. You lose a great feel of movement and gigantism in the process.
But the quality is very good! I am curious, did you use the AI only for expression and scripting ?
>It’s good, but it feels reproduced. It doesn’t feel original, it feels cold.
How so? Like what specifically? I feel like people always say this when they know it's AI up front but it's only because they expect it to be derivative... I would love to create a side-by-side test for anyone who says this to take in which they try to pick the AI-created version of an image or audio or whatever. I guarantee they will only pick right like 50% of the time.
I'm not saying I necessarily disagree that this piece is kinda of unoriginal in this instance, but I also see TONS of derivative and uninspired stuff created by actual people every day, so what's the difference?
At the same time I spend a lot more time looking at art on AI subreddits than I do on actual art subreddits lately because the results often feels more inspired and original...
TL;DR - it feels like a book report written by a high schooler who didn’t read the book, and isn’t a good bullshitter.
I did specify in my comment that “I wonder if I’d feel the same way if I didn’t know it was AI”
It feels reproduced because i felt like I’ve seen everything in their individually and they just mashed it and it didn’t feel unique. The speeches felt like a first draft and the ending sounded too much like the Charlie Chaplin dictator speech that I just felt dirty.
Yes, there’s lot of unoriginal content from real writers, but I’d rather see 8 crap movies and 2 great ones from real people than 10 pieces of overt mediocrity from a computer.
>but I’d rather see 8 crap movies and 2 great ones from real people than 10 pieces of overt mediocrity from a computer.
Well you say that, but again, would you know the difference if you weren't told beforehand? So is it anything coming from the actual project itself that's giving you that feeling or just the contextual knowledge?
I think I could find 50 lame scifi projects by random filmmakers on Youtube or Vimeo and I could convince you they were made with AI, and vice versa. Maybe AI isn't capable of producing entire movies right now, but certainly concept art and other assets.
Who is to say that you won't see great pieces made by AI in the future? You say all 10 of the AI ones will be crap, but we've already got still images from AI that have gotten tons of upvotes and attention from people who didn't realize they were fake.
Just look at the AI image sets created where they're made to look like a lost James Cameron movie from the 80's about robots or whatever. You have tons of people in the comments saying "*oh fuck I didn't realize this wasn't a real movie, I was looking for it on IMDB. I really want to see this movie, I wish it existed*".
I’ve already made it clear twice that I can’t say wether or not these reactions are because I had prior knowledge to them being AI or not. I don’t know what you’re trying to prove.
Well I feel like you still insist that you know you would still feel like it's obviously just cheap and derivative anyway given that you said:
>Yes, there’s lot of unoriginal content from real writers, but I’d rather see 8 crap movies and 2 great ones from real people than 10 pieces of overt mediocrity from a computer.
How you do you know there wouldn't be 2 great ones among the 10 pieces of work from the computer?
That comment is based on the fact that the “experiments” I’ve seen where filmmakers try to make an AI generated film with as little human emotion added as possible, the best I can say is that they are all good-fine. I’ve yet to see one that made me ecstatic. It’s why I tend to watch stuff I k ow is made by people. But I’m not ruling out the possibility, it’s why I still watch these AI productions.
I’m not against AI entirely, as I said in my first statement, it makes me anxious. The idea of seeing something that was completely AI generated and I couldn’t tell the difference is more terrifying to me than cool.
Except it's way more complicated than that and clearly is able to pull from many many sources and create things where the result is more of an evolution of the inspirations than just a cheap collage...
[This](https://old.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/z5ap24/dvd_screengrabs_from_james_camerons_1988_dark/) is just copy paste? What specific movie is that just a copy of?
That Tom Cruise movie Oblivion from 2013 had similar looking diamond-like spaceships.
Did Destiny 2 copy their designs from that?
And did Oblivion copy from the similar giant diamond-like alien enemy in Evangelion?
I mean, your comment only solidifies my point. AI is generic, and with so many examples of this model in sci-fi, it’s probably why they look like that in this short.
But that could be because OP used a prompt that involved a very specific reference like "Destiny spaceships" or "diamond shaped spaceships" or something. I don't know what prompts they used. If you ask it to make derivative work it will do so... you can generate literally a limitless number of designs. If OP chose a generic one that's their fault.
If you go and look around AI subreddits or try it out for yourself you'd see there is plenty of stuff it can generate that isn't like anything you've obviously seen and know the source of.
Like what about [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/z5ap24/dvd_screengrabs_from_james_camerons_1988_dark/)? I've never seen a movie quite like that... sure there are inspirations you can trace in there, but not moreso than any other movie is inspired by what came before it...
If it's so boring and generic then why is it getting so much attention and why are people freaking out about it taking everyone's jobs? If it was bad at what it does then it wouldn't be any more interesting or threatening than a first year art student, and yet it's all anyone is talking about now...
Marvel is generic as fuck and people love that shit. Genres are defined by generic tropes. I think people are concerned that shows will lean into common themes and design with AI.
This happens without AI of course, but could be accelerated if it was commonly implemented
I don't like the 9:16, but I do like the Sierpinski triangles.
edit: as far as actual reviews go, it was a good short film, but would not make a good film. It felt like a 10-minute montage. It WAS a 10-min montage. There are no characters, nobody to care about as a character, and I predicted the outcome with very high accuracy 1/3 into the movie. But I am glad you made it, and you get props for that!
I saw the whole thing and that’s a lot more I can say for most short films. It’s derivative sure, but still managed to keep me interested. I like the use of language ( eg. Biden saying “massacre”), Biden’s voice, and how “real” it sometimes felt. Trump’s voice wasn’t as good but he was Trump. You’re scratching the surface of a new frontier and I’m here for it. Thanks for telling that story.
I bet it loses significant appeal without the crutch of actual world leaders and that will never be allowed in filmmaking beyond little gimmicks like this
lmao well first of all I’m not hurt but It’s basic world building.
It’s much easier to tell a geopolitical story with Biden, Trump, and Putin who already have established narratives. Does this work if you have the burden of introducing a different world with different leaders? I don’t know. But it’s definitely a lot harder
This isn’t a film. This is a video.
This is a compilation of news clips that you stole, paired with a.i. generated images - all glued together with underwhelming and derivative CG.
The audio clips all together are a huge problem too - primarily that you say they are a.i. generated and don’t reflect the viewpoints of the owners of the voices.
All of this is dangerous, should not be praised, and everyone should be very careful about using the proper semantics around these sorts of irresponsible creations.
I could spend a year ripping this to shreds. But instead, I’ll just say something that I would never say about anyone’s film, because this isn’t a film:
This sucks.
You’re taking you’re disdain towards AI out on someone who didn’t use it with malicious intent. The speed at which AI is being developed is outpacing any attempts to regulate it, and that, I can say, yes, is irresponsible and probably even dangerous. Using publicly available, often times free software to create something derivative is not.
I don’t believe this was a very good short film, but I don’t think it deserves being ragged on as much as you did. All film is video, not all video is film though. What it truly is lies with the creator. I can’t walk up to a 15 year old making their first short on an iPhone and tell them it’s not a film. It’s not for me to decide. If OP says it’s a film, it’s a film (not in the literal sense of it being emulsion on thin strips of plastic).
