"Realtime" de-aging? I could see this being a live television event. Maybe you do it and get an Emmy. Trying to do it to win and Oscar feels misguided.
He's just weirdly obsessed with special effects in a boomerlike wonder that's quite bizarre, considering how expensive his projects must be and how rare it has been for him to make hits. What was his last succes? Who funds his movies anyway?
As an independent filmmaker, I'm putting a disclaimer in the credits that no generative AI was used in production. Because I'm afraid, soon most movies won't really be movies. Just AI slop
Robert Zemeckis is my 7th favorite movie director (behind Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, Tim Burton, Peter Jackson and Wes Anderson)
I really appreciate your take, especially for being before the fact, before you watched the film. That takes foresight and a real strong opinion to pull off. If you are right, that is. TBS
I think you're being too cynical. I think it looks fun, and I think that's an interesting idea for a film, and I don't feel like the effects showcased here look bad at all. Let movies be fun and play with spectacle - it's not like he's making MORE superhero films and video game adaptations... I think it's important to experiment and utilize new tools to tell stories.
Kind of contradictory, its ok to have them be fun and play with spectacle when its not the corporated film you don't like. Let's never bring up Bond films or film makers like Tim Burton for using their same tropes though.
Honestly he's been doing this for a long time and I don't know why he thinks it looks good. Like go look at the Contact poster where Jodie Foster is sitting down and zoom on her face. I know posters aren't the director's decision, but that face looks more uncanny and weird than the entire Polar Express movie. (Or Flight poster too) And to be fair I've seen a handful of other movie posters that do that, but I've noticed that Robert Zemeckis in general really likes that uncanny waxy and retouched faces for some reason, so it's no surprise that he would be the first one to jump on AI and use it in his film. Also, thank god he didn't do a George Lucas and didn't go back to ruin Back to the Future to make everyone's face waxy and uncanny.
I don't even care if it's good, if it's using AI to that extent I'm not watching/supporting it. What you said dude, no humanity. And FK Zemeckis, Hanks, all these old cnts pulling up the ladder on the next gen of filmmakers and actors.
At least I can say "Here" is quite interesting in premise, unlike "Pinoccio" which Disney definitely made me go full "Incredible Hulk" for making a remake of a Disney film that didn't needed one. But I do admit, AI assisted technology although impressive and useful to correct some errors during the editing process, AI included in filmmaking and in everything should be not be overdone and regulated in certain instances. As what you mentioned at the end of the video, that would be a miracle, Robert Zemekis needs to go back from scratch and realize that the latest cutting edge in films is not always everything, you just need a good story to tell.
Watching an hours long movie from the same shot sounds like agony, it's the most torturous idea ever. People gave Boyhood a hard time for being a gimmick (the actors grew up in real time over 10+ years of filming) although the plot felt messy by the end, at least the scenery jumped around A LOT it's similar to Forrest Gump in a way as the main character goes through different schools, college and then adulthood, travelling around the USA in the last act.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Zemeckis has always pushed film technology to the edges of it. He's not doing anything he hasn't done before in that sense.
It used to be in service of a compelling story, unlike (seemingly) here. The argument here points out that all the movie seems to offer is the special effects gimmick.
The Here trailer was intriguing what are you talking about. Their de-aging looks fine i hardly noticed it and was looking more at the entire scene. Compared to his earlier work and other de aging fils it looks far better and worth a critique once seeing the movie not before a such specific option dude.
From what I've seen from this film, it feels like Zemeckis got impatience over Terrence Malick still being in his cave and so he decided to make a film to rival that of Mr. Malick.
It’s incredible how it became “cool” for many people to criticize cgi and vfx, dude the vfx look really good, perfect? No, but neither practical or make up are. You criticize a lack of movie depth, but the movie hasn’t even come out, my god is a trailer, and for what it seems the dude is trying to give us something different here, that alone is worth clapping rather than complaining for a effect that look perfectly fine from the trailer if you are not actively looking for it
Thouts on a yet unseen motion picture? Clever thing to put energy in it. A retired religion teacher thinks story is the most important thing, and uses ideas like character development. Moviemaking is a technical question. Using thinking panels from the field of literature is not enough
thanks for watching :))
Idk I think it's rather fascinating fo make a film based on one angle, as if to say every place has a story to tell
"Realtime" de-aging?
I could see this being a live television event. Maybe you do it and get an Emmy. Trying to do it to win and Oscar feels misguided.
He's just weirdly obsessed with special effects in a boomerlike wonder that's quite bizarre, considering how expensive his projects must be and how rare it has been for him to make hits. What was his last succes? Who funds his movies anyway?
As an independent filmmaker, I'm putting a disclaimer in the credits that no generative AI was used in production.
Because I'm afraid, soon most movies won't really be movies. Just AI slop
5:37 couldn't have said it better myself
We currently live in a time where everyone, everywhere seems to think that they have ti integrate AI into everything
Say no to AI films.
