The number of hours I have logged in crew positions is well into the thousands. So my heart is absolutely with the crew as this paradigm shift unfolds. When the thing we do goes through a massive transformation like this, it creates as existential crisis. The thing to understand is that the job you do (or even the vocation you have spent your life on) is not synonymous with who and what you are. It’s what you’ve done and what skill set you’ve developed. And the reality is that all of life is change. The intrinsic value you have, which includes the skill set you have and the insights that come from it, remain. They’re still a part of you. And the way to navigate the future is to look for ways to bring your unique value to the new paradigm. My focus is story, and writing, and indie filmmaking. So that’s where my instinct recommends you look. The stories you can imagine will be unlike anyone else’s story, which makes it a unique value that only you can bring. But if creating stories isn’t what you’re drawn to, there are an infinite array of other possibilities - it’s a matter of where you put your focus. I often use the analogy of horse-drawn buggy drivers in the era when motorized vehicles were introduced. If the job goes away, that doesn’t make the driver obsolete; it only makes the job obsolete. The driver has infinite new opportunity in the world. And if all he’s passionate about is driving horse-drawn buggies, then the challenge becomes finding a way to do that even in a world where it’s not the norm. But it’s certainly not the only option. I hope this helps. I promise you, even though the future won’t look like the past, it will look amazing.
@fastscreenplay All A.i will do is destroy filmmarking as once A.i becomes avaliable for everyone to use we will just get lots of rubbish films posted online by pepole with no care or appreciation for actual filmmarking and filmmarking will tragically become a lost art.once anyone can create films it will just become the new trash/spam content on the same level as content on tiktok and its sad that that's something you could be potentially pushing for and you mention that pepole must move on but what about all the inspiring filmmakers out there who may not now get the traditional/true filmmarking experience
@@RBrady266 AI is going to allow far more people to express themselves in the visual arts medium on screen. What's being eliminated is the need to approach multi billion dollar corporate gate keepers to finance our dreams. Creatives who wish to express themselves are not seeking out AI to "tell them stories as determined by AI" but rather, allow US to tell our stories as we visualize them in our heads using AI tool-sets to help manifest the grandeur and physicality of those imaginary worlds without need for massive film crews and facilities on par with some sprawling military operation.
@@RBrady266 You are expressing one possible scenario - the least likely one. Check out another video on my channel called "The Catastrophic Glitch (Don't Panic). You are imagining a vision of the future based solely around your fears and your current understanding of both what we have now, what we once had, what this technology means, and how it will be implemented. The truth is, none of us can predict the future, so you can't possibly know that your imagining of the future is accurate. (Nor can I know that mine is accurate.) But yours presupposes a lot of things that time (and my experience) have shown me to be completely incorrect. Firstly, you assume that there would be no countermeasures to all the negatives you imagine. This is, at best, naive. Of course people will develop countermeasures to outcomes we don't find favorable. Secondly, you completely overlook the fact that STORIES COEXIST. Story is non-competitive. You can tell a story that is beautiful and human and AI can tell a million stories that are "spam/trash/rubbish" and the audience can watch them all. Garbage does not prevent quality from rising to the top. (And lest you claim quality will get buried by all the "noise", you misunderstand the role of curation.) Lastly, you clearly know nothing about me. I have been in the film industry for 40 years... I've been teaching for 25... because my goal is to launch the careers of a thousand filmmakers and tell a billion stories. You find it "sad" that I suggest writers and filmmakers embrace new technology to express themselves MORE creatively and with an even GREATER reach at a HIGHER financial return so they can live a life of pure creative pursuit?... If you think that's "sad", then we have very different ideas of the human experience. You are scared of AI. I get it. But your fear is blinding you to the extraordinary nature of this moment. Open your mind. Rethink your assumptions. See the power of the tool. And step into the new era. It's gonna be okay.
On one hand, this has been happening in the music industry for decades already. With synthesizers and drum machines, you can just press a button and have a beat play automatically and then press an automation on a synthesizer and you'll get a melody started. It changed the way that music was made but that doesn't mean there arent traditional musicians still doing things the old-fashioned way. On the other hand, you could argue that AI is different, because in the case of the drum machine and synthesizer, it was the human hand using a computer tool, but with ai, the computer IS the hand. That's the part of all this that makes it a little unsettling...
Yep... totally agree. The key to remember is that stories coexist. One does not replace the other. No matter how good AI gets, it can never replace your unique ability to tell stories only you can tell. The challenge is entirely around how well you can package that so that it delivers a value in the marketplace (assuming survival is the goal). And that boils down to simple business dynamics that have remain unchanged through all of it. The fear we have is that we won't have any value in the marketplace due to the outsized power of the "competitor" (AI or people using AI). But it's just an irrational fear if we focus on core principles.
This is a really good point. And people were saying that it will destroy jobs, well, they're probably right. But how many of the people working as special effects artists, as PAs, or working as set painters painting the sets of a marvel movie, deep down actually wants to make their own movies? They'd rather be their own writer, director, or would they rather be a production assistant? Pretty soon that production assistant wont have to spend 20 years asking for permission (and most likely he'd never get permission anyways) instead he will be able to actually do what he wants... now. So that's actually a good point. I guess the question is: what does this artistic person do in the meantime? If they can't be working on set as a production assistant, what are they going to do while they're making their movies? I guess they'll just have to get a normal job and make movies in their free time, hoping that they will eventually be seen and make money.
That’s the question I answered in the free training (which is available now as replays and soon as a stand-alone mini-course). Basically, we’re moving into an era where “jobs” will be replaced by entrepreneurship. Anyone and everyone can identify a place in the market where their unique skills and passions can be offered to others. Speaking from experience, most creative people just don’t have basic business skills because we create from inward to outward. The key is to discover what you uniquely bring to the market, set it up as a business or career that doesn’t require much of your time or resources but brings in enough revenue to sustain you while you spend your time on your creative pursuits. In other words, don’t think of it as getting a job while you pursue the goal; think of it as building a micro business that helps you make the goal sustainable. It’s a new paradigm, and it offers infinite and unique opportunity. I’m in the midst of building a comprehensive resource called the Micro Mogul and a pilot group is going through it now. I’ll share more in the weeks and months ahead, as I think it’s essential that creative people adapt to the new paradigm. Hope this helps!
I wrote my first ever feature screenplay at 17 (I am 28 now) and I had no clue what anything mearnt but your videos carried me through it all. Thank you, Jeff! A hero.
So I don't think anything you said is wrong. I think it's a healthy way for you to look at it. However... It's a very writer/director/producer/storyteller centric view of the situation. Alright, hear me out: The main issue with your argument to me is that not everyone working in film has the potential or even interest in becoming a full fledged movie maker. In the "Legacy" version of the film industry, a film takes sometimes hundreds if not thousands of people to make. All of those people have a small but very important part to play. Maybe they work on set as a builder, first AC or best boy. Maybe it's in post as a compositor, animator or VFX lighting artist or even as a sound design or foley artist (Yep, AI definitely coming for their jobs too). Remember, all these people have been making a fairly good living all these years. Many of them are out of work due to the strikes last year. All of these people now eventually face either their jobs disappearing or pivoting into making their own films as you say. Does that really seem realistic? We're talking hundreds of thousands of people just in film industry (maybe millions, I don't know) will all just suddenly start producing their own AI content and the streaming services will just start buying/licensing it? Sure, some of them can and will "Pivot" into this new roll. However, I believe the real tragedy of all of this is that the vast majority will not. I work in the industry and know the kind of people who work in it and it's not all top tier money people like writers, directors and producers. What about all the artists who have worked for 15-20 years honing their skills in some very specialized craft that's required to produce a movie today? What if they have never been trained in writing or storytelling. What if they are the kind of people who can really only be artist? Yes, everyone has stories and could potentially be a storyteller in the sense you're describing but how realistic is that? Becoming a writer takes years of practice to even understand how to craft a compelling and believable story. How many people have you met who have come to you and said, I think I want to become a screenwriter but end up struggling to come up with a compelling story? Also imagine what you say does happen and tons of people from the film industry "Pivot" and start flooding the market with AI content? How much of that will be any good? And that's assuming the streaming services are even even able to deal with this. Sure it democratizes the film industry but you still need to get your movie seen. What if it ends up that the only way to get your film seen by the public is through a web based platform like TH-cam? Imagine now that instead of competing on a mostly level playing field with other Hollywood writers/directors/storytellers who know the rules, and have schedules for releases, now you're competing with everyone else too. Everyone from all walks of life. Anyone with a Sora or whatever Text To Video account comes along next. Imagine your voice is now being drown out by millions of 15-25 year old kids who are all more "Hip" to all the latest of pop culture. It will be like TH-cam but for anonymous AI generated content. Assuming it even goes that way of course. Sure, there maybe some gems that float to the top but yours will have to be insanely good and appeal to ALL audiences to even receive any notice. Basically it will be TH-cam rules but for just regular film makers. Imagine that. Imagine having to fighting something like the TH-cam Algorithm for views? Now, what if all this bad AI content flooding in creates negative connotations associated with AI movies? There will probably be A lot people who will see that as a bad thing (just like how they perceive GCI as ruining movies today) and not even give it a chance. On some level people will just associate bad storytelling with AI (again, just like CGI). Now a days, when I see a thumbnail that was obviously AI generated, I tend to have a slightly negative bias towards that account. Okay, so say everything goes right and it's not the apocalypse like I'm making it out to be. Maybe Netflix (or whomever) becomes sympathetic to the plight of all these people and starts licensing this content (most likely at a much reduced rate sine it cost a fraction to make) and things turn out all good for the most part. You have to consider that for most industry people who are pivoting to AI content, a lot of their job will become like most TH-cam producers jobs today; you'll have to keep cranking it out because you get paid to little for it and you need to stay relevant. And a lot of your job will now be self promotion and social media. You know first hand what that's like and so do most independent filmmakers. Being a TH-cam personality is a tiring life. Competition will be very high. Can you imagine if all your friends who work in other specialized parts of the film industry were all suddenly expected to pivot into that lifestyle? I don't know... Does this really seem realistic and sustainable? I know it just seems like I'm am like all the other Doomers bitching about AI but I would honestly love to hear your take on how this will play out in a positive way. Because, I have not heard anyone give a compelling argument in favor of AI art at all. All of them deny that AI will ever take anyones jobs and that there will always be a need for people to make movies/art. Most people completely misunderstand how AI even works in the first place. You seem to at least understand that right now, it may not seem like a viable tool for story telling but it's just going to keep getting better and better.
I accept what you’re saying. And I’m not a soothsayer; I’m a guy just like you trying to figure out how to navigate this paradigm shift. But my life experience includes an extreme decades-long deep-dive into human creativity. And as such, I understand (probably better than most) not only how unique every individual and their story capacity really are, but all the resistance to doing it. You ask if I think it’s realistic - I absolutely do. Simple math suggests that the 1000 True Fans theory is enough to sustain a creative person. And the new tech coming online make that achievable if it’s coupled with business principles (ie focusing on what an audience wants to willingly pay for). Your fears (in my admittedly biased and admittedly subjective opinion) come from looking at the future through the legacy model. A paradigm shift is a paradigm shift. We need to understand that what today is a nontraditional distribution strategy, for example, may become the norm moving forward. If there are currently a million people about to be displaced in the film industry and each of them needs only find 1000 true fans, that would be easily achievable (mathematically). With overlap and an array of new possibilities opening up, I think there’s even more opportunity than I’m suggesting. It just needs to be considering from a different angle. I’m also not suggesting that this is the only way. Not everyone needs to make movies. Not everyone needs to become storytellers. The free training will go into more detail than I could cover here. I see at least three primary paths: Story, Skills, and Solutions. A great many people (majority) will move into the latter two areas. Bottom line: I don’t know what the future holds. But I do know that it holds AI. And that means the paradigm is gonna change. And that means we need a strategy for dealing with the change. And if we look creatively, I think we can see more reason to be optimistic than to despair.
@@fastscreenplay While I do appreciate your optimism... (which IMO seems a bit too optimistic) I think @galenbeals3538 has a very good point in everything he/she wrote. Firstly, I have worked in both the music and film industry. I also understand creative business. I have had my art featured in art galleries. I have won international awards in music and worked with some top actors in the entire world. Firstly, I want to say this... The music industry is making tons of money off of streaming. However, they are clearly aware that there is so much music out there that is literally the blood sweat and tears of people who worked their asses off and they are literally earning nothing now. A million listens gets you less than 100 bucks. The lump some of all money in music goes to these monolithic labels. While most artists are starving. Also, if you are the next Prince or Micheal, you WON'T get discovered as your music drowned out by millions of people who upload music every day. I am sorry... a 1000 dedicated listeners won't earn you enough to eat mcdonalds. If AI paradigm shift happens as you say... millions will not only be out of work, but the Spotify of movies will emerge. Basically, all films will be streamed to these big corporations of which you will get paid pennies. There will be some many lazy people creating content fast and cheaply using AI, that effort will lose it's value. Now let's say, you create a masterpiece. Someone can simply take your film, run it through AI and create a same thing, just slightly altered. Now, you have 1000s of new releases that are all similar to your work and this can be done in seconds. The music industry is actually happy with this because they are in a position of absolutely power. They can pick and choose who to be the biggest stars and have no fear of competition. No indy record label will rise up. No new record companies can challenge them, since all of streaming revenue mostly goes to them. Is AI film paradigm change occurs and the legacy model dies... All major film studies will just become spotify for film creatives. And look at the state of music. It would be hell. Artists are picked according to affiliation, rather than talent. Everyone else is battling for relevancy on streaming platforms that rob them. Another issue is that AI will be able to eventually write good stories by coping other works. It will get so good, that people who never studied writing will be "telling great stories." The problem is that it won't be their OWN stories. Rather an amalgamation of what works. AI learns from everything, so if you create someone original... everyone else will be able to steal it or do something similar. So, instead of people experiencing life and pouring that pain/joy into art... They will allow AI to do that for them. It all becomes unnatural and cold. Another issue is that all streaming music is starting to sound the name, because originality get buried under a sea of conformity. The algorithm highlights what "works." Whereas genius goes unrecognized because it misses different sweet spots. You think that's bad. Wait until AI films start going in the same direction. True genius is disruptive, but if everyone is making tons of AI content... so much content that we cannot consume it all... most will be derivative. I promise you, on spotify today... someone uploaded a masterpiece that will probably change everything... Unfortunately, most of the human population will hear it because it will be buried under (millions of songs released PER DAY) a sea of content that is all conformist derivative slop. Then we get into the criminality of pay to play. Because in sea of AI films, how can you stand out. Well, just like streaming, you can pay for film views and gain great success. All major labels pay for billions of views for their music artists. Indy artists have no chance. So, crap films will become the top earners based on AI and paid views (most also robots). Things will get worse when film geniuses have all their work completely ignored, when some random ahole who made a piece of garbage gets an oscar and cannes award for simply having the highest amount of views. Reviews can also be bought and AI can write them. The future can be extremely dark and I see way more negatives than positive. Yes, paradigm shifts are great and change must occur. But, lets not embrace change for the sake of change or to avoid being the old guy. We have to look at things clearly and strategically.
Omg this is exactly what I've been saying!!! As a content creator I have been able to create stories using ai voice modification where I have voiced like 5 characters, animated ai art produced characters and made the entire story by myself. This is so empowering
Been watching you for years, Jeff. I love that you've become the pied piper of AI cinema! This is indeed an exciting moment. I'm thrilled you're in the lead on this - it snaps right in to the FAST screenplay concepts you've been preaching forever!