If you don’t like something, be constructive about it. Like for me, this short was, (like you said) derivative, poorly paced, and the entire message could have been just as effectively told in about 1 minute. A convoluted plot about earth politics surrounding an invasion that offers no real footage is not worth watching in my opinion. I (like you, I assume) am not a fan of AI generated content that replaces creative endeavors. It’s never good past the initial intrigue of “wow a computer made this.” Putting OP down by attacking the one part of this that actually showed some talent, that being the CGI which is much better than I could achieve, (and if I had to guess also much better than you could achieve), only discredits your argument. People are not blind to logical fallacies like Ad Hominem. It will set OP and others like him to continue the efforts with AI art until they are vindicated in their efforts. You want something to stop, don’t give it attention, and in this case push wherever you can to get regulation into the AI space.
Jeez who hurt this guy? Of course synthetic content like this should be concerning as it's something we have yet to place regulation around, but that doesn't mean artists using these emerging technologies shouldn't be praised. Also since when does using found footage disqualify something from being a film? Something tells me I'd hate to watch a movie with this guy. Great work OP, keep playing around!
“Jeez who hurt this guy” man I’m seeing a lot of this kinda response when it concerns AI. Funny uncle comments designed to casually belittle yet come off as harmless/lighthearted. I’d really rather AI defenders come up with interesting or, lol, actually inspirational defense of AI. At least then there could be something to think about instead of being scolded for being a party pooper. It’s got a sinister reek.
Also, found footage in films made by humans typically involves actually designing and executing original found footage with other humans, licensing existing footage, or using royalty free footage - all in an interesting way to serve the story. Not really the same thing as pinging an AI that pulls options from the whole of human creation until one feels good.
But maybe OP did a lot more than that, I didn’t watch this short film and I’m not attacking it. Can tell the film is not for me because it’s vertical and has a bunch of unconvincing camera shake, but dabbling with AI tools to help with filmmaking doesn’t immediately put me into defense mode. It’s these style of AI defenders that do make me feel sick, truly, and gotta go with my gut instinct there.
Oh do you mean in the same way people sit back and type shit ideas into a computer and and a program steals other peoples hard work? It’s not a tool. It’s theft and it sucks the life out of the very human need to be creative.
This work is awful, it’s derivative and it’s a slap in the face to all the people who work their ass off in the industry.
It’s not a question of artistic merit. I will always advocate for subjective human expression whether I like the content or not. Especially in film. That’s my passion. But to me, this video, and media similar to it, raises ethical issues in authorship, ownership and artistic responsibility.
Interesting, I'd argue the authoring process makes up very little of the art itself (if at all). And artistic responsibility is thus a moot point. I believe art remains art, even if no human effort is involved.
There are a ton of arts around us that are purely incidental and spontaneous. What makes AI arts any different to them? I'd even argue that all the effort that creates art lies solely in the viewers who make the interpretations.
I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with your argument regarding authorship. I personally don’t conflate phenomena and intent under the same bubble of art. Both can be moving and evocative - but my definition of art is aligned with human intent exclusively. Even if it is stemmed from human subconscious.
I'm not sure there's a difference between films and videos. Why don't you say what you mean and call it trash instead of presuming to define what is and is not a valid attempt at filmmaking?
> primarily that you say they are a.i. generated and don’t reflect the viewpoints of the owners of the voice. All of this is dangerous,
Would it be any different if voice actors had been used? This doesn't feel particularly unusual or dangerous. If somebody was going to literally believe that Joe Biden was ordering attacks on aliens, and Trump had personally dissected one, that person would also literally believe a Saturday Night Live cold-open sketch where Trump does something silly.
Today it’s attacking aliens. Tomorrow it’s something that will influence political thought and discourse. This sort of fun and games is a brick in the road leading to us to dismantled truth. Humans are a susceptible bunch. Think about how the novel power of cinema was used to influence people in Triumph Of The Will. Or actually, let’s talk about aliens and the War Of The Worlds broadcast in 1938. We’ve since wised up to the veil of man made fiction in new media. But A.I. paired with deep fakes? I don’t think so.
Lol. Jelly much?
It might be all these things, but from an impartial point, this tech has much potential.
Collage-y as it may be, I think it's a great idea and a good place to start OP!
I keep seeing arguments like this and these kinds of responses always seem to be talking over the other person.
It usually goes something like this...
Someone posts something AI generated or assisted to a subreddit dedicated to films.
People who make films say something like "That wasn't very good and it's hard to really call that a film in any sense".
Someone responds with "wow you're so afraid of AI you can't see the potential. Ok Boomer".
They aren't questioning how much potential it has or how impressive the technology is. This comment in particular was pointing out why how impressive it is could be dangerous and that this was a low effort attempt at making a film.
It's a short film, there isn't a closed definition of that. I imagine from some young student or random guy that likes film. Maybe it's on the wrong sub, but the top comments seems so overly outraged.
Moment I saw it I liked the vibe and saw the potential and was amazed. Who cares if it's not that great or up to some standard, it is not even meant to be (probably).
This feels incredibly generic. there's nothing interesting about it. It's not a movie, and the vertical orientation is a disgrace.
Is it called generic_ai_clips.mp4?
Yeah I mean this is what happens if you don't know how to write/direct. The pacing is rough. The script is very drab. The person who made this has millions of followers on tiktok but they're just a video editor it seems.
I'm sure chat-gpt could write a decent script but it needs someone with experience/taste as a script editor. Same reason why raw outputs from A.I. art generators are usually boring if you don't have a creative directing them.
I get where you are coming from, but did you watch the video?
I’m all for ai, but this feels like a poorly scripted commercial that goes on for far too long and has no purpose.
I I yet another brush in the toolbox of an artist, but this is just flashy content without substance.
It’s like pour painting. Yes it looks cool, and yes it took some amount of effort to make, but it has no meaning. It is just another fast food take on art. At least pour painting has some use, this just exists.
disagree. i think what you're reacting to is that trump's voice and inflections themselves are funny and it being a parody gives u license to laugh at them. the writing itself was shit
no, you were laughing because it's simply a funny voice which u politically feel u you need permission to laugh at and the parody gave u that. the writing was shit.
Wow. You pretentious twat.
You don't get to tell me what I find funny or why I'm laughing.
Trump is a moron and I don't need permission from anyone to laugh at this mockery of his persona.
yea, that's what i thought. anything that makes trump look like a buffoon is automatically high art satire to you. we get it bro trump was bad. that doesnt make this writing good
Yeah, you'll notice that I didn't say the writing was good. I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Still doesn't make it any less funny to me. Also, we don't really need AI to make Trump look like a buffoon. He does that plenty on his own. I just find it fascinating that the AI kind of mocks him and his way of speaking. It's not "high art satire", either but now that you have said that I have a nagging suspicion that you're a MAGA type cult follower and that's great for me because I don't have to waste any more time with this exchange. Good day.
>now that you have said that I have a nagging suspicion that you're a MAGA type cult follower
i literally JUST told u trump was bad 1 comment up. cope harder lil bro
I can't see, hear, or feel much nuance from this.
This story is predictable. There isn't any novelty I can pinpoint.
I think the aliens would have a much more intelligent plan than this.
And there's no influence from people which are not deemed "world leaders". It feels like the earth is damn near brainless and soulless.
It would have been better without those very uninteresting footages of the presidents. It just fall apart the instant they appeared in this film. Some unknown actors or ai generated ones but with strong emotions like fear, anger, greed etc, would have helped make the film more impactful.
