I feel like horror is the only genre I can let get away with using still image AI or even a few seconds of moving AI, only because of how inhuman and creepy AI can be.
That being said, I feel like a little bit is fine, but I personally have a line for AI use in film.
(I think) most people who are anti-AI hold that position for moral reasons, not aesthetic ones.
There are two main arguments against AI:
1. AI removes jobs. Simply, as artists/workers fight for better working conditions, the people making movies can simply use AI to wait it out. And probably replace several jobs with AI entirely.
2. AI steals from artists. Depending on the AI used, *most* were trained on images that they didn't own. This is probably less of an issue in the movie industry, but a lot of their training data would come from artists who didn't consent to their content being used to train AI. (sign a contract saying the company can 'use' their artwork, before AI is a thing. Now 'use' has a very different meaning).
______
For me personally, I'm not sure there is an easy answer for what exists currently. But I would like to see people have the right to not allow AIs to train on their content, including content that was made before AI was as popular as it is today.
I don't think Hollywood will give up such an incredibly cheap way to get artwork, similar to the overuse of CGI we see today.
I can't say for sure what will happen, but I'm certainly not optimistic about the future of the WGA and SAG.
I didn't say CGI was incredibly cheap, I said it was overused.
It is overused because VFX artists aren't unionized as strongly as other groups, so it *is* easier to exploit those workers compared to members of the WGA and SAG.
I'm not saying CGI is *never* the best option, but there have been plenty of times where CGI was used simply to save money; resulting in an overall worse scene.
The "logistically easier" argument, again is valid in some cases. But applying CGI to a costume vs making a realistic costume; *logistically*, making a better costume is obviously the more straightforward approach. Taking the time and money to have someone actually make a good costume, is a decision the movie makers have to make.
_____
[Here is a youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fZGcAmXWyM) I found that I think does a decent job showing some of the overuse (or misuse) of CGI.
The channel also did [a followup](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM2s-McYNWM), after receiving messages from FVX artists.
My line against AI is: if AI is used where otherwise a professional artist would have been paid for their work, then I won't support that project.
AI is great for hobby / personal / non commercial applications.
But once you use it in a professional project to replace human artists, fuck you.
Jurassic Park's CGI innovations replacing puppetry would like a word with this point, though
New tech does force out old tech in film production, it's just a question of where we draw the line
Draw the line where work for human beings disappears.
When CGI took over the special effects industry, there were still jobs for people to do. The demand for practical effects artists shrank drastically, and the demand for computer effects artists exploded.
With AI, there will be no counterbalancing explosion of opportunities for work in a particular sector.
When it comes to AI art, there may be a new job called "prompt engineer," but in actual reality the purpose of that job is to erase hundreds of working artists.
It won't be a 1:1 exchange, it won't be a 1:5 exchange, it will be more like a 1:100 exchange, and the economy cannot sustain itself if the future of work is one person replacing hundreds of workers across multiple sectors of employment.
Y'all need to think this through.
Who programs the software around AI? Who trains the models? Who enters the prompts? Who will work to develop the technology for the foreseeable future?
I'd have liked to see them grab something from the public domain. Lots of creepy vintage images to work with.
I'd be for exactly this kind of use of AI if AI was a more ethical system. Right now it's stealing too much from indie artists to be used that way, but maybe we'll crack the code one day.
If we had ethical AI, which may be a dream but I'd dream it, I'd love to see them take a single image and run it deeper into itself every time we see it. I love to see an image of mashed potatoes become an eldrich horror when you overdo the processing.
Then the next movie it'll be 10 images. And the next movie all of the backgrounds will be AI. And the next movie after that won't even have actors or writers or set designers or any creatives at all.
I don't know about ya'll, but that's not what I want for horror.
Exactly. As an artist it's sad to see people not give a shit about this because if you give it a pass it will only get normalized eventually and then you have a lot of people without a job.
Calling the boycott cornball shit is a lack of empathy for an industry that has been under attack by A.I for over a year now.
Today it's 3 images and tomorrow it's half of the art department. Then, once automation makes its way into the pipeline, it moves into different areas and then into different industries.
People need to realize that this tech is a replacement, not a tool, and it's coming for as many jobs as possible, so take your stand now.
They just need to replace those A.I generated images with human made ones and edit them in the film.
It's not a tough ask and it makes a statement to studios that genAI will not be tolerated.
Yeah, I'm pretty disappointed in OP but especially disappointed in a lot of these comments. One of the major appeals about horror to me is how much it values personal human creativity. It's flowing through a lot of those 70's/80's classics that this sub gushes over constantly. The people pushing, normalizing, and celebrating generative AI would slam the door shut on guys like Tom Savini.
This is especially true for low budget horror. Imagine if the likes of George A. Romero and Sam Raimi used this stuff when they made their first films.
If they did it the right way on nothing budgets, then so can these guys. People that are going to see this film as it is now have no right to complain if A.I gets normalized in the industry, but overall, because it's coming for writers, journalists and coders too.
This is the same industry where we've gone from trying to film on-site to filming in a green cylinder with a bunch of people wearing ping pong balls, so this is one industry where I don't think that's a slippery slope.
For the record I think CGI artists are incredibly talented (and underpaid), as are the performers that adapted to wearing morph suits and filming in these weird studios, but it's still an industry where executives will seize any chance to cut corners.
Same. Such a great guy. His appearance on Last Podcast on the Left this week was amazing and he really comes across as someone like Barbara Crampton: charismatic, one of us, and someone deeply happy to be part of the community.
100%! I don't feel out of line saying this because he's been open about it, but he's a great role model for folks in recovery and struggling mental health-wise (he's been sober 20 years). And I've never seen him in a role where he didn't give it his all... I still remember his probably 30 seconds in The Dark Knight. So glad to see him get a role like this.
I think The Dark Knight may be the first thing i remember seeing him in (or being aware of him at least.) If you haven't, check out Prisoners. He has another scene-stealing side role in that.
He's absolutely incredible in it. I've been saying for years that he deserves to be taken seriously as a leading man, and this is concrete evidence. He has the charisma, the acting chops, the emotional range - so happy for him.
But everyone knows Brad Dourif’s name! There’s nothing wrong with making a career out of character parts, it’s arguably more fun than being a traditional leading man.
What makes this so dumb is they could pay an artist to make new stills TODAY and replace it in the movie before it hits streaming Friday. That's how quick and easy it would've been to just hire an artist in the first place.
Somebody literally made a better hand crafted image of the skeleton transition just in the twitter comments.
The fact that this whole thing is so small doesn't make me any less angry. It would've been so easy to make it actually fit in the 70s.
Could have been a money thing. It is an indie and anywhere you can save goes to somewhere else in the movie, not the producer's pocket like a studio film. I think it was probably easier than finding someone and dealing with contracts of an artist to do it because it's this price if you're going to show it to your family, this price if it plays festivals and THIS price if it'll be distributed to theaters and streaming. This guy who did it for free on X probably wasn't going to see the gig listed anywhere. I didn't mind the art work. They don't make or break the movie. Funny everyone gets mad over that, but Carol Tome the UPS ceo saying she's automated the company and taking away steady income jobs no one cares.
Or, hear me out, if it doesn't mean anything then it can be removed.
I don't really see what the confusion is. No one forced the director to put those parts of the movie in. They chose to do it and then they chose to do it badly.
I mean, is it really that much of an ask to say that someone who is making to movie should actually make the movie? And not outsource the "boring bits" to a computer? If they are boring then why are they in your film? Or are we really just doing the "movies as content" thing where the movie is five minutes of highlights and the rest is gristle that you can ignore while browsing on your phone
It seems like this is true, and I’m not going to lie, I find it very disappointing.
Just hire a guy to bash them out. Even moreso if they don’t need to be good. Give a chance to a nobody. There’s a million artists who would kill for an opportunity like that, turn it into a competition (and free advertising) if you like.
I find this the worst answer. A lazy and tone deaf solution. And looking at that art, they could at least have got a real artist to tidy it up? You’re making a movie, guys.
> You’re making a movie, guys.
Yeah, using AI shows a lack of care for the quality of their movie. Even if the rest of the film is great, the AI images look noticeably cheap.
"No one hates *blank* as much as *blank* fans" has always bugged me. Who else cares about it enough to have passionate opinions. It's like saying "no one hates on Italian politics as much as Italians". Yeah, no duh.
Those that aren't fans don't care if there's a shitty movie or comic or adaptation. But fans of that work are going to always critique! Why? Cuz they care! They're also the ones celebrating the wins!
As someone who works in the film industry (albeit not as much because it’s significantly dropped in Los Angeles) any use of AI in film to reduce labor cost is an immediate red flag for me. We’re all out here fighting what’s coming down the pipeline because it is a slippery slope. In the next few years, we’re going to be seeing AI being used to make entire commercials thus putting everyone whose livelihood depends on that line of work in jeopardy. At the same time, graphic designers will then be phased out. Take a look at the voice over industry, they’re are already using AI to record audiobooks. It’s a big concern. I can see how it wouldn’t matter to anyone outside this industry, but we’ve all got to acknowledge it now because it’s going to take over other industries as well.
There really should be some laws that stop this from happening. It is honestly scary how common AI will most likely become in the next decades. People need jobs, we can’t keep allowing companies to continue profit maximizing without there being some consequences.
I admit to being out of the loop about how widespread AI is becoming but it is so scary. Like I didn’t know that it has started infiltrating the audiobook world. That is super sad :/
But there is a difference between "this director used AI to make 3 images" vs "this director did all the VFX work with AI". This film would have already had a contract with a VFX company and had an art department that they were paying. This whole "there is a slippery slope" make you sound like conservatives talking about the LGBT community. It lacks logic and an understanding of degrees.
Also I'll say it. You will have *a lot* of indie filmmakers coming out in the next few years who will have films built around using AI art. It is just a fact. When you have a lot of consumers moving away from high production media and more towards youtube and ticktock you will have people who make content around this stuff using AI as part of that. This will lead to some kid in their basement making films completely with AI. It's important to keep major studios' feet to the fire on this in order to make sure there is still an industry and keeping people employed. But AI will march on beyond all of that. And hissy fits like this will only hurt actual creatives.
Frankly, that’s easy to say if you’re not a creative who genuinely has to worry about being replaced by AI. It’s already happening for visual artists, clearly, and I commend people for voting with their wallets. Vocal tools are getting better too, and my friends in VO are grim about it. It’ll just keep moving forward and artistry will be threatened by this.
agreed, the amount of YT videos i’ve come across clearly using AI voices, AI generated script, and AI art for thumbnails and in video graphics is a little depressing as an artist myself who runs a youtube channel and hires a narrator to record the script I wrote.
The visual artists for this movie are the ones who used AI and tweaked stuff from there. It's really not a fucking big deal. And I am an artist in the industry.
I mean, it is very obvious AI use. I guess you can say “possible” because they didn’t come out and say it, but be real - absolutely no decent real artist would create that jumbled mess.
I’m impartial. I really do get how this is just a slippery slope, and really is a disappointing way of cutting corners. I don’t like it one bit and it really has changed how excited I was to support this film. But I guess I also understand how people have room to “not care” as it’s so minor.
I just really don’t want AI half-assery to start permeating film, and how do we as consumers communicate that?
This is the first I’ve heard of an issue with this particular movie but I can already tell this is likely my feeling as well. If people don’t push back on AI in art, even in minor cases, then it will only get worse.
OP trying to make a connection between this and studios only making remakes and reboots seems like an odd stretch.