Thanks Jeff. I don't know about pied piper of AI cinema, but hopefully the pied piper of using this technology to achieve our human goals rather than withering in the shadows because we're scared of it!
Man, you sound like all of those coaches, specialists, life coaches, etc., who sell us their services and coach us on HOW TO WRITE FAST YOUR SCREENPLAY! You'll make people rich FAST if they watch your FREE WEBINAR VIDEO! You sound just like all of them!
@@kristofkonrad4336 Well, if you really think that, then either a) you haven’t watched much of my content, or b) I’m not right for you. (Or both.) I teach people how to write pro-level quality INTUITIVELY. When I say “FAST”, it’s an acronym for the four-part process of writing - which, if you practice it, will speed up your writing, which will actually make you a better writer with skills that are more needed by the industry. I’ve been helping tens of thousands of writers for over 25 years. If I sound like others, there’s a good chance that what you’re really experiencing is others who sound like me (without the power of what I do behind them). If, despite that, I ain’t for you, no worries at all. I wish you extraordinary success on your adventure, whatever path you take.
Your brain is attempting to catalog me. It's doing you a disservice in this case. Dive deeper and you'll see that your biases are going to prevent you from discovering the unique insights I offer.
You might want to look into LA Castle Studios , they can put an entire movies together with just 4 or 5 people .. Below the line workers may never become obsolete but they will become minimal at best by the time the next IATSE contracts come up in 3 years after this one settles …if it settles ..
What I disagree with in your comment is the language. The workers won’t become obsolete, and using that language is precisely the problem. It’s the jobs that may or may not become obsolete. The workers are each unique individuals with whole worlds of imagination and story in their minds. And that is what they’ll need to focus on and use to begin the next chapter in the new era. I don’t celebrate the loss of their job or their vocation, and I urge you to stop doing so, too (for the effect it has on your own thinking). Losing one’s job or vocation is frightening and sad. It’s just that the solution is to see within it the opportunity inherent in what comes next.
@@fastscreenplay The workers are already becoming obsolete .AI will replace most every below the line worker in this business. The unions are already admitting when these contracts are over business will never go back to what it once was . Work will consist of maybe 85 million hours of filming down from a high of 121 million hours and a low of 71 million hours during covid . The WGA and SAG both signed their death warrants when they signed those contracts . They protected the top 1% and left the rest out to starve .During the last strike the studios went out and hired AI technicians with a starting salary from anywhere from 300,000-900,000 a year to start . Studios have sunk billions with a B into AI ,to think they are just going to say let’s not use it is ludicrous at best . Nobody in this business has a secure job we are all day players even if you’re on the same show for 20 seasons be you a writer , actor , Teamster or IATSE member. Anyone who thinks they can change the dynamic of the industry is only fooling themselves and others . AI will come up with ideas faster and better than any human can produce and it can’t be stopped because the WGA and SAG/AFTRA both opened the door to let it in .
I think to get a funding for the project often helps to create better work. But there is a threshold at which this rule breaks. TOO many chiefs spoil the soup. And if we look at the music business, it is true that more artist are able to get their music out there through streaming services, but only a few artist are able to make a living out of that.
True. But they haven’t seen my free training. ;) I believe what they’re missing is an understanding of value in the marketplace. I think this is the underlying thread - most artists are (rightly) focused on their art/creative expression first, whereas what people pay for is what is valuable to them. There is no need to make a living if one doesn’t want to, but if that’s the objective, then focusing on the audience’s needs (if even just a niche audience who loves what the artist does) is how that happens. It’s a balance, and it’ll be different for everyone. My aim is to help artists understand the principles, so they can choose more deliberately.
@@fastscreenplay That is true. As artist we struggle to think customer centered (and most company struggle with this too) Besides this we also don’t own the platforms. This contains the risk that we replace one gatekeeper with another - the algorithm. That's why we need to build our independent network and platform. And this is the hart job - to make a genuine direct connection to our audience.
I agree that’s the hard job - but it’s not as hard as it seems. It just requires understanding some time tested business principles (which is the whole reason I’m building the new resource I’m building - to help writers with that).
Im prefering indie style films more and more nowadays. I actually enjoy the raw low budget style productions that channel their engery into crafting beautiful stories. I growing increasingly weary of cgi in film. I also don't mind if I don't recognise any of the actors. Good acting is good acting regardless of who the 'star' is. A good director can craft a great film with a single camera and a talented team. I am also growing sick of studio produced films. The majority of films are shot in greens rooms etc and padded out with cgi and its overdone now. I welcome the home made films that are made on entirely real sets, on entirely real locations with an entirely real cast.
I'm going to express my disagreement with you as cordially and balanced as I possibly can. First of all, I fully acknowledge and appreciate your enthusiasm and hope for the future. That is an admirable quality to have, and is seldom seen during the bleak times we're living through. Hope for the future is an essential step in our march forward, both individually and collectively, and is something I aspire to. Going into this video, I was interested to hear what you had to say and possibly even see things a bit differently. Suffice to say, it has only made my stance stronger. Before I delve into our differences, let me say that A) the idea of self-published art is enticing and B) I don't deny that human creativity will be possible within the realm of AI. But let's just get real for a second: it WILL stifle artistic expression, especially when placed in the hands of studio executives -- or, at least, the worst of them. I'm surprised you failed to mention actors. Along with good dialogue, direction, cinematography, music, etc., actors are what REALLY bring filmed media to life. An AI replication of a performer, be they already existing or yet to exist, fundamentally lacks the varied, nuanced, and raw emotions and life experiences of a human being. While it may be able to replicate them, it does not have them. It isn't sentient. Human beings are. The human experience is called that for a reason; we live and feel it in a way that no other being ever could, especially not AI. It may replicate, or perhaps duplicate, the idiosyncrasies of human expression, but it will never have it, and thus will always be inauthentic, and in the cases of deceased performers, extremely disrespectful. Another thing which you completely left out of your argument is that in the Capitalist system we all live under, goods and services are produced solely for profit -- specifically, that of corporations, and even more specifically, its executives and shareholders. As you mentioned, human labor is expensive, possibly the most expensive part of a business. How do companies maximize their profit? Cut labor costs. How do you do that? Cut the laborers themselves. What's the most effective way to do that? Replacing them. One example which comes to mind is the takeover of ride share platforms, such as Uber and Lyft. Before this advancement, taxicabs were a common way to get around the city, or get from point a to point b without having to drive. In comes Uber. What happens to the taxi drivers? Under one system, it would be great for them: easier and better jobs with better wages and higher quality. Great! Except, what's the reality? In our system, those taxi drivers are now suddenly out of work, including drivers who've put in YEARS of time and labor into what they do, and along the way, established a living that provides for them and their loved ones. Then, Uber comes along, and suddenly, that living is taken from them, and they struggle to adapt. Then, if self-driving cars came along, and what happens to the Uber drivers? The reason why so many studios are wet for AI is because it's an efficient way to make money. Honestly, AI at its worst is exactly the same as many of these executives: something devoid of creativity or artistic integrity. The idea that AI technology will lead to some sort of creative renaissance and not be exploited and/or used against independent artists is both idealistic and unrealistic. A computer-generated product might be more symmetrical, time efficient, or in a technical sense of the word "higher quality" than a human product. But I would argue that the imperfections of human art is EXACTLY what makes it SUPERIOR to computer art. Could one be used to compliment the other? Absolutely. Human beings CAN use technological advancement to their benefit. But in many cases, a human-made film set will still have more character because of the physical effort and TLC only doable by real people (granted, it does depend on the genre). Cheaply-made paint blood from a schlocky 70s horror flick is still more realistic than badly-done CGI blood. Neither are good, necessarily, but whatever cheesy paint blood was used back then is still physical matter, and so it does, in a way, blend better with reality. I know that many will say that I'm acting like a typical cranky old man bemoaning change and failing to embrace the future. But honestly? That kind of sounds like gaslighting. It could easily be interpreted as: "Your own filmmaking preference is obsolete and unrealistic, so you better get with the times and deal with it." Sorry, I'm not gonna sacrifice my artistic integrity, nor my visions for anything, and I encourage everyone out there to do the same. There are certain things that are timeless, and human-made art is one of them. AI might be a massive step forward for technology, but could be a massive step back for the human creativity which has defined literally all of human history, and enhanced billions of lives. If you think that sounds old fashioned, call me a dinosaur all you want. It won't stop me from doing what I love, nor should it stop anybody.
@@mixmastercj100 Me, too! I just wish they were hearing my message rather than just pushing back against the technology - which I have no control over and nothing to do with. I am 100% AI agnostic. I’m not for it or against it. I’m for human storytelling and human beings living their best life in the moment in which they’re in. All the pushback ignores that, wanting to instead rage against the situation. And unfortunately, I think it sidesteps a much deeper and more profound conversation. Ah, well.
@@fastscreenplay I hear you. You seem like a decent guy, and I truly believe you when you say you value human storytelling. You clearly have years of experience in this field, and it seems to me that your heart is in the right place. I just think there should be a balance of the pendulum, where people who prefer not to use artificial intelligence get to do so and still reach their fullest potential, without having to worry about being drowned out or excluded. I don’t think we should all be Luddites and completely reject 21st century technology, because as you said, it ain’t going nowhere. Still though, there are certain things that have worked for years that just can’t afford to be stamped out. Shooting on film, practical effects, props, actors, cinematographers, etc. The human touch is timeless, and AI (and by extension CGI) should be used only when it’s literally impossible to be done realistically by people. Hope that makes sense. :)
@@mixmastercj100 It makes total sense. But if you hear my message, I believe (adamantly) that both will coexist. We WILL be able to make films the legacy way. I don’t believe that’s going to disappear. It’ll just get flipped, so it’s the niche and the other way is the mainstream. Think vinyl. It was nearly wiped out until its fans revived it. Now it’s a huge industry again. I think legacy filmmaking won’t even disappear. The paradigm just shifts. Even horse-drawn buggy drivers in the new era of motorized vehicles could find ways to continue doing it if they were truly passionate about it. The paradigm shift is not away from one technology toward another. It’s from a requirement for money and resources to empowerment for those who have none. That’s a big change with many implications. And navigating the bumpy road is all I’m talking about here. Hope this helps!
@@jj-sc1kq It’s all good. No need to sign up for anything I offer. I only offer it to help, if you want to get there faster. Out of curiosity, though, why won’t you be able to consider it? I’m curious to know what prompted you to say that. Good luck on whatever path you choose!
@@fastscreenplay Thanks for replying. The reason I have for not doing it right away is this, I've been helping a friend get back on her feet. It looks like she will finally be there soon. But for the moment, she's being a major drain on my finances. So, in the mean time, I'm working on improving my storytelling abilities and trying to organize and write the series that's in my head.
Your skill at asking questions of Large Language Models will be a major part of your future success. You can get a lot of good feedback, but you have to do the work. I've had AI's generate story ideas, and then go on to generate 120 scenes using the Hero's Journey Template. They still needed a lot of work to create a usable script.
I'm wondering if current screenwriting software incorporates A.I. in any way. I used to write in Canada in the early aughts, so it's over twenty years. I was using Movie Magic Screenwriter with actual discs back then. I am sure you have some vids on the topic, but I just stumbled on the channel and found this video informative. Bit intimidated by the free cloud stuff/versions and since I'm kind of just getting back into practice mostly wondering what current preferences are or if any freeware is recommended.
The software doesn’t matter. The stories do. Don’t worry too much; there are plenty of options today. Just don’t use AI to write your stories for you. Use it as a tool to make you a better human writer. That’s what will pay off in the long run. Mark my words.
Urgh. I am sorry if this comes across as aggressive but I feel this is such a tech bro fad mentality with arrogance and ignorance. If this takes hold I think it will seriously damage the quality of films in the future. First of all, the writer tells the 'story'? No!! The story that the audience see is told through a collaboration between Writer, Director, HoDs, Actors, Editors, Composers etc. There are so many decisions, and one person writing prompts and clicking on sliders in AI software will never be as good as multiple people with life experience and craftsmanship. You aren't about to get AI to block and stage sequences better than Stanley Kubrick, AI compose music better than a custom made Trent Reznor score, or use software sliders to get acting better than Philip Seymour Hoffman. Filmmaking is about TASTE, not just technical ability to execute. A normal low budget movie wouldn't be able to hire the best talent so what it doesn't matter I hear you say? Perhaps you envision a two track system, with large studio traditional cast and crew films, and literally $0 budget AI indie films? Then where do you think the next generation of directors, crew, actors, editors etc. get to cut their teeth? Where can they get their start and learn?? Do you actually plan to grow your skillset to be as good as all those roles - even with mediocre craftsmen - combined? I doubt it. This kind of attitude will likely make, at best, CGI sloppy shit with generic looks. The idea you can create with computers that are trained on existing data is also flawed. They cannot generate things on the edges, extreme things, interesting things - they are a reduced average, from multiple (oft stolen) sources. The biggest indie breakout films - Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, Searching - were all fundamentally original methods of telling a story with novel camerawork/editing. And what does this look like in 30 years? When AI films are based on other AI films, or will they still be using data from films made up until the year 2025? You'd struggle to keep up with the zeitgeist, never see a unique new creature design as intricate as the Xenomorph, or camerawork as aggressively novel as Natural Born Killers, or soundscape as original as Under the Skin. At this point, with how neural networks work, you cannot have the same precision in tweaking so many aspects as you can in conversations with human beings. Will audiences even respect AI based work? We don't watch robots running races in the Olympics - even though they could go faster - we watch people. Film, art and all culture are intrinsically human things about human society. Already there is a perception that AI art is shit - after people are burned the first ten times, will they really be curious to watch another AI film? I can see AI use in limited applications to speed up CGI, deal with non creative jobs or help fix sound issues, but to make all the other creative roles and people redundant would result in worse films. You would also lose the marketing of charismatic stars, beautiful celebrities, stories from set, making of documentaries etc. The business needs stars, it needs taste filters, or we all drown in algorithm shit much like on TH-cam. "Like, Comment and Subscribe while I try to pawn off this other product sponsorship and buy my course? My next film will be made in 2 weeks because otherwise the algorithm will ignore me and I won't have enough income." Yaaay, and I'm sure that will be just as incredible as American History X. Films are art - they aren't 'content'. The good ones stay in your mind because they connect, they are emotional, they are dense with skilled work in multiple areas that took months if not years - they are fundamentally an expression of humanity. Most of the problems in the film industry today are because non film lovers took over the industry. They want limitless growth for shareholders, they want a manufacturing line, they want no risk. This creates a cycle of franchise, sequel prequel remake etc. However you can only go to the well so many times before people tire of another Fast and Furious or Disney live action remake. Studio bosses should retreat from their entire slate being $150mil + and instead lose a tentpole from their schedule and make fifteen $10mil films instead - I bet they would have a breakout smash hit, create many more future franchises, stars and careers doing this. Tech bros also brought us streaming, which hurt the business and this new model is not truly sustainable or sensible. It was always about destroying the old model, taking marketshare and then starting the process of enshitification. This final stage has begun, with worse productions, shrinking catalogues and higher subscription costs. This is the real paradigm shift going on. It is true, production budgets need to reduce and the industry probably has to shrink due to increased audience time competition from internet / video games. But the actual films? Audiences showing up for Oppenheimer and Barbie strongly suggest people respond to ensembles of master craftsmen: auteurs + stars + quality + originality. In other words, the inverse of generic AI. What we need is for streaming to keep increasing costs and fully morph into cable (with perhaps a no-advert tier for a very high sum) then TVOD model to take off. You pay per film, but it's cheaper than a DVD / cinema ticket, because you don't have the expense of plastic or land rental rates/staff. Critically though, quality films earn directly and pull away as people are more discerning when their money is on the line for a specific film vs. a steaming all you can eat bundle. Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I would prefer to see 5 truly great individuals films for $25, than 20 poor / straight to TV movies for $25/mo? Culturally, we need to deal with the damage smartphones + internet + apps are doing to mental health - especially with regard to attention spans and maintaining focus. TikTok addicts struggle to watch a 90+ minute film, and this is not only an existential threat to all long form films, but to the addicts health and future. There should be societal discussion about whether social media has been more damaging than good - if we should look at the platforms like a restricted drug due to individuals brain damage + societal cohesion risks. If no gov action happens, then it's quite likely we will see an organic class divide between those that shun/restrict social media being happier with better focus and productivity, and those addicts with ADD + Depression + Isolation + Conspiracy Theories + Misinformation. The first group with dismiss AI films, the second will love the AI content, as it will be perfectly created to give them a tiny endorphin rush every 15 seconds whilst making them numb to true joy / thought / curiosity / pleasure / introspection / need I go on? TLDR: Team > One person Charismatic beautiful human stars > None to market with Training next generation > No-one else with a job Humans more impressed by human with talent > AI based material Truly original novel creativity > Average from multiple data sources Culturally relevant zeitgeist > Data going back years Higher customisation control > Limits based on what sliders AI gives you Taste > Algorithm Curated Media > Social Media Platform High quality individual film > Bundles of crap films The true Paradigm shift needed? Recontextualize the value of film - raise prices and stop consumers treating them as disposable 'content'. Prioritise peoples health and stop them damaging brains with so much algorithm based social media. Personally, I would like the films of the future to be as creative, original and artistic like so many of the films of the 90s were, not a flooded marketplace of lower quality, machine made content, shouting for attention with less quality craftsmanship behind it. PS. Sorry for such a long rant, but well done with the TH-cam algorithm bait!! I see you replying to all these comments, you're playing the internet game the right way for clicks!
