Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta Movie Gen

ai.meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#341

Post by meiraleal »

adamc wrote: post #208
CuriouslyC wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of great outsider storytellers and artists. Youtube is proof of this. People mostly do comedy on youtube because that's what the medium supports on a low budget, but AI is going to change that.

I'm really not seeing how that would happen from these examples. It would seem like achieving an adequate, directorial level of control would require writing a novel -- or, anyway, more than a conventional screenplay -- to get the AI to make the movie you wanted. There is so much that has to be conveyed in making a film, if you want it to say something particular.

> It would seem like achieving an adequate, directorial level of control would require writing a novel -- or, anyway, more than a conventional screenplay -- to get the AI to make the movie you wanted.

And? What's the problem with that? You seem to be locked in a "prompt to get a movie" mindset.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#342

Post by adamc »

stale2002 wrote: post #302
adamc wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are art compared to getting uncontrolled choices. Who decides what the actors look like? How they move? What emotions their faces are to convey? How the blocking works for a scene? What the color scheme is for the movie? How each shot is taken? Etc. There is a vast difference between a formulaic hollywood movie and some guy with a camera. If I say "Godzilla vs. The Iron Giant" what is the plot? Who is the good g…

> Who decides You still aren't getting it. Movie directors aren't making these decisions either. What they are doing, is listening to market focus groups and checking off boxes based on the data from that. A market focus group driven decisions for a movie is just as much, if not more so, of an "algorithm" than when a literal computer makes the decision. Thats not art. Its the same as if a human manually did an algori…

Some of it is done that way, but by no means all of it. You can easily see the differences, because, say, Wes Anderson movies are not the same as Martin Scorsese movies.

If it were really all just market decisions, directors would have no influence. This is not remotely the case. Nor are they paid as though that were true.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#343

Post by chefandy »

stale2002 wrote: post #302
adamc wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are art compared to getting uncontrolled choices. Who decides what the actors look like? How they move? What emotions their faces are to convey? How the blocking works for a scene? What the color scheme is for the movie? How each shot is taken? Etc. There is a vast difference between a formulaic hollywood movie and some guy with a camera. If I say "Godzilla vs. The Iron Giant" what is the plot? Who is the good g…

> Who decides You still aren't getting it. Movie directors aren't making these decisions either. What they are doing, is listening to market focus groups and checking off boxes based on the data from that. A market focus group driven decisions for a movie is just as much, if not more so, of an "algorithm" than when a literal computer makes the decision. Thats not art. Its the same as if a human manually did an algori…

This is a common perspective among people that don't realize how much goes into making a movie. That stuff informs which movies get approved and it certainly can inform broader script changes, casting changes, and in some cases editing decisions, but there's a UNIVERSE of other artistic decisions that need to be made. Implying that the people involved are mere technicians implementing a marketing strategy is exponentially more reductive than saying developers and designers aren't relevant to making software because marketing surveys dictate the feature development timeline. A developer's input is far more fungible than an artist working on a feature film.

I assure you, they don't do surveys on the punchiness and strategy used by foley artists; the slope and toe of the film stock chosen for cut scenes by the DP or that those cut scenes should be shot like cut scenes instead of dream sequences; the kind of cars they use; how energetic the explosions are; clothing selection and how the costumes change situationally or throughout the film; indescribably nuanced changes in the actor's delivery; what fonts go on the signs; which props they use in all of the sets and the strategies they use to weather things; what specific locations they shoot at within an area and which direction they point the camera, how the grading might change the mood and imply thematic connections, subtle symbolism used, the specifics of camera movements, focus, and depth of field, and then there's the deeeep world of lighting... All of those things and a million others are contributions from individual artists contributing their own art in one big collaborative project.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#344

Post by llmthrow102 »

lairv wrote: post #80
mywacaday wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we only a few years away from one person/small group made movies where the dialog, acting, location and special effects can be tweaked endlessly for a relatively low cost. If I was a studio exec I'd be worried.