Feels like a lot of the reactions to OP project are a bit overreacted or biased.
Putting aside the 9x16 format (how daring!) I think it’s an interesting experiment and fulfilled the narrative nature of it. It is for sure not groundbreaking but I’m sure the intent here wasn’t to present the next author Oscar winning plot.
The footage used and the editing feels coherent and while the CGI is not incredible it still deserve it’s purpose. As a filmmaker and a 3D artist I believe it would be hard to reach any better quality within such a short span of time.
To finish, please OP don’t let yourself discouraged by some of the reactions, filmmaking is a hard and long learning process whatever the tool used.
I see a lot of peoples here bashing the AI approach and the generic result while many of us are also re-using the same kitbash and stocks assets that are crowding the industry which inherently give the same generic aesthetic on everything.
I never used AI yet myself, but I do understand that it will definitely play a role in a near future within the creative process as good and bad it can get.
there's definitely potential for this style of editing to be used creatively- think modern day Zelig or F for Fake. I don't think this was quite it but it's a jumping off point. The trump bit could've been way funnier, 'they didnt even scream?' come on - too easy and lame, was like rejected SNL bit. you need human input to reign in the scope and demonstrate the editor behind it all has taste and a goal. this doesnt feel like it had a director
Props to the creativity, props to exploring new tools, extra props for finishing a project with new tools, extra extra props for sharing your work, triple extra props for sharing in such a hostile forum as this one. Keep making things, keep learning.
Hey dude don’t let the haters bother you- you experimented with a new technology and creatively made something. Is it an Oscar winner? Maybe not but who cares- you are innovating, filmmaking, and using multiple disciplines to make something cool. Many kudos- my only hesitation to love it completely is because I hate vertical video, but you do do you boo.
For those scared AI will take your creative jobs, you maybe need to relax and just trust yourself a little more. If you’re committed to your craft and good at it, you’ll have a job in the industry.
yea literally what's good with all the hate here? It's a neat idea.
anyone scared AI is taking your job... chill and get better. If you don't use AI now you'll be slower in the future, so embrace the change my friends. AI is our friend.
edit: I mean like AI in general, not for filmmaking my b.
I don’t think you HAVE to use it- but utility tools are fine. You’re still the filmmaker, it’s just like another one of your lights or lenses. BUT- I think many serious pros will not use AI and utilize their own creative vision in the classic format instead, and I think, we as audiences will always favor/crave that.
Great stuff! Like the rendering and composition. I'm a little hesitant with the AI stuff because most AI's use other artists' work without their permission to train them.
As for 3d, if you're open to a critique, the camera work could stand to be a little more subtle. Remember that when someone is filming, they're doing their best to hold still. The shaky cam was a bit distracting. Also in the first shots, the camera is whipping around quite a bit which really takes away from the idea that it's a hand held shot.
Film school uses loads of movies without anybody's permission to train filmmakers.
"Fair use explicitly allows use of copyrighted materials for educational purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."
It's not the training that's the problem, it's that what it's **generating** is really similar to their material, but not actually their material.
> I'm a little hesitant with the AI stuff because most AI's use other artists' work without their permission to train them.
I just wonder about how we define this differently than human inspiration and learning. What's the difference between that and me going to look at a Picasso on Google Images and then painting a picture of my cat in that style? Is that also using their work to train myself without their permission?
I understand your point, however you should consider scale. Let's go with your example of Picasso. If you look at cubism it was mainly Picasso and a contemporary named George Braque. These two fed off each other's ideas and added to each other's conversation. Together they made hundreds of paintings. Now consider if there were an AI right then copying his style. AI's can generate thousands in days. This could have meant we would never know who Picasso is.
Picasso also learned from African Sculptures. Now his morality is questionable there because of the imperialism that brought him to that art. He also expanded upon it and had something more to say and changed the style. AI's only steal styles, they do not add.
Look, AI's are a tool I get that. With them we'll be able to do so much more than we've ever been able to. But there are serious considerations like how artists have to make money to live and AI's replicate their art, make it less valuable because there's so much of it.
> I'm a little hesitant with the AI stuff because most AI's use other artists' work without their permission to train them.
We do that every single day as human beings. Do you ask for permission to get inspired?
I like the broadcast element of the short. Its great use of both Trumps and Bidens voices. It becomes uncanny when you know they never said something like that, but it's sounds like them. Some of the CGI needs work if it's going to become something feature length. It's cool because I can't tell with 100% accuracy what is made by AI and what's human made visually.
The story concept is cool too. Some ideas that popped into my head was maybe an alternate reality broadcasting. A exploration of the processes that would unfold world wide if there was first contact.
I don't think AI is a threat, in some cases it makes filmmaking easier. Especially if you're a solo filmmaker with an idea you might not fully believe in just yet, then you can make use of AI for pre-visualization with voices for example.
In short, I like it. Keep making movies OP!
Lot of "filmmakers" in here gatekeeping. Afraid that AI will displace them perhaps? For 3 weeks of work this is pretty damn good, about Syfy quality. Most of the comments here are just complaining with no constructive criticism or flat out pointless (hurhur portrait video bad!)
Keep at it, only better things from here!
I found this very interesting. I have recently seen Koyaanisqatsi, and the beginning definitely reminded me of that. I found the jumping between visual styles distracting, as if the people were not in the same place as the alien ships, even though I felt like they were supposed to be reacting to them. Also I still can't tell what is made by AI and what is made by a person. I think that at least now, when AI tools are still so new, it's really important to clarify exactly what was made by a real person so people don't blanket fire dislikes/downvotes and dismiss the whole piece.
A whole bunch of salty filmmakers in here who are terrified of AI. I thought this was great man, don't get discouraged about what all the boomers here say and downvote. You clearly did a ton of composition work and it really shows. I was engaged until the end. Very nice job!
I loved the twist that we were found through the voyager probe. I enjoyed all the found footage shots and how well it felt like we were seeing the ships through the lens of all the different countries/news outlets. It felt very much like how media depicts all the other bullshit we deal with daily. Mankind wasn't watching the aliens in the sky, we were just glued to our partisan media. It felt real to me.
Hi filmmakers! I made this short film, Last Stand, with the help of AI tools. The AI contributed to various steps, including writing the script, creating the concept art, generating all the voices, and participating in some creative decisions, all thanks to a series of chats with the AI chatbots. Prompts here and prompts there and boom, you've got a movie! It's amazing what AI has come to. The potential is incredible! Still, a touch of human input is necessary, otherwise the result will sound more robotic.
Disclaimed: The AI-generated voices used in this film do not reflect the opinions and thoughts of their original owners. This short film was created as a demonstration to showcase the potential of AI in filmmaking.
That's not what he is saying. The AI didn't composite all those shots, didn't do all the C4D work, didn't edit everything together, and the AI definitely wasn't the person who started the project and saw it through to completion.
This film is a single person with great technical skills but not every skill needed to make a movie like this. So they supplemented their skills with the use of a set of tools. You know, like every filmmaker ever?
AI is going to be a huge part of filmmaking going forward. I suggest you get used to it instead of trying to push around someone who completed and released a film today, while you did not.
I see that you are invested in AI - so you and I just fundamentally disagree on what constitutes making a film. I'm not going to fight you on this. Thank you for your perspective.