It may surprise you to know that I don’t disagree with the majority of what you said. I’m on your side, whether you choose to believe it or not. And it’s funny that you think of this as a “tech bro” perspective - I’ve been in the film industry for over 40 years, I’ve done literally every job you named with my own two hands, and I’ve taught screenwriting (without AI) for 25 years now. I love all the things you do, and I see all the social ills you do (and value teams and apprenticeship as you do). Unfortunately, you’re raging against me because of your misunderstanding of both the technology and the moment. I didn’t create AI. Hell, I don’t even teach people to use it the way you’re railing against me for. I’m just a realist and a guy who recognizes that it’s less foolish to imagine where current trends are heating than it is to pretend we’re living in an era frozen in amber. Things change. Tech evolves. And the paradigm will shift whether we rage against it or not. Don’t shoot the messenger. Particularly when he’s trying to find ways to navigate the shift. The cynical accusation that I’m clickbaiting is disingenuous, and you know it. (Or you would if you watched even a fraction of the 120 hours of content on my channel going back ten or twelve years.) I’ve made a compelling case and you’ve ranted against it not on its own merits but on the injustice of the evolution of human progress. I hear you. I sincerely do. I just also appreciate that no amount of fighting turns back the clock. So I appreciate the joy of the era we lived through, and I open my arms to whatever exciting new things await. And I would love nothing more than for you to join me.
Literature, music, film,... What was the last universally loved music album? What was the last universally read and loved work of literature? This sounds like a fracturing into a million bits that shine just a bit, but the end of works so great that they unify and become a part of the universal lexicon of art.
@@destinypirate I think you’re assuming that “universally” loved art is the result of the art itself - and I believe this highlights the fundamental misunderstanding artists have about the context in which they work. “Universality” (by which I assume you mean “reach” combined with a generally accepted quality) is as much a result of marketing and distribution as it is the quality of the work itself. If you create something that could be “universally” appreciated, but you can’t get people to pay attention, it will never be “universally” appreciated. For that you’d need omnipresent and ubiquitous distribution - a way for everyone to see and appreciate something at the same time. The more distribution outlets we have the less likely that becomes. Creating works that meet your description is absolutely as possible today as ever before. The question is merely whether you can strategically establish the distribution conditions required to make it stick. I believe that’s possible, but it’s also increasingly challenging. If that’s your goal, that’s your task. Don’t lament the challenge of it, rise to it.
@@fastscreenplay there are things that are almost universally loved whether or not somebody was marketed or conditioned 2 love such things. The simplest observation to these are those of the things of beauty and nature, the universal appreciation of a beautiful flower, a seashell, a sunset. There are are sequences of colors, sounds, expressions which are built upon the universal farms which appear to nearly all... We could relate this to something as simple as a smile or the sophisticated structure of a classical musical piece.
@@destinypirate You’re comparing apples to oranges. You’re waxing lyrical about the general concept of beauty and its appeal to the human psyche - the original conversation was about the the universality of art. No, flowers don’t need to be marketed. And a great film can be great without anyone ever seeing it, as I said. But art that is “universally” loved is a different discussion, because it only gets seen and appreciated “universally” through marketing and distribution.
@@fastscreenplay okay,? Very true, people can only see a piece of art if they hear about it and have access to it. However that does not what makes a work of art university loved.... Which are the well-crafted elements of humanity that a great computer program won't have.
@@destinypirate I’m suggesting that what you’re lamenting - the lack of “universally” loved art in the modern era - has nothing to do with the intrinsic value you’re talking about now. I would argue that there is plenty of art being made today that would have the same “universality” you’re referring to; the only reason we don’t regard them as such is that they exist in a different moment in time. A different ecosystem. I’m suggesting that your lament is, in my opinion, misplaced. And that you (or any artist) are every bit as capable of creating the “universally” loved art today as ever before - but that even holding that as an objective or quality metric is ignoring one of the key determinants of whether or not you could even reach that status in the first place.
As a aspiring writer, AI has been great for writing. My biggest issue is that I suffer from writers block and even though I know how things would play out, I still struggle to get scenes down. After using AI though, I have no excuse to have writer's block anymore. Because the AI just wrote the scene down for me. Doesn't matter if the dialogue is cringe or the scene doesn't play out well, I can easily fix all of that and make the scene better. The AI just gave me the frame I needed to write the scene down.
'Thanks'... for reminding us that every new day is a new opportunity... to do new things, try new things, probably make the effort to write better... using new tools and ideas. 'Very Positive... thanks, and I trust you'll be launching your own 'new film, prodco, distrib bunch' as your approach to your vision. Brian Couch Toronto
I agree with your optimism but what’s giving people anxiety is how exactly films are going to be distributed. Remember scarcity increases value so if everyone is a filmmaker and making professional films the value of movies (which has already declined) is going to depreciate. On the other hand the demand for content is incredibly high with streaming so I would predict most films that do well on social will get subscription deals similar to what’s going on today.
Yes, but as I mentioned in another comment here (and in other videos on my channel) this fear comes from looking at the problem through the lens of the legacy model. Scarcity does increase value, and every individual has a unique window on the world - the ultimate in scarcity. Thinking that we are “competing” with one another is to imagine that story is competitive, which it’s not. We need to focus on the value proposition. I go into this in more detail in the free training tomorrow. But what you’re highlighting is exactly the problem I’m tackling.
Thank you for your thoughts on this important subject. Fellow screenwriter here, I especially enjoy the fact that the paradigm is shifting to a new one where it could possibly democratize the process even more. Thinking about the subject, I considered the idea of the holodeck in Star Trek and holonovels. One can write a page and cover real book that Picard will read down the line, or write a holonovel that Lt. Barclay or Ensign Kim can enjoy on the holodeck. Both involve storytelling, just in very different forms, and both can be enjoyed on a fundamental level.
I think this is the right way to look at it. Obviously, Star Trek is our then-current imagination of the future, so it’ll be off by a wide margin. But the idea of a future that looks different to our own time, and that has different forms of storytelling, commerce, daily activity, ambitions… that is the reality. Things change. And we adapt to and live in the new world. AI is part of our world now, and increasingly in our future. What does that look like? Nobody can say. I can’t say. The detractors in my comments can’t say. But we do know that it’s different to today, as today is different to yesteryear. Personally, I know we can adapt and roll with it, because that’s the nature of the human experience. I look forward to the stories of tomorrow, and the ways in which they’re told.
I get that perspective. But from the inside, the economics of that make sense. Actors bring marketing value so they are in demand on projects, which enables them to go to the highest bidder. And it’s worth it for the producer because of the added value they bring to the project (being able to get it seen when it might not otherwise). As for executives, their roles can be quite opaque to the outside, so it’s hard to appreciate what value they bring. But if they choose a winner over a money-loser, that has value to the company. And there’s a ton of nuance that goes into all this that just can’t be fully appreciated unless you’ve seen it in action. I don’t know too many executives that are genuinely not worth their rate. It’s competitive like anything - if they can get paid better elsewhere, they go, so a company pays a premium to have them. There are a ton of executives who are unsung heroes. But anyway, I get your point, and the ability to drive down costs or do more with less is a net benefit in my opinion, too.
marketing film will become more important than ever. When there are thousands of new films coming out every day, getting your film seen is going to be incredibly challenging. There will be a SoundCloud for films but if we look at what history has taught us, VIMEO and TH-cam movies only pull filmeads. For the average person to get excited, the marketing needs to come from a brand they trust. So I am interested to see how Netflix etc will adapt.
@@reddjinn911 Yep. This is why I’ve spent the past 4 months building out a resource focused specifically on this. :) (It’s called the Micro Mogul, and we’re just wrapping up our pilot program now.) It’s a time of literally limitless opportunity.
RE TYLER PERRY - To think he cancelled $800M of development which I’m sure was years in the work right before he was meant to start, because Sora was announced 6 days earlier (it was the week after Sora was announced) is obviously not true. The whole film landscape shifted in the past few years with the strikes and Atlanta not about to compete with subsidies that other cities and countries are now offering. TV has been at an all time high, until it wasn’t. So Sora conveniently coming along it’s easy to point the blame at “AI” rather than saying “hey, this doesn’t look as good on the books anymore”. I’ve used Sora, it’s great but it’s not that much better than what else is out there, definitely not going to replace Hollywood (and as someone that interfaces regularly with studios, AI currently is banned at most studios, including their vendors). Perry backing out of growing his soundstages has nothing to do with Sora that was just an easy exit ‘blame AI’ Had to address that note, as I think it’s obvious to most that you don’t make billion dollar decisions days after something is announced, that you’ve never seen up close or can make any intelligent decision on, just going by a clip released to the internet. Besides that, definitely agree that indie film makers are going to get access to stronger tools than before I work in Hollywood, I also am an ai developer. All of this stuff is really exciting, but it’s so limited, and the specificity on the notes we get from the director, none of these tools would be able to address consistently in their current state or any time soon. I like your video, not being negative just thought I’d mention this about Perry as at least every conversation I’ve had with any film maker it was just obvious from the start he’s using AI as a scapegoat
@@AllanMcKay You’re obviously correct in the literal sense. But it’s not about Sora. The decision and the changing landscape are due to an overall trajectory. Sora may not be the software that tips the scales; it may be five startups down the road. The point is not Sora; it’s what Sora highlights as the future. I accept your point, but, respectfully, it’s picking nits. If you replace “Sora” with “entirely new scope of creative control in the hands of a lone individual”, then yes, an $800billion decision was made because of it. If you focus on the software itself (which is what the industry is doing, largely), it’s kinda missing a deeper point. (Your note indicates that you do get it, so I’m not challenging you directly; just making a counter point.) I think we need to stop thinking of AI as a bad thing. I haven’t had time to make any TH-cam videos in months now because I’m focused on helping writers and filmmakers navigate this new era. But the new era is extraordinary exciting, and even that $800b will go somewhere. And you can bet it’s gonna benefit the creative.
@@AllanMcKay I meant to add: The tools today are nowhere near ready. But what is often overlooked is the exponential nature of tech evolution. The progress from year to year is dramatic, and we can’t let our imagination of what the idealized version of the current tool would look like blind us to the changes each iteration is introducing, and the speed at which transformative changes are coming. I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
@@fastscreenplay no problem I did want to make it clear at the end I’m not being negative, I know there’s plenty of that in everyone’s comments. It’s definitely exciting and scary time both for everyone as well as specifically in the filmmaking industry. I completely agree with your message, this equals the playing field before movies were always a permission based industry. Meaning the right people had to get behind your project or it will never see the light of day, whereas now everyone has a camera and everyone has access to the same or similar technology. Now I’m just excited for all the strikes to be over! :)
@@AllanMcKay No worries. I didn’t read your note as negative. Just like to point out the response to those kinds of points. Always happy to have the discussion!
I like your optimism and hope your right, but I think there's one element that needs to be considered, which I think may narrow what's possible for others losing their jobs from AI, including in the film industry. The limit I speak of is the consumers time, money and ability to find you in the sea of content/products out there. I think it could be argued and maybe I'm wrong or partially wrong that there is only so much time and money people have to consume a product. There's already a log of stuff that people have allotted their time to in relation to consumable products. Maybe its 5-10 hours of time towards games, movies and shows. Now that time won't grow, a persons day only allows so much. Now those games, movie, and shows require lets say 100 people to make and costs 1 million. Now if Ai can lets say improve that process so that it can be done with 50 people who are yes using AI as well to make those gains, thats 50 people not doing that. Now if those 50 people who lost jobs, then go and make movies/games/shows with AI as well or not, there is now 2x more content, with consumers who have a limited amount of time and money to purchase that. If the price is the same, there's now 2x more shows to watch which people dont have the budget for nor the time. Now maybe the amount it costs goes down for consumers because it costs less to make and the people who are making it can sell it for less while making the same, there isn't enough of peoples time to consume and pay for the new content that would be coming out and even if there was (which just cant happen) there would be that much more ads/marketing/junk out there to get through to find what you want, which again takes more time to find. So, its time consumers have that will make it harder for people who lost jobs from AI make the same they were before. And this I think is true in area's like marketing, book keeping, insurance adjusters, artist, and all sorts of fields where an AI can improve output whether by itself or with another human by 20-50%.
@@intotheunknown4466 I accept what you’re saying, but I think you’re looking at it through the lens of the old paradigm. You’re considering everything as though we have this new layer (AI and all that it brings with it) on top of our current world, rather than imagining all the ways in which that layer will affect and impact the variables themselves. I think we’ll have more free time to consume and experience more things, thanks to AI taking all the mundane work for us. I think the cost to create will near zero, which enables us to be wildly profitable with a tiny sliver of current audience needs. I think the myriad new ways to bring value to the marketplace will open up even more opportunity with every stage of the tech’s advance. That’s why I say it’s a new paradigm. It’s a whole new ecosystem, and the key to surviving it is to recognize it and focus on what success looks like in that new paradigm. We have a hard time imagining the future because we can’t see the interim steps. But the evolution is continual and natural, and always leads up the ladder of self-actualization, which is why I believe with every fiber of my being that the future is creative for us all, and it’s ripe for the picking if we tilt our head slightly to see all that it is.
@@fastscreenplay In the long run you may be right, who knows, but I think in the short term like the next 3-6 years (assuming AI really gets as good as we are thinking) many peoples lives are going to be uprooted and a noticeable amount of people will end up making significantly less. A paradigm shift like your imaging will take time and there will be opposing forces to such a change. Right now the ones in power have an easier time dictating the first parts of that change, and the most likely thing that will happen is they let go of people because AI can do their job. Maybe the general public/government will rise up against this fast, but I think it will be at least a little slog but more likely a longer slog as those with the most influence and monetary power try to maintain that in the best way they can, while in the meantime a lot of damage will be done (sure its momentary like all things, but its not going to be pretty for a period). Hope Im wrong.
