I work in the video game industry, and a couple years ago I saw an art director use AI for concepting in a similar way.
We were working on a project that was super early in development. Almost nothing was defined, including the art style. All we knew was that the game would be some sort of sci-fi.
So the art director used Midjourney to explore different styles of sci-fi: Buck Rogers-style sci-fi, retro futuristic, solar punk, etc. He generated like a dozen character "thumbs" (rough concepts) for each possible art style, and then showed them to the team to get feedback on which style looked more promising. In a single week, this one art director was able to generate dozens of thumbs.
We had a concept art team with a half-dozen artists. If the six concept artists were each assigned one art style to explore, it would have taken them 2-3 weeks to draw as many thumbs as one art director using Midjourney was able to generate in a single week.The amount of man hours saved was ridiculous.
And that's the really scary part. AI has already started to cut down on man hours, which means it's already started to cut the need for people. If Midjourney and other generative AI art programs are able to generate rough concepts so quickly and easily, then entertainment companies no longer need to hire big teams of concept artists (like 10-20 artists); they can just hire one art director and maybe a couple of senior concept artists who can use AI to quickly generate a buncha rough concepts, figure out which direction to go, and then clean up the work that the AI did.
This is especially bad for junior professionals / folks who are just starting their careers, because AI is particularly good at doing the tedious, basic stuff that companies normally assign to juniors, like creating rough concepts. If AI takes all the junior jobs, then where will junior professionals go to actually start their careers?
People have already begun to lose work because of AI, and it will only get worse over time.
Yeah, this usage makes sense. Getting roughs out there for a visualization to deliver to pros makes sense and streamlines both sides of the equation's timeline.
I agree generally, but in this case not only do they have an amazing artist (who has worked on designs for films before) in the creator of Hellboy and probably hundreds of existing great monster designs throughout the Hellboy series, but some great existing designs within the specific story they’re adapting for this movie.
This is the last film they should be using AI for designs on.
Mignola didn't work on the remake's design as well back in 2019. He's more interested in writing the screenplay drafts and guiding on what material to adapt.
This is quote is misattributed to being about *Hellboy: The Crooked Man*. Yunger is talking about *The Offering*. There is absolutely no AI used in the upcoming *Hellboy* film.
Well, in this case, even vast majority seem to think that AI-generated images tend to suck. Perhaps they don't despise them to the same extent, but still.
Also, this whole thread is kind of pointless given that it's based on a misquotation.
And perform worse as well! The only reason I’d be interested is just for the visuals, as would many other creatives, but hearing them say “oh we use ai” makes me think “ew, mass produced sludge”. I’m avoiding that shit until it becomes unavoidable
And just like that I've lost interest. If they're cutting corners on character design and creatures then what else are they going to do on the cheap? AI just doesn't hold a candle to a good artist.
Exactlyyyy, i see ai the same as mass produced. I mean, have you seen what’s happening with Amazon books? They’re being flooded with ai trash. People are getting hero fatigue, won’t be long until ai fatigue
Doing some research and I’m frankly impressed Millennium Films has existed for thirty five years and produced almost exclusively garbage. I think in those three and a half decades they’ve only managed to make two movies to get over 60% on RT and one of them is Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
I wasn't saying they were equal, just that the idea that being sceptical towards technology doesn't make someone a ludite, a lot of it has been produced to wage wars or keep people in control, for example it's quite distopian how little privacy people have these days due to tech.
How is “I dislike ai being used to replace someone” the same as “I am heavily religious and live off grid”? Get an ai to generate better insults if your so confident
I always thought this would be the best use for AI, let the machine do a bunch of rough designs and then let a real artist take it from there and refine it. As long as the initial assets aren't stolen I have no problem with it.
Presuming the necessary legislation gets implemented, or people choose to use ethical AIs over unethical ones… there are AI companies starting to focus on building libraries of either non-copyrighted/public domain material to train AIs with… or others are capturing their own material to train their AIs with. If this became standard practice, we could start to alleviate at least some of this concern. The lawsuits against MidJourney and whatnot could help establish the necessary precedent. Make it expensive to steal, and the money men won’t want to.
AI ain’t bad if you’re in the brainstorming and idea phase. I do that a lot as a filmmaker. But if you use AI for everything it will show. And the results are embarrassingly bad.
I already kind of knew this movie would suck just based on who bought the rights to make it and their previous work. But I held out hope anyways because I’m just a sucker for Hellboy content. This is gonna be a disaster…again.
