As a seasoned industry veteran with over three decades of experience in Hollywood, I must say that the integration of AI into our beloved world of entertainment is both exhilarating and daunting. Like a well-crafted script, it holds immense potential to revolutionize storytelling, but like an unscripted sequel, it also carries the risk of disrupting the very fabric of our industry.
Whenever Robert Zemeckis shouted “cut” on a scene during the filming of “Here“, I, as a seasoned actor with over four decades under my belt, would dart back to the playback monitors. The unique energy and innovation that permeated this set was unlike any other I had experienced throughout my career.
In this production, he portrays a character whose journey unfolds from high school days through to senior citizenship, using an AI tool from VFX studio Metaphysic for assistance. For each shot requiring de-aging, there were two screens available. One displayed live camera footage, while the other showed him in different ages within the scenes simultaneously, making it seem like he just returned from filming on movies such as “Splash” or “Saving Private Ryan”. After viewing the takes, he would modify his movements to walk with a touch more agility or adopt a stiffer posture when rising from a seated position, based on the age of his character in each scene.
Looking back a few years, a film like Here might not have been produced due to the lack of advancements in aging technology, particularly those made possible by AI. This would have forced the movie to follow the path of Brad Pitt’s starrer The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which likely consumed twice as much as Here‘s total budget just on VFX, effectively eliminating any potential profit for investors. Contrastingly, Miramax fully funded the movie at a tight $45 million budget instead.
Jim Geduldick, our experienced virtual production supervisor who has worked on projects like ‘Masters of the Air’, Robert Zemeckis’ live-action/CG ‘Pinocchio’, and ‘Avatar: The Last Airbender’, notes that the volume of VFX required for this task would have been financially impractical to achieve,” he explains.
Over the past year since the filming of Here, movie and TV show production at all scales has neared unprecedented lows. The time of Peak TV, characterized by fierce studio competition to attract subscribers through an abundance of new content for their streaming platforms, seems to be a thing of the past. Now, profitability and prudent spending are prioritized more than ever before.
The rosiest outlook on AI deployment envisions an invigoration of the production landscape by bringing down costs in areas related to conceptualization, visual effects and animation, just to name a few. The trade-off? Chunks of the Hollywood workforce gone, mostly those in postproduction who are staring down the barrel of potential automation due to labor protections and legal and technological constraints surrounding AI use that protect actors, writers and directors from but not other crew.
The situation hasn’t been overlooked. In November, Ben Affleck sparked a heated discussion among Hollywood’s general public with his views on how AI could impact the industry. As the CEO of Artists Equity, he stated, “I wouldn’t prefer to be in the VFX (Visual Effects) business right now. They’re facing difficulties.
His comments weren’t all doom and gloom though. The A-lister was largely optimistic that the technology will help talent and revitalize production by slashing costs — as long as you’re not engaged in the “more laborious, less creative and more costly aspects of filmmaking.” He stressed, “That will make it easier for the people who want to make Good Will Hunting’s to go out and make it.”
Similar to Affleck, other Hollywood executives are optimistic that this technology will prove beneficial as the industry adapts to a fresh approach in the economic aspects of movie production and distribution.
According to Lionsgate Vice Chairman Michael Burns, AI technology has the potential to reduce costs in departments such as special effects and landscapes. By using these tools alongside filmmakers, it could enable the creation of films that may not have previously been funded.
As a gaming enthusiast, I’m thrilled about the groundbreaking collaboration between my favorite studio and Runway, an innovative AI company based in New York. Starting this September, Runway will train a unique generative AI model using Lionsgate content for behind-the-scenes production tasks. In exchange, they gain access to some of the studio’s titles, helping them craft a custom model tailored just for Lionsgate. This could potentially streamline various aspects of production like storyboarding and VFX design.
The agreements suggest that the technology is becoming more widely accepted by the mainstream, as studios seek validation through practical applications and tech firms aim to establish themselves in this particular sector.
According to Meeka Bondy, chair of Perkins Coie’s entertainment practice and a former senior vice president for legal affairs at HBO, this development is becoming more legitimate. This shift could significantly alter the way movies and TV shows are made. In the future, when drafting contracts, instead of starting from scratch, I might use an initial or several drafts generated by AI. Similarly, in film production, the same thing may occur.
In the same vein as other sectors adapting to technology, Hollywood is focusing on reducing costs. However, agreements reached by the Writers Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild have established certain safeguards for their members. For screenwriters, the use of AI isn’t outright banned, but there are limitations on how it can be acknowledged and employed without impacting remuneration and recognition. This aligns with U.S. copyright law, which disallows the copyright of AI-produced content, making productions utilizing such technology less commercially viable as they would become public domain. Consequently, many studios prohibit AI usage in writers’ rooms, and some screenwriters are required to sign authenticity statements asserting their sole authorship of scripts.
Mark Goffman, a showrunner and writer known for shows like Bull, Limitless, and The West Wing, stated at the AI on the Lot conference (a gathering discussing AI in the entertainment industry) held in May, that contracts typically require seeking permission from studios. Moreover, many studios have policies in place that essentially prohibit such actions.
Actors are required to give consent for the creation of digital versions of them using AI, as per their labor contracts. This rule is also applied in the films “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” and “Alien: Romulus”, where characters from previous sequels are brought back to life. In both instances, the productions obtained consent and paid the estates of the deceased actors. If a studio not bound by labor agreements were to use an actor’s likeness in a production without permission, they could potentially face legal action for infringing on the actor’s right to control the commercial use of their image (right of publicity). For instance, Scarlett Johansson threatened to sue over allegations that OpenAI used her voice without licensing it from her.
In contrast to writers, actors, and other guild members, some workers in specific industries do not enjoy the same level of protection. Recently, after the Animation Guild agreed on a tentative deal with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, two negotiating committee members advised against ratifying the new contract due to insufficient protections concerning Artificial Intelligence (AI). Under the proposed terms, the use of AI may be demanded if there’s prior notice. In comparison to agreements reached by WGA and SAG-AFTRA, the safeguards for implementing AI are significantly lower.
Mike Riana, director of ‘The Mitchells vs. the Machines’, stated in an Instagram post that studios could potentially use AI instead of workers. He noted that they didn’t have staffing minimums to prevent a decrease in crew size due to potential AI-related job losses.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) plays a significant role in various stages of pre-production, such as creating storyboards, designing characters, and developing background art. Notably, the VFX sector doesn’t seem to be faring much better. The majority of Visual Effects (VFX) studios are not unionized, although IATSE has used AI as a means to potentially change this. Many VFX tasks are already outsourced to external companies like Weta FX, DNEG, and MPC, partly to utilize post-production tax credits available overseas.
One reason Hollywood executives consider adopting AI in the VFX field is due to the labor-intensive nature of the work. Creating high-quality VFX typically demands extensive preparation time and significant financial resources. In a two-hour movie filmed at 24 frames per second, there are nearly 200,000 individual frames. Each frame within a shot is often treated individually, and this doesn’t even account for adjustments needed to align motion, lighting, and color.
As Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI) became widely accepted in the 1990s following the success of films like “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” and “Jurassic Park”, some Visual Effects (VFX) artists are adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI). Although there are limitations on its application due to legal restrictions, they can bypass these by training open-source AI systems based on their own productions. However, even though the AI is being used, a human is still necessary to operate and control the tools.
According to Geduldick, you might not require a team of 300 people specializing in Visual Effects (VFX), but you will indeed need a committed group of artists who are skilled in handling AI.
This tale was initially published in The Hollywood Reporter’s December 13th edition. If you want to get the magazine, follow this link to subscribe.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-12-14 19:55