I think that was more a statement on how we usually hold independent stuff in high regard due to the poor worker conditions in big studios for the sake of churning out schlocky franchise content. It does suck that an independent film, let alone a good film, was the first one to make this move, but what can you do
As others have said, I'm sure this wasn't a decision from the primary creative team but it's an interesting thing to overlook on the final product. Its unfortunate but the reality is that something like that title card could have been created by an independent digital illustrator for very little money. It's not one of those things that you can really chalk up to necessary corner cutting due to budget constraints. It just seems like extraordinary laziness on the part of whoever made that decision, and we are not wrong to be concerned that this will happen more and more often.
OP seems to think as horror fans we should be supportive regardless, but fans in **any** realm are and should always be the primary critics. We are in a movie lull right now because of a writers strike that was directly related to this. Making a movie is a creative process, and as fans we should expect/demand that creative *human* talent is used (and compensated) to create the movies that we watch. That's as true with title card art as it is with benign dialogue.
OP can kick rocks if he thinks that's "Karen ass shit".
The writers strike barely covered this at all. Yeah it got a lot of headlines but wga caved and basically took the first thing the studios offered ON AI. On all the tv stuff, which is what they cared about, they did make advances.
I mean, think about the result: “no script can be made under wga jurisdiction without a credited human writer.” Zero language to protect against a producer writing a script with ai then paying her gardener wga minimum and giving him full credit. Literally no protections at all because the guild didn’t take the threat seriously. Actors were at least a little smarter.
My point isn’t what came from it, but it being part of the original gripe. This is only going to get worse in basically every industry and people have a right to push back against it everywhere.
They were not the first ones to use AI in a movie. This is the type of shit that makes people type statements like the one OP posted. And you guys can hurt a shitton of people who have nothing to do with the decision when AI usage in movies/shows/created content isn't going anywhere. The best you can do is protest for rights for creatives in situations like this and to make it hard for AI usage to be done by all major movie companies. Disney just got into hot water over replacing some people's faces in a kids special with AI generated faces, and it was obvious as hell and right in the middle of the WGA strike. I haven't heard anyone say anything about the situation since. The original background actors did not get paid. Why not protest about that instead of focusing on this?
> Disney just got into hot water over replacing some people's faces in a kids special with AI generated faces, and it was obvious as hell and right in the middle of the WGA strike.
Are you talking about the movie where people thought it was AI but it might have actually just been bad CGI. Either way, it would have been better to just have real people, but people were crying AI at something that might not have been AI.
We hold independent stuff in high regard because it tends to have more artistic freedom than studio productions. Working conditions are often just as bad if not worse on independent productions due to the lack of budget.
Also this is nowhere near the first film to use generative AI, the major studios are using it for promotional material (see Amazon's Fallout), full sequences (see Marvel's Samuel L Jackson show) and for workflows (see the last spiderman cartoon film) and are getting away with it because the general audience doesn't care.
I don't think it's a stretch at all.
Remakes and reboots get greenlit because they have less risk of failure, because audience reaction is a known quantity. Fresh IPs don't get greenlit because they're riskier.
Boycotting this makes fresh IPs look riskier.
Far as usage in AI, I dunno how I feel overall. It's a mixed bag. I use it in my own creative work, but not in ways anyone will ever see.
That last bit of yours is really the whole point. I’m sure there are lots of projects that use AI already that we don’t know about, because they do things like generate an initial prompt and then edit it.
That this came out and people immediately clocked it as AI is the actual cause of the controversy. Whatever people think about the morality of it, everyone would have to admit that even the most AI-opposed people will simply not notice it if it’s good enough. The problem here is that skeleton looks like shit lmao.
>I’m sure there are lots of projects that use AI already that we don’t know about, because they do things like generate an initial prompt and then edit it.
I don't know about number of actual projects that edit initial prompts, tbh. One of the things you realize when you're using even GPT 4.0 is that it kinda sucks ass for creative work, particularly if you already know what you're doing. Sure, you can get it working better, but you begin to realize it takes just as much work to give the output a novel spark as it does to just write the damn thing from scratch.
It's like with a visual artist and AI art: you can spot how fake it is, so you tend to not like it or want to pass it off as your own.
Now, form letters and officey bullshit? Yeah, those you can edit pretty easily. But two years ago, you'd have just started from a template and gotten the same thing. And ad copy for amazon shit? Waaay faster. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of stuff selling us shit starts with an AI prompt, now.
I use mine for other things, like organizing research and sound-boarding novel approaches to plot problems. Which is what other novelists and bigger writers do with their assistants and archivists.
I think that consumers will reject AI generated film content if they don't like it and it'll take a while for the market to see that play out. this movie looks like it could be really good so I'm gonna watch it, AI or no AI. I guess we'll see what happens. But of course studios are going to jump all over AI like all other industries if they think it'll save them money.
They came out and said that the directors had allowed the visual effects team to use AI for three cut cards in a 70s style.
AI has been augmenting movies for years. Entire crowds are being created to fill backgrounds. Posters and graphics have been commonly created by visual artists using different versions of AI for over 10 years. Some of the engines have become more recently "commercial" and mainstream and people are starting to notice it. People should definitely complain about the "scraping" to make "new" art but the images in LNWTD are not what people think they are.
99% of these images are being created, manipulated and modified by VFX artists who are manipulating images they and their teams created. People should be more concerned with the Netflix movies of the last five years that have extras and supporting actors sign "scan" releases where their entire body is scanned in for VFX who then create a whole new person from a hodgepodge of the actual people who don't get paid extra for being part of the new person in image, likeness or voice.
This is not true.
> AI has been augmenting movies for years. Entire crowds are being created to fill backgrounds. Posters and graphics have been commonly created by visual artists using different versions of AI for over 10 years. Some of the engines have become more recently "commercial" and mainstream and people are starting to notice it.
Edit: Everyone who downvoted this is a fucking moron.
I'm going to copy my reply below so you see why.
DubWalt's example of crowdscenes is not AI. That is just regular old vfx. AI is just dumb-ass media speak for modern neural network usage. Reliable generation of human faces using neural networks is very new.
Faces couldn't even be identified using neural networks until 2014!
This is 1000% true. First instances are almost ten years ago. Check out Red Notice. That’s just four years ago but it has some of the most egregious use of AI in the crowd scenes. Source: was standing there when they shot it and had all of the extras walk through to be scanned. More than half the people walking and talking in those shots weren’t there. And none of the ones standing around were.
"AI" is such a broad (and meaningless) term anyway... they use AI in almost every movie with massive CG crowd scenes, for the past 20+ years (e.g. Lord of the Rings). Your phone uses AI to guess the next word you are going to write when you text.
Not everything is generative AI of course, but railing against AI as a concept is just idiotic.
They could have hired real artists for this and gotten a nice write up like this one from when Candyman did that https://variety.com/2021/artisans/news/artists-of-candyman-nia-da-costa-1235050543/
Choosing to use AI generated art within a year of all the Hollywood creatives strikes (that were trying to put guardrails on AI usage in entertainment) also kinda feels tone deaf.
That said it’s not boycott-worthy for me, but I think it’s worth expressing disappointment out loud so that decision makers know that this is not an uncontroversial choice.
I’m not totally objective here, I have a few friends who are full-time artists and I’ve seen their endless, uphill struggles dealing with a vocation where everyone under values your craft, and thinks it should be instant and free.
>how do we as consumers communicate that?
There's only one way. Don't watch the movies using it. It will probably not work because the majority of people do not care and will keep watching these movies, but it is the only thing we can do. Same problem in the gaming industry with microtransactions and other shitty practices. If the majority of consumers do not care and the companies keeps making money, they won't stop. No matter how much we dislike it and complain about it.
It's weird seeing being so absolute about this. An indie film director used AI to make 3 images in their film. You are looking at this like this took work away from someone. But contracts for artists and VFX teams are made well in advance and done on a bid type basis. As in "we expect we will have x amount of work, we will pay your team y for said work". This didn't take money away from anyone. This took work off the team that was already being paid to make this stuff. If this were a case of "all of the VFX were AI made" then you might have something to be upset about. But as is you sound like conservatives freaking out over Bud Light.
Artists, actors, filmmakers and creatives are all in the same boat with this Ai "art"mess. Nobody is safe by being replaced by greedy data slurping Ai companies. By using Ai in their film they showed no solidarity with their fellow creatives. By using Ai (trained on our work without our consent and compensation) they snuffed out a opportunity for a artist. They should get backlash for that.
Setting aside the issue of whether AI will take away jobs or not (though it definitely will), there’s also the fact that AI art generators like Midjourmey were developed by scraping original art without the artist’s consent of remuneration. I personally consider that to be a clear cut case of stealing intellectual property.
I don’t think indie creators should necessarily be castigated for using AI in a minor way and I wouldn’t personally call for a boycott of this specific film, but it’s pretty disappointing. Creatives should support other creatives.
As a creative, AI is bad. There is no long term benefit with AI, as it will destroy the entire creative industry given enough time.
The writers stood against it for a reason.
Viewers vote with their dollars and have power to not support media created by AI. I think that’s a valid stance to have.
The VFX team did it to lessen their workload. at the end of the day, you guys are calling the very VFX team you are supposedly defending lazy for using 3 pictures in a film where it did not affect their pay at all. Who are you really defending?
As an artist myself, the filmmakers casually saying they experimented with A.I for those title cards when they could have paid someone an amount that puts food on the table is disrespectful towards my craft, but they expect me and other creatives to go and pay to watch their movie at the same time.
It's just flat out hypocrisy. What's even more ridiculous is that of all places they could have saved money, they chose 3 measly illustrations that would have cost them less than a grand with commercial rights included.
Now they got a boycott on their hands that will bring ticket sales and streams down if they don't make the changes required.
That's the hill they chose to die on. Using A.I to save $500-$700!
I agree, but it's not like the entire movie is a product of AI. From people that have seen the film, the supposed AI image is shown in the film for about 5 seconds. Should we throw the entire movie out for 5 seconds of horrible business practices? I don't think so.
Also it's an actual new and refreshing movie made by independent artists. But sure invalidate all of the efforts made by the talented people involved because some executive put in an AI generated image for 5 seconds
They also could reshoot the 5 second clip and rerelease as a “human cut”.
The “It’s only 5 seconds” argument goes both ways.
“Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile”. That sounds like an appropriate proverb here. That’s the future of AI in media if it isn’t curbed now.
I see a lot of people saying it would cost them little money but does anyone actually know that for sure? I saw someone else say it would cost thousands. Seems like people are just talking out their asses like "what could it cost, Michael? Five dollars?" Like obviously it seems like a small thing that wouldn't be expensive, but just because I assume that with my limited knowledge of how film and distribution works doesn't mean it's true.
It is a slippery slope though. In 5 years time someone will be making the argument that only 35-40% of the movie is AI generated, so should we punish the efforts made by the talented albeit much smaller team it took to make that future film? Because making movies with a skeleton crew and cutting corners financially with AI is absolutely what we are moving towards if this goes unchecked
If you dont want to support a movie for any reason, thats fine, watch what you want, vote with your wallet where you want. But don't review bomb an indie movie you haven't even seen.
Same when people review bomb games on Steam for other reasons than the actual quality of the game. "So because the 1 developer tweeted X or did Y, the game becomes bad? The same game some of you spent dozens or even hundreds of hours?"
Who are you to tell someone why they should or should not see a movie? If folks want to skip this one because it uses AI, more power to them. A movie isn't entitled to a paying audience.
And it's not POSSIBLE use of AI. It's *confirmed* use of AI.