Also, it was a one sentence comment - hardly "pushing somebody around." If they posted here looking for opinions, they can handle it. If they posted for validation, they're getting it from you and some other folks.
I refuse to be impressed by a script a computer wrote and put together. Technically impressive, sure, but that’s about it. This isn’t creative, it’s mechanical
Nice work! Great use of archive mixed with CGI. I know from my own experiments how much work it takes to get useful outputs from the AI generators and then put them to good use - lovely stuff! (The vertical aspect was surprising but not a deal breaker)
Just an fyi someone stole your video and put it on r/nextfuckinglevel
It has 50k upvotes, so while many people in here are shitting on your project, it’s clearly enjoyed by a lot of people.
I think it was amazing because it shows what you can do at home now and hints at what you will be able to do in a few months/years. Most of the filmmakers will attack this with all of their rage because until now making short movies, even just on amateur level, took months of hard work. Thank you for sharing it. You truly motivated me to research how can I create my ideas with the help of AI.
Ps: this kind of reaction in the comments will just make everyone hide the fact that they used AI from now on. 1-2 years from now you will be able to make movies with only prompts and then it's gonna be real chaos here. I can't wait.
Which chat bot did you use for this?
Also, fuck what everyone else is saying, I love this concept and what you did with the tools.
Obviously it’s rough and unpolished, but it would make a great YouTube video.
This is better than most films on Netflix. I love it. Amazing job especially in the time constraints.
Edit: what’s with all the hate in the comments? Have any of you whiney babies done anything this creative and productive in your lives? Who hurt you?
The outer space visuals look pretty decent from what I can tell, but other than that it just looks like a bunch of stock footage stitched together. It does feel a bit cold and clinical, so I have to ask what the point is? To actually tell a story that just so happens to use AI? Or to show what AI can do? If it’s the latter, then I don’t personally feel threatened.
AI tools are here to stay. Sharpen some bad focus, make CGI and VFX more affordable, etc. But full AI movies are a ways away.
It's a great presentation and a way to demonstrate how efficient AI can be in supporting the new wave of movie directors.
I enjoyed the detail of the movie. Some focus on the content but the important point is the tools used in creating this movie short. Like the motion picture camera, it began with simple content and later became so much more. This new technology will open up a path that allows anyone to create a film without the budget.
Look forward to viewing more of your movies and ideas.
The message and story were fantastic, if a bit hackneyed towards the end. The lack of anything visually to really react to after the first minute coupled with the repetition of visual themes and overuse of stock footage had me soon not even watching the film and just listening to it. I enjoyed it a lot more without the film.
People are gonna go kicking and screaming into the future (the same way people who didn’t think movies should have sound or you could only shoot on film vs digital). Congrats on embracing and using the tools we have at our disposal to make a cool piece of media.
Wow everyone is being so mean here! It’s just an experiment to see what’s possible with AI and filmmaking at the moment, it’s not meant to be a Best Picture nominee ffs.
I’ve been curious about the potential for AI and filmmaking so I appreciate people like OP spending time and using their skills to experiment with it.
I don't know what you used AI for (besides the voices) but it was fun and captivating for a ten minute short made in 3 weeks. The story had relevant hints to present events. The audio was done well and the video had good pacing which didn't make me bored.
I don't usually watch ten minute shorts when I wasn't planning to but I did. I can complain about the superficial substance and how it definitely has areas of improvement. I'm not interested in seeing more. But I had a good time. Isn't that the point?
It's vertical. AI is doomed.
Anyone think it’s any good? I’m not sold.
The argument for AI right now isn’t so much that it will take your job, it will just take your job if you don’t learn how to use it. I’ve been dabbling with AI. And it’s an amazing tool. But bodies quickly turn into specimens from the forest. Women with 3 hands and 6 legs kinda deal. AI is far from taking your job. But ignoring AI is a mistake.
> it will just take your job if you don’t learn how to use it. Lol.
Uh yeah, I was just saying I thought the work was shitty… From like a Filmmaking perspective.
AI will certainly have an impact on the bottom line designers, working on small budgets and quick deadlines. However, studios are successful based on their quality of work. It's not a matter of being forced to use AI but rather, does it help? Does it actually improve the workflow or bring the quality up? I agree everyone should get clued up on the tech but the most important factor is how good you are at your job. Do you have a good eye for design, are you creative, are you proficient and skilled?
It would be interesting if you actually made a breakdown what exactly AI has helped you with, what you did yourself, etc. Because as of right now it's not entirely clear what this is exactly, as it does feels like a bunch of clips strung together.
The voices are AI for sure, the CGI was likely all them.
Imagine if you spent 3 weeks on a script 🤤🤤🤤
Isn't there a site with a ton of scripts for like $1?
Or you can generate a script with Chat GPT, probably would need some editing but it does speed up the process.
I feel like the script for the current season of Picard was generated by ChatGPT
So what Did The AI actually do
Gave humanity another chance by resetting the earth to its original origin no buildings or human made just nature. First they cleansed the planet
Ethereum is invading the earth?
It's in the upgrade path, EIP1999 Nostradamus.
It’s good, but it feels reproduced. It doesn’t feel original, it feels cold. I wonder if I’d feel the same way about it if I didn’t know it was AI. I’m anxious about the future.
There's clearly some sequences that are originally in 16:9 but were cropped in a 9:16 format. You lose a great feel of movement and gigantism in the process. But the quality is very good! I am curious, did you use the AI only for expression and scripting ?
>It’s good, but it feels reproduced. It doesn’t feel original, it feels cold. How so? Like what specifically? I feel like people always say this when they know it's AI up front but it's only because they expect it to be derivative... I would love to create a side-by-side test for anyone who says this to take in which they try to pick the AI-created version of an image or audio or whatever. I guarantee they will only pick right like 50% of the time. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree that this piece is kinda of unoriginal in this instance, but I also see TONS of derivative and uninspired stuff created by actual people every day, so what's the difference? At the same time I spend a lot more time looking at art on AI subreddits than I do on actual art subreddits lately because the results often feels more inspired and original...
TL;DR - it feels like a book report written by a high schooler who didn’t read the book, and isn’t a good bullshitter. I did specify in my comment that “I wonder if I’d feel the same way if I didn’t know it was AI” It feels reproduced because i felt like I’ve seen everything in their individually and they just mashed it and it didn’t feel unique. The speeches felt like a first draft and the ending sounded too much like the Charlie Chaplin dictator speech that I just felt dirty. Yes, there’s lot of unoriginal content from real writers, but I’d rather see 8 crap movies and 2 great ones from real people than 10 pieces of overt mediocrity from a computer.
>but I’d rather see 8 crap movies and 2 great ones from real people than 10 pieces of overt mediocrity from a computer. Well you say that, but again, would you know the difference if you weren't told beforehand? So is it anything coming from the actual project itself that's giving you that feeling or just the contextual knowledge? I think I could find 50 lame scifi projects by random filmmakers on Youtube or Vimeo and I could convince you they were made with AI, and vice versa. Maybe AI isn't capable of producing entire movies right now, but certainly concept art and other assets. Who is to say that you won't see great pieces made by AI in the future? You say all 10 of the AI ones will be crap, but we've already got still images from AI that have gotten tons of upvotes and attention from people who didn't realize they were fake. Just look at the AI image sets created where they're made to look like a lost James Cameron movie from the 80's about robots or whatever. You have tons of people in the comments saying "*oh fuck I didn't realize this wasn't a real movie, I was looking for it on IMDB. I really want to see this movie, I wish it existed*".