Robert Zemeckis is my 7th favorite movie director (behind Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, Tim Burton, Peter Jackson and Wes Anderson)
I really appreciate your take, especially for being before the fact, before you watched the film. That takes foresight and a real strong opinion to pull off. If you are right, that is. TBS
Couldn't agree more. Forest Gump is a master class in storytelling.
I think you're being too cynical. I think it looks fun, and I think that's an interesting idea for a film, and I don't feel like the effects showcased here look bad at all. Let movies be fun and play with spectacle - it's not like he's making MORE superhero films and video game adaptations... I think it's important to experiment and utilize new tools to tell stories.
This is why you will be a slave to skynet and turn you into a compost heap
The effects look atrocious. Look at Robin Wright's face. Uncanny Valley creepers.
Shut up
Kind of contradictory, its ok to have them be fun and play with spectacle when its not the corporated film you don't like. Let's never bring up Bond films or film makers like Tim Burton for using their same tropes though.
Actually kind of looking forward to checking out Here tbh
what’s your favorite movie directed by Zemeckis?
Here (2024)
Either Used Cars or Death Becomes Her.
I love beowulf.
Honestly he's been doing this for a long time and I don't know why he thinks it looks good.
Like go look at the Contact poster where Jodie Foster is sitting down and zoom on her face. I know posters aren't the director's decision, but that face looks more uncanny and weird than the entire Polar Express movie. (Or Flight poster too)
And to be fair I've seen a handful of other movie posters that do that, but I've noticed that Robert Zemeckis in general really likes that uncanny waxy and retouched faces for some reason, so it's no surprise that he would be the first one to jump on AI and use it in his film.
Also, thank god he didn't do a George Lucas and didn't go back to ruin Back to the Future to make everyone's face waxy and uncanny.
Flight was the last movie of his I actually liked. Even there the music choices were laughably on the nose to the point of being comical
This movie shouldn't be called «HERE» but «EERIE»
I love his previous works ..so I will definitely give this movie a chance
I don't even care if it's good, if it's using AI to that extent I'm not watching/supporting it. What you said dude, no humanity. And FK Zemeckis, Hanks, all these old cnts pulling up the ladder on the next gen of filmmakers and actors.
At least I can say "Here" is quite interesting in premise, unlike "Pinoccio" which Disney definitely made me go full "Incredible Hulk" for making a remake of a Disney film that didn't needed one. But I do admit, AI assisted technology although impressive and useful to correct some errors during the editing process, AI included in filmmaking and in everything should be not be overdone and regulated in certain instances. As what you mentioned at the end of the video, that would be a miracle, Robert Zemekis needs to go back from scratch and realize that the latest cutting edge in films is not always everything, you just need a good story to tell.
i am getting Polar Express vibes...
I hadn't heard about this movie and I agree with the sentiment that this looks dull and uninteresting due to the focus on the effects
It's a peculiar choice to have close-ups in instances like this
CGI humans are most convincing the further they are from the foreground😫
Watching an hours long movie from the same shot sounds like agony, it's the most torturous idea ever.
People gave Boyhood a hard time for being a gimmick (the actors grew up in real time over 10+ years of filming) although the plot felt messy by the end, at least the scenery jumped around A LOT it's similar to Forrest Gump in a way as the main character goes through different schools, college and then adulthood, travelling around the USA in the last act.
Pusha T beat goes hard
Sorry but this movies gonna bomb hard 😂😂
This movie looks just as boring as it looks creepy
I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Zemeckis has always pushed film technology to the edges of it. He's not doing anything he hasn't done before in that sense.
It used to be in service of a compelling story, unlike (seemingly) here. The argument here points out that all the movie seems to offer is the special effects gimmick.
Apart from the AI, the idea and story is brilliant
The Here trailer was intriguing what are you talking about. Their de-aging looks fine i hardly noticed it and was looking more at the entire scene. Compared to his earlier work and other de aging fils it looks far better and worth a critique once seeing the movie not before a such specific option dude.
From what I've seen from this film, it feels like Zemeckis got impatience over Terrence Malick still being in his cave and so he decided to make a film to rival that of Mr. Malick.
I rather watch this than another superhero movie
It’s incredible how it became “cool” for many people to criticize cgi and vfx, dude the vfx look really good, perfect? No, but neither practical or make up are. You criticize a lack of movie depth, but the movie hasn’t even come out, my god is a trailer, and for what it seems the dude is trying to give us something different here, that alone is worth clapping rather than complaining for a effect that look perfectly fine from the trailer if you are not actively looking for it
How can the effects be worse than in Benjamin Button??
Thouts on a yet unseen motion picture? Clever thing to put energy in it. A retired religion teacher thinks story is the most important thing, and uses ideas like character development. Moviemaking is a technical question. Using thinking panels from the field of literature is not enough
Eh
If it gets good reviews then I’ll see it
Bea Wolf?!
Que manera de no decir nada
Visual Effects is not AI.
Thats what I'm saying