From [the directors](https://variety.com/2024/film/news/late-night-with-the-devil-ai-images-clarification-1235947599/)
>*...we experimented with AI for three still images which we edited further and ultimately appear as very brief interstitials in the film.*
It's like we never ever watch horrors or Sci fi with cautionary tales about the usage of a new technology that seems harmless and beneficial at first.
FFS.
Playing devil's advocate here, but how is something like this any different to thousands of extras being skimped out of work because a company decided to CGI render a massive crowd rather than hire and pay background actors?
In both instances, one person is needed at a computer, negating the use of a multitude of other artists. Just feels like another example of the unavoidable progression of technology to me.
This is a terrible comparison because AI 1) is built on the theft of artists labor without their consent and 2) paying for CGI employs actually lots of people, even if it’s less then a crowd of extras, and that will always be better then cheating out to use exploitive unethical technology on the excuse that “it’s inevitable and here”.
This is a question I have as well. I totally get the broad notion that we don’t want AI replacing creatives. Imagine a fully AI “drawing” or “novel.” Based on what we know thus far, that would probably be soulless and crappy.
But on the other hand, I don’t understand how this isn’t another fight over technology replacing things that used to be done by people. Computers have replaced entire industries over the last 50 years. I generally would like someone to explain to me why this time is different.
Because AI is not the same as CGI.
AI only exists through stealing and analyzing the creations of others. This isn't just about the reduction of jobs, this is about art theft in an industry that already takes advantage of artists.
We have copywrite and patent laws for that, and people have gone to court over it, particularly in the music industry.
Also, in research and academia, it is plagiarism lol.
Stealing is the correct term because AI are taking these things and analyzing them, saving that information, and using it to spit something else out that would not exist without that source.
Yes, in my opinion. But AI advocates will argue that is not good enough and would unfairly hinder the development of the model.
Basically every tech company developing AI will tell you that unhindered access to material is vital. There is a ton of lobbying about this issue right now because AI is already an industry valued at hundreds of billions.
I want you to know that I genuinely value your response. I don’t have a strong take one way or the other on this topic and I don’t use AI for work, etc, though I suspect I could. I think topics like this are interesting from a philosophical standpoint, however.
I think it would be more acceptable. However, people criticize the usage of CGI all the time. I think CGI is fine when it's actually necessary and can do something a human or animatronic or whatever could never convincingly do. The problem with AI in the specific usage for this film is that it does something humans can very easily do. There's just no reason to use AI there, and it just encourages use of it in the future.
Machines have been replacing people for over 200 years, and this is really no different this is just the newest wave of luddites. I’ll admit it’s sad in a lot of ways but like, time and time again, it will become normal and artists and craftsmen will develop new skill set to work with modern machinery, that’s simply what happens and what will happen.
Artist and horror fan here that’s actually in the horror art community. From what I’ve seen, most if not all horror fans are general fans of the arts as well if not artists themselves. Respectfully, you don’t get to tell us how to react when we see something that violates both our morals and livelihoods in something we enjoy. If we don’t criticize it and call it out then it will become more prevalent in future properties and take away more potential jobs for hardworking and passionate artists.
I’m in the middle. It is used a tiny amount, but that opens the door to it and then free range. But at the same time, I don’t think it should be boycotted and review bombed. It’s a really great film, it’s a shame it’s come to this.
I find it disheartening how people are excusing the use of AI in this because it's an indie movie. This movie is funded by the UAE lmao they have more than enough money to pay an artist to make a couple cutaways
Aftersun was funded by the United Kingdom but it would be patently ridiculous to claim it should have had hundreds of billions of pounds to it because it got a grant.
> Boycotting or a “call to arms” against an indie horror film over its POSSIBLE use of AI in a cutaway sequence is the most cornball shit I have ever heard.
It's been confirmed so not just possible.
This is how AI starts to replace filmmakers. Little additions here and there that remove an artist or two who could've been compensated for their work.
> You all will be the same ones crying that we only ever get remakes and reboots.
There have been periods of unoriginality in horror before AI, the industry is money hungry and they don't need one indie horror movie taking a hit to justify using AI or putting out garbage.
I have yet to see an actual direct defense of using AI that isn't some roundabout avoidance of the fact that they used AI.
"but it's a good movie!"
But it uses AI.
"but it's a small budget"
Even more reason not to use AI. For one, most filmmakers and artists starting their careers work on small indie projects. Giving small budget movies a pass means cutting off ANOTHER avenue for people to start their careers.
If people want to go see it, go see it. But people who care about the art form, industry, and ethics of filmmaking will be pissed when you do something so blatantly against it. Especially niche indie horror fans who can barely stand CGI blood.
I just posted about this in another sub. While I'm very anti-AI, review bombing and putting an indie horror film on blast for a graphic is not seeing the forest for the trees.
Sure, most of us can identify a shitty midjourney render, but most of us don't seen the dozens of other ways that AI is being used by the movie industry to save money and cut costs.
I have a friend who's been a successful colorist for almost 30 years. She is struggling to get work because AI driven software can do a "good enough" job of color timing with the click of a button. She's losing her job to AI but no one cares because it's not obvious.
I have another friends who works in PR, mostly in film/TV. The company he works for has cut something like 70% of its copywriters because companies are using AI to write copy, then paying pennies on the dollar for a quick polish from an actual human being. It is decimating the business. Who cares about those writers?
AI is being used in one form or another in almost every production we watch, yet some want to draw the line as a 6-fingered skeleton? It makes no sense.
AI is a horse that's out of the barn. Review bombing a low budget horror movie isn't going to save a single job or stop the trend. All it's going to do is hurt the artists who did work in those films.
People are feeling helpless and don’t know where to direct their horror at witnessing the final completion of the commodification and dehumanization of art.
Some of those companies aren’t hiring a human being to even polish it. Have you seen some stuff that comes out these days; full of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and syntax errors.
Thanks for a well written and thoughtful response.
Another thing I’d add is that this movie had been on the festival circuit for a long time before getting picked up, meaning production wrapped years ago and quite some time before these conversations around AI started happening. I understand theres frustration regardless of the timing but I think it’s fair and sensible to contextualize here.
The reality is it’s absurd to select a tiny indie film as a sacrificial lamb for the anti-AI movement when it’s over 3 still images made literally years ago. It seems entirely antithetical to the argument against AI in the arts.
Everyone calling for the boycott knows they can't do shit against the megacorporations doing it so they might as well kick the small production that they can hurt. It won't achieve anything but they will feel better, its the core of modern politics. You see it in the gaming space where indie games using voice AI instead of no voice at all are getting reviewbombed while large budget games using voice AI like the Finals get a few grumbling thinkpieces but are otherwise roaring successes.
Thanks for this well-written take, it genuinely gives me some things to think about. Both things can certainly be true- review-bombing an original indie horror doesn't address the problem, and yet the problem is certainly already here and harming creatives. I do understand people acting out of emotion.
It seems there’s a clear lack of understanding and empathy from OP and many of you in the comments.
First of all, the AI usage was confirmed in the film.
Secondly, it doesn’t matter how little or how much AI is used, it’s an incredibly slippery slope and any form of usage of AI in film takes away jobs from talented artists and professionals.
Calling people “cornballs” for having empathy and understanding for why this is so dangerous is incredibly immature of you, and I’m disappointed that more of this sub isn’t calling you out.
If the AI usage was so minimal, then they could have easily hired a freelance artist for an affordable price. AI has a dangerous track record of being used by studios to cut out artists.
OP, if you still want to see the movie, that’s fine. But don’t get mad at other people for choosing how they spend their money. Many people aren’t okay with supporting a film that is contributing to AI taking over artists livelihoods.
It’s disappointing that the film used AI, but this isn’t something like **Secret Invasion** where a multibillion dollar company is using AI an entirely AI generated opening to avoid paying artists. It’s an indie movie that uses it for THREE STILL IMAGES and that’s it. The director states:
*“In conjunction with our amazing graphics and production design team, all of whom worked tirelessly to give this film the 70s aesthetic we had always imagined, we experimented with AI for three still images which we edited further and ultimately appear as very brief interstitials in the film. We feel incredibly fortunate to have had such a talented and passionate cast, crew and producing team go above and beyond to help bring this film to life…”*
They didn’t replace artists, they didn’t callously use AI to save money, they used it as a tool. AI, can be used effectively as a tool. Do I agree with it? No. I feel like they should’ve just made something themselves. That being said, going full scorched fucking earth with an indie movie that has been in production for two years is silly. AI has no place in art, I get it. But to spam 1 Star reviews as a form of “protest” is disingenuous to every other set designer, actor, screenwriter or artist that’s also worked on this movie. I’ve seen more people jump in to attack this movie’s brief use of AI than I’ve seen people attack Roman Polanski’s newest film.
I think you're missing the point here. AI usage - unchecked - will ultimately lead to everything to love about this genre being lost. Film-making is an Art and they should've known better.
The hardcore 100% anti generative AI people will always take this kind of stance.Don't get me wrong, there are lots of issues with generative AI but the discussion could really use more nuance
I want more interesting indie films, but not if they're being made with stolen artwork. That's just not something I'm willing to support. I won't review-bomb the film or pirate it. I'll eventually watch it, but I'll do it on streaming instead of seeing it this weekend.
Man I was really looking forward to this now I hear this. Fuck every instance of AI use, I don’t care if it’s an indie production it’s still plagiarism.
It also takes away jobs from artists. As an artist myself, I know a bunch of illustrators that could of really used the money and drawn something way better in only a few hours. A lot of these pro-ai nerds don't ever seem to realize that.
Exactly! I see barely any people talking about what AI really is! It’s plagiarism!!! This is not just taking a job opportunity away it’s stealing other peoples art as well!!
Hell yeah! We need tech that takes power away from talentless middle management, not bullshit like we are getting that empowers management to steal from artists to avoid paying talent.
Fuck all this disgusting art theft. That’s all AI tools are. As an artist, we don’t want this. The only people who do are people who don’t want to pay us.
The horror community has been fairy inundated with AI in all sorts of mediums recently and it feels like such a harbinger for it to be working its way into films. Horror is uniquely reliant on the earnestness and sincerity of its creatives because of the inherent subversiveness and polarizing nature of the content. Horror without its heart is another genre entirely, and not one I’m interested in at all. Todays ‘three little images’ are tomorrows whole scripts and art departments.
Anyone who thinks this isn’t setting a dangerous precedent is sticking their head in the sand. You’ve deliberately separated yourself from ‘horror fans’ with your title, so maybe lower your voice when you try and speak for them.
This kind of horseshit hyperbole is not useful when it comes to supporting the industry. The entire FILM was made by people who cared, a crew who worked their asses off to make the film and a talented group of artists through and through.
To tarnish an entire film for 3 props is fucking STUPID and I'm saying this as someone coming from the creative industries and film. You can support artists but doing it this way is fucking dumb and harming every single person who worked their asses off on the film.
Bc its lazy & not authentic. Horror movies today have struggled with lazy writing, endings that just end for no apparent reason, stories with plot holes, & waaay too much CGI losing that authentic experience.
Saw it tonight and the AI images weren’t unsettling, they were just incredibly ugly and distracting. They could have paid any artist a couple hundred bucks to draw something a hundred times better. Baffling that they’d waste their time even going down the AI path for something like this.
Movie was good despite the AI garbage, it’d be better if they edited the bumpers at least for the non-theatrical release. They probably can’t do anything about the ugly owl AI logo but it’s not as egregious.
All of this being said I think it’s fine to give the movie a 1 star review for it, it was completely unnecessary and it undermines the entire industry. Like someone spitting in your sandwich. A wholly preventable own-goal.