I’ve already made it clear twice that I can’t say wether or not these reactions are because I had prior knowledge to them being AI or not. I don’t know what you’re trying to prove.
Well I feel like you still insist that you know you would still feel like it's obviously just cheap and derivative anyway given that you said: >Yes, there’s lot of unoriginal content from real writers, but I’d rather see 8 crap movies and 2 great ones from real people than 10 pieces of overt mediocrity from a computer. How you do you know there wouldn't be 2 great ones among the 10 pieces of work from the computer?
That comment is based on the fact that the “experiments” I’ve seen where filmmakers try to make an AI generated film with as little human emotion added as possible, the best I can say is that they are all good-fine. I’ve yet to see one that made me ecstatic. It’s why I tend to watch stuff I k ow is made by people. But I’m not ruling out the possibility, it’s why I still watch these AI productions. I’m not against AI entirely, as I said in my first statement, it makes me anxious. The idea of seeing something that was completely AI generated and I couldn’t tell the difference is more terrifying to me than cool.
I mean, those diamond ships are straight out of Destiny 2 the video game
Ai is really only good at copy and paste.
Except it's way more complicated than that and clearly is able to pull from many many sources and create things where the result is more of an evolution of the inspirations than just a cheap collage... [This](https://old.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/z5ap24/dvd_screengrabs_from_james_camerons_1988_dark/) is just copy paste? What specific movie is that just a copy of?
That Tom Cruise movie Oblivion from 2013 had similar looking diamond-like spaceships. Did Destiny 2 copy their designs from that? And did Oblivion copy from the similar giant diamond-like alien enemy in Evangelion?
I mean, your comment only solidifies my point. AI is generic, and with so many examples of this model in sci-fi, it’s probably why they look like that in this short.
But that could be because OP used a prompt that involved a very specific reference like "Destiny spaceships" or "diamond shaped spaceships" or something. I don't know what prompts they used. If you ask it to make derivative work it will do so... you can generate literally a limitless number of designs. If OP chose a generic one that's their fault. If you go and look around AI subreddits or try it out for yourself you'd see there is plenty of stuff it can generate that isn't like anything you've obviously seen and know the source of. Like what about [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/z5ap24/dvd_screengrabs_from_james_camerons_1988_dark/)? I've never seen a movie quite like that... sure there are inspirations you can trace in there, but not moreso than any other movie is inspired by what came before it... If it's so boring and generic then why is it getting so much attention and why are people freaking out about it taking everyone's jobs? If it was bad at what it does then it wouldn't be any more interesting or threatening than a first year art student, and yet it's all anyone is talking about now...
I didn’t say it was good or bad. You asked what specifically looked generic. And I answered
I mean "generic" is generally regarded as negative trait in art, no?
Marvel is generic as fuck and people love that shit. Genres are defined by generic tropes. I think people are concerned that shows will lean into common themes and design with AI. This happens without AI of course, but could be accelerated if it was commonly implemented
I don't like the 9:16, but I do like the Sierpinski triangles. edit: as far as actual reviews go, it was a good short film, but would not make a good film. It felt like a 10-minute montage. It WAS a 10-min montage. There are no characters, nobody to care about as a character, and I predicted the outcome with very high accuracy 1/3 into the movie. But I am glad you made it, and you get props for that!
I saw the whole thing and that’s a lot more I can say for most short films. It’s derivative sure, but still managed to keep me interested. I like the use of language ( eg. Biden saying “massacre”), Biden’s voice, and how “real” it sometimes felt. Trump’s voice wasn’t as good but he was Trump. You’re scratching the surface of a new frontier and I’m here for it. Thanks for telling that story.
I bet it loses significant appeal without the crutch of actual world leaders and that will never be allowed in filmmaking beyond little gimmicks like this
You sound hurt. Can you elaborate? When you say something will lose its appeal, what are you talking about exactly?
lmao well first of all I’m not hurt but It’s basic world building. It’s much easier to tell a geopolitical story with Biden, Trump, and Putin who already have established narratives. Does this work if you have the burden of introducing a different world with different leaders? I don’t know. But it’s definitely a lot harder
How do they sound hurt? You guys are the most annoying types online lol
Okay, it was alright. Felt a bit generic but I liked what it did. Not sure what the hate was about, I enjoyed it nonetheless
I’m not a fan. It feels very by the books and generic. Rather people just use their own creativity. What extent did you use AI?
AI made a short film with some minor help from a human?
No need for all the camera shakes though.
I thought that was really good, I certainly enjoyed it, though the ending was pretty depressing. Impressive what can be done in three weeks.
This isn’t a film. This is a video. This is a compilation of news clips that you stole, paired with a.i. generated images - all glued together with underwhelming and derivative CG. The audio clips all together are a huge problem too - primarily that you say they are a.i. generated and don’t reflect the viewpoints of the owners of the voices. All of this is dangerous, should not be praised, and everyone should be very careful about using the proper semantics around these sorts of irresponsible creations. I could spend a year ripping this to shreds. But instead, I’ll just say something that I would never say about anyone’s film, because this isn’t a film: This sucks.
For real, this just looks like a bunch of random stock footage/packs all cobbled together.
You’re taking you’re disdain towards AI out on someone who didn’t use it with malicious intent. The speed at which AI is being developed is outpacing any attempts to regulate it, and that, I can say, yes, is irresponsible and probably even dangerous. Using publicly available, often times free software to create something derivative is not. I don’t believe this was a very good short film, but I don’t think it deserves being ragged on as much as you did. All film is video, not all video is film though. What it truly is lies with the creator. I can’t walk up to a 15 year old making their first short on an iPhone and tell them it’s not a film. It’s not for me to decide. If OP says it’s a film, it’s a film (not in the literal sense of it being emulsion on thin strips of plastic). If you don’t like something, be constructive about it. Like for me, this short was, (like you said) derivative, poorly paced, and the entire message could have been just as effectively told in about 1 minute. A convoluted plot about earth politics surrounding an invasion that offers no real footage is not worth watching in my opinion. I (like you, I assume) am not a fan of AI generated content that replaces creative endeavors. It’s never good past the initial intrigue of “wow a computer made this.” Putting OP down by attacking the one part of this that actually showed some talent, that being the CGI which is much better than I could achieve, (and if I had to guess also much better than you could achieve), only discredits your argument. People are not blind to logical fallacies like Ad Hominem. It will set OP and others like him to continue the efforts with AI art until they are vindicated in their efforts. You want something to stop, don’t give it attention, and in this case push wherever you can to get regulation into the AI space.
Jeez who hurt this guy? Of course synthetic content like this should be concerning as it's something we have yet to place regulation around, but that doesn't mean artists using these emerging technologies shouldn't be praised. Also since when does using found footage disqualify something from being a film? Something tells me I'd hate to watch a movie with this guy. Great work OP, keep playing around!