@@intotheunknown4466 I really do hear you, but all of your fears are based on the old paradigm. To be clear, the new paradigm is already here. I’m not sure how deeply you’ve dove into AI or the industry or the specifics of everything you’re talking about, but there is already so much more opportunity than is going away - even at the displacement levels - that I can’t even see how the fear version of this would play out. For example: if your job has been displaced, tell ChatGPT what your skills are and ask it what you could do to double the income you used to be making. You’ll see that there are truly infinite possibilities. AI can help you - anyone - chart a path forward. I just don’t think you’re understanding how to use it, and you’re making your projections based on outdated ideas and information. I mean no disrespect with that; I just can’t unsee the limitless ways to benefit from all this.
You either said that off the bat, or are very good at reading from the screen. Either way, you are very good. Totally agree with that you are saying. I am photographer - now it's youtube...
Haha, thank you for the compliment. That was off the cuff (I’m not reading anything) but in fairness, I’ve been doing this for a long time so I’ve put in my ten thousand hours. ;)
You are simply a marvelous gentleman for putting this together with such elegancy and follow through. AI is going to be the single biggest dissapointment Hollywood has ever seen. While it is very capable it is not human. In cannot dream, it cannot exzillerate where it has to to create the drama of the human expression that impresses and inspires the soul. There will be so many empty dead losses like Promethius that there will only be the the same drivel we are seeing now that appear to shoot for the blockbuster realm. It takes people. It takes dreamers. It takes humans to entertain humans. Inspiration cannot be programmed into a computer.
I appreciate the kind words, but don’t fall into the trap of imagining that Hollywood is not filled with extraordinarily creative people, dreamers, visionaries, and simply wonderful human beings. There are exceptions, as there are anywhere, but my experience has been that, broadly speaking, there is massive talent and kindness and humanity in Hollywood. And that’s partly WHY I’m not afraid of the paradigm shift - because I know just how much creativity there is out there. Hollywood is often derided for its output or its politics or its greed or whatever. But I believe that’s all a natural by-product of the size and scope of the projects it has to make for the industry it has to sustain. I think it’s really hard to understand from the outside, and even its opaque nature is part of how it needs to function to survive. But simply needing millions of dollars to make a movie creates a power dynamic that has a whole lot of downline implications. You need privacy to protect your IP so you can market it without losing your shirt, you need authority hierarchies to keep the train on its tracks, you need thematic agendas to connect with wide enough audiences… all of these things manifest with some negative impacts on people along the way. It’s the nature of the beast. I think people do their best to juggle and balance. Or, that’s been what I’ve witnessed in my journey, anyway. The paradigm shift being one from money/resources to none, simply spreads it out, which can help to overcome some of the problems with Hollywood. But it does remove some of what makes it great, too. And that’s why I think Hollywood will survive (though in a different form with different power structures) - because it IS filled with creative people. I think they’ll find and invent some pretty creative solutions. And I’m eager to see what unfolds.
You're correct from a scriptwriter and director POV. AI is scary for other industry workers, but it frees a lot of creatives. The bigger problem for the studios and other big broadcasters is piracy, which will decimate and is already decimating profitably, visual media is having it's Napster moment, but there isn't one Napster to blame, there are thousands of them. Piracy alone will put more people out of work than AI.
The smart people will apply AI to these problems and devise solutions. We already have the technology to solve these problems, we just don’t have the implementation at scale. Smart contracts and NFTs could authenticate content and distribute pay residuals; AI could scrape and identify pirated content and shut it down. Piracy only matters if there’s still a market for the thing being pirated, so if there is, then there’s a way to solve (or at least sufficiently address) the problem. What I think, though, is that we’re looking at a paradigm shift, where even these concepts are obsolete. We tend to still look at the whole thing through the lens of yesteryear. But the technology is empowers us well beyond anything we have previously imagined or experienced.
@@fastscreenplay there was a school of thought that the future of music and film / tv was actually to give the content away for free and moneytize it in a way that didn't involve direct payment to access it. Which would cut out the pirates in theory. I made a low budget film and put it out for free on my own TH-cam channel. In a year it's had 5,000 views on TH-cam and 100 likes etc. I googled the film and can see it's had triple those views and downloads on more than one of the pirate sites, where my film sits alongside Hollywood content.
its gonna be a long time before we have the computational power, from a hardware perspective, for people to prompt Ai to create custom motion pictures ..
As usual, fantastic insights. I DO agree that people will still be at the creative epicenter of the process. However, in regards to the legacy model vs the new: the real fear that lies beneath the perceived easy button that is AI is that the legacy model will still maintain control of the overall process and result in a hyper extension of consolidated gate-keeping because even fewer will now be capable of outputting so much more. Thus, the same problem remains in regards to the rest of the field being able to explore our intrinsic values with the production capacity of Hollywood: the same old people (and their best friend's, sister's, cousin's girlfriend, etc.) Erect an even denser dome over opportunities so that they can gift the market with the bext Madame Web or Revel Moon. It seems to me that AI needs a few more generations of advancement in visual effects and production value for individuals to bypass the Hollywood machine all together because I don't believe the financial gatekeepers will allow for enhanced partnership with the field because that too, would be considered an unnecessary, financial risk - even on a micro scale.
Yeah, I just think that fear is entirely imaginary. I don’t see how that could possibly be the way it plays out because of how technology evolves. I think there will be a concerted effort to continue gatekeeping, sure, but its long-term futility is certain. These tools bring power into the hands of individuals. They level the playing field. Individuals will have the same tools the “gatekeepers” have, which means creativity and quality win - and that can come from anywhere. But even “winning” is a misnomer, because the paradigm is shifting, and I just don’t see it working that way. I think when we really wrap our heads around how things are changing, it’s much bigger and more profound than even the legacy structures we have always known. If I create a movie you want to pay me to see, no one else matters. Do it enough, and we each survive doing what we love.
I would like to see an analysis on economics 101 principles being tried against post scarcity markets, such that the creative industry is increasingly becoming. Also. As a wishful creator myself, when I look to study a contemporary text I am at a loss for a good quality comparison. It's difficult to improve my craft when the average quality of similar works are so low. Furthermore, as a would be consumer, to try and find good quality works I end up paying curation sites like yt and their algorithm, such sites that the creators posting to those placed are slaves to the algorithm. In conclusion, in the future it seems the only ones reliably earning money from creative works are these engines and software license companies. Of course, I've not earned any money off of MY creativity as yet, I have paid money in the endeavour though. If creativity is socialised like this, who gets to keep their house?
Value is subjective. You’re assuming that will change because of algorithmic analysis, and I think that is overlooking the fundamental nature of human perception. The whole idea of “post scarcity markets” (where there’s so much quantity the underlying thing loses its value) is just a new variable we have to account for. If you become a “market-of-one” by offering something the market values that only you can deliver, there is no “post scarcity”. You are scarce by definition. This is my whole point. Lean into it. Develop it. Package it. That will look different to the legacy paradigm. So we may need to use (or invent) new models. That’s part of what adapting to the new paradigm is all about. If TH-cam (or whomever)‘s algorithms only serve up what you consider to be low quality, then in theory you should be able to game that to your advantage. (I would argue that worry is theoretical rather than realistic as it’s far more likely that it’s our quality that is insufficient to get noticed by the algorithm.) I’m a perfect example. I think I make great, thought-provoking videos but I languish with low view counts - I don’t get picked up by the algorithm for wider distribution, typically. But the reality is this is a niche topic and my videos are talking-head which most will find boring. Is that the algorithm limiting me? Or is it my lack of skill at delivering entertaining content when I only have a half hour to put something together? If you genuinely believe you can’t find quality to learn from or model, I think that’s disingenuous. If you perceive it all to be poor quality, simply make what you imagine and test it. If your value assessment is accurate, your content should be better than what’s out there and you’ll get traction. What I’ve found, personally, is that when I lament the poor quality I perceive, it’s because I’ve always done so from an armchair critic perspective - doing the work of making actual attempts to create my own better quality content reveals the nuances of the reality of my “low quality” perception (ie, I discover it ain’t as easy as it looks)… which ends up making clear in my mind why the algorithm works the way it does. Art is hard to do well. My advice to any aspiring artist is to refrain from criticism and judgment, and instead focus on reasons and dynamics and principles, and the path forward becomes a whole lot clearer. And achievable. Regardless of the quantity of “competition” or the nature of the algorithm.
It has happened in the music business. The problem is not AI it is giving an unskilled person the resources to make music?movies that are cookie cutter but take up space in the market place this devalues what a skilled artist does and makes it impossible to make a living doing your art. it has already started. the market is flooded with product, distributers no longer give out MG's streamers pay pennies. it is what it is but the days of having an actual skill in the creative arts and it being worth a livable wage are few. yes you can adapt and make no budget films like everyone else and live off the minimum wages. just my two cents
I was with you till the end. The idea that you’re stuck making minimum wages is an idea born of the legacy model. If you are bringing value to the market, the market will pay for that value. If you are creating commodity films, they will be devalued. Instead, create uniquely valuable films. It will change how you see the who paradigm shift.
This is a good analysis. But what you are leaving out is that self-published cinema means people wont be getting paid for making cinema anymore unless you go viral with your creation.
@@ethnicalbert That’s quite literally what the training I was promoting was all about. I’ve spent the past months building a resource to solve this very problem. Not only will we get paid to make cinema, we’ll have literally limitless opportunity to do so. It’s just a new paradigm, so it won’t look quite the same.
You think? I think it could be about 12 or 13 minutes, but I think condensing it to 5 would strip it of several vital points. In any event, I had an hour to get this done. I either do talking-head or it doesn’t get done. I thought the former would be of more value to more people. Sorry you disagree. Try watching on 2x next time if that helps. (It’s the only way I can watch them back myself.)
There aren't that many of us out there who see it yet, but I'm glad you've found another one. :) (Check out my TED Talk; I've been saying this stuff for decades now.)
This has been occurring thr music industry which is why its profitable for independent artists than to be signed with a label. Labels over the last 3 years are cutting people leven artists they signed because they plan on creating their own AI singers. Yes AI is their and you will ne able to create movies with the software I am weary of the TOS of the AI service. Will the service have rights to own or sell your ideas like adobe wants to do. Thats the tricky part and be aure to read those contracts and carefully while creating your movie.
@@soulfulgeocatcher Yes, “they” will be able to make their own AI gen artists and content. But that will never replace your unique original voice. TOS will never prevent you from owning original content. That would be shooting their own business model in the foot. A simple understanding of the business dynamics I teach renders these fears moot.
Interesting video. Thanks for posting it. I don't work in film or TV any more but i have friends who still do. Here's my take: •The $800 studio project was probably not pulled because of AI alone. It's likely that commissioning decisions by Netflix, Apple or Amazon were at least a significant factor. It's bad PR to blame your paymasters. It's safer to blame Sora. • Hollywood will commission, get and protect high end text to video. It will understand "screenplay" prompts and probably use virtual production design that will still be labour intensive. It will be a long time before an auteur can control all the elements in a shot in the same way as a director has control of all the elements in the legacy production model. AI doesn't construct an image from components as we understand them- it works with surface impressions. •Yes, there will be a new cinematic paradigm and we will get to see movies that would never have happened. Bring it on. We saw this with movies shot on 16mm and camcorders. New production paradigms will be AND not OR - they will be another tool not an alternative. •If you want to keep on top of AI then learning how to text prompt effectively might be a good idea because older directors have been conditioned to getting exactly what they ask for and right now AI doesn't do that. •Ask yourself why people post demo movie trailers made with AI and not demo scenes that build emotion. Explosions are easy, emotions are difficult.
@@fastscreenplay Thanks. I subscribed and took a look at some of your other videos. Lots of it resonated with me. I'm really glad I found your channel.
Unfortunately, we have a failure to communicate. We have a failure to enunciate. We have a failure to aggregate. And we have an educational system that fails to educate.
"paradigm shift is coming....and you should pay me to explain it" Can you also explain what the book sellers should do now that they invented the radio
It’s fascinating that you have some level of prescience on where this technology is going but then discard other areas it is going towards if it conflict with your optimistic outcome… as well as cite other industries (music) with clearly optimistic stance one how all that has been shaking out. You might want to take the temperature outside of the musicians or working folk in that industry before you cite it as a positive… “free” or low cost distribution have been a total net negative for working musicians who didn’t already have a large audience, the handful of break through TikTok artists do not account for the millions of artists who are unable to turn a profit off of millions of streams… this doesn’t even account for artists who have 100’000’s of streams before you get to the many tiers below that. And AI isn’t actually comparable to what the internet did to music… we will in all likelihood of putting the current known technologies prompt to generate entertainment… and it will not be good for either medium. It’s fascinating that people seem to not want to cite what has happened in the freelance drawing field… as it would offer lessons optimists don’t want to address… seemingly because it offers some very real insights as to what lies ahead when AI is good enough for general audiences. This industry is already imploding under the weight of the variety of selections audiences have to spend free time and a movement towards short for media when it comes to passive entertainment.
With respect, you are cherry-picking soundbytes from what I said rather than the full-context nature of what I said, and using it to support a straw man argument. Of course AI is different. Radically so. That’s the point. It’s a paradigm shift. Your whole pushback is built on the assumption that the future looks like the past. Whereas my position is that this is a genuine paradigm shift and will end up looking radically different in almost every way. You talk about “the industry” when my whole argument is that “the industry” is about to change forever, and you’re assessing my optimism at what it is likely to become with metrics entirely form what has been. Yes, the problems you describe are real. In the old paradigm. But what is missing from all of your examples are the very things I’m teaching - value in the marketplace, the paths that apply tested business principles to it, and nontraditional distribution strategies (all of which are made possible, in part, by the new paradigm). I accept your fear and your pessimism. I just see it quite differently. And not because I’m blind to the challenges you mention, but because of them.
You can make a movie with no budget now using a dslr, and you could 5 years ago. If you knew After Effects, you could add all kinds of effects like the ones you describe. But most people who did this never got distribution of any kind. The really clever ones did. This at every tech junction. For example, only **one** non-budget iPhone shot movie got distribution. One. The thing is, the audience wants gatekeepers. They don't want to have to sift through 1 000 000 options. They don't have the time. So, one way or another you are always faced with the same problem. Even on TH-cam. The algorythm is the gatekeeper
Check out five and ten year old videos on my channel - I’ve been saying this is possible the whole time. :) As to the distribution question, I agree with your identification of the larger problem (What I’m aiming to present is a solution), but no, it’s incorrect to say that only one iPhone movie got distribution. Perhaps only one got traditional distribution - but the whole point is that we’re entering a new paradigm. Traditional distribution is getting disrupted too. The algorithm is the gatekeeper for its platform, not the whole ecosystem.
But at lower cost. So what’s required to recoup the investment is a lot lower, which means vastly more profitable films, particularly at the micro level. It’s a paradigm shift, that’s all.
Your dreaming if you think 'they' will allow you to have your movies get 'exposure'. Soundcloud diluted and ruined the independent music scene. If A.I. can generate a movie with top level graphics easily, everyone will do it, and the genre will die off and turn to nepotism-based industry (see how 90's dance music died when DJ's stopped using pressed vinyl records and song creators became 'common folk' who used software to make music. 20 years later and the industry is largely based on nepotism and family connections - see any major artist or producer who is 'let in' to the industry)
You have totally given me hope. I've been script writing for years, but it always seemed a lost cause to reach that goal of having someone purchase and produce when the industry is such a tight market. I've started learning UE5 so that I can create my own stories and it looks like using AI would be the obvious next step. I will be working during your seminar, but I will definitely purchase it. Thanks.