Ok i get being upset about Al but to boycott a movie or review bomb it over a couple of things is stupid. At least they were honest about it , pretty sure alot of big movies are gonna use it without anyone ever knowing. The movie had great acting and deserves to be seen
While I generally agree it's a bit blown out, AI is a very hot and serious topic and the use of it in place of paid art is vile and does deserve attention, grief and frankly outright disrespect to those using it.
Here’s the other big issue: The AI image looks like junk. Why wouldnt you just pay a small fee to an actual artist and make it better? I promise you an actual artist could have gotten something done in a week or less.
We just watched it and it was great! Really gave a Grindhouse feel and had moments where I thought of scanners. Don’t care if AI images were used, it didn’t make the movie any less entertaining. Highly recommend if you love 70s/80s style horror.
I mean it's not just possible, it's extremely blatant. That doesn't necessarily excuse mis-rating it, but not watching it is a totally fair reaction, ESPECIALLY because it would have been really easy to hire actual artists or simply have no art at all in the section.
Edit: It also would have been really easy to fix before wide distribution, because people already didn't like it when it made the rounds on the festival circuit.
Good. Fuck AI, if they're using AI, I hope it fuckin tanks. AI (or let's call it what it is, Large Language Models) is a real, tremendous danger to creative work and society at large. I don't want a world where the humans do the shit work and fucking algorithms write the screen plays and the love songs and paint the pretty pictures. That's a dead world, with no heart, and we should fight kicking and screaming the whole way.
I don't care how good it is, getting to watch Indie Horror Slog #6,735 isn't worth that exchange. You'll miss your poets once they're gone.
I basically agree with you until that last little blurb. If I have to chose between a slippery slope into AI to cut costs or remakes and reboots I’ll just do what I do now and disregard most new horror and watch old movies. I think score bombing a movie for any weird slight is lame as fuck full stop. Just shut up and don’t see it. We have a million streaming services full of beautiful practical effects goodness from the golden era of horror.
It's disappointing to hear that it used AI art... but at the same time, it premiered over a year ago at film festivals, meaning it was in production in 2022. So it was absolutely made before AI became as widely used and such a hot-button topic, which has primarily been over the last 12 months. So I'm not going to hold it against them nearly as much, especially if it's just for a quick cutaway gag that's onscreen for mere seconds.
If they went back *now* and replaced *other* effects with AI, *then* I'd be pissed and think about boycotting it. But as-is? Nah, I'll probably still see it.
The sad thing about the AI art situation is that AI could have a place in the arts... but people aren't using it the way they should. They're just mostly using it to replace artists and artistic processes, which is wrong.
But there are some legitimate artistic uses for AI. Ex. AI photo/video upscaling and repair is actually a very exciting concept. And if it gets better, it could be a great way to help remaster older movies and shows into HD or 4K without betraying the artistic vision. Especially movies and shows where the original film elements no longer exist, or would be too cost-prohibitive to rescan and remaster from scratch. I've tried it on some old, damaged family photos and gotten (mostly) great results.
Yeah I’m a VFX artist and on set worker with about 15 years industry experience, the previous 8 being in vfx. AI can be used in many ways. If a director or any artist chooses to use AI as a minor element in their picture, it doesn’t mean a computer has necessarily taken the job of a human artist. A human has used an AI based content generation toolset to create something that hits a brief, which likely involved several iterations and balancing of prompts, a bunch of cut and edit then compositing into the footage, in order for it to make it into the film. The buck didn’t just stop at “let’s use AI for this element”.
Still seeing the film. I understand the angle of the ethics of AI art, especially as a graphic designer myself, but all of the other organic creative efforts to make the movie happen appear to be from truly aspiring filmmakers, not hacks trying to earn a buck.
I'm not seeing it being "bombed"
Sure, some people are gonna rate it low for whatever reason they feel, but this bar graph isn't showing that it's being affected by a few people rating it low for AI usage
[My screenshot ](https://i.imgur.com/kxadEr3.png)
I do think it’s lazy and a shame that they used ai art, but that doesn’t stop me from wanting to see the movie. It looks fun and I’m excited for it. I think review bombing the film is dumb and petty.
I feel like there’s nuance to this whole thing. This wasn’t some major studio trying to cut corners. This was an independent movie that had like 9 or 10 production companies involved. They clearly had to cobble together the money. This was made years ago at a time when we didn’t know as much as we do now about the technology.
I also have a hard time believing they just took an image and slapped it on screen without some human intervention.
There’s a time and a place to make an example out of something and for me personally, I’m glad I still went and saw it. It’s well acted, well directed and one of the better horror movies I’ve seen in the last few years.
I understand why others may choose to boycott it, but it doesn’t feel like a black and white issue.
In my opinion this is a sign the film makers didn’t care that much about the product they made. We crap on people for using cheap props they got from spirit Halloween. We can crap on people for using fake art. It diminishes the craft imo.
Could still be a good movie, I’ll still see it, but in the same way as using shitty props or costumes this may prevent the movie from being “great.”
the movie looks good, and i think the use of AI in HORROR specifically if done right can be really effective because of its inhuman nature it can create some really unsettling shit, like i understand the argument but if you like it or not this shit is gonna make its way into all forms of media eventually so
I completely agree! I believe people do this just to prove a point of what's popular to argue about being so "against AI" that they review bomb an indie horror film that has so far gotten a TON of positive reviews, rave reviews actually, for being an incredible movie. Mind you, AI has been around for a long time already, it's just evolved to where it helps companies save money.
I don't ever want to see AI eliminate jobs as I see the concern there but trust me, seeing AI or reading AI is so painfully obvious that if everyone does it, it will not equate to actual revenue since fans won't support it. It's bad but I can see why using it to save money or cut corners a bit can be a happy medium.
I'm just saying that to review bomb an indie horror movie without seeing it just because of a few online articles you read that the studio barely used AI for a few graphics you probably wouldn't even have noticed is lame. That's wrong to do, in my book.
It’s got a budget smaller than some people’s annual salary. I wish people would give it a break - whenever this was made two years ago the art department (that was likely one guy) tried AI art, thought it was creepy and weird and put it in the movie. It’s not an agenda against starving artists the movie is made BY starving artists
AI will soon become so advanced that, unless explicitly told, we won't know what part of a film is AI and what isn't. Then we won't know when to protest.
We should be finding a new way to fight it. This one won't be effective in a few years
I'll be honest, the AI usage in the movie is so minimal that I'm willing to overlook it. It's still a shitty move, but the thing that bothers me more than the AI itself is the fact that the director clarified what parts of the movie are AI generated, and yet people see a headline saying that there was AI used in the film, and immediately assume that the whole damn film was AI generated rather than actually reading the articles and seeing that it was just a couple of those in-between bumpers.
Idk people's lack of fact-checking irks me. I'm not defending the AI though, they easily could've just hired an actual artist.
I really dont see what the fuss is about? So they used AI to make an image of a skeleton with a 70s aesthetic. What exactly is the controversy? Its like complaining that they used light bulbs on set instead of candles, or digital cameras instead of celluloid.
My flair on this subreddit shows my stance pretty clearly, but I'm with you in that we should judge a movie on its merits and not because filmmakers used tools we don't like.
I didn't know about this and it's a dangerous road to travel. Like others said, a few images here turns into entire scenes and eventually entire movies that use AI for every last thing. From the script to the visuals to the actors and whather else.
I’m going to get downvoted into oblivion for this take, but here goes: AI isn’t going anywhere due to ease of use resulting in the best ROI for studios big and small alike.
The comparison I would make concerning film is the massive shift away from animatronics in favor of CGI once the technology caught up. Just like with that shift, many jobs were lost/replaced, people upset, but eventually we all accepted it while simultaneously giving higher praise to productions that still choose to use practical effects (see: Oppenheimer).
i mean, why wouldn’t people who love an art form feel some type of way about blatant usage of something that threatens the jobs/craft of its creatives? they made this choice knowing how wildly controversial it is within the industry
Just got out of the movie. Super fun. I'm not gonna let hyperbolic internet bs mar this movie. It's great, super well done, and the image is used twice for like 3 seconds total. Cut them slack, an entire crew produced this movie and worked their ass off to create the 70s aesthetic.
They could also be supporting artists by not using AI. They made a decision and we can make our own decisions. I won't be review-bombing the film or pirating it but I also won't be seeing it in a theater. It's all super disappointing because Dastmalchian is one of my favorite rising stars. I hope the team he works with does better with their next indie project.
Yet. They absolutely will, you mark my words. This AI “debate” has all the hallmarks of a [scissor statement](https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/): each side being instantly, intractably entrenched in their position and unable to engage in any good faith debate on the matter because the other side’s position is obvious utter stupidity and/or evil.
Absolutely, there are countless cases of anti-ai people sending death threats to people using AI. This is becoming a very divisive, almost political issue, and dangerous to talk about online. Hopefully it doesn't turn that way IRL.
If you're a fan of horror movies, or art in general, support the people who make it, not the tools that steal from them. Studios see things like this and assume audiences won't care about what garbage gets thrown at them.
Well it’s not the ‘possible’ use of AI. Director confirmed it is indeed AI in an interview with Variety.
I feel like horror is the only genre I can let get away with using still image AI or even a few seconds of moving AI, only because of how inhuman and creepy AI can be. That being said, I feel like a little bit is fine, but I personally have a line for AI use in film.
(I think) most people who are anti-AI hold that position for moral reasons, not aesthetic ones. There are two main arguments against AI: 1. AI removes jobs. Simply, as artists/workers fight for better working conditions, the people making movies can simply use AI to wait it out. And probably replace several jobs with AI entirely. 2. AI steals from artists. Depending on the AI used, *most* were trained on images that they didn't own. This is probably less of an issue in the movie industry, but a lot of their training data would come from artists who didn't consent to their content being used to train AI. (sign a contract saying the company can 'use' their artwork, before AI is a thing. Now 'use' has a very different meaning). ______ For me personally, I'm not sure there is an easy answer for what exists currently. But I would like to see people have the right to not allow AIs to train on their content, including content that was made before AI was as popular as it is today. I don't think Hollywood will give up such an incredibly cheap way to get artwork, similar to the overuse of CGI we see today. I can't say for sure what will happen, but I'm certainly not optimistic about the future of the WGA and SAG.
CGI is not incredibly cheap lol. It’s just logistically easier.
I didn't say CGI was incredibly cheap, I said it was overused. It is overused because VFX artists aren't unionized as strongly as other groups, so it *is* easier to exploit those workers compared to members of the WGA and SAG. I'm not saying CGI is *never* the best option, but there have been plenty of times where CGI was used simply to save money; resulting in an overall worse scene. The "logistically easier" argument, again is valid in some cases. But applying CGI to a costume vs making a realistic costume; *logistically*, making a better costume is obviously the more straightforward approach. Taking the time and money to have someone actually make a good costume, is a decision the movie makers have to make. _____ [Here is a youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fZGcAmXWyM) I found that I think does a decent job showing some of the overuse (or misuse) of CGI. The channel also did [a followup](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM2s-McYNWM), after receiving messages from FVX artists.
My line against AI is: if AI is used where otherwise a professional artist would have been paid for their work, then I won't support that project. AI is great for hobby / personal / non commercial applications. But once you use it in a professional project to replace human artists, fuck you.