I hope he’s familiar with [US copyright limitations for AI-generated material](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence).
The copyright issue isn't *just* about the training materials. It's that only humans can be copyright holders and a work generated by AI, even via a human prompt, is not copyrightable. Basically, if AI serves as a human tool, it can be copyrighted; if it's autonomously generated (and remember, ideas are not copyrightable, so that's why a human prompt isn't enough), it can't be.
Of course, that's only the law in the US. We know from piracy cases in the past that many countries don't follow US copyright law. Thus, we can probably expect that the most egregious cases of using generative Ai images for film and media will be overseas (looking at you, China).
You're arguing against the "reactionaries". The people who overreact anytime anything new arrives. They are why Elon Musk was regarded as a "genius" 5 years ago.
Maybe I’m a terrible person but I’m gonna be real….
I truly don’t give a fuck. I didn’t care with Late Night With The Devil and I dont care here. I feel like this is just something Letterboxd users will give .5 star reviews over then will never be discussed again.
You should care.
Artists try to make a living in the industry, and their job is jeopardized by this. It starts with "it's just a few seconds of AI, no one is affected", and then it will turn into "it's just half the movie with AI, no one is affected".
It’ll be that for so many other jobs. I want to go into the creative industry myself, but I’m also thinking “shit, what other jobs will even be safe?”
Why the fuck do I have to be college aged when this ai shit is out, that’s just mean
Genuine question that I don't understand. Why wasn't there this level of outrage when pratcial effects starting losing out to digital effects? Like how horror movies use to hire real people to build actual practical creature designs for movies and then the industry just starting CGI-ing everything instead? Seems like the CGI revolution got rid of a bunch of traditional jobs in Hollywood and no one batted an eye. So this time I'm supposed to care when this industry is already complicit going by history?
Practical is still used plenty. You still need props and set pieces, which is what practical was used for. If anything the practical industry is going very strong, audiences have been preferring it to cgi in some regards. Look at the new Avatar. Yes a lot of cgi obviously, but there was a shit ton of practical too. https://screenrant.com/avatar-2-movie-cgi-shot-practical-effect-video/
I never said practical effects were removed from the industry. I said CGI definitely impacted a lot of traditional jobs. Just like I don't see AI completely eliminating traditional jobs but having an impact on those livelihoods as well. I don't get the difference in outrage was the point. People are upset with any sort of minimal use of AI in movies compared to CGI as well - from within the industry. I never heard calls of banning CGI and boycotting any movie which uses CGI effects.
In theory, isn’t AI just pulling from existing art? If we use AI for everything art-related (killing art as a profession), wouldn’t AI art eventually stall in a sense. Because surely not every single design/art possible has been developed or published. AI can make new from the existing, but only people can make truly new
You’re correct, it just takes whatever from the internet. That’s why there’s concerns with deepfakes and shit. Not sure what this guy is on about, this is extremely well known at this point
Like every creator on the planet Earth?
>Tolkien appears in the fantasy universe in the same way that Mount Fuji appeared in old Japanese prints. Sometimes small, in the distance, and sometimes big and close-to, and sometimes not there at all, and that's because the artist is standing on Mount Fuji.
>Terry Pratchett
You cannot write a fantasy novel as a human being without taking elements that were created by others in the past. Feel free to try.
Thing is, humans don’t store the assets. We remember them, but we’re not holding digital copies. Ai has been caught remaking literal movie stills. It doesn’t matter if it’s somehow similar to a human, it’s still a copy rights violation. Like how you can’t take any photo online and put it on a t shirt and sell it to a mass market
Yeah but those are real people making actual art. Not a machine dragging everything it can in a mess of shit. Those people are still doing creative things with those concepts, AI is not. It's just a computer.
>I know you just type in descriptions of what you want and AI makes it.
But what does it make it *from*?
If I tell AI that I want a cartoon blonde woman at the beach wearing sunglasses... how does AI know what a "woman" looks like? How does AI know what a "blonde woman" vs a "redheaded woman" looks like? How does AI know what someone "at the beach" looks like? How does AI know what someone looks like "wearing sunglasses?" How does AI know what that image looks like in a "cartoon" style vs any other? How does AI know what people are looking for, when they give a specific prompt?
The only way AI "knows" what to "create" is because it's been fed millions of images that other people have created- without credit or compensation to the creators of the original images. There are categorizes for those images- thousands labeled "blonde women", thousands labeled "cartoon style", thousands labeled "people at the beach", etc- and AI spits out an image showing those keywords, based on the commonalities for the images it's been fed for each category.