Ok so what you are saying is for every individual creator to embrace AI, form small teams and create their own independent creations making full use of these new tools. That sounds great and exciting. However, their creations are still going to be competing with the big Hollywood players who have bought out distribution and marketing. The issue with professional filmmakers is that producers and studios are increasingly opting to shortcut by hiring fewer creatives 'workers' or get away by underpaying creative workers using AI. It is not just a matter of the quality of the work, every filmmaker is pitted against a gigantic corporate machinery that has a lot of money thrown for it to succeed. Even if a few original indie filmmakers break big in this 'new era' the industry is by and large pretty fucked. Does every single filmmaker have to create their own vertical business structure from script to production to distribution and marketing? Isn't it an absolute failure of the industry if that's what every artist has to do? Why are there no penalization on the big studios for the day light theft that is happening? Personal responsibility and optimization can only eek out a few more years, but there needs to be more money coming into the industry that can support creators wanting to create cinema. Not just working on big holly wood Studio franchise movies or Brand commercials. There are THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE STRIKING ALL ACROSS NORTH AMERICA. This is not just about shifting your perspective and thriving. People are organizing and fighting for their rights.
With all due respect, you're thinking about the problems, the blame, and the future through the lens of the legacy paradigm. Yes, technically self-published cinema will be "competing" with Hollywood filmmakers, but that "competition" in the new era exists on a level playing field. As I explain in the video (and several other videos, if you care to explore), STORIES COEXIST. They are not directly competitive. Studios can create films, you can create films, AI can create films, humans can create films... and the audience can watch ALL of them. If you create stories people want to watch, and figure out how to distribute to them, you can build an audience in the new era much more easily than you could in the legacy paradigm. But you're only considering the problem of yesteryear rather than incorporating the new realities of tomorrow. Does every filmmaker have to create their own ecosystem? Of course not. There will be all sorts of new combinations of options. But if they want to, they can. Who says it's "what every artist has to do", though? Why would they? This just completely overlooks the tools and options the new era has thanks to these very technologies.
This is going to create a lot of BAD films/tv because just because someone has a story doesn’t mean they r an artist in that respect, we go from quality art in films to an overload of “CONTENT” that just gets lost in the mix.
@@watchmyepics True. But increased accessibility has always had effect. The internet made everyone accessible - which saw producers inundated by garbage submissions. And that led to them becoming even more closed off from newbies. Which made it harder for newbies to get noticed. But that didn’t change the fact that anyone could make quality of they had the skills - and now were more able to access the people they needed to reach. Those who lament the increase in NOISE are the ones who can only create the noise. Because those who can create quality - or who make that their mission - recognize that there is only upside here.
@@fastscreenplay how would it be easier amongst all the content that is already put out there??? Or someone like myself who goes to train for a year at a studio to become the best actor I can, but now am I responsible for being a director and cinematographer as well??? I want to move with times but how can someone be amazing at every aspect at film making? These are great discussions by the way and interesting as well.
@@watchmyepics Curation. When there’s too much signal to noise, curators emerge to highlight what’s good and worth watching. Audiences will find quality. As for actors, who says you need to become a director or producer? Team up with a friend who wants to be that. Two or three people will be able to make great stuff on their own. The beauty of the new era is that you’ll be able to do whatever you want to do, and outsource what you don’t or team up with others who do. If you focus only on the negative, you necessarily tune out the positive. And this is the most exciting moment creators have ever had. I say this as someone who started as a child actor and has done every job in this industry - in six countries - over the past 4 decades. Now is by far the most exciting time. There are no gatekeepers. Develop your skills and a creative future is yours.
Foremost, it's impossible for an AI cartoon to duplicate the spontaneous nuance of a highly crafted actor Brando, Streep, or DDL. The same can be said for the unique choices of a director, cinematographer, and most of all writer. This also includes all of the uniquely nuanced contributions of every grip, every sound choice, even the small mistakes that - within bounds - add the texture of LIFE to film. The question rather though is, will a new generation of people even care about the organic textures of acting and film creating? Can they all be conditioned to be satisfied with adult cartoons? For me, it best, these sound like incredible storyboard tools... If I'm going to watch animation I would rather it be in The surreal worlds of animation... The AI realism duplication rather gives me a sense of wanting to vomit.
@@destinypirate As someone who spent about 15 years teach actors how to achieve the nuances you describe - and who has deep dived into AI to understand it for what it is AND what it isn’t - I believe, in short order, we will absolutely be able to create the human interaction experience. In fact, I believe we’ll see whole new worlds of creative opportunity. Imagine being able to map your own emotions onto AI-generated (or refined) avatars - such that your own acting skills animate the avatar. The better an actor you are, the better then actors in your film. The better the writer you are, the more unique and valuable your stories. You are still looking at the situation as competitive - where AI takes something away or competes with the human. But if you shift your perspective and awareness, the reality is that it’s a new tool and layer to incorporate (or not) into your creativity.
@destinypirate Also, I know that referring to AI generated video as “adult cartoon” is meant to be disparaging, but in using that phrase you’re actually cutting yourself off from a world of creative possibility. See it as something new, rather than as a lesser version of something you love, and you may be able to imagine new directions of creativity.
@@fastscreenplay it's only meant to be moderately disparaging just to bring a marker to this. You can't replace human quality. Animation is an absolutely wonderful thing and like most people I've enjoyed it from childhood cartoons to the works of studio Ghibli to the interesting applications in films such as 300. However it is worth disparaging the very idea that humans can be replaced in all of their creativity and nuanced unpredictability in directing, cinematography, let alone writing and acting. Now does that mean we won't have entire New generation to become cultured and to preferring what is very sophisticated adult animation? Probably not as most likely they will never develop the sense for artistic appreciation of human created film. We've already seen the demise of artistic appreciation and music, literature, and the traditional visual arts.
@@fastscreenplay no AI is going to be able to have the lifetime of experience and unique study to create the dynamic type of friendship such as Thomas Mann and Hermann Hesse shared, this laid the fertile ground, through thee conversations that only they could uniquely share, for some of the greatest literature of the mid-century. Can AI be useful? It's as useful as computing, for AI is simply sophisticated computing and can be certainly used to refine somebody's work as you suggest and likely more often will be used as a leaning post so people do not have to refine their work.
DUDE! The film industry HAS ALREADY collapsed. It was OVER circa 2005. Ever since then, there has been this major "Progressive" or Globalist" or "LGBTQRX709" agenda that the MAJORITY of people despise with every bone in their body. The young kids may fall for this, but none of us will watch ANY of it. I'm fine with independent cinema and reruns of classics.
Almost 40% of the junk on server farms now is AI generated and it hasn't been around for a long time. There's a big chance that AI will choke off the internet as it is because it works like a tumour on the whole network. It will be an amazing day though.
@@dresimon321 You’re basically describing the signal-to-noise ratio problem. But in my view, what you’re overlooking is the simultaneous power afforded to countermeasures. If indeed junk AI content “chokes” the internet, that won’t be of value to the majority of the marketplace, so tools and resources and opportunities to combat the problem will be developed - also powered by AI, which will likely have a neutralizing effect. In the past, we deal with the signal-to-noise ratio of, say, good movies to bad movies, through curation. Review sites, upvoting, theaters dedicated to a specific caliber of content, etc. We’ll have the same thing (only automated) with AI. Filters that weed out AI junk content or curators who point you to the good stuff or whatever. What you’re describing as a problem is only a problem as we adapt to the new paradigm. But if we look at the problem through the lens of the new paradigm, I think it quickly fades away into a nonissue (or perhaps more like a growing pain).
Infomercial for a free training. Hmm. Interesting take. :) I’m sorry you can’t see the value of the message. I wish you extraordinary success regardless.
@@fastscreenplay If it was less than five minutes it would have been fine. What you said could have been done in five minutes. Thats all. Just too long. I wish you the best.
@lincolnabc1 Dude, you're so right. The video is like 18 minutes long and after 2 minutes in I also saw your comment and just stopped. It's like a used car salesman talking to the camera. It's probably because I'm exhausted from scams . Not that I would put one cent towards learning in filmmaking. Everything is available now to learn pretty much on your own. I took some video production course many years ago. And I learned very little. Because can't teach talent. Either you're original or not. And the ones who aren't and think they are? They scam others when it's not working.
@@lancegoodthrust546 lol. Imagine taking time out of your day to post a comment like this. You clearly have the time. You should watch the video. Double speed it. Much better use of your time than negative commenting. Think about it. Irony is lost on some people, eh?
I'm currently working with a screenwriter. We are using AI's to improve his script. We are impressed with help we are getting. The film industry will be profoundly affected by the problems that the "vaccines" have caused.
well, this is nice spin, but sometimes a film technician just wants to be a film technician and not a filmmaker. As far as intrinsic value, you’reconfused. Everything in our modern world, thanks to neoliberalism, has to have a market value. Intrinsic value is worthless unless there is a national market value. You forgot the business part of show business, my friend.
@@TheVFXbyArt You might want to rewatch without your biases set to high. You haven’t said anything this video doesn’t agree with you on. You’re just not hearing the nuance that will open it up for you. To be clear: Yes, a film technician just wants to be a film technician. As a horse-drawn buggy driver wanted to continue being a horse-drawn buggy driver. If the skill is no longer valued by the market, then you won’t continue getting paid for that skill. But that doesn’t make the horse-drawn buggy driver as a person obsolete. It makes their skill obsolete. We must shift to what is a valued skill in the new era. Every human being has intrinsic value by nature of their exclusive, one-of-a-kind experience, and the unique set of skills, perspectives and insights that gives them. But, as you rightly point out, they need to turn that intrinsic value into a value the marketplace will pay for. If there is no longer a need for the value you were once providing, that doesn’t make you no longer valuable; it only makes that skill no longer valuable. And when we recognize and appreciate that, we see nothing but opportunity in the new era, rather than fear of obsolescence. If you’re new to me and my channel (as you clearly are) the one thing I have NEVER forgotten is the business part of show business. In fact, I see it more clearly than most. And I’m trying to show you that the business is about to change forever.
In agree and disagree simultaneously. Your uniquely human stories (presented to an audience that wants to pay for them - a key point I think people are overlooking here) will rise to the top over cookie cutter material. But don’t underestimate AI. It’s more creative than people who don’t keep up with it think, and will soon write as good or better than a human can. The point is that it doesn’t matter because stories coexist, so if your stories are unique and have value (or are coupled with value), audiences will still watch yours.
Having a broad knowledge of the industry you work in will be increasingly important in the future. For instance, in the film industry, knowing the intricacies of various roles-from writing and directing to makeup artistry and sound engineering-will allow you to communicate your vision more clearly and collaborate more efficiently with AI tools. This knowledge will help you ensure that the AI-generated content aligns closely with your creative intentions, rather than relying on the AI to fill in gaps, which might not always meet your standards As self-publishing movies become more common with the help of AI, the market will become saturated, making it essential to find ways to stand out.
@@FrancisHerding True. But always remember that you are a unique human interfacing with a unique window on the world. This means you will always have a perspective no one else will ever see. Which gives you stories only you can tell. To stand out, simply tell them effectively.
Compare self publishing movies to Indi game development not self publishing books. You need the skills of entire team so the output might not look as shiny as a AAA game but if you have a unique idea it can be better than most AAA games. Think of the Blair Witch Project. But AI can add that extra shine.
@@FrancisHerding You’re talking about indie film (which I’ve been doing for 40 years). Self-published cinema is as the name implies - done by a single person. Ai will enable a single person (or tiny team) to do all of it. It’s not about adding shine; it’s about empowering the individual.
The bottom line is making films is no longer art, art comes from the human mind and the human soul or at least that's the kind of art that most people want when they look at a painting when they listen to a song or when they watch a film and AI will not enhance that at all. So it will just bring us down the continuum of the garbage films that have been put out now even without the use of the AI. Are you aware that people really don't go to the movies anymore? They are completely turned off by all the content it's being put out and most people are just watching stuff on TH-cam and podcasts these days where there are real humans still doing things. No doubt AI will have its place But I hope people don't think that they can just start writing great scripts and making their own films because now they can use the creativity of artificial intelligence
@@lyndarobertson6118 With all due respect, this is just silly. AI is a tool. As such, it can be used to sidestep human creativity, or it can be used to enhance human creativity. Some people will do the former, and some will do the latter. Your note reveals that you see the world in black and white, yes or no, good or bad, on or off. You are taking the incredible variety and nuance and subtlety and kaleidoscope of human experience and reducing to binary thinking. This is silly and small-minded. And it’s where your cynicism comes from and, if left unchecked, will keep you in a box of limited imagination. Art is and will always be art. We can use artificial tools or not. We can express what’s in our soul or we can make popcorn for the sake of spectacle. One does not negate the other, and neither will supplant or replace any of the infinite variations possible. Stop seeing our world as limited and the game as zero-sum. There is infinite opportunity, infinite variety, and endless permutations. If you don’t like something, go make the “pure” version you see as preferable. The beauty and power of this moment (and this technology) is that it creates an environment in which all of it is available and achievable.
All A.i will do is destroy filmmarking as once A.i becomes avaliable for everyone to use we will just get lots of rubbish films posted online by pepole with no care or appreciation for actual filmmarking and filmmarking will tragically become a lost art.once anyone can create films it will just become the new trash/spam content on the same level as content on tiktok and its sad that that's something you could be potentially pushing for and you mention that pepole must move on but what about all the inspiring filmmakers out there who want to experience the traditional way of filmmaking they may now not get the opportunity to experience such a thing
The way you feel about traditional filmmaking is the same way I feel about punctuation. So I guess we’re even. ;) (Just giving you a hard time. Read through other comments here as I’ve written endlessly on this complaint.)
The industry workers, of which I am one (IATSE), are aware that AI is going to drastically reduce the need for manpower in every aspect of production.
The number of hours I have logged in crew positions is well into the thousands. So my heart is absolutely with the crew as this paradigm shift unfolds.
When the thing we do goes through a massive transformation like this, it creates as existential crisis. The thing to understand is that the job you do (or even the vocation you have spent your life on) is not synonymous with who and what you are. It’s what you’ve done and what skill set you’ve developed. And the reality is that all of life is change. The intrinsic value you have, which includes the skill set you have and the insights that come from it, remain. They’re still a part of you. And the way to navigate the future is to look for ways to bring your unique value to the new paradigm.
My focus is story, and writing, and indie filmmaking. So that’s where my instinct recommends you look. The stories you can imagine will be unlike anyone else’s story, which makes it a unique value that only you can bring. But if creating stories isn’t what you’re drawn to, there are an infinite array of other possibilities - it’s a matter of where you put your focus.
I often use the analogy of horse-drawn buggy drivers in the era when motorized vehicles were introduced. If the job goes away, that doesn’t make the driver obsolete; it only makes the job obsolete. The driver has infinite new opportunity in the world. And if all he’s passionate about is driving horse-drawn buggies, then the challenge becomes finding a way to do that even in a world where it’s not the norm. But it’s certainly not the only option.
I hope this helps. I promise you, even though the future won’t look like the past, it will look amazing.
@@fastscreenplay Well said.👍
@fastscreenplay All A.i will do is destroy filmmarking as once A.i becomes avaliable for everyone to use we will just get lots of rubbish films posted online by pepole with no care or appreciation for actual filmmarking and filmmarking will tragically become a lost art.once anyone can create films it will just become the new trash/spam content on the same level as content on tiktok and its sad that that's something you could be potentially pushing for and you mention that pepole must move on but what about all the inspiring filmmakers out there who may not now get the traditional/true filmmarking experience
@@RBrady266 AI is going to allow far more people to express themselves in the visual arts medium on screen. What's being eliminated is the need to approach multi billion dollar corporate gate keepers to finance our dreams.