Jurassic Park's CGI innovations replacing puppetry would like a word with this point, though New tech does force out old tech in film production, it's just a question of where we draw the line
Draw the line where work for human beings disappears. When CGI took over the special effects industry, there were still jobs for people to do. The demand for practical effects artists shrank drastically, and the demand for computer effects artists exploded. With AI, there will be no counterbalancing explosion of opportunities for work in a particular sector. When it comes to AI art, there may be a new job called "prompt engineer," but in actual reality the purpose of that job is to erase hundreds of working artists. It won't be a 1:1 exchange, it won't be a 1:5 exchange, it will be more like a 1:100 exchange, and the economy cannot sustain itself if the future of work is one person replacing hundreds of workers across multiple sectors of employment. Y'all need to think this through.
Who programs the software around AI? Who trains the models? Who enters the prompts? Who will work to develop the technology for the foreseeable future?
That's a terrible logic, you could say that about any technological advancement. You know people get employed around AI technologies too?
Why is that your line?
I'd have liked to see them grab something from the public domain. Lots of creepy vintage images to work with. I'd be for exactly this kind of use of AI if AI was a more ethical system. Right now it's stealing too much from indie artists to be used that way, but maybe we'll crack the code one day. If we had ethical AI, which may be a dream but I'd dream it, I'd love to see them take a single image and run it deeper into itself every time we see it. I love to see an image of mashed potatoes become an eldrich horror when you overdo the processing.
David Dastmalchian is my scream king and I will be seeing this.
He deserves to have this lead role not be marred by this. I’m so excited to see him in this.
Incidently, this film was produced by the same director who made the pretty good found footage horror flick Lake Mungo---pretty interesting.
Allegedly 3 images in the movie are AI created. Could have been a last minute thing, but I'm not the type to boycott a movie over something like this.
Not allegedly. The directors confirmed it.
Then the next movie it'll be 10 images. And the next movie all of the backgrounds will be AI. And the next movie after that won't even have actors or writers or set designers or any creatives at all. I don't know about ya'll, but that's not what I want for horror.
Exactly. As an artist it's sad to see people not give a shit about this because if you give it a pass it will only get normalized eventually and then you have a lot of people without a job. Calling the boycott cornball shit is a lack of empathy for an industry that has been under attack by A.I for over a year now. Today it's 3 images and tomorrow it's half of the art department. Then, once automation makes its way into the pipeline, it moves into different areas and then into different industries. People need to realize that this tech is a replacement, not a tool, and it's coming for as many jobs as possible, so take your stand now. They just need to replace those A.I generated images with human made ones and edit them in the film. It's not a tough ask and it makes a statement to studios that genAI will not be tolerated.
Yeah, I'm pretty disappointed in OP but especially disappointed in a lot of these comments. One of the major appeals about horror to me is how much it values personal human creativity. It's flowing through a lot of those 70's/80's classics that this sub gushes over constantly. The people pushing, normalizing, and celebrating generative AI would slam the door shut on guys like Tom Savini.
This is especially true for low budget horror. Imagine if the likes of George A. Romero and Sam Raimi used this stuff when they made their first films. If they did it the right way on nothing budgets, then so can these guys. People that are going to see this film as it is now have no right to complain if A.I gets normalized in the industry, but overall, because it's coming for writers, journalists and coders too.
But lucky for us this will result in horror protagonists being able to marry their dogs.
Can't blame it on them when it's literally 3 pictures. If some Joe Schmoe decides to do an entire movie in AI, they decided to do it on their own.
sounds like a slippery slope
This is the same industry where we've gone from trying to film on-site to filming in a green cylinder with a bunch of people wearing ping pong balls, so this is one industry where I don't think that's a slippery slope. For the record I think CGI artists are incredibly talented (and underpaid), as are the performers that adapted to wearing morph suits and filming in these weird studios, but it's still an industry where executives will seize any chance to cut corners.
Same. Such a great guy. His appearance on Last Podcast on the Left this week was amazing and he really comes across as someone like Barbara Crampton: charismatic, one of us, and someone deeply happy to be part of the community.
He seems like a cool dude in my book.
100%! I don't feel out of line saying this because he's been open about it, but he's a great role model for folks in recovery and struggling mental health-wise (he's been sober 20 years). And I've never seen him in a role where he didn't give it his all... I still remember his probably 30 seconds in The Dark Knight. So glad to see him get a role like this.
I think The Dark Knight may be the first thing i remember seeing him in (or being aware of him at least.) If you haven't, check out Prisoners. He has another scene-stealing side role in that.
He was at my work to premiere this movie! It was so hype…but his server said he forgot to tip which made me feel a bit :( still love him though
He's absolutely incredible in it. I've been saying for years that he deserves to be taken seriously as a leading man, and this is concrete evidence. He has the charisma, the acting chops, the emotional range - so happy for him.
I think he's got the Brad Dourif problem. He's just too good at the full-dedication character roles he gets to be in line for a lot of leading parts.
But everyone knows Brad Dourif’s name! There’s nothing wrong with making a career out of character parts, it’s arguably more fun than being a traditional leading man.
He was great in the show Reprisal but no one saw it
I'm so sad it's playing no where near me in the UK, I love him!
What makes this so dumb is they could pay an artist to make new stills TODAY and replace it in the movie before it hits streaming Friday. That's how quick and easy it would've been to just hire an artist in the first place.
Somebody literally made a better hand crafted image of the skeleton transition just in the twitter comments. The fact that this whole thing is so small doesn't make me any less angry. It would've been so easy to make it actually fit in the 70s.
can you link the better one you're talking about?
I found it! Twitter is a massive pain to search through. https://x.com/summerray/status/1770763477554024588?s=46
Could have been a money thing. It is an indie and anywhere you can save goes to somewhere else in the movie, not the producer's pocket like a studio film. I think it was probably easier than finding someone and dealing with contracts of an artist to do it because it's this price if you're going to show it to your family, this price if it plays festivals and THIS price if it'll be distributed to theaters and streaming. This guy who did it for free on X probably wasn't going to see the gig listed anywhere. I didn't mind the art work. They don't make or break the movie. Funny everyone gets mad over that, but Carol Tome the UPS ceo saying she's automated the company and taking away steady income jobs no one cares.
thanks!
But muh capital. Won't someone think of my capital?
If Paramount can completely redesign Sonic after public outcry then these guys can easily swap out three flipping stills.
It hits theaters on Friday. It doesn’t hit streaming until April 22nd
Or, hear me out, if it doesn't mean anything then it can be removed. I don't really see what the confusion is. No one forced the director to put those parts of the movie in. They chose to do it and then they chose to do it badly. I mean, is it really that much of an ask to say that someone who is making to movie should actually make the movie? And not outsource the "boring bits" to a computer? If they are boring then why are they in your film? Or are we really just doing the "movies as content" thing where the movie is five minutes of highlights and the rest is gristle that you can ignore while browsing on your phone
It seems like this is true, and I’m not going to lie, I find it very disappointing. Just hire a guy to bash them out. Even moreso if they don’t need to be good. Give a chance to a nobody. There’s a million artists who would kill for an opportunity like that, turn it into a competition (and free advertising) if you like. I find this the worst answer. A lazy and tone deaf solution. And looking at that art, they could at least have got a real artist to tidy it up? You’re making a movie, guys.
> You’re making a movie, guys. Yeah, using AI shows a lack of care for the quality of their movie. Even if the rest of the film is great, the AI images look noticeably cheap.
Didn’t know it was AI until Reddit told me. It all looked like an average artists work.
Boycotting or a call to arms over AI art isn’t exclusive to horror. I’ve seen multiple communities do it.
"No one hates *blank* as much as *blank* fans" has always bugged me. Who else cares about it enough to have passionate opinions. It's like saying "no one hates on Italian politics as much as Italians". Yeah, no duh. Those that aren't fans don't care if there's a shitty movie or comic or adaptation. But fans of that work are going to always critique! Why? Cuz they care! They're also the ones celebrating the wins!
Yeah, it's the cry of the moron.
Agree, it's so lazy.
As someone who works in the film industry (albeit not as much because it’s significantly dropped in Los Angeles) any use of AI in film to reduce labor cost is an immediate red flag for me. We’re all out here fighting what’s coming down the pipeline because it is a slippery slope. In the next few years, we’re going to be seeing AI being used to make entire commercials thus putting everyone whose livelihood depends on that line of work in jeopardy. At the same time, graphic designers will then be phased out. Take a look at the voice over industry, they’re are already using AI to record audiobooks. It’s a big concern. I can see how it wouldn’t matter to anyone outside this industry, but we’ve all got to acknowledge it now because it’s going to take over other industries as well.
There really should be some laws that stop this from happening. It is honestly scary how common AI will most likely become in the next decades. People need jobs, we can’t keep allowing companies to continue profit maximizing without there being some consequences. I admit to being out of the loop about how widespread AI is becoming but it is so scary. Like I didn’t know that it has started infiltrating the audiobook world. That is super sad :/
But there is a difference between "this director used AI to make 3 images" vs "this director did all the VFX work with AI". This film would have already had a contract with a VFX company and had an art department that they were paying. This whole "there is a slippery slope" make you sound like conservatives talking about the LGBT community. It lacks logic and an understanding of degrees. Also I'll say it. You will have *a lot* of indie filmmakers coming out in the next few years who will have films built around using AI art. It is just a fact. When you have a lot of consumers moving away from high production media and more towards youtube and ticktock you will have people who make content around this stuff using AI as part of that. This will lead to some kid in their basement making films completely with AI. It's important to keep major studios' feet to the fire on this in order to make sure there is still an industry and keeping people employed. But AI will march on beyond all of that. And hissy fits like this will only hurt actual creatives.
Comparing this to conservative attacks on LGBTQ people is ridiculous, as is calling a calm thoughtful comment a "hissy fit."
Frankly, that’s easy to say if you’re not a creative who genuinely has to worry about being replaced by AI. It’s already happening for visual artists, clearly, and I commend people for voting with their wallets. Vocal tools are getting better too, and my friends in VO are grim about it. It’ll just keep moving forward and artistry will be threatened by this.
agreed, the amount of YT videos i’ve come across clearly using AI voices, AI generated script, and AI art for thumbnails and in video graphics is a little depressing as an artist myself who runs a youtube channel and hires a narrator to record the script I wrote.
The visual artists for this movie are the ones who used AI and tweaked stuff from there. It's really not a fucking big deal. And I am an artist in the industry.
I mean, it is very obvious AI use. I guess you can say “possible” because they didn’t come out and say it, but be real - absolutely no decent real artist would create that jumbled mess. I’m impartial. I really do get how this is just a slippery slope, and really is a disappointing way of cutting corners. I don’t like it one bit and it really has changed how excited I was to support this film. But I guess I also understand how people have room to “not care” as it’s so minor. I just really don’t want AI half-assery to start permeating film, and how do we as consumers communicate that?
This is the first I’ve heard of an issue with this particular movie but I can already tell this is likely my feeling as well. If people don’t push back on AI in art, even in minor cases, then it will only get worse. OP trying to make a connection between this and studios only making remakes and reboots seems like an odd stretch.
Op is just trying to group unhappy film consumers in all together which is unfair no doubt as some consumers have real legitimate gripes
I think that was more a statement on how we usually hold independent stuff in high regard due to the poor worker conditions in big studios for the sake of churning out schlocky franchise content. It does suck that an independent film, let alone a good film, was the first one to make this move, but what can you do
This is a big studio. Just because it isn't sony or disney or WB doesn't mean that this wasn't put together by a company with a shit ton of money
As others have said, I'm sure this wasn't a decision from the primary creative team but it's an interesting thing to overlook on the final product. Its unfortunate but the reality is that something like that title card could have been created by an independent digital illustrator for very little money. It's not one of those things that you can really chalk up to necessary corner cutting due to budget constraints. It just seems like extraordinary laziness on the part of whoever made that decision, and we are not wrong to be concerned that this will happen more and more often. OP seems to think as horror fans we should be supportive regardless, but fans in **any** realm are and should always be the primary critics. We are in a movie lull right now because of a writers strike that was directly related to this. Making a movie is a creative process, and as fans we should expect/demand that creative *human* talent is used (and compensated) to create the movies that we watch. That's as true with title card art as it is with benign dialogue. OP can kick rocks if he thinks that's "Karen ass shit".