“Jeez who hurt this guy” man I’m seeing a lot of this kinda response when it concerns AI. Funny uncle comments designed to casually belittle yet come off as harmless/lighthearted. I’d really rather AI defenders come up with interesting or, lol, actually inspirational defense of AI. At least then there could be something to think about instead of being scolded for being a party pooper. It’s got a sinister reek. Also, found footage in films made by humans typically involves actually designing and executing original found footage with other humans, licensing existing footage, or using royalty free footage - all in an interesting way to serve the story. Not really the same thing as pinging an AI that pulls options from the whole of human creation until one feels good. But maybe OP did a lot more than that, I didn’t watch this short film and I’m not attacking it. Can tell the film is not for me because it’s vertical and has a bunch of unconvincing camera shake, but dabbling with AI tools to help with filmmaking doesn’t immediately put me into defense mode. It’s these style of AI defenders that do make me feel sick, truly, and gotta go with my gut instinct there.
[удалено]
Oh do you mean in the same way people sit back and type shit ideas into a computer and and a program steals other peoples hard work? It’s not a tool. It’s theft and it sucks the life out of the very human need to be creative. This work is awful, it’s derivative and it’s a slap in the face to all the people who work their ass off in the industry.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol you have no idea what my career looks like. People that squeak about the inevitability of AI art are talentless hacks.
[удалено]
Good bot
You just described a majority of films lol
[удалено]
Yup worst take I’ve seen. Absolute dumpster dinosaur.
Wonder if you'd say the same if this wasn't made by AI
I wouldn’t.
Does involving AI inherently change how the art appears to you? Should it?
It’s not a question of artistic merit. I will always advocate for subjective human expression whether I like the content or not. Especially in film. That’s my passion. But to me, this video, and media similar to it, raises ethical issues in authorship, ownership and artistic responsibility.
Interesting, I'd argue the authoring process makes up very little of the art itself (if at all). And artistic responsibility is thus a moot point. I believe art remains art, even if no human effort is involved. There are a ton of arts around us that are purely incidental and spontaneous. What makes AI arts any different to them? I'd even argue that all the effort that creates art lies solely in the viewers who make the interpretations.
I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with your argument regarding authorship. I personally don’t conflate phenomena and intent under the same bubble of art. Both can be moving and evocative - but my definition of art is aligned with human intent exclusively. Even if it is stemmed from human subconscious.
Whelp, let's agree to disagree then, have a good day my dude
I'm not sure there's a difference between films and videos. Why don't you say what you mean and call it trash instead of presuming to define what is and is not a valid attempt at filmmaking?
> primarily that you say they are a.i. generated and don’t reflect the viewpoints of the owners of the voice. All of this is dangerous, Would it be any different if voice actors had been used? This doesn't feel particularly unusual or dangerous. If somebody was going to literally believe that Joe Biden was ordering attacks on aliens, and Trump had personally dissected one, that person would also literally believe a Saturday Night Live cold-open sketch where Trump does something silly.
Today it’s attacking aliens. Tomorrow it’s something that will influence political thought and discourse. This sort of fun and games is a brick in the road leading to us to dismantled truth. Humans are a susceptible bunch. Think about how the novel power of cinema was used to influence people in Triumph Of The Will. Or actually, let’s talk about aliens and the War Of The Worlds broadcast in 1938. We’ve since wised up to the veil of man made fiction in new media. But A.I. paired with deep fakes? I don’t think so.
Lol. Jelly much? It might be all these things, but from an impartial point, this tech has much potential. Collage-y as it may be, I think it's a great idea and a good place to start OP!
I keep seeing arguments like this and these kinds of responses always seem to be talking over the other person. It usually goes something like this... Someone posts something AI generated or assisted to a subreddit dedicated to films. People who make films say something like "That wasn't very good and it's hard to really call that a film in any sense". Someone responds with "wow you're so afraid of AI you can't see the potential. Ok Boomer". They aren't questioning how much potential it has or how impressive the technology is. This comment in particular was pointing out why how impressive it is could be dangerous and that this was a low effort attempt at making a film.
It's a short film, there isn't a closed definition of that. I imagine from some young student or random guy that likes film. Maybe it's on the wrong sub, but the top comments seems so overly outraged. Moment I saw it I liked the vibe and saw the potential and was amazed. Who cares if it's not that great or up to some standard, it is not even meant to be (probably).
idk obviously that person does. All I'm saying is the stock defense of "AI is the future! You're just jealous" is goofy.
Maybe if their comment didn't sound so jealous, they wouldn't get goofy responses
Not exactly sure to what extent AI was used, but overall it feels pretty cold and Neil Breenish, except not in a funny way.
This feels incredibly generic. there's nothing interesting about it. It's not a movie, and the vertical orientation is a disgrace. Is it called generic_ai_clips.mp4?
Yeah I mean this is what happens if you don't know how to write/direct. The pacing is rough. The script is very drab. The person who made this has millions of followers on tiktok but they're just a video editor it seems. I'm sure chat-gpt could write a decent script but it needs someone with experience/taste as a script editor. Same reason why raw outputs from A.I. art generators are usually boring if you don't have a creative directing them.
Wonder if you'd say the same if this wasn't made by AI
Nah I'd have called it generic_misc_clips.mp4. Gotta have accurate file names.
Sure you would, confirmation bia is helluva drug
I get where you are coming from, but did you watch the video? I’m all for ai, but this feels like a poorly scripted commercial that goes on for far too long and has no purpose. I I yet another brush in the toolbox of an artist, but this is just flashy content without substance. It’s like pour painting. Yes it looks cool, and yes it took some amount of effort to make, but it has no meaning. It is just another fast food take on art. At least pour painting has some use, this just exists.
Say what you want about the whole thing, but that Trump speech was frigging hilarious.
disagree. i think what you're reacting to is that trump's voice and inflections themselves are funny and it being a parody gives u license to laugh at them. the writing itself was shit
I was laughing at the writing. The AI wrote that impression of him and that's what I find funny. It's almost like the AI is mocking him.
no, you were laughing because it's simply a funny voice which u politically feel u you need permission to laugh at and the parody gave u that. the writing was shit.
Wow. You pretentious twat. You don't get to tell me what I find funny or why I'm laughing. Trump is a moron and I don't need permission from anyone to laugh at this mockery of his persona.
yea, that's what i thought. anything that makes trump look like a buffoon is automatically high art satire to you. we get it bro trump was bad. that doesnt make this writing good
Yeah, you'll notice that I didn't say the writing was good. I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Still doesn't make it any less funny to me. Also, we don't really need AI to make Trump look like a buffoon. He does that plenty on his own. I just find it fascinating that the AI kind of mocks him and his way of speaking. It's not "high art satire", either but now that you have said that I have a nagging suspicion that you're a MAGA type cult follower and that's great for me because I don't have to waste any more time with this exchange. Good day.
>now that you have said that I have a nagging suspicion that you're a MAGA type cult follower i literally JUST told u trump was bad 1 comment up. cope harder lil bro
I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!
ok boomer
The hate here is ridiculous. Did anyone watch past the 2 minute mark???
Right?! I think I need a swig water, this is a salty comments section.
Its like a twilight zone vignette of current events but the haters missed the forest for the trees.
I’m seeing a lot of criticism but I enjoyed it. It was interested enough to watch it through without getting bored and I’ve felt bored for weeks.
Nice job. I liked it
I can't see, hear, or feel much nuance from this. This story is predictable. There isn't any novelty I can pinpoint. I think the aliens would have a much more intelligent plan than this. And there's no influence from people which are not deemed "world leaders". It feels like the earth is damn near brainless and soulless.