Creatives who wish to express themselves are not seeking out AI to "tell them stories as determined by AI" but rather, allow US to tell our stories as we visualize them in our heads using AI tool-sets to help manifest the grandeur and physicality of those imaginary worlds without need for massive film crews and facilities on par with some sprawling military operation.
@@RBrady266 You are expressing one possible scenario - the least likely one. Check out another video on my channel called "The Catastrophic Glitch (Don't Panic). You are imagining a vision of the future based solely around your fears and your current understanding of both what we have now, what we once had, what this technology means, and how it will be implemented.
The truth is, none of us can predict the future, so you can't possibly know that your imagining of the future is accurate. (Nor can I know that mine is accurate.) But yours presupposes a lot of things that time (and my experience) have shown me to be completely incorrect.
Firstly, you assume that there would be no countermeasures to all the negatives you imagine. This is, at best, naive. Of course people will develop countermeasures to outcomes we don't find favorable.
Secondly, you completely overlook the fact that STORIES COEXIST. Story is non-competitive. You can tell a story that is beautiful and human and AI can tell a million stories that are "spam/trash/rubbish" and the audience can watch them all. Garbage does not prevent quality from rising to the top. (And lest you claim quality will get buried by all the "noise", you misunderstand the role of curation.)
Lastly, you clearly know nothing about me. I have been in the film industry for 40 years... I've been teaching for 25... because my goal is to launch the careers of a thousand filmmakers and tell a billion stories. You find it "sad" that I suggest writers and filmmakers embrace new technology to express themselves MORE creatively and with an even GREATER reach at a HIGHER financial return so they can live a life of pure creative pursuit?... If you think that's "sad", then we have very different ideas of the human experience.
You are scared of AI. I get it. But your fear is blinding you to the extraordinary nature of this moment. Open your mind. Rethink your assumptions. See the power of the tool. And step into the new era. It's gonna be okay.
On one hand, this has been happening in the music industry for decades already. With synthesizers and drum machines, you can just press a button and have a beat play automatically and then press an automation on a synthesizer and you'll get a melody started. It changed the way that music was made but that doesn't mean there arent traditional musicians still doing things the old-fashioned way.
On the other hand, you could argue that AI is different, because in the case of the drum machine and synthesizer, it was the human hand using a computer tool, but with ai, the computer IS the hand. That's the part of all this that makes it a little unsettling...
Yep... totally agree. The key to remember is that stories coexist. One does not replace the other. No matter how good AI gets, it can never replace your unique ability to tell stories only you can tell. The challenge is entirely around how well you can package that so that it delivers a value in the marketplace (assuming survival is the goal). And that boils down to simple business dynamics that have remain unchanged through all of it. The fear we have is that we won't have any value in the marketplace due to the outsized power of the "competitor" (AI or people using AI). But it's just an irrational fear if we focus on core principles.
This is a really good point. And people were saying that it will destroy jobs, well, they're probably right. But how many of the people working as special effects artists, as PAs, or working as set painters painting the sets of a marvel movie, deep down actually wants to make their own movies? They'd rather be their own writer, director, or would they rather be a production assistant? Pretty soon that production assistant wont have to spend 20 years asking for permission (and most likely he'd never get permission anyways) instead he will be able to actually do what he wants... now. So that's actually a good point.
I guess the question is: what does this artistic person do in the meantime? If they can't be working on set as a production assistant, what are they going to do while they're making their movies? I guess they'll just have to get a normal job and make movies in their free time, hoping that they will eventually be seen and make money.
That’s the question I answered in the free training (which is available now as replays and soon as a stand-alone mini-course).
Basically, we’re moving into an era where “jobs” will be replaced by entrepreneurship. Anyone and everyone can identify a place in the market where their unique skills and passions can be offered to others. Speaking from experience, most creative people just don’t have basic business skills because we create from inward to outward. The key is to discover what you uniquely bring to the market, set it up as a business or career that doesn’t require much of your time or resources but brings in enough revenue to sustain you while you spend your time on your creative pursuits. In other words, don’t think of it as getting a job while you pursue the goal; think of it as building a micro business that helps you make the goal sustainable. It’s a new paradigm, and it offers infinite and unique opportunity.
I’m in the midst of building a comprehensive resource called the Micro Mogul and a pilot group is going through it now. I’ll share more in the weeks and months ahead, as I think it’s essential that creative people adapt to the new paradigm. Hope this helps!
Just finished the video and I'm compelled to leave another comment! Dude you are on point with this message, the gate Keepers are gone now!!!
I wrote my first ever feature screenplay at 17 (I am 28 now) and I had no clue what anything mearnt but your videos carried me through it all. Thank you, Jeff! A hero.
how much did you sell it for
So I don't think anything you said is wrong. I think it's a healthy way for you to look at it. However... It's a very writer/director/producer/storyteller centric view of the situation.
Alright, hear me out:
The main issue with your argument to me is that not everyone working in film has the potential or even interest in becoming a full fledged movie maker. In the "Legacy" version of the film industry, a film takes sometimes hundreds if not thousands of people to make. All of those people have a small but very important part to play. Maybe they work on set as a builder, first AC or best boy. Maybe it's in post as a compositor, animator or VFX lighting artist or even as a sound design or foley artist (Yep, AI definitely coming for their jobs too). Remember, all these people have been making a fairly good living all these years. Many of them are out of work due to the strikes last year. All of these people now eventually face either their jobs disappearing or pivoting into making their own films as you say. Does that really seem realistic? We're talking hundreds of thousands of people just in film industry (maybe millions, I don't know) will all just suddenly start producing their own AI content and the streaming services will just start buying/licensing it?
Sure, some of them can and will "Pivot" into this new roll. However, I believe the real tragedy of all of this is that the vast majority will not. I work in the industry and know the kind of people who work in it and it's not all top tier money people like writers, directors and producers. What about all the artists who have worked for 15-20 years honing their skills in some very specialized craft that's required to produce a movie today? What if they have never been trained in writing or storytelling. What if they are the kind of people who can really only be artist? Yes, everyone has stories and could potentially be a storyteller in the sense you're describing but how realistic is that? Becoming a writer takes years of practice to even understand how to craft a compelling and believable story. How many people have you met who have come to you and said, I think I want to become a screenwriter but end up struggling to come up with a compelling story?
Also imagine what you say does happen and tons of people from the film industry "Pivot" and start flooding the market with AI content? How much of that will be any good? And that's assuming the streaming services are even even able to deal with this. Sure it democratizes the film industry but you still need to get your movie seen.
What if it ends up that the only way to get your film seen by the public is through a web based platform like TH-cam? Imagine now that instead of competing on a mostly level playing field with other Hollywood writers/directors/storytellers who know the rules, and have schedules for releases, now you're competing with everyone else too. Everyone from all walks of life. Anyone with a Sora or whatever Text To Video account comes along next. Imagine your voice is now being drown out by millions of 15-25 year old kids who are all more "Hip" to all the latest of pop culture. It will be like TH-cam but for anonymous AI generated content. Assuming it even goes that way of course.
Sure, there maybe some gems that float to the top but yours will have to be insanely good and appeal to ALL audiences to even receive any notice. Basically it will be TH-cam rules but for just regular film makers. Imagine that. Imagine having to fighting something like the TH-cam Algorithm for views?
Now, what if all this bad AI content flooding in creates negative connotations associated with AI movies? There will probably be A lot people who will see that as a bad thing (just like how they perceive GCI as ruining movies today) and not even give it a chance. On some level people will just associate bad storytelling with AI (again, just like CGI). Now a days, when I see a thumbnail that was obviously AI generated, I tend to have a slightly negative bias towards that account.
Okay, so say everything goes right and it's not the apocalypse like I'm making it out to be. Maybe Netflix (or whomever) becomes sympathetic to the plight of all these people and starts licensing this content (most likely at a much reduced rate sine it cost a fraction to make) and things turn out all good for the most part. You have to consider that for most industry people who are pivoting to AI content, a lot of their job will become like most TH-cam producers jobs today; you'll have to keep cranking it out because you get paid to little for it and you need to stay relevant. And a lot of your job will now be self promotion and social media. You know first hand what that's like and so do most independent filmmakers. Being a TH-cam personality is a tiring life. Competition will be very high. Can you imagine if all your friends who work in other specialized parts of the film industry were all suddenly expected to pivot into that lifestyle?
I don't know... Does this really seem realistic and sustainable?
I know it just seems like I'm am like all the other Doomers bitching about AI but I would honestly love to hear your take on how this will play out in a positive way. Because, I have not heard anyone give a compelling argument in favor of AI art at all. All of them deny that AI will ever take anyones jobs and that there will always be a need for people to make movies/art. Most people completely misunderstand how AI even works in the first place. You seem to at least understand that right now, it may not seem like a viable tool for story telling but it's just going to keep getting better and better.
I accept what you’re saying. And I’m not a soothsayer; I’m a guy just like you trying to figure out how to navigate this paradigm shift. But my life experience includes an extreme decades-long deep-dive into human creativity. And as such, I understand (probably better than most) not only how unique every individual and their story capacity really are, but all the resistance to doing it. You ask if I think it’s realistic - I absolutely do.
Simple math suggests that the 1000 True Fans theory is enough to sustain a creative person. And the new tech coming online make that achievable if it’s coupled with business principles (ie focusing on what an audience wants to willingly pay for). Your fears (in my admittedly biased and admittedly subjective opinion) come from looking at the future through the legacy model. A paradigm shift is a paradigm shift. We need to understand that what today is a nontraditional distribution strategy, for example, may become the norm moving forward. If there are currently a million people about to be displaced in the film industry and each of them needs only find 1000 true fans, that would be easily achievable (mathematically). With overlap and an array of new possibilities opening up, I think there’s even more opportunity than I’m suggesting. It just needs to be considering from a different angle.
I’m also not suggesting that this is the only way. Not everyone needs to make movies. Not everyone needs to become storytellers. The free training will go into more detail than I could cover here. I see at least three primary paths: Story, Skills, and Solutions. A great many people (majority) will move into the latter two areas.
Bottom line: I don’t know what the future holds. But I do know that it holds AI. And that means the paradigm is gonna change. And that means we need a strategy for dealing with the change. And if we look creatively, I think we can see more reason to be optimistic than to despair.
@@fastscreenplay While I do appreciate your optimism... (which IMO seems a bit too optimistic) I think @galenbeals3538 has a very good point in everything he/she wrote. Firstly, I have worked in both the music and film industry. I also understand creative business. I have had my art featured in art galleries. I have won international awards in music and worked with some top actors in the entire world.
Firstly, I want to say this... The music industry is making tons of money off of streaming. However, they are clearly aware that there is so much music out there that is literally the blood sweat and tears of people who worked their asses off and they are literally earning nothing now. A million listens gets you less than 100 bucks. The lump some of all money in music goes to these monolithic labels. While most artists are starving. Also, if you are the next Prince or Micheal, you WON'T get discovered as your music drowned out by millions of people who upload music every day. I am sorry... a 1000 dedicated listeners won't earn you enough to eat mcdonalds. If AI paradigm shift happens as you say... millions will not only be out of work, but the Spotify of movies will emerge. Basically, all films will be streamed to these big corporations of which you will get paid pennies. There will be some many lazy people creating content fast and cheaply using AI, that effort will lose it's value. Now let's say, you create a masterpiece. Someone can simply take your film, run it through AI and create a same thing, just slightly altered. Now, you have 1000s of new releases that are all similar to your work and this can be done in seconds.
The music industry is actually happy with this because they are in a position of absolutely power. They can pick and choose who to be the biggest stars and have no fear of competition. No indy record label will rise up. No new record companies can challenge them, since all of streaming revenue mostly goes to them. Is AI film paradigm change occurs and the legacy model dies... All major film studies will just become spotify for film creatives. And look at the state of music. It would be hell. Artists are picked according to affiliation, rather than talent. Everyone else is battling for relevancy on streaming platforms that rob them.
Another issue is that AI will be able to eventually write good stories by coping other works. It will get so good, that people who never studied writing will be "telling great stories." The problem is that it won't be their OWN stories. Rather an amalgamation of what works. AI learns from everything, so if you create someone original... everyone else will be able to steal it or do something similar. So, instead of people experiencing life and pouring that pain/joy into art... They will allow AI to do that for them. It all becomes unnatural and cold.
Another issue is that all streaming music is starting to sound the name, because originality get buried under a sea of conformity. The algorithm highlights what "works." Whereas genius goes unrecognized because it misses different sweet spots. You think that's bad. Wait until AI films start going in the same direction. True genius is disruptive, but if everyone is making tons of AI content... so much content that we cannot consume it all... most will be derivative. I promise you, on spotify today... someone uploaded a masterpiece that will probably change everything... Unfortunately, most of the human population will hear it because it will be buried under (millions of songs released PER DAY) a sea of content that is all conformist derivative slop.
Then we get into the criminality of pay to play. Because in sea of AI films, how can you stand out. Well, just like streaming, you can pay for film views and gain great success. All major labels pay for billions of views for their music artists. Indy artists have no chance. So, crap films will become the top earners based on AI and paid views (most also robots). Things will get worse when film geniuses have all their work completely ignored, when some random ahole who made a piece of garbage gets an oscar and cannes award for simply having the highest amount of views. Reviews can also be bought and AI can write them.
The future can be extremely dark and I see way more negatives than positive. Yes, paradigm shifts are great and change must occur. But, lets not embrace change for the sake of change or to avoid being the old guy. We have to look at things clearly and strategically.
That was a lot to read.
@@Antigone-yp6ht As it should be when there’s a lot to say.
Omg this is exactly what I've been saying!!! As a content creator I have been able to create stories using ai voice modification where I have voiced like 5 characters, animated ai art produced characters and made the entire story by myself. This is so empowering
Exactly right! The power is now in the hands of the creative. I love this comment so much. Keep up the great work.
Been watching you for years, Jeff. I love that you've become the pied piper of AI cinema! This is indeed an exciting moment. I'm thrilled you're in the lead on this - it snaps right in to the FAST screenplay concepts you've been preaching forever!
Thanks Jeff. I don't know about pied piper of AI cinema, but hopefully the pied piper of using this technology to achieve our human goals rather than withering in the shadows because we're scared of it!
@@fastscreenplay I always come away from your videos inspired. What more could one ask for?
AI cinema... LMFAO! 🤣
@@skyko 🤦🏼♂️
Man, you sound like all of those coaches, specialists, life coaches, etc., who sell us their services and coach us on HOW TO WRITE FAST YOUR SCREENPLAY! You'll make people rich FAST if they watch your FREE WEBINAR VIDEO! You sound just like all of them!
@@kristofkonrad4336 Well, if you really think that, then either a) you haven’t watched much of my content, or b) I’m not right for you. (Or both.)
I teach people how to write pro-level quality INTUITIVELY. When I say “FAST”, it’s an acronym for the four-part process of writing - which, if you practice it, will speed up your writing, which will actually make you a better writer with skills that are more needed by the industry.
I’ve been helping tens of thousands of writers for over 25 years. If I sound like others, there’s a good chance that what you’re really experiencing is others who sound like me (without the power of what I do behind them).
If, despite that, I ain’t for you, no worries at all. I wish you extraordinary success on your adventure, whatever path you take.
Your brain is attempting to catalog me. It's doing you a disservice in this case. Dive deeper and you'll see that your biases are going to prevent you from discovering the unique insights I offer.
Wow! This is awesome. So articulated and well put. It is truly an exciting time.