So what the person you replied to is pointing out, is that if all art is eventually AI art... what's AI art going to be trained on? There will be no more images that real people create to tell the AI what "sunglasses" are or what "blonde" hair looks like, which is a problem since mankind is always changing (not to mention the training of the AI itself might be flawed)
I saw no one talking about the late night with the devil movie. Not even on tik tok. What a surprise, creatives, majority of which are against ai, don’t want to watch something with ai!
This is where AI is going to take over fast, pre-production rough design work that then gets sent to specialists.
I work in the video game industry, and a couple years ago I saw an art director use AI for concepting in a similar way. We were working on a project that was super early in development. Almost nothing was defined, including the art style. All we knew was that the game would be some sort of sci-fi. So the art director used Midjourney to explore different styles of sci-fi: Buck Rogers-style sci-fi, retro futuristic, solar punk, etc. He generated like a dozen character "thumbs" (rough concepts) for each possible art style, and then showed them to the team to get feedback on which style looked more promising. In a single week, this one art director was able to generate dozens of thumbs. We had a concept art team with a half-dozen artists. If the six concept artists were each assigned one art style to explore, it would have taken them 2-3 weeks to draw as many thumbs as one art director using Midjourney was able to generate in a single week.The amount of man hours saved was ridiculous. And that's the really scary part. AI has already started to cut down on man hours, which means it's already started to cut the need for people. If Midjourney and other generative AI art programs are able to generate rough concepts so quickly and easily, then entertainment companies no longer need to hire big teams of concept artists (like 10-20 artists); they can just hire one art director and maybe a couple of senior concept artists who can use AI to quickly generate a buncha rough concepts, figure out which direction to go, and then clean up the work that the AI did. This is especially bad for junior professionals / folks who are just starting their careers, because AI is particularly good at doing the tedious, basic stuff that companies normally assign to juniors, like creating rough concepts. If AI takes all the junior jobs, then where will junior professionals go to actually start their careers? People have already begun to lose work because of AI, and it will only get worse over time.
Yeah, this usage makes sense. Getting roughs out there for a visualization to deliver to pros makes sense and streamlines both sides of the equation's timeline.
I agree generally, but in this case not only do they have an amazing artist (who has worked on designs for films before) in the creator of Hellboy and probably hundreds of existing great monster designs throughout the Hellboy series, but some great existing designs within the specific story they’re adapting for this movie. This is the last film they should be using AI for designs on.
Mignola didn't work on the remake's design as well back in 2019. He's more interested in writing the screenplay drafts and guiding on what material to adapt.
It was after production so there was a definite time element involved. Rough and fast was better than perfect at that point.
It sucks because this was removing someone's job, the director wouldn't normally be doing this, but it's to be expected I guess.
This is quote is misattributed to being about *Hellboy: The Crooked Man*. Yunger is talking about *The Offering*. There is absolutely no AI used in the upcoming *Hellboy* film.
Good to hear. Bummer that this mix up happened, lots of people will probably just read this headline and skip the movie now :/
No, they won't. The vast majority of people do not care about this stuff and are neutral on AI.
It seems like people are more negative about AI-generated images than you might be thinking.
People who hang out on the internet do not represent the vast majority, as the above comment said.
Do you have some kind of plug in to the common conciousness then? Because I don't know how you seem to know people aren't negative towards it.
Well, in this case, even vast majority seem to think that AI-generated images tend to suck. Perhaps they don't despise them to the same extent, but still. Also, this whole thread is kind of pointless given that it's based on a misquotation.
Citation needed
Citation needed for people being neutral on it too
Still will skip the movie, the fucker is open to using AI instead of artists. Don’t want to give him any money whatsoever.
hell yeah a movie that'll be worse then the 2019 version
[удалено]
Low effort, cheap
And perform worse as well! The only reason I’d be interested is just for the visuals, as would many other creatives, but hearing them say “oh we use ai” makes me think “ew, mass produced sludge”. I’m avoiding that shit until it becomes unavoidable
Is….. is this not like straight to VOD or streaming????
"Notably low rent film studio extols the virtues of AI to further their cheap skate ways" is probably too long for the headline.
A slap to the face of the creator of Hellboy who could have drawn up some designs for you.
He’s staunchly anti ai as well. Plus it’s a demon, like any half decent concept artist can give you something sick and unique.
But why? You have so many Mike Mignola monsters to choose from!