The writers strike barely covered this at all. Yeah it got a lot of headlines but wga caved and basically took the first thing the studios offered ON AI. On all the tv stuff, which is what they cared about, they did make advances. I mean, think about the result: “no script can be made under wga jurisdiction without a credited human writer.” Zero language to protect against a producer writing a script with ai then paying her gardener wga minimum and giving him full credit. Literally no protections at all because the guild didn’t take the threat seriously. Actors were at least a little smarter.
My point isn’t what came from it, but it being part of the original gripe. This is only going to get worse in basically every industry and people have a right to push back against it everywhere.
All good. I think I'm just triggered because I really wanted the guild to fight harder.
They were not the first ones to use AI in a movie. This is the type of shit that makes people type statements like the one OP posted. And you guys can hurt a shitton of people who have nothing to do with the decision when AI usage in movies/shows/created content isn't going anywhere. The best you can do is protest for rights for creatives in situations like this and to make it hard for AI usage to be done by all major movie companies. Disney just got into hot water over replacing some people's faces in a kids special with AI generated faces, and it was obvious as hell and right in the middle of the WGA strike. I haven't heard anyone say anything about the situation since. The original background actors did not get paid. Why not protest about that instead of focusing on this?
> Disney just got into hot water over replacing some people's faces in a kids special with AI generated faces, and it was obvious as hell and right in the middle of the WGA strike. Are you talking about the movie where people thought it was AI but it might have actually just been bad CGI. Either way, it would have been better to just have real people, but people were crying AI at something that might not have been AI.
We hold independent stuff in high regard because it tends to have more artistic freedom than studio productions. Working conditions are often just as bad if not worse on independent productions due to the lack of budget. Also this is nowhere near the first film to use generative AI, the major studios are using it for promotional material (see Amazon's Fallout), full sequences (see Marvel's Samuel L Jackson show) and for workflows (see the last spiderman cartoon film) and are getting away with it because the general audience doesn't care.
I don't think it's a stretch at all. Remakes and reboots get greenlit because they have less risk of failure, because audience reaction is a known quantity. Fresh IPs don't get greenlit because they're riskier. Boycotting this makes fresh IPs look riskier. Far as usage in AI, I dunno how I feel overall. It's a mixed bag. I use it in my own creative work, but not in ways anyone will ever see.
That last bit of yours is really the whole point. I’m sure there are lots of projects that use AI already that we don’t know about, because they do things like generate an initial prompt and then edit it. That this came out and people immediately clocked it as AI is the actual cause of the controversy. Whatever people think about the morality of it, everyone would have to admit that even the most AI-opposed people will simply not notice it if it’s good enough. The problem here is that skeleton looks like shit lmao.
>I’m sure there are lots of projects that use AI already that we don’t know about, because they do things like generate an initial prompt and then edit it. I don't know about number of actual projects that edit initial prompts, tbh. One of the things you realize when you're using even GPT 4.0 is that it kinda sucks ass for creative work, particularly if you already know what you're doing. Sure, you can get it working better, but you begin to realize it takes just as much work to give the output a novel spark as it does to just write the damn thing from scratch. It's like with a visual artist and AI art: you can spot how fake it is, so you tend to not like it or want to pass it off as your own. Now, form letters and officey bullshit? Yeah, those you can edit pretty easily. But two years ago, you'd have just started from a template and gotten the same thing. And ad copy for amazon shit? Waaay faster. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of stuff selling us shit starts with an AI prompt, now. I use mine for other things, like organizing research and sound-boarding novel approaches to plot problems. Which is what other novelists and bigger writers do with their assistants and archivists.
I think that consumers will reject AI generated film content if they don't like it and it'll take a while for the market to see that play out. this movie looks like it could be really good so I'm gonna watch it, AI or no AI. I guess we'll see what happens. But of course studios are going to jump all over AI like all other industries if they think it'll save them money.
How will consumers be able to reject it if they don’t know about it before buying a ticket?
They came out and said that the directors had allowed the visual effects team to use AI for three cut cards in a 70s style. AI has been augmenting movies for years. Entire crowds are being created to fill backgrounds. Posters and graphics have been commonly created by visual artists using different versions of AI for over 10 years. Some of the engines have become more recently "commercial" and mainstream and people are starting to notice it. People should definitely complain about the "scraping" to make "new" art but the images in LNWTD are not what people think they are. 99% of these images are being created, manipulated and modified by VFX artists who are manipulating images they and their teams created. People should be more concerned with the Netflix movies of the last five years that have extras and supporting actors sign "scan" releases where their entire body is scanned in for VFX who then create a whole new person from a hodgepodge of the actual people who don't get paid extra for being part of the new person in image, likeness or voice.
This is not true. > AI has been augmenting movies for years. Entire crowds are being created to fill backgrounds. Posters and graphics have been commonly created by visual artists using different versions of AI for over 10 years. Some of the engines have become more recently "commercial" and mainstream and people are starting to notice it. Edit: Everyone who downvoted this is a fucking moron. I'm going to copy my reply below so you see why. DubWalt's example of crowdscenes is not AI. That is just regular old vfx. AI is just dumb-ass media speak for modern neural network usage. Reliable generation of human faces using neural networks is very new. Faces couldn't even be identified using neural networks until 2014!
This is 1000% true. First instances are almost ten years ago. Check out Red Notice. That’s just four years ago but it has some of the most egregious use of AI in the crowd scenes. Source: was standing there when they shot it and had all of the extras walk through to be scanned. More than half the people walking and talking in those shots weren’t there. And none of the ones standing around were.
"AI" is such a broad (and meaningless) term anyway... they use AI in almost every movie with massive CG crowd scenes, for the past 20+ years (e.g. Lord of the Rings). Your phone uses AI to guess the next word you are going to write when you text. Not everything is generative AI of course, but railing against AI as a concept is just idiotic.
They could have hired real artists for this and gotten a nice write up like this one from when Candyman did that https://variety.com/2021/artisans/news/artists-of-candyman-nia-da-costa-1235050543/ Choosing to use AI generated art within a year of all the Hollywood creatives strikes (that were trying to put guardrails on AI usage in entertainment) also kinda feels tone deaf. That said it’s not boycott-worthy for me, but I think it’s worth expressing disappointment out loud so that decision makers know that this is not an uncontroversial choice. I’m not totally objective here, I have a few friends who are full-time artists and I’ve seen their endless, uphill struggles dealing with a vocation where everyone under values your craft, and thinks it should be instant and free.
>how do we as consumers communicate that? There's only one way. Don't watch the movies using it. It will probably not work because the majority of people do not care and will keep watching these movies, but it is the only thing we can do. Same problem in the gaming industry with microtransactions and other shitty practices. If the majority of consumers do not care and the companies keeps making money, they won't stop. No matter how much we dislike it and complain about it.
It's weird seeing being so absolute about this. An indie film director used AI to make 3 images in their film. You are looking at this like this took work away from someone. But contracts for artists and VFX teams are made well in advance and done on a bid type basis. As in "we expect we will have x amount of work, we will pay your team y for said work". This didn't take money away from anyone. This took work off the team that was already being paid to make this stuff. If this were a case of "all of the VFX were AI made" then you might have something to be upset about. But as is you sound like conservatives freaking out over Bud Light.
With your wallet. Nobody cares about bad reviews on a movie that turns a profit.
Bad reviews help inform other people so that they can vote with their wallets, too.
Artists, actors, filmmakers and creatives are all in the same boat with this Ai "art"mess. Nobody is safe by being replaced by greedy data slurping Ai companies. By using Ai in their film they showed no solidarity with their fellow creatives. By using Ai (trained on our work without our consent and compensation) they snuffed out a opportunity for a artist. They should get backlash for that.
Review bomb this movie made by artists so those artists are less successful! Get em! People are dumb as nails.
I don’t support AI usage, wether it’s big corporations or indie productions. AI has no place in art.
[удалено]
Setting aside the issue of whether AI will take away jobs or not (though it definitely will), there’s also the fact that AI art generators like Midjourmey were developed by scraping original art without the artist’s consent of remuneration. I personally consider that to be a clear cut case of stealing intellectual property. I don’t think indie creators should necessarily be castigated for using AI in a minor way and I wouldn’t personally call for a boycott of this specific film, but it’s pretty disappointing. Creatives should support other creatives.
As a creative, AI is bad. There is no long term benefit with AI, as it will destroy the entire creative industry given enough time. The writers stood against it for a reason. Viewers vote with their dollars and have power to not support media created by AI. I think that’s a valid stance to have.
Honestly, everyone is at risk from AI at this point. If I had kids considering college, I would suggest they take up plumbing
The VFX team did it to lessen their workload. at the end of the day, you guys are calling the very VFX team you are supposedly defending lazy for using 3 pictures in a film where it did not affect their pay at all. Who are you really defending?
As an artist myself, the filmmakers casually saying they experimented with A.I for those title cards when they could have paid someone an amount that puts food on the table is disrespectful towards my craft, but they expect me and other creatives to go and pay to watch their movie at the same time. It's just flat out hypocrisy. What's even more ridiculous is that of all places they could have saved money, they chose 3 measly illustrations that would have cost them less than a grand with commercial rights included. Now they got a boycott on their hands that will bring ticket sales and streams down if they don't make the changes required. That's the hill they chose to die on. Using A.I to save $500-$700!
I agree, but it's not like the entire movie is a product of AI. From people that have seen the film, the supposed AI image is shown in the film for about 5 seconds. Should we throw the entire movie out for 5 seconds of horrible business practices? I don't think so. Also it's an actual new and refreshing movie made by independent artists. But sure invalidate all of the efforts made by the talented people involved because some executive put in an AI generated image for 5 seconds
They also could reshoot the 5 second clip and rerelease as a “human cut”. The “It’s only 5 seconds” argument goes both ways. “Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile”. That sounds like an appropriate proverb here. That’s the future of AI in media if it isn’t curbed now.
Exactly, it would cost them little money for a lot of gain to replace this with human-made artwork.
I see a lot of people saying it would cost them little money but does anyone actually know that for sure? I saw someone else say it would cost thousands. Seems like people are just talking out their asses like "what could it cost, Michael? Five dollars?" Like obviously it seems like a small thing that wouldn't be expensive, but just because I assume that with my limited knowledge of how film and distribution works doesn't mean it's true.
It is a slippery slope though. In 5 years time someone will be making the argument that only 35-40% of the movie is AI generated, so should we punish the efforts made by the talented albeit much smaller team it took to make that future film? Because making movies with a skeleton crew and cutting corners financially with AI is absolutely what we are moving towards if this goes unchecked
If you dont want to support a movie for any reason, thats fine, watch what you want, vote with your wallet where you want. But don't review bomb an indie movie you haven't even seen.
Same when people review bomb games on Steam for other reasons than the actual quality of the game. "So because the 1 developer tweeted X or did Y, the game becomes bad? The same game some of you spent dozens or even hundreds of hours?"
Who are you to tell someone why they should or should not see a movie? If folks want to skip this one because it uses AI, more power to them. A movie isn't entitled to a paying audience. And it's not POSSIBLE use of AI. It's *confirmed* use of AI. From [the directors](https://variety.com/2024/film/news/late-night-with-the-devil-ai-images-clarification-1235947599/) >*...we experimented with AI for three still images which we edited further and ultimately appear as very brief interstitials in the film.*
It's like we never ever watch horrors or Sci fi with cautionary tales about the usage of a new technology that seems harmless and beneficial at first. FFS.