Many people think that A.I. implies pushing a button and let the software do all the work for you... That is not the idea, to begin with...
@@carlosalbertolealrodriguez5529 Agreed!
Hi, Jeff! It's been years. I'll definitely find some time to attend on Thursday. Your videos helped me in the past.
Yes, my years of trying to help writers are starting to show on my face.
You might want to look into LA Castle Studios , they can put an entire movies together with just 4 or 5 people .. Below the line workers may never become obsolete but they will become minimal at best by the time the next IATSE contracts come up in 3 years after this one settles …if it settles ..
What I disagree with in your comment is the language. The workers won’t become obsolete, and using that language is precisely the problem. It’s the jobs that may or may not become obsolete. The workers are each unique individuals with whole worlds of imagination and story in their minds. And that is what they’ll need to focus on and use to begin the next chapter in the new era.
I don’t celebrate the loss of their job or their vocation, and I urge you to stop doing so, too (for the effect it has on your own thinking). Losing one’s job or vocation is frightening and sad. It’s just that the solution is to see within it the opportunity inherent in what comes next.
@@fastscreenplay The workers are already becoming obsolete .AI will replace most every below the line worker in this business. The unions are already admitting when these contracts are over business will never go back to what it once was . Work will consist of maybe 85 million hours of filming down from a high of 121 million hours and a low of 71 million hours during covid . The WGA and SAG both signed their death warrants when they signed those contracts . They protected the top 1% and left the rest out to starve .During the last strike the studios went out and hired AI technicians with a starting salary from anywhere from 300,000-900,000 a year to start . Studios have sunk billions with a B into AI ,to think they are just going to say let’s not use it is ludicrous at best . Nobody in this business has a secure job we are all day players even if you’re on the same show for 20 seasons be you a writer , actor , Teamster or IATSE member. Anyone who thinks they can change the dynamic of the industry is only fooling themselves and others . AI will come up with ideas faster and better than any human can produce and it can’t be stopped because the WGA and SAG/AFTRA both opened the door to let it in .
Unions. Specifically entertainment centric unions will go away.
Really enjoyed the video. Thank you!
I think to get a funding for the project often helps to create better work. But there is a threshold at which this rule breaks. TOO many chiefs spoil the soup.
And if we look at the music business, it is true that more artist are able to get their music out there through streaming services, but only a few artist are able to make a living out of that.
True. But they haven’t seen my free training. ;) I believe what they’re missing is an understanding of value in the marketplace. I think this is the underlying thread - most artists are (rightly) focused on their art/creative expression first, whereas what people pay for is what is valuable to them. There is no need to make a living if one doesn’t want to, but if that’s the objective, then focusing on the audience’s needs (if even just a niche audience who loves what the artist does) is how that happens. It’s a balance, and it’ll be different for everyone. My aim is to help artists understand the principles, so they can choose more deliberately.
@@fastscreenplay That is true. As artist we struggle to think customer centered (and most company struggle with this too)
Besides this we also don’t own the platforms. This contains the risk that we replace one gatekeeper with another - the algorithm. That's why we need to build our independent network and platform.
And this is the hart job - to make a genuine direct connection to our audience.
I agree that’s the hard job - but it’s not as hard as it seems. It just requires understanding some time tested business principles (which is the whole reason I’m building the new resource I’m building - to help writers with that).
Im prefering indie style films more and more nowadays. I actually enjoy the raw low budget style productions that channel their engery into crafting beautiful stories. I growing increasingly weary of cgi in film. I also don't mind if I don't recognise any of the actors. Good acting is good acting regardless of who the 'star' is. A good director can craft a great film with a single camera and a talented team. I am also growing sick of studio produced films. The majority of films are shot in greens rooms etc and padded out with cgi and its overdone now. I welcome the home made films that are made on entirely real sets, on entirely real locations with an entirely real cast.
I'm going to express my disagreement with you as cordially and balanced as I possibly can.
First of all, I fully acknowledge and appreciate your enthusiasm and hope for the future. That is an admirable quality to have, and is seldom seen during the bleak times we're living through. Hope for the future is an essential step in our march forward, both individually and collectively, and is something I aspire to. Going into this video, I was interested to hear what you had to say and possibly even see things a bit differently.
Suffice to say, it has only made my stance stronger. Before I delve into our differences, let me say that A) the idea of self-published art is enticing and B) I don't deny that human creativity will be possible within the realm of AI. But let's just get real for a second: it WILL stifle artistic expression, especially when placed in the hands of studio executives -- or, at least, the worst of them.
I'm surprised you failed to mention actors. Along with good dialogue, direction, cinematography, music, etc., actors are what REALLY bring filmed media to life. An AI replication of a performer, be they already existing or yet to exist, fundamentally lacks the varied, nuanced, and raw emotions and life experiences of a human being. While it may be able to replicate them, it does not have them. It isn't sentient. Human beings are. The human experience is called that for a reason; we live and feel it in a way that no other being ever could, especially not AI. It may replicate, or perhaps duplicate, the idiosyncrasies of human expression, but it will never have it, and thus will always be inauthentic, and in the cases of deceased performers, extremely disrespectful.
Another thing which you completely left out of your argument is that in the Capitalist system we all live under, goods and services are produced solely for profit -- specifically, that of corporations, and even more specifically, its executives and shareholders. As you mentioned, human labor is expensive, possibly the most expensive part of a business. How do companies maximize their profit? Cut labor costs. How do you do that? Cut the laborers themselves. What's the most effective way to do that? Replacing them.
One example which comes to mind is the takeover of ride share platforms, such as Uber and Lyft. Before this advancement, taxicabs were a common way to get around the city, or get from point a to point b without having to drive. In comes Uber. What happens to the taxi drivers? Under one system, it would be great for them: easier and better jobs with better wages and higher quality. Great!
Except, what's the reality? In our system, those taxi drivers are now suddenly out of work, including drivers who've put in YEARS of time and labor into what they do, and along the way, established a living that provides for them and their loved ones. Then, Uber comes along, and suddenly, that living is taken from them, and they struggle to adapt. Then, if self-driving cars came along, and what happens to the Uber drivers?
The reason why so many studios are wet for AI is because it's an efficient way to make money. Honestly, AI at its worst is exactly the same as many of these executives: something devoid of creativity or artistic integrity. The idea that AI technology will lead to some sort of creative renaissance and not be exploited and/or used against independent artists is both idealistic and unrealistic.
A computer-generated product might be more symmetrical, time efficient, or in a technical sense of the word "higher quality" than a human product. But I would argue that the imperfections of human art is EXACTLY what makes it SUPERIOR to computer art. Could one be used to compliment the other? Absolutely. Human beings CAN use technological advancement to their benefit. But in many cases, a human-made film set will still have more character because of the physical effort and TLC only doable by real people (granted, it does depend on the genre). Cheaply-made paint blood from a schlocky 70s horror flick is still more realistic than badly-done CGI blood. Neither are good, necessarily, but whatever cheesy paint blood was used back then is still physical matter, and so it does, in a way, blend better with reality.
I know that many will say that I'm acting like a typical cranky old man bemoaning change and failing to embrace the future. But honestly? That kind of sounds like gaslighting. It could easily be interpreted as: "Your own filmmaking preference is obsolete and unrealistic, so you better get with the times and deal with it." Sorry, I'm not gonna sacrifice my artistic integrity, nor my visions for anything, and I encourage everyone out there to do the same. There are certain things that are timeless, and human-made art is one of them.
AI might be a massive step forward for technology, but could be a massive step back for the human creativity which has defined literally all of human history, and enhanced billions of lives. If you think that sounds old fashioned, call me a dinosaur all you want. It won't stop me from doing what I love, nor should it stop anybody.
I’ve addressed all three points in other comment responses, but I wish you great success!
@@fastscreenplayGlad to see others are pushing back.
@@mixmastercj100 Me, too! I just wish they were hearing my message rather than just pushing back against the technology - which I have no control over and nothing to do with. I am 100% AI agnostic. I’m not for it or against it. I’m for human storytelling and human beings living their best life in the moment in which they’re in. All the pushback ignores that, wanting to instead rage against the situation. And unfortunately, I think it sidesteps a much deeper and more profound conversation.
Ah, well.
@@fastscreenplay I hear you. You seem like a decent guy, and I truly believe you when you say you value human storytelling. You clearly have years of experience in this field, and it seems to me that your heart is in the right place.
I just think there should be a balance of the pendulum, where people who prefer not to use artificial intelligence get to do so and still reach their fullest potential, without having to worry about being drowned out or excluded. I don’t think we should all be Luddites and completely reject 21st century technology, because as you said, it ain’t going nowhere. Still though, there are certain things that have worked for years that just can’t afford to be stamped out. Shooting on film, practical effects, props, actors, cinematographers, etc. The human touch is timeless, and AI (and by extension CGI) should be used only when it’s literally impossible to be done realistically by people.
Hope that makes sense. :)
@@mixmastercj100 It makes total sense. But if you hear my message, I believe (adamantly) that both will coexist. We WILL be able to make films the legacy way. I don’t believe that’s going to disappear. It’ll just get flipped, so it’s the niche and the other way is the mainstream. Think vinyl. It was nearly wiped out until its fans revived it. Now it’s a huge industry again. I think legacy filmmaking won’t even disappear. The paradigm just shifts. Even horse-drawn buggy drivers in the new era of motorized vehicles could find ways to continue doing it if they were truly passionate about it.
The paradigm shift is not away from one technology toward another. It’s from a requirement for money and resources to empowerment for those who have none. That’s a big change with many implications. And navigating the bumpy road is all I’m talking about here. Hope this helps!
I won't be able to consider doing your course till later. But maybe that is interesting. Thanks for the great video.
@@jj-sc1kq It’s all good. No need to sign up for anything I offer. I only offer it to help, if you want to get there faster. Out of curiosity, though, why won’t you be able to consider it? I’m curious to know what prompted you to say that. Good luck on whatever path you choose!
@@fastscreenplay Thanks for replying. The reason I have for not doing it right away is this, I've been helping a friend get back on her feet. It looks like she will finally be there soon. But for the moment, she's being a major drain on my finances. So, in the mean time, I'm working on improving my storytelling abilities and trying to organize and write the series that's in my head.
💯Totally agree with your views on this shift. Looking forward to the Thursday talk!
Your skill at asking questions of Large Language Models will be a major part of your future success.
You can get a lot of good feedback, but you have to do the work.
I've had AI's generate story ideas, and then go on to generate 120 scenes using the Hero's Journey Template.
They still needed a lot of work to create a usable script.
Yeah, I hear that. The real skill, I think, will be in knowing which questions to even ask. And this is why AI is a tool, rather than a solution.
I haven’t touched AI yet but I’m nothing but excited about the opportunities it will bring.
I really like you. Regarding your point about respect, I'm not a writer; I’m a producer AI assisting me in developing the story further.
I'm wondering if current screenwriting software incorporates A.I. in any way. I used to write in Canada in the early aughts, so it's over twenty years. I was using Movie Magic Screenwriter with actual discs back then. I am sure you have some vids on the topic, but I just stumbled on the channel and found this video informative. Bit intimidated by the free cloud stuff/versions and since I'm kind of just getting back into practice mostly wondering what current preferences are or if any freeware is recommended.
The software doesn’t matter. The stories do. Don’t worry too much; there are plenty of options today. Just don’t use AI to write your stories for you. Use it as a tool to make you a better human writer. That’s what will pay off in the long run. Mark my words.
Urgh. I am sorry if this comes across as aggressive but I feel this is such a tech bro fad mentality with arrogance and ignorance. If this takes hold I think it will seriously damage the quality of films in the future.
First of all, the writer tells the 'story'? No!! The story that the audience see is told through a collaboration between Writer, Director, HoDs, Actors, Editors, Composers etc. There are so many decisions, and one person writing prompts and clicking on sliders in AI software will never be as good as multiple people with life experience and craftsmanship. You aren't about to get AI to block and stage sequences better than Stanley Kubrick, AI compose music better than a custom made Trent Reznor score, or use software sliders to get acting better than Philip Seymour Hoffman. Filmmaking is about TASTE, not just technical ability to execute. A normal low budget movie wouldn't be able to hire the best talent so what it doesn't matter I hear you say? Perhaps you envision a two track system, with large studio traditional cast and crew films, and literally $0 budget AI indie films? Then where do you think the next generation of directors, crew, actors, editors etc. get to cut their teeth? Where can they get their start and learn?? Do you actually plan to grow your skillset to be as good as all those roles - even with mediocre craftsmen - combined? I doubt it.
This kind of attitude will likely make, at best, CGI sloppy shit with generic looks. The idea you can create with computers that are trained on existing data is also flawed. They cannot generate things on the edges, extreme things, interesting things - they are a reduced average, from multiple (oft stolen) sources. The biggest indie breakout films - Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, Searching - were all fundamentally original methods of telling a story with novel camerawork/editing. And what does this look like in 30 years? When AI films are based on other AI films, or will they still be using data from films made up until the year 2025? You'd struggle to keep up with the zeitgeist, never see a unique new creature design as intricate as the Xenomorph, or camerawork as aggressively novel as Natural Born Killers, or soundscape as original as Under the Skin. At this point, with how neural networks work, you cannot have the same precision in tweaking so many aspects as you can in conversations with human beings.
Will audiences even respect AI based work? We don't watch robots running races in the Olympics - even though they could go faster - we watch people. Film, art and all culture are intrinsically human things about human society. Already there is a perception that AI art is shit - after people are burned the first ten times, will they really be curious to watch another AI film? I can see AI use in limited applications to speed up CGI, deal with non creative jobs or help fix sound issues, but to make all the other creative roles and people redundant would result in worse films. You would also lose the marketing of charismatic stars, beautiful celebrities, stories from set, making of documentaries etc. The business needs stars, it needs taste filters, or we all drown in algorithm shit much like on TH-cam. "Like, Comment and Subscribe while I try to pawn off this other product sponsorship and buy my course? My next film will be made in 2 weeks because otherwise the algorithm will ignore me and I won't have enough income." Yaaay, and I'm sure that will be just as incredible as American History X. Films are art - they aren't 'content'. The good ones stay in your mind because they connect, they are emotional, they are dense with skilled work in multiple areas that took months if not years - they are fundamentally an expression of humanity.
Most of the problems in the film industry today are because non film lovers took over the industry. They want limitless growth for shareholders, they want a manufacturing line, they want no risk. This creates a cycle of franchise, sequel prequel remake etc. However you can only go to the well so many times before people tire of another Fast and Furious or Disney live action remake. Studio bosses should retreat from their entire slate being $150mil + and instead lose a tentpole from their schedule and make fifteen $10mil films instead - I bet they would have a breakout smash hit, create many more future franchises, stars and careers doing this.
Tech bros also brought us streaming, which hurt the business and this new model is not truly sustainable or sensible. It was always about destroying the old model, taking marketshare and then starting the process of enshitification. This final stage has begun, with worse productions, shrinking catalogues and higher subscription costs. This is the real paradigm shift going on. It is true, production budgets need to reduce and the industry probably has to shrink due to increased audience time competition from internet / video games. But the actual films? Audiences showing up for Oppenheimer and Barbie strongly suggest people respond to ensembles of master craftsmen: auteurs + stars + quality + originality. In other words, the inverse of generic AI.
What we need is for streaming to keep increasing costs and fully morph into cable (with perhaps a no-advert tier for a very high sum) then TVOD model to take off. You pay per film, but it's cheaper than a DVD / cinema ticket, because you don't have the expense of plastic or land rental rates/staff. Critically though, quality films earn directly and pull away as people are more discerning when their money is on the line for a specific film vs. a steaming all you can eat bundle. Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I would prefer to see 5 truly great individuals films for $25, than 20 poor / straight to TV movies for $25/mo?