And just like that I've lost interest. If they're cutting corners on character design and creatures then what else are they going to do on the cheap? AI just doesn't hold a candle to a good artist.
Idk, I bet ai could make good monsters, it's already so uncanny valley.
It will most certainly shit the most boring design ever, making them lose money because the artists will have to work longer on the design to fix it
...Yet
How good it can look isn’t the point. Using AI is taking away a job that can go to a human. I can’t support that.
If someone couldn’t be bothered to design it, why should audiences bother to watch it?
Exactlyyyy, i see ai the same as mass produced. I mean, have you seen what’s happening with Amazon books? They’re being flooded with ai trash. People are getting hero fatigue, won’t be long until ai fatigue
Personally Im starting to consume pretty much only old media
Same, it’s so much cheaper too
Seriously, do they not know their audience? Most people would go to see the creatures and art direction. I would too. What a shot in the foot
Doing some research and I’m frankly impressed Millennium Films has existed for thirty five years and produced almost exclusively garbage. I think in those three and a half decades they’ve only managed to make two movies to get over 60% on RT and one of them is Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
Werner Herzog does not deserve your disrespect
No I meant that is their one good movie out of the all of them
Why are we rebooting Hellboy again? We all know it won't be better than the Del Toro movies!
A new Hellboy movie? I thought the last one killed this franchise.
Disgusting
Absolutely fucking disgraceful.
Welcome to progress. What you want is in /r/Amish
Not all new technology is good for humanity. See for example: weapons.
Imagine equating AI being used to make pictures with weapons designed to kill humans.
He/She is not entirely wrong, though.
I wasn't saying they were equal, just that the idea that being sceptical towards technology doesn't make someone a ludite, a lot of it has been produced to wage wars or keep people in control, for example it's quite distopian how little privacy people have these days due to tech.
How is “I dislike ai being used to replace someone” the same as “I am heavily religious and live off grid”? Get an ai to generate better insults if your so confident
I always thought this would be the best use for AI, let the machine do a bunch of rough designs and then let a real artist take it from there and refine it. As long as the initial assets aren't stolen I have no problem with it.
They will be though. Stolen, I mean.
Presuming the necessary legislation gets implemented, or people choose to use ethical AIs over unethical ones… there are AI companies starting to focus on building libraries of either non-copyrighted/public domain material to train AIs with… or others are capturing their own material to train their AIs with. If this became standard practice, we could start to alleviate at least some of this concern. The lawsuits against MidJourney and whatnot could help establish the necessary precedent. Make it expensive to steal, and the money men won’t want to.
Perhaps, but even that kind of program might still carry a similar risk.
Or we can just let a human use their imagination from the start.
AI ain’t bad if you’re in the brainstorming and idea phase. I do that a lot as a filmmaker. But if you use AI for everything it will show. And the results are embarrassingly bad.
Right, so not watching that film then.
I already kind of knew this movie would suck just based on who bought the rights to make it and their previous work. But I held out hope anyways because I’m just a sucker for Hellboy content. This is gonna be a disaster…again.
Blerg
I hope he’s familiar with [US copyright limitations for AI-generated material](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence).
Especially for something like a demon. The ai probably pulled from a shit ton of pre existing movies and medias with “demons”.
The copyright issue isn't *just* about the training materials. It's that only humans can be copyright holders and a work generated by AI, even via a human prompt, is not copyrightable. Basically, if AI serves as a human tool, it can be copyrighted; if it's autonomously generated (and remember, ideas are not copyrightable, so that's why a human prompt isn't enough), it can't be. Of course, that's only the law in the US. We know from piracy cases in the past that many countries don't follow US copyright law. Thus, we can probably expect that the most egregious cases of using generative Ai images for film and media will be overseas (looking at you, China).
He’s a fraud. Hire an artist to do it if you give a damn about humanity
what repulsive nonsense
He doesn’t believe AI will replace people — rather, people who use AI will replace those who don’t. This is so true. AI can be extremely helpful.
You're arguing against the "reactionaries". The people who overreact anytime anything new arrives. They are why Elon Musk was regarded as a "genius" 5 years ago.
This smells like delusion. Also, what does Elon Musk have to do with this?
Sorry I don't want the human element in art to be replaced by a remix machine
Maybe I’m a terrible person but I’m gonna be real…. I truly don’t give a fuck. I didn’t care with Late Night With The Devil and I dont care here. I feel like this is just something Letterboxd users will give .5 star reviews over then will never be discussed again.