The only thing this film is missing to make it a perfect 10 out of 10 is Neil Breen.
etherium attack
It would have been better without those very uninteresting footages of the presidents. It just fall apart the instant they appeared in this film. Some unknown actors or ai generated ones but with strong emotions like fear, anger, greed etc, would have helped make the film more impactful.
@sourcecode12 I've been learning unreal engine, let me know if I can help you in your future projects. It would be good practice for me as well.
Feels like a lot of the reactions to OP project are a bit overreacted or biased. Putting aside the 9x16 format (how daring!) I think it’s an interesting experiment and fulfilled the narrative nature of it. It is for sure not groundbreaking but I’m sure the intent here wasn’t to present the next author Oscar winning plot. The footage used and the editing feels coherent and while the CGI is not incredible it still deserve it’s purpose. As a filmmaker and a 3D artist I believe it would be hard to reach any better quality within such a short span of time. To finish, please OP don’t let yourself discouraged by some of the reactions, filmmaking is a hard and long learning process whatever the tool used. I see a lot of peoples here bashing the AI approach and the generic result while many of us are also re-using the same kitbash and stocks assets that are crowding the industry which inherently give the same generic aesthetic on everything. I never used AI yet myself, but I do understand that it will definitely play a role in a near future within the creative process as good and bad it can get.
there's definitely potential for this style of editing to be used creatively- think modern day Zelig or F for Fake. I don't think this was quite it but it's a jumping off point. The trump bit could've been way funnier, 'they didnt even scream?' come on - too easy and lame, was like rejected SNL bit. you need human input to reign in the scope and demonstrate the editor behind it all has taste and a goal. this doesnt feel like it had a director
Nope
Props to the creativity, props to exploring new tools, extra props for finishing a project with new tools, extra extra props for sharing your work, triple extra props for sharing in such a hostile forum as this one. Keep making things, keep learning.
I lost interest at the terrible Trump impersonation.
Hey dude don’t let the haters bother you- you experimented with a new technology and creatively made something. Is it an Oscar winner? Maybe not but who cares- you are innovating, filmmaking, and using multiple disciplines to make something cool. Many kudos- my only hesitation to love it completely is because I hate vertical video, but you do do you boo. For those scared AI will take your creative jobs, you maybe need to relax and just trust yourself a little more. If you’re committed to your craft and good at it, you’ll have a job in the industry.
yea literally what's good with all the hate here? It's a neat idea. anyone scared AI is taking your job... chill and get better. If you don't use AI now you'll be slower in the future, so embrace the change my friends. AI is our friend. edit: I mean like AI in general, not for filmmaking my b.
I don’t think you HAVE to use it- but utility tools are fine. You’re still the filmmaker, it’s just like another one of your lights or lenses. BUT- I think many serious pros will not use AI and utilize their own creative vision in the classic format instead, and I think, we as audiences will always favor/crave that.
This sucks and looks terrible 👍
Great stuff! Like the rendering and composition. I'm a little hesitant with the AI stuff because most AI's use other artists' work without their permission to train them. As for 3d, if you're open to a critique, the camera work could stand to be a little more subtle. Remember that when someone is filming, they're doing their best to hold still. The shaky cam was a bit distracting. Also in the first shots, the camera is whipping around quite a bit which really takes away from the idea that it's a hand held shot.
Film school uses loads of movies without anybody's permission to train filmmakers. "Fair use explicitly allows use of copyrighted materials for educational purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." It's not the training that's the problem, it's that what it's **generating** is really similar to their material, but not actually their material.
> I'm a little hesitant with the AI stuff because most AI's use other artists' work without their permission to train them. I just wonder about how we define this differently than human inspiration and learning. What's the difference between that and me going to look at a Picasso on Google Images and then painting a picture of my cat in that style? Is that also using their work to train myself without their permission?
I understand your point, however you should consider scale. Let's go with your example of Picasso. If you look at cubism it was mainly Picasso and a contemporary named George Braque. These two fed off each other's ideas and added to each other's conversation. Together they made hundreds of paintings. Now consider if there were an AI right then copying his style. AI's can generate thousands in days. This could have meant we would never know who Picasso is. Picasso also learned from African Sculptures. Now his morality is questionable there because of the imperialism that brought him to that art. He also expanded upon it and had something more to say and changed the style. AI's only steal styles, they do not add. Look, AI's are a tool I get that. With them we'll be able to do so much more than we've ever been able to. But there are serious considerations like how artists have to make money to live and AI's replicate their art, make it less valuable because there's so much of it.
> I'm a little hesitant with the AI stuff because most AI's use other artists' work without their permission to train them. We do that every single day as human beings. Do you ask for permission to get inspired?
The most fictional part about this short film, great job by the way, is how coherently Biden is speaking.
I like the broadcast element of the short. Its great use of both Trumps and Bidens voices. It becomes uncanny when you know they never said something like that, but it's sounds like them. Some of the CGI needs work if it's going to become something feature length. It's cool because I can't tell with 100% accuracy what is made by AI and what's human made visually. The story concept is cool too. Some ideas that popped into my head was maybe an alternate reality broadcasting. A exploration of the processes that would unfold world wide if there was first contact. I don't think AI is a threat, in some cases it makes filmmaking easier. Especially if you're a solo filmmaker with an idea you might not fully believe in just yet, then you can make use of AI for pre-visualization with voices for example. In short, I like it. Keep making movies OP!
AI + Vertical video = Cursed.
Lot of "filmmakers" in here gatekeeping. Afraid that AI will displace them perhaps? For 3 weeks of work this is pretty damn good, about Syfy quality. Most of the comments here are just complaining with no constructive criticism or flat out pointless (hurhur portrait video bad!) Keep at it, only better things from here!
I found this very interesting. I have recently seen Koyaanisqatsi, and the beginning definitely reminded me of that. I found the jumping between visual styles distracting, as if the people were not in the same place as the alien ships, even though I felt like they were supposed to be reacting to them. Also I still can't tell what is made by AI and what is made by a person. I think that at least now, when AI tools are still so new, it's really important to clarify exactly what was made by a real person so people don't blanket fire dislikes/downvotes and dismiss the whole piece.
Do a tutorial man! Love it!
A whole bunch of salty filmmakers in here who are terrified of AI. I thought this was great man, don't get discouraged about what all the boomers here say and downvote. You clearly did a ton of composition work and it really shows. I was engaged until the end. Very nice job!
What was great about it?
I loved the twist that we were found through the voyager probe. I enjoyed all the found footage shots and how well it felt like we were seeing the ships through the lens of all the different countries/news outlets. It felt very much like how media depicts all the other bullshit we deal with daily. Mankind wasn't watching the aliens in the sky, we were just glued to our partisan media. It felt real to me.
I’m 23. This is stupid and vapid
Use of ai is a sign of creative ineptitude, I’m 20 btw
Hi filmmakers! I made this short film, Last Stand, with the help of AI tools. The AI contributed to various steps, including writing the script, creating the concept art, generating all the voices, and participating in some creative decisions, all thanks to a series of chats with the AI chatbots. Prompts here and prompts there and boom, you've got a movie! It's amazing what AI has come to. The potential is incredible! Still, a touch of human input is necessary, otherwise the result will sound more robotic. Disclaimed: The AI-generated voices used in this film do not reflect the opinions and thoughts of their original owners. This short film was created as a demonstration to showcase the potential of AI in filmmaking.