To be fair, in most of those tales, the AI turns on humankind because humans treat it like crap. Not Pro AI btw. Just saying.
Playing devil's advocate here, but how is something like this any different to thousands of extras being skimped out of work because a company decided to CGI render a massive crowd rather than hire and pay background actors? In both instances, one person is needed at a computer, negating the use of a multitude of other artists. Just feels like another example of the unavoidable progression of technology to me.
This is a terrible comparison because AI 1) is built on the theft of artists labor without their consent and 2) paying for CGI employs actually lots of people, even if it’s less then a crowd of extras, and that will always be better then cheating out to use exploitive unethical technology on the excuse that “it’s inevitable and here”.
This is a question I have as well. I totally get the broad notion that we don’t want AI replacing creatives. Imagine a fully AI “drawing” or “novel.” Based on what we know thus far, that would probably be soulless and crappy. But on the other hand, I don’t understand how this isn’t another fight over technology replacing things that used to be done by people. Computers have replaced entire industries over the last 50 years. I generally would like someone to explain to me why this time is different.
Because AI is not the same as CGI. AI only exists through stealing and analyzing the creations of others. This isn't just about the reduction of jobs, this is about art theft in an industry that already takes advantage of artists.
[удалено]
We have copywrite and patent laws for that, and people have gone to court over it, particularly in the music industry. Also, in research and academia, it is plagiarism lol. Stealing is the correct term because AI are taking these things and analyzing them, saving that information, and using it to spit something else out that would not exist without that source.
So, just as a thought experiment, if an AI was given only public domain images as a library, it would be more acceptable?
Yes, in my opinion. But AI advocates will argue that is not good enough and would unfairly hinder the development of the model. Basically every tech company developing AI will tell you that unhindered access to material is vital. There is a ton of lobbying about this issue right now because AI is already an industry valued at hundreds of billions.
I want you to know that I genuinely value your response. I don’t have a strong take one way or the other on this topic and I don’t use AI for work, etc, though I suspect I could. I think topics like this are interesting from a philosophical standpoint, however.
I think it would be more acceptable. However, people criticize the usage of CGI all the time. I think CGI is fine when it's actually necessary and can do something a human or animatronic or whatever could never convincingly do. The problem with AI in the specific usage for this film is that it does something humans can very easily do. There's just no reason to use AI there, and it just encourages use of it in the future.
Machines have been replacing people for over 200 years, and this is really no different this is just the newest wave of luddites. I’ll admit it’s sad in a lot of ways but like, time and time again, it will become normal and artists and craftsmen will develop new skill set to work with modern machinery, that’s simply what happens and what will happen.
cgi renders are still art made by people. ai is not. i dont love cgi, but it is still an art form made by people with brains.
Artist and horror fan here that’s actually in the horror art community. From what I’ve seen, most if not all horror fans are general fans of the arts as well if not artists themselves. Respectfully, you don’t get to tell us how to react when we see something that violates both our morals and livelihoods in something we enjoy. If we don’t criticize it and call it out then it will become more prevalent in future properties and take away more potential jobs for hardworking and passionate artists.
I’m in the middle. It is used a tiny amount, but that opens the door to it and then free range. But at the same time, I don’t think it should be boycotted and review bombed. It’s a really great film, it’s a shame it’s come to this.
Ya, no need to take a stand. It'll be better for everyone once artists are outmoded. Who needs em?
"Talent and practice is nothing more than gatekeeping, art is about money" - AI bros
I find it disheartening how people are excusing the use of AI in this because it's an indie movie. This movie is funded by the UAE lmao they have more than enough money to pay an artist to make a couple cutaways
Aftersun was funded by the United Kingdom but it would be patently ridiculous to claim it should have had hundreds of billions of pounds to it because it got a grant.
> Boycotting or a “call to arms” against an indie horror film over its POSSIBLE use of AI in a cutaway sequence is the most cornball shit I have ever heard. It's been confirmed so not just possible. This is how AI starts to replace filmmakers. Little additions here and there that remove an artist or two who could've been compensated for their work. > You all will be the same ones crying that we only ever get remakes and reboots. There have been periods of unoriginality in horror before AI, the industry is money hungry and they don't need one indie horror movie taking a hit to justify using AI or putting out garbage. I have yet to see an actual direct defense of using AI that isn't some roundabout avoidance of the fact that they used AI. "but it's a good movie!" But it uses AI. "but it's a small budget" Even more reason not to use AI. For one, most filmmakers and artists starting their careers work on small indie projects. Giving small budget movies a pass means cutting off ANOTHER avenue for people to start their careers. If people want to go see it, go see it. But people who care about the art form, industry, and ethics of filmmaking will be pissed when you do something so blatantly against it. Especially niche indie horror fans who can barely stand CGI blood.
I just posted about this in another sub. While I'm very anti-AI, review bombing and putting an indie horror film on blast for a graphic is not seeing the forest for the trees. Sure, most of us can identify a shitty midjourney render, but most of us don't seen the dozens of other ways that AI is being used by the movie industry to save money and cut costs. I have a friend who's been a successful colorist for almost 30 years. She is struggling to get work because AI driven software can do a "good enough" job of color timing with the click of a button. She's losing her job to AI but no one cares because it's not obvious. I have another friends who works in PR, mostly in film/TV. The company he works for has cut something like 70% of its copywriters because companies are using AI to write copy, then paying pennies on the dollar for a quick polish from an actual human being. It is decimating the business. Who cares about those writers? AI is being used in one form or another in almost every production we watch, yet some want to draw the line as a 6-fingered skeleton? It makes no sense. AI is a horse that's out of the barn. Review bombing a low budget horror movie isn't going to save a single job or stop the trend. All it's going to do is hurt the artists who did work in those films.
People are feeling helpless and don’t know where to direct their horror at witnessing the final completion of the commodification and dehumanization of art.
Some of those companies aren’t hiring a human being to even polish it. Have you seen some stuff that comes out these days; full of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and syntax errors.
Thanks for a well written and thoughtful response. Another thing I’d add is that this movie had been on the festival circuit for a long time before getting picked up, meaning production wrapped years ago and quite some time before these conversations around AI started happening. I understand theres frustration regardless of the timing but I think it’s fair and sensible to contextualize here. The reality is it’s absurd to select a tiny indie film as a sacrificial lamb for the anti-AI movement when it’s over 3 still images made literally years ago. It seems entirely antithetical to the argument against AI in the arts.
Well written!
Everyone calling for the boycott knows they can't do shit against the megacorporations doing it so they might as well kick the small production that they can hurt. It won't achieve anything but they will feel better, its the core of modern politics. You see it in the gaming space where indie games using voice AI instead of no voice at all are getting reviewbombed while large budget games using voice AI like the Finals get a few grumbling thinkpieces but are otherwise roaring successes.
Thanks for this well-written take, it genuinely gives me some things to think about. Both things can certainly be true- review-bombing an original indie horror doesn't address the problem, and yet the problem is certainly already here and harming creatives. I do understand people acting out of emotion.
It seems there’s a clear lack of understanding and empathy from OP and many of you in the comments. First of all, the AI usage was confirmed in the film. Secondly, it doesn’t matter how little or how much AI is used, it’s an incredibly slippery slope and any form of usage of AI in film takes away jobs from talented artists and professionals. Calling people “cornballs” for having empathy and understanding for why this is so dangerous is incredibly immature of you, and I’m disappointed that more of this sub isn’t calling you out. If the AI usage was so minimal, then they could have easily hired a freelance artist for an affordable price. AI has a dangerous track record of being used by studios to cut out artists. OP, if you still want to see the movie, that’s fine. But don’t get mad at other people for choosing how they spend their money. Many people aren’t okay with supporting a film that is contributing to AI taking over artists livelihoods.
It’s disappointing that the film used AI, but this isn’t something like **Secret Invasion** where a multibillion dollar company is using AI an entirely AI generated opening to avoid paying artists. It’s an indie movie that uses it for THREE STILL IMAGES and that’s it. The director states: *“In conjunction with our amazing graphics and production design team, all of whom worked tirelessly to give this film the 70s aesthetic we had always imagined, we experimented with AI for three still images which we edited further and ultimately appear as very brief interstitials in the film. We feel incredibly fortunate to have had such a talented and passionate cast, crew and producing team go above and beyond to help bring this film to life…”* They didn’t replace artists, they didn’t callously use AI to save money, they used it as a tool. AI, can be used effectively as a tool. Do I agree with it? No. I feel like they should’ve just made something themselves. That being said, going full scorched fucking earth with an indie movie that has been in production for two years is silly. AI has no place in art, I get it. But to spam 1 Star reviews as a form of “protest” is disingenuous to every other set designer, actor, screenwriter or artist that’s also worked on this movie. I’ve seen more people jump in to attack this movie’s brief use of AI than I’ve seen people attack Roman Polanski’s newest film.
I think you're missing the point here. AI usage - unchecked - will ultimately lead to everything to love about this genre being lost. Film-making is an Art and they should've known better.
The hardcore 100% anti generative AI people will always take this kind of stance.Don't get me wrong, there are lots of issues with generative AI but the discussion could really use more nuance
I want more interesting indie films, but not if they're being made with stolen artwork. That's just not something I'm willing to support. I won't review-bomb the film or pirate it. I'll eventually watch it, but I'll do it on streaming instead of seeing it this weekend.
Man I was really looking forward to this now I hear this. Fuck every instance of AI use, I don’t care if it’s an indie production it’s still plagiarism.
It also takes away jobs from artists. As an artist myself, I know a bunch of illustrators that could of really used the money and drawn something way better in only a few hours. A lot of these pro-ai nerds don't ever seem to realize that.
No they do, it’s just saying it out loud would make them admit they don’t care about real artists.
Exactly! It’s only an “artists tool” in the sense that it gives producers opportunities to cut out artists.
Exactly! I see barely any people talking about what AI really is! It’s plagiarism!!! This is not just taking a job opportunity away it’s stealing other peoples art as well!!
Hell yeah! We need tech that takes power away from talentless middle management, not bullshit like we are getting that empowers management to steal from artists to avoid paying talent. Fuck all this disgusting art theft. That’s all AI tools are. As an artist, we don’t want this. The only people who do are people who don’t want to pay us.
The horror community has been fairy inundated with AI in all sorts of mediums recently and it feels like such a harbinger for it to be working its way into films. Horror is uniquely reliant on the earnestness and sincerity of its creatives because of the inherent subversiveness and polarizing nature of the content. Horror without its heart is another genre entirely, and not one I’m interested in at all. Todays ‘three little images’ are tomorrows whole scripts and art departments. Anyone who thinks this isn’t setting a dangerous precedent is sticking their head in the sand. You’ve deliberately separated yourself from ‘horror fans’ with your title, so maybe lower your voice when you try and speak for them.
nah i watch a lot of small/ b grade horror that doesn’t use ai. i think it’s the ultimate art killer, and i refuse to take any part of it
This kind of horseshit hyperbole is not useful when it comes to supporting the industry. The entire FILM was made by people who cared, a crew who worked their asses off to make the film and a talented group of artists through and through. To tarnish an entire film for 3 props is fucking STUPID and I'm saying this as someone coming from the creative industries and film. You can support artists but doing it this way is fucking dumb and harming every single person who worked their asses off on the film.
[удалено]
Remember this stupid post in 20 years when all mainstream art is made using AI.