I'm not sure, I see a common pattern with autonomous vehicle, text to image, llms: the last 10% are hard to achieve

The average person spends 9-11 hours per day consuming media depending on what source you look at. When people are playing games or browsing social media at the same time that they have the latest Netflix show on their TV, you can't tell me that this is really valuable time spent to deepen one's understanding of the human experience; it's a replacement for the human experience.

Most people will not notice if the soundtrack to a new TV show is made by a 5 word AI prompt of "exciting build-up suspense scene music" while they're playing pouring money into their mobile gacha game to get the "cute girl, anime, {color} {outfit}" prompt picture that is SSS rank.

You or I might not care for AI slop, but it's a lot cheaper to produce for Netflix or Zinga or Spotify or whatever, and if they go this route, they don't have to pay for writers, actors, illustrators, songwriters, or licensing for someone else's product. They'll just put their own AI content on autoplay after what you're currently watching, and hope most people don't care enough to stop it and choose something else.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#345

Post by javier123454321 »

keiferski wrote: post #89
cs702 wrote: post #35

Impressive. It's only going to get better, faster, cheaper, easier.[a] Sooner than anyone could have expected, we'll be able to ask the machines: "Turn this book into a two-hour movie with the likeness of [your favorite actor/actress] in the lead role." Sooner than anyone could have expected, we'll be able to have immersive VR experiences that are crafted to each person. Sooner than anyone could have expected, we won…

This sounds gimmicky and worth watching once or twice, then forgetting about. Worthwhile art will continue to be created from a specific person's/group's vision, not an algorithmically generated sum of personal preferences.

Exactly, there will be a lower barrier to entry, but making content that stands out will require the same (or more) effort.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#346

Post by Sgt_Apone »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #142
nanna wrote: post #48

Absolutely terrifying. Please stop.

Absolutely agree. It's very terrifying and will likely cause mass disruption because it will disintegrate the social fabric that is held together by people needing other people for stuff.

Absolutely. What's even the purpose of this thing? Who is it really serving?

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#347

Post by chasing »

Periodic generative AI reminder:

It will not make you creative. It will not give you taste or talent. It is a technical tool that will mostly be used to produce cheap garbage unless you develop the skills to use it as a part of your creative toolkit -- which should also include many, many other things.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#348

Post by tiborsaas »

darepublic wrote: post #294

The problem with gen AI right now is it still feels fairly obvious. There are numerous YouTube channels that primarily rely on gpt for the visuals. And I don't like them.

I know people who use it day to day in their production workflow for ads and installations. You'd never know if they wouldn't break it down for you. Imagine 1 second scenes which happens so fast your bran just accepts it as "hand made" or professional job. 90% of it was generative AI, but the "good news" is that it still required a human editor who just happened to save a ton of time to make something that wasn't commercially viable because the client wouldn't paid for it otherwise.

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#349

Post by scudsworth »

denisvlr wrote: post #291
adamc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be. How is any of this going to lead to meaningful art? I don't think you get "The Green Mile" from something like this.

Shameless plug: I just created a short AI film (1) and tried to tell an actual story and trigger emotions. I spent countless hours crafting the script, choosing the shots, refining my prompts, generating images, animating images, generating music, sounds, and so on... For me AI tools are just that - tools. True, you have to yield them some "control", but at the end of the day you are still the one guiding and directi…

a shameless plug deserves an honest review: this is dog shit

Re: Meta Movie Gen

#350

Post by adamc »

meiraleal wrote: post #341
adamc wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really not seeing how that would happen from these examples. It would seem like achieving an adequate, directorial level of control would require writing a novel -- or, anyway, more than a conventional screenplay -- to get the AI to make the movie you wanted. There is so much that has to be conveyed in making a film, if you want it to say something particular.

> It would seem like achieving an adequate, directorial level of control would require writing a novel -- or, anyway, more than a conventional screenplay -- to get the AI to make the movie you wanted. And? What's the problem with that? You seem to be locked in a "prompt to get a movie" mindset.

Those are the examples provided. When they deliver pro tools for generating movie clips, I will be more convinced, but that hasn't remotely happened yet.
Post reply on HN