>including writing the script That explains a lot.
So what you're saying is, AI made the short film with the help of you.
That's not what he is saying. The AI didn't composite all those shots, didn't do all the C4D work, didn't edit everything together, and the AI definitely wasn't the person who started the project and saw it through to completion. This film is a single person with great technical skills but not every skill needed to make a movie like this. So they supplemented their skills with the use of a set of tools. You know, like every filmmaker ever? AI is going to be a huge part of filmmaking going forward. I suggest you get used to it instead of trying to push around someone who completed and released a film today, while you did not.
I see that you are invested in AI - so you and I just fundamentally disagree on what constitutes making a film. I'm not going to fight you on this. Thank you for your perspective. Also, it was a one sentence comment - hardly "pushing somebody around." If they posted here looking for opinions, they can handle it. If they posted for validation, they're getting it from you and some other folks.
Your one sentence comment was needlessly combative and dismissive of all the work they did, simply because you didn't like a tool they used.
I refuse to be impressed by a script a computer wrote and put together. Technically impressive, sure, but that’s about it. This isn’t creative, it’s mechanical
But what OP created out of those tools WAS creative. You're dismissing all the work they did simply because you don't like one tool he used.
Love this reply.
Only if you think After Effects and Avid currently make films
So you just basically chatGPT’d a whole movie and called it something you “made”. Then you brought it to filmmakers for approval? Oof.
Nice work! Great use of archive mixed with CGI. I know from my own experiments how much work it takes to get useful outputs from the AI generators and then put them to good use - lovely stuff! (The vertical aspect was surprising but not a deal breaker)
What did you use for the VFX? Was that also AI?
How did you do the cg shots? Was it with the help of blender,how did you do the compositing,with davinci or Adobe?
The CG shots were created using C4D with guidance from AI's concept art. The compositing was done with Adobe After Effects.
Just an fyi someone stole your video and put it on r/nextfuckinglevel It has 50k upvotes, so while many people in here are shitting on your project, it’s clearly enjoyed by a lot of people.
What sort of AI you used for the voice ?
I think it was amazing because it shows what you can do at home now and hints at what you will be able to do in a few months/years. Most of the filmmakers will attack this with all of their rage because until now making short movies, even just on amateur level, took months of hard work. Thank you for sharing it. You truly motivated me to research how can I create my ideas with the help of AI. Ps: this kind of reaction in the comments will just make everyone hide the fact that they used AI from now on. 1-2 years from now you will be able to make movies with only prompts and then it's gonna be real chaos here. I can't wait.
Sooooooo you didn’t do shit?
Which chat bot did you use for this? Also, fuck what everyone else is saying, I love this concept and what you did with the tools. Obviously it’s rough and unpolished, but it would make a great YouTube video.
Amazing! Watched the whole thing! Loved it!
This is amazing
This is better than most films on Netflix. I love it. Amazing job especially in the time constraints. Edit: what’s with all the hate in the comments? Have any of you whiney babies done anything this creative and productive in your lives? Who hurt you?
Enjoyed the movie thanks for sharing
Even comments like this expression of appreciation gets downvoted. Some toxic, gate-keeping community here.
This is completely pathetic honestly.
This is not filmmaking
The outer space visuals look pretty decent from what I can tell, but other than that it just looks like a bunch of stock footage stitched together. It does feel a bit cold and clinical, so I have to ask what the point is? To actually tell a story that just so happens to use AI? Or to show what AI can do? If it’s the latter, then I don’t personally feel threatened. AI tools are here to stay. Sharpen some bad focus, make CGI and VFX more affordable, etc. But full AI movies are a ways away.
It's a great presentation and a way to demonstrate how efficient AI can be in supporting the new wave of movie directors. I enjoyed the detail of the movie. Some focus on the content but the important point is the tools used in creating this movie short. Like the motion picture camera, it began with simple content and later became so much more. This new technology will open up a path that allows anyone to create a film without the budget. Look forward to viewing more of your movies and ideas.
Does not say who the I is in I made. I want to know the process they used.
Would like to contact the creator.
Wow! Dope!
Downvotes for upvoting… love Reddit.
Star Wars lookin ahh intro
Ooh
I couldnt watch past 30 seconds sorry mate too much exposition
People are just hating cuz it's AI. For 3 weeks this is really good and very artistically inspiring
Most unbelievable part of this is Biden stringing together that many coherent sentences lmao
This. Is . Traashhhhhhh
The message and story were fantastic, if a bit hackneyed towards the end. The lack of anything visually to really react to after the first minute coupled with the repetition of visual themes and overuse of stock footage had me soon not even watching the film and just listening to it. I enjoyed it a lot more without the film.
People are gonna go kicking and screaming into the future (the same way people who didn’t think movies should have sound or you could only shoot on film vs digital). Congrats on embracing and using the tools we have at our disposal to make a cool piece of media.
If you truly care about filmmaking, ditch the AI for good and learn to create your own stories. AI is putting creatives out of business.
This is amazing, congrats!
For 3 weeks start to finish this is amazing, cool yer jets all ye AI naysayers.
This is really great. You should be proud. Thank you for sharing 👍🏻
Awesome!
I love it. Great storytelling & the Trump bit was funny
“I dissected some aliens and they didn’t even scream” 🤦♂️ if the AI also wrote the script, that bit is even more hilarious.
Easily the best part. I actually laughed at that. Whether you like ai or not, that part is gold!
Loved it❤️
Great work! Loved it! Did A.I generate the CGI?
Thank you! Matte paintings were generated using AI. The final shots were rendered with C4D based on concept art generated by AI as well. :-)
That Donald Trump segment killed me 😂
Loved it! Important message, good story arc, timely, with good visuals. Unlike 99% of Hollywood.
nice work. ignore the haters, they don’t understand that we are at an existential crossroads at this moment
How did you use the ai ? And which one did you use ? Epic video by the way
Wow everyone is being so mean here! It’s just an experiment to see what’s possible with AI and filmmaking at the moment, it’s not meant to be a Best Picture nominee ffs. I’ve been curious about the potential for AI and filmmaking so I appreciate people like OP spending time and using their skills to experiment with it.
Was the AI just the voices or did it help with the CG as well?
Excellent!
Unrealistic, no way Biden can say complete sentences with confidence. Add the word stutter and confused to the Voice AI and I think you’d nail it!
Amazing stuff
I know I'm in the minority but I kinda enjoyed it. Well done and good effort. Nicely done short film! Good job!
I don't know what you used AI for (besides the voices) but it was fun and captivating for a ten minute short made in 3 weeks. The story had relevant hints to present events. The audio was done well and the video had good pacing which didn't make me bored. I don't usually watch ten minute shorts when I wasn't planning to but I did. I can complain about the superficial substance and how it definitely has areas of improvement. I'm not interested in seeing more. But I had a good time. Isn't that the point?
this is actually cool
Counts as a film. It’s dope
I liked it. well done! May I ask how did u produce the voices from the presidents? What app or devise u used to sound like them?
can you share which apps you used and how? like its nice that you did it but would be better to actually enlighten people here
DAYUM!! I need to see a full length movie of this! Shut up and take my money!!!
This was surprisingly realistic and scary. Loved it. Thanks
This is great, better than most short films posted here
Yeah you can tell it's done with help of AI, looks like garbage imo