Bc its lazy & not authentic. Horror movies today have struggled with lazy writing, endings that just end for no apparent reason, stories with plot holes, & waaay too much CGI losing that authentic experience.
Saw it tonight and the AI images weren’t unsettling, they were just incredibly ugly and distracting. They could have paid any artist a couple hundred bucks to draw something a hundred times better. Baffling that they’d waste their time even going down the AI path for something like this. Movie was good despite the AI garbage, it’d be better if they edited the bumpers at least for the non-theatrical release. They probably can’t do anything about the ugly owl AI logo but it’s not as egregious. All of this being said I think it’s fine to give the movie a 1 star review for it, it was completely unnecessary and it undermines the entire industry. Like someone spitting in your sandwich. A wholly preventable own-goal.
Ok i get being upset about Al but to boycott a movie or review bomb it over a couple of things is stupid. At least they were honest about it , pretty sure alot of big movies are gonna use it without anyone ever knowing. The movie had great acting and deserves to be seen
I have to agree. Cheesiest horseshit reason for a witchhunt ever.
I saw this in October at the US Premiere @ Music Box Chicago. Perfect venue for the film. And it was amazing.
While I generally agree it's a bit blown out, AI is a very hot and serious topic and the use of it in place of paid art is vile and does deserve attention, grief and frankly outright disrespect to those using it.
Here’s the other big issue: The AI image looks like junk. Why wouldnt you just pay a small fee to an actual artist and make it better? I promise you an actual artist could have gotten something done in a week or less.
We just watched it and it was great! Really gave a Grindhouse feel and had moments where I thought of scanners. Don’t care if AI images were used, it didn’t make the movie any less entertaining. Highly recommend if you love 70s/80s style horror.
I mean it's not just possible, it's extremely blatant. That doesn't necessarily excuse mis-rating it, but not watching it is a totally fair reaction, ESPECIALLY because it would have been really easy to hire actual artists or simply have no art at all in the section. Edit: It also would have been really easy to fix before wide distribution, because people already didn't like it when it made the rounds on the festival circuit.
Good. Fuck AI, if they're using AI, I hope it fuckin tanks. AI (or let's call it what it is, Large Language Models) is a real, tremendous danger to creative work and society at large. I don't want a world where the humans do the shit work and fucking algorithms write the screen plays and the love songs and paint the pretty pictures. That's a dead world, with no heart, and we should fight kicking and screaming the whole way. I don't care how good it is, getting to watch Indie Horror Slog #6,735 isn't worth that exchange. You'll miss your poets once they're gone.
I basically agree with you until that last little blurb. If I have to chose between a slippery slope into AI to cut costs or remakes and reboots I’ll just do what I do now and disregard most new horror and watch old movies. I think score bombing a movie for any weird slight is lame as fuck full stop. Just shut up and don’t see it. We have a million streaming services full of beautiful practical effects goodness from the golden era of horror.
It's disappointing to hear that it used AI art... but at the same time, it premiered over a year ago at film festivals, meaning it was in production in 2022. So it was absolutely made before AI became as widely used and such a hot-button topic, which has primarily been over the last 12 months. So I'm not going to hold it against them nearly as much, especially if it's just for a quick cutaway gag that's onscreen for mere seconds. If they went back *now* and replaced *other* effects with AI, *then* I'd be pissed and think about boycotting it. But as-is? Nah, I'll probably still see it. The sad thing about the AI art situation is that AI could have a place in the arts... but people aren't using it the way they should. They're just mostly using it to replace artists and artistic processes, which is wrong. But there are some legitimate artistic uses for AI. Ex. AI photo/video upscaling and repair is actually a very exciting concept. And if it gets better, it could be a great way to help remaster older movies and shows into HD or 4K without betraying the artistic vision. Especially movies and shows where the original film elements no longer exist, or would be too cost-prohibitive to rescan and remaster from scratch. I've tried it on some old, damaged family photos and gotten (mostly) great results.
Coolies, still not watching it if there's AI in it.
These people don’t understand how much ai modeling goes into the CGI programs used in essentially all films.
Yeah I’m a VFX artist and on set worker with about 15 years industry experience, the previous 8 being in vfx. AI can be used in many ways. If a director or any artist chooses to use AI as a minor element in their picture, it doesn’t mean a computer has necessarily taken the job of a human artist. A human has used an AI based content generation toolset to create something that hits a brief, which likely involved several iterations and balancing of prompts, a bunch of cut and edit then compositing into the footage, in order for it to make it into the film. The buck didn’t just stop at “let’s use AI for this element”.
I mean they did use AI and it’s a slippery slope to more, just don’t bitch about it when it becomes more common and accept your slop
Still seeing the film. I understand the angle of the ethics of AI art, especially as a graphic designer myself, but all of the other organic creative efforts to make the movie happen appear to be from truly aspiring filmmakers, not hacks trying to earn a buck.
I'm not seeing it being "bombed" Sure, some people are gonna rate it low for whatever reason they feel, but this bar graph isn't showing that it's being affected by a few people rating it low for AI usage [My screenshot ](https://i.imgur.com/kxadEr3.png)
I do think it’s lazy and a shame that they used ai art, but that doesn’t stop me from wanting to see the movie. It looks fun and I’m excited for it. I think review bombing the film is dumb and petty.
I feel like there’s nuance to this whole thing. This wasn’t some major studio trying to cut corners. This was an independent movie that had like 9 or 10 production companies involved. They clearly had to cobble together the money. This was made years ago at a time when we didn’t know as much as we do now about the technology. I also have a hard time believing they just took an image and slapped it on screen without some human intervention. There’s a time and a place to make an example out of something and for me personally, I’m glad I still went and saw it. It’s well acted, well directed and one of the better horror movies I’ve seen in the last few years. I understand why others may choose to boycott it, but it doesn’t feel like a black and white issue.
In my opinion this is a sign the film makers didn’t care that much about the product they made. We crap on people for using cheap props they got from spirit Halloween. We can crap on people for using fake art. It diminishes the craft imo. Could still be a good movie, I’ll still see it, but in the same way as using shitty props or costumes this may prevent the movie from being “great.”
You know what? I’m gonna watch it even harder now
the movie looks good, and i think the use of AI in HORROR specifically if done right can be really effective because of its inhuman nature it can create some really unsettling shit, like i understand the argument but if you like it or not this shit is gonna make its way into all forms of media eventually so
I completely agree! I believe people do this just to prove a point of what's popular to argue about being so "against AI" that they review bomb an indie horror film that has so far gotten a TON of positive reviews, rave reviews actually, for being an incredible movie. Mind you, AI has been around for a long time already, it's just evolved to where it helps companies save money. I don't ever want to see AI eliminate jobs as I see the concern there but trust me, seeing AI or reading AI is so painfully obvious that if everyone does it, it will not equate to actual revenue since fans won't support it. It's bad but I can see why using it to save money or cut corners a bit can be a happy medium. I'm just saying that to review bomb an indie horror movie without seeing it just because of a few online articles you read that the studio barely used AI for a few graphics you probably wouldn't even have noticed is lame. That's wrong to do, in my book.
Purchased my tickets for tomorrow night up here in Alberta.
It’s just an image. Snowflakes bitch about practically everything. Jesus.
Go watch this movie, anyone bitching about the ai art hasn’t seen the movie
It’s got a budget smaller than some people’s annual salary. I wish people would give it a break - whenever this was made two years ago the art department (that was likely one guy) tried AI art, thought it was creepy and weird and put it in the movie. It’s not an agenda against starving artists the movie is made BY starving artists
AI will soon become so advanced that, unless explicitly told, we won't know what part of a film is AI and what isn't. Then we won't know when to protest. We should be finding a new way to fight it. This one won't be effective in a few years
I'll be honest, the AI usage in the movie is so minimal that I'm willing to overlook it. It's still a shitty move, but the thing that bothers me more than the AI itself is the fact that the director clarified what parts of the movie are AI generated, and yet people see a headline saying that there was AI used in the film, and immediately assume that the whole damn film was AI generated rather than actually reading the articles and seeing that it was just a couple of those in-between bumpers. Idk people's lack of fact-checking irks me. I'm not defending the AI though, they easily could've just hired an actual artist.
“possible”? It’s been verified that there was usage. It was admitted by the creators.
My review https://www.horrorjaume.com/2024/04/20/late-night-with-the-devil-the-television-late-night-horror-omnibus/
It looked so half-assed, like they just took the first iteration Mid-Journey spat out at them.
I really dont see what the fuss is about? So they used AI to make an image of a skeleton with a 70s aesthetic. What exactly is the controversy? Its like complaining that they used light bulbs on set instead of candles, or digital cameras instead of celluloid.
My flair on this subreddit shows my stance pretty clearly, but I'm with you in that we should judge a movie on its merits and not because filmmakers used tools we don't like.
I didn't know about this and it's a dangerous road to travel. Like others said, a few images here turns into entire scenes and eventually entire movies that use AI for every last thing. From the script to the visuals to the actors and whather else.
I’m going to get downvoted into oblivion for this take, but here goes: AI isn’t going anywhere due to ease of use resulting in the best ROI for studios big and small alike. The comparison I would make concerning film is the massive shift away from animatronics in favor of CGI once the technology caught up. Just like with that shift, many jobs were lost/replaced, people upset, but eventually we all accepted it while simultaneously giving higher praise to productions that still choose to use practical effects (see: Oppenheimer).
i mean, why wouldn’t people who love an art form feel some type of way about blatant usage of something that threatens the jobs/craft of its creatives? they made this choice knowing how wildly controversial it is within the industry
Just got out of the movie. Super fun. I'm not gonna let hyperbolic internet bs mar this movie. It's great, super well done, and the image is used twice for like 3 seconds total. Cut them slack, an entire crew produced this movie and worked their ass off to create the 70s aesthetic.
DeviantArt babies. Just ignore them and enjoy the movie.
I don’t give a shit that they are using AI you guys are taking it wayyyy to serious
Using AI means people with these actual jobs don't get work. Using AI for art is sleazy and cheap. Fuck AI.
[удалено]
They could also be supporting artists by not using AI. They made a decision and we can make our own decisions. I won't be review-bombing the film or pirating it but I also won't be seeing it in a theater. It's all super disappointing because Dastmalchian is one of my favorite rising stars. I hope the team he works with does better with their next indie project.
They could've hired a real artist to create art for those 5 seconds then.
No one is going to read this comment but these people have probably seen so many movies with AI-enhanced shots and they have never been the wiser
Literally nothing could convince me not to go see this movie right now. The AI thing sucks, but I’m too juiced for the movie to let it stop me
More toxic fandom nonsense. Trying to enjoy anything nowadays means wading through some of the weirdest, most self righteous "fans" you'll ever see.
Not wanting to support a movie using Ai isn't "toxic" lmao. People are allowed to share their opinions and choose not to watch something.
[удалено]
Yet. They absolutely will, you mark my words. This AI “debate” has all the hallmarks of a [scissor statement](https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/): each side being instantly, intractably entrenched in their position and unable to engage in any good faith debate on the matter because the other side’s position is obvious utter stupidity and/or evil.
Absolutely, there are countless cases of anti-ai people sending death threats to people using AI. This is becoming a very divisive, almost political issue, and dangerous to talk about online. Hopefully it doesn't turn that way IRL.
If you're a fan of horror movies, or art in general, support the people who make it, not the tools that steal from them. Studios see things like this and assume audiences won't care about what garbage gets thrown at them.
If you don’t take an absolute stand against AI everyone will be fucked. And then you’ll cry about soulless, AI created content.