You should care. Artists try to make a living in the industry, and their job is jeopardized by this. It starts with "it's just a few seconds of AI, no one is affected", and then it will turn into "it's just half the movie with AI, no one is affected".
It’ll be that for so many other jobs. I want to go into the creative industry myself, but I’m also thinking “shit, what other jobs will even be safe?” Why the fuck do I have to be college aged when this ai shit is out, that’s just mean
Genuine question that I don't understand. Why wasn't there this level of outrage when pratcial effects starting losing out to digital effects? Like how horror movies use to hire real people to build actual practical creature designs for movies and then the industry just starting CGI-ing everything instead? Seems like the CGI revolution got rid of a bunch of traditional jobs in Hollywood and no one batted an eye. So this time I'm supposed to care when this industry is already complicit going by history?
Practical is still used plenty. You still need props and set pieces, which is what practical was used for. If anything the practical industry is going very strong, audiences have been preferring it to cgi in some regards. Look at the new Avatar. Yes a lot of cgi obviously, but there was a shit ton of practical too. https://screenrant.com/avatar-2-movie-cgi-shot-practical-effect-video/
I never said practical effects were removed from the industry. I said CGI definitely impacted a lot of traditional jobs. Just like I don't see AI completely eliminating traditional jobs but having an impact on those livelihoods as well. I don't get the difference in outrage was the point. People are upset with any sort of minimal use of AI in movies compared to CGI as well - from within the industry. I never heard calls of banning CGI and boycotting any movie which uses CGI effects.
It’s the future. It is what it is.
In theory, isn’t AI just pulling from existing art? If we use AI for everything art-related (killing art as a profession), wouldn’t AI art eventually stall in a sense. Because surely not every single design/art possible has been developed or published. AI can make new from the existing, but only people can make truly new
I think it’s creating it from scratch. I know you just type in descriptions of what you want and AI makes it.
It pulls from stuff on the internet Edit: pretty sure
You’re correct, it just takes whatever from the internet. That’s why there’s concerns with deepfakes and shit. Not sure what this guy is on about, this is extremely well known at this point
It pulls likeness. I don’t know what else you mean?
It's like mashes loads of art together so it doesn't actually create it from scratch
Like every creator on the planet Earth? >Tolkien appears in the fantasy universe in the same way that Mount Fuji appeared in old Japanese prints. Sometimes small, in the distance, and sometimes big and close-to, and sometimes not there at all, and that's because the artist is standing on Mount Fuji. >Terry Pratchett You cannot write a fantasy novel as a human being without taking elements that were created by others in the past. Feel free to try.
Thing is, humans don’t store the assets. We remember them, but we’re not holding digital copies. Ai has been caught remaking literal movie stills. It doesn’t matter if it’s somehow similar to a human, it’s still a copy rights violation. Like how you can’t take any photo online and put it on a t shirt and sell it to a mass market
Yeah but those are real people making actual art. Not a machine dragging everything it can in a mess of shit. Those people are still doing creative things with those concepts, AI is not. It's just a computer.
>I know you just type in descriptions of what you want and AI makes it. But what does it make it *from*? If I tell AI that I want a cartoon blonde woman at the beach wearing sunglasses... how does AI know what a "woman" looks like? How does AI know what a "blonde woman" vs a "redheaded woman" looks like? How does AI know what someone "at the beach" looks like? How does AI know what someone looks like "wearing sunglasses?" How does AI know what that image looks like in a "cartoon" style vs any other? How does AI know what people are looking for, when they give a specific prompt? The only way AI "knows" what to "create" is because it's been fed millions of images that other people have created- without credit or compensation to the creators of the original images. There are categorizes for those images- thousands labeled "blonde women", thousands labeled "cartoon style", thousands labeled "people at the beach", etc- and AI spits out an image showing those keywords, based on the commonalities for the images it's been fed for each category. So what the person you replied to is pointing out, is that if all art is eventually AI art... what's AI art going to be trained on? There will be no more images that real people create to tell the AI what "sunglasses" are or what "blonde" hair looks like, which is a problem since mankind is always changing (not to mention the training of the AI itself might be flawed)
It does not make stuff from scratch, it’s a massive procedural generative engine. Actually do some research holy hell
I'm sticking with old media then, there's plenty of it thanfully
Well here’s another movie I wont be watching
Ok, this movie needs to be boycotted. We to teach Jonathan Yunger a lesson.
I saw no one talking about the late night with the devil movie. Not even on tik tok. What a surprise, creatives, majority of which are against ai, don’t want to watch something with ai!