Culturally, we need to deal with the damage smartphones + internet + apps are doing to mental health - especially with regard to attention spans and maintaining focus. TikTok addicts struggle to watch a 90+ minute film, and this is not only an existential threat to all long form films, but to the addicts health and future. There should be societal discussion about whether social media has been more damaging than good - if we should look at the platforms like a restricted drug due to individuals brain damage + societal cohesion risks. If no gov action happens, then it's quite likely we will see an organic class divide between those that shun/restrict social media being happier with better focus and productivity, and those addicts with ADD + Depression + Isolation + Conspiracy Theories + Misinformation. The first group with dismiss AI films, the second will love the AI content, as it will be perfectly created to give them a tiny endorphin rush every 15 seconds whilst making them numb to true joy / thought / curiosity / pleasure / introspection / need I go on?
TLDR:
Team > One person
Charismatic beautiful human stars > None to market with
Training next generation > No-one else with a job
Humans more impressed by human with talent > AI based material
Truly original novel creativity > Average from multiple data sources
Culturally relevant zeitgeist > Data going back years
Higher customisation control > Limits based on what sliders AI gives you
Taste > Algorithm
Curated Media > Social Media Platform
High quality individual film > Bundles of crap films
The true Paradigm shift needed? Recontextualize the value of film - raise prices and stop consumers treating them as disposable 'content'. Prioritise peoples health and stop them damaging brains with so much algorithm based social media. Personally, I would like the films of the future to be as creative, original and artistic like so many of the films of the 90s were, not a flooded marketplace of lower quality, machine made content, shouting for attention with less quality craftsmanship behind it.
PS. Sorry for such a long rant, but well done with the TH-cam algorithm bait!! I see you replying to all these comments, you're playing the internet game the right way for clicks!
It may surprise you to know that I don’t disagree with the majority of what you said. I’m on your side, whether you choose to believe it or not. And it’s funny that you think of this as a “tech bro” perspective - I’ve been in the film industry for over 40 years, I’ve done literally every job you named with my own two hands, and I’ve taught screenwriting (without AI) for 25 years now. I love all the things you do, and I see all the social ills you do (and value teams and apprenticeship as you do).
Unfortunately, you’re raging against me because of your misunderstanding of both the technology and the moment. I didn’t create AI. Hell, I don’t even teach people to use it the way you’re railing against me for. I’m just a realist and a guy who recognizes that it’s less foolish to imagine where current trends are heating than it is to pretend we’re living in an era frozen in amber. Things change. Tech evolves. And the paradigm will shift whether we rage against it or not. Don’t shoot the messenger. Particularly when he’s trying to find ways to navigate the shift.
The cynical accusation that I’m clickbaiting is disingenuous, and you know it. (Or you would if you watched even a fraction of the 120 hours of content on my channel going back ten or twelve years.) I’ve made a compelling case and you’ve ranted against it not on its own merits but on the injustice of the evolution of human progress. I hear you. I sincerely do. I just also appreciate that no amount of fighting turns back the clock. So I appreciate the joy of the era we lived through, and I open my arms to whatever exciting new things await. And I would love nothing more than for you to join me.
THANK YOU.
Thank you so much for this video! Became a fan and a subscriber after this!!!
Welcome aboard. Thanks for saying Hi!
Literature, music, film,... What was the last universally loved music album? What was the last universally read and loved work of literature?
This sounds like a fracturing into a million bits that shine just a bit, but the end of works so great that they unify and become a part of the universal lexicon of art.
@@destinypirate I think you’re assuming that “universally” loved art is the result of the art itself - and I believe this highlights the fundamental misunderstanding artists have about the context in which they work. “Universality” (by which I assume you mean “reach” combined with a generally accepted quality) is as much a result of marketing and distribution as it is the quality of the work itself.
If you create something that could be “universally” appreciated, but you can’t get people to pay attention, it will never be “universally” appreciated. For that you’d need omnipresent and ubiquitous distribution - a way for everyone to see and appreciate something at the same time. The more distribution outlets we have the less likely that becomes.
Creating works that meet your description is absolutely as possible today as ever before. The question is merely whether you can strategically establish the distribution conditions required to make it stick. I believe that’s possible, but it’s also increasingly challenging. If that’s your goal, that’s your task. Don’t lament the challenge of it, rise to it.
@@fastscreenplay there are things that are almost universally loved whether or not somebody was marketed or conditioned 2 love such things. The simplest observation to these are those of the things of beauty and nature, the universal appreciation of a beautiful flower, a seashell, a sunset. There are are sequences of colors, sounds, expressions which are built upon the universal farms which appear to nearly all... We could relate this to something as simple as a smile or the sophisticated structure of a classical musical piece.
@@destinypirate You’re comparing apples to oranges. You’re waxing lyrical about the general concept of beauty and its appeal to the human psyche - the original conversation was about the the universality of art.
No, flowers don’t need to be marketed. And a great film can be great without anyone ever seeing it, as I said. But art that is “universally” loved is a different discussion, because it only gets seen and appreciated “universally” through marketing and distribution.
@@fastscreenplay okay,? Very true, people can only see a piece of art if they hear about it and have access to it. However that does not what makes a work of art university loved.... Which are the well-crafted elements of humanity that a great computer program won't have.
@@destinypirate I’m suggesting that what you’re lamenting - the lack of “universally” loved art in the modern era - has nothing to do with the intrinsic value you’re talking about now. I would argue that there is plenty of art being made today that would have the same “universality” you’re referring to; the only reason we don’t regard them as such is that they exist in a different moment in time. A different ecosystem.
I’m suggesting that your lament is, in my opinion, misplaced. And that you (or any artist) are every bit as capable of creating the “universally” loved art today as ever before - but that even holding that as an objective or quality metric is ignoring one of the key determinants of whether or not you could even reach that status in the first place.
the changes coming from everything costing 0 is hard to imagine now
As a aspiring writer, AI has been great for writing. My biggest issue is that I suffer from writers block and even though I know how things would play out, I still struggle to get scenes down. After using AI though, I have no excuse to have writer's block anymore. Because the AI just wrote the scene down for me.
Doesn't matter if the dialogue is cringe or the scene doesn't play out well, I can easily fix all of that and make the scene better. The AI just gave me the frame I needed to write the scene down.
'Thanks'... for reminding us that every new day is a new opportunity... to do new things, try new things, probably make the effort to write better... using new tools and ideas. 'Very Positive... thanks, and I trust you'll be launching your own 'new film, prodco, distrib bunch' as your approach to your vision.
Brian Couch
Toronto
I agree with your optimism but what’s giving people anxiety is how exactly films are going to be distributed. Remember scarcity increases value so if everyone is a filmmaker and making professional films the value of movies (which has already declined) is going to depreciate. On the other hand the demand for content is incredibly high with streaming so I would predict most films that do well on social will get subscription deals similar to what’s going on today.
Yes, but as I mentioned in another comment here (and in other videos on my channel) this fear comes from looking at the problem through the lens of the legacy model. Scarcity does increase value, and every individual has a unique window on the world - the ultimate in scarcity. Thinking that we are “competing” with one another is to imagine that story is competitive, which it’s not. We need to focus on the value proposition. I go into this in more detail in the free training tomorrow. But what you’re highlighting is exactly the problem I’m tackling.
Great info! I am curious as to the effect of AI and this video helps make some sense of what AI is how it may progress and affect us as writers.
Happy to help!
Thank you for your thoughts on this important subject. Fellow screenwriter here, I especially enjoy the fact that the paradigm is shifting to a new one where it could possibly democratize the process even more. Thinking about the subject, I considered the idea of the holodeck in Star Trek and holonovels. One can write a page and cover real book that Picard will read down the line, or write a holonovel that Lt. Barclay or Ensign Kim can enjoy on the holodeck. Both involve storytelling, just in very different forms, and both can be enjoyed on a fundamental level.
I think this is the right way to look at it. Obviously, Star Trek is our then-current imagination of the future, so it’ll be off by a wide margin. But the idea of a future that looks different to our own time, and that has different forms of storytelling, commerce, daily activity, ambitions… that is the reality. Things change. And we adapt to and live in the new world. AI is part of our world now, and increasingly in our future. What does that look like? Nobody can say. I can’t say. The detractors in my comments can’t say. But we do know that it’s different to today, as today is different to yesteryear. Personally, I know we can adapt and roll with it, because that’s the nature of the human experience. I look forward to the stories of tomorrow, and the ways in which they’re told.
I'm hoping it just drives the costs down a bunch. Big actors and executives get paid way too much money.
I get that perspective. But from the inside, the economics of that make sense. Actors bring marketing value so they are in demand on projects, which enables them to go to the highest bidder. And it’s worth it for the producer because of the added value they bring to the project (being able to get it seen when it might not otherwise). As for executives, their roles can be quite opaque to the outside, so it’s hard to appreciate what value they bring. But if they choose a winner over a money-loser, that has value to the company. And there’s a ton of nuance that goes into all this that just can’t be fully appreciated unless you’ve seen it in action. I don’t know too many executives that are genuinely not worth their rate. It’s competitive like anything - if they can get paid better elsewhere, they go, so a company pays a premium to have them. There are a ton of executives who are unsung heroes.
But anyway, I get your point, and the ability to drive down costs or do more with less is a net benefit in my opinion, too.
Spot on.
marketing film will become more important than ever. When there are thousands of new films coming out every day, getting your film seen is going to be incredibly challenging. There will be a SoundCloud for films but if we look at what history has taught us, VIMEO and TH-cam movies only pull filmeads. For the average person to get excited, the marketing needs to come from a brand they trust. So I am interested to see how Netflix etc will adapt.
@@reddjinn911 Yep. This is why I’ve spent the past 4 months building out a resource focused specifically on this. :) (It’s called the Micro Mogul, and we’re just wrapping up our pilot program now.) It’s a time of literally limitless opportunity.
RE TYLER PERRY - To think he cancelled $800M of development which I’m sure was years in the work right before he was meant to start, because Sora was announced 6 days earlier (it was the week after Sora was announced) is obviously not true. The whole film landscape shifted in the past few years with the strikes and Atlanta not about to compete with subsidies that other cities and countries are now offering. TV has been at an all time high, until it wasn’t. So Sora conveniently coming along it’s easy to point the blame at “AI” rather than saying “hey, this doesn’t look as good on the books anymore”. I’ve used Sora, it’s great but it’s not that much better than what else is out there, definitely not going to replace Hollywood (and as someone that interfaces regularly with studios, AI currently is banned at most studios, including their vendors). Perry backing out of growing his soundstages has nothing to do with Sora that was just an easy exit ‘blame AI’
Had to address that note, as I think it’s obvious to most that you don’t make billion dollar decisions days after something is announced, that you’ve never seen up close or can make any intelligent decision on, just going by a clip released to the internet.
Besides that, definitely agree that indie film makers are going to get access to stronger tools than before
I work in Hollywood, I also am an ai developer. All of this stuff is really exciting, but it’s so limited, and the specificity on the notes we get from the director, none of these tools would be able to address consistently in their current state or any time soon.
I like your video, not being negative just thought I’d mention this about Perry as at least every conversation I’ve had with any film maker it was just obvious from the start he’s using AI as a scapegoat
@@AllanMcKay You’re obviously correct in the literal sense. But it’s not about Sora. The decision and the changing landscape are due to an overall trajectory. Sora may not be the software that tips the scales; it may be five startups down the road. The point is not Sora; it’s what Sora highlights as the future. I accept your point, but, respectfully, it’s picking nits. If you replace “Sora” with “entirely new scope of creative control in the hands of a lone individual”, then yes, an $800billion decision was made because of it. If you focus on the software itself (which is what the industry is doing, largely), it’s kinda missing a deeper point.
(Your note indicates that you do get it, so I’m not challenging you directly; just making a counter point.)
I think we need to stop thinking of AI as a bad thing. I haven’t had time to make any TH-cam videos in months now because I’m focused on helping writers and filmmakers navigate this new era. But the new era is extraordinary exciting, and even that $800b will go somewhere. And you can bet it’s gonna benefit the creative.
@@AllanMcKay I meant to add: The tools today are nowhere near ready. But what is often overlooked is the exponential nature of tech evolution. The progress from year to year is dramatic, and we can’t let our imagination of what the idealized version of the current tool would look like blind us to the changes each iteration is introducing, and the speed at which transformative changes are coming.
I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
@@fastscreenplay no problem I did want to make it clear at the end I’m not being negative, I know there’s plenty of that in everyone’s comments. It’s definitely exciting and scary time both for everyone as well as specifically in the filmmaking industry. I completely agree with your message, this equals the playing field before movies were always a permission based industry. Meaning the right people had to get behind your project or it will never see the light of day, whereas now everyone has a camera and everyone has access to the same or similar technology. Now I’m just excited for all the strikes to be over! :)
@@AllanMcKay No worries. I didn’t read your note as negative. Just like to point out the response to those kinds of points. Always happy to have the discussion!
I like your optimism and hope your right, but I think there's one element that needs to be considered, which I think may narrow what's possible for others losing their jobs from AI, including in the film industry. The limit I speak of is the consumers time, money and ability to find you in the sea of content/products out there. I think it could be argued and maybe I'm wrong or partially wrong that there is only so much time and money people have to consume a product. There's already a log of stuff that people have allotted their time to in relation to consumable products. Maybe its 5-10 hours of time towards games, movies and shows. Now that time won't grow, a persons day only allows so much. Now those games, movie, and shows require lets say 100 people to make and costs 1 million. Now if Ai can lets say improve that process so that it can be done with 50 people who are yes using AI as well to make those gains, thats 50 people not doing that. Now if those 50 people who lost jobs, then go and make movies/games/shows with AI as well or not, there is now 2x more content, with consumers who have a limited amount of time and money to purchase that. If the price is the same, there's now 2x more shows to watch which people dont have the budget for nor the time. Now maybe the amount it costs goes down for consumers because it costs less to make and the people who are making it can sell it for less while making the same, there isn't enough of peoples time to consume and pay for the new content that would be coming out and even if there was (which just cant happen) there would be that much more ads/marketing/junk out there to get through to find what you want, which again takes more time to find. So, its time consumers have that will make it harder for people who lost jobs from AI make the same they were before. And this I think is true in area's like marketing, book keeping, insurance adjusters, artist, and all sorts of fields where an AI can improve output whether by itself or with another human by 20-50%.
@@intotheunknown4466 I accept what you’re saying, but I think you’re looking at it through the lens of the old paradigm. You’re considering everything as though we have this new layer (AI and all that it brings with it) on top of our current world, rather than imagining all the ways in which that layer will affect and impact the variables themselves. I think we’ll have more free time to consume and experience more things, thanks to AI taking all the mundane work for us. I think the cost to create will near zero, which enables us to be wildly profitable with a tiny sliver of current audience needs. I think the myriad new ways to bring value to the marketplace will open up even more opportunity with every stage of the tech’s advance. That’s why I say it’s a new paradigm. It’s a whole new ecosystem, and the key to surviving it is to recognize it and focus on what success looks like in that new paradigm.
We have a hard time imagining the future because we can’t see the interim steps. But the evolution is continual and natural, and always leads up the ladder of self-actualization, which is why I believe with every fiber of my being that the future is creative for us all, and it’s ripe for the picking if we tilt our head slightly to see all that it is.
@@fastscreenplay In the long run you may be right, who knows, but I think in the short term like the next 3-6 years (assuming AI really gets as good as we are thinking) many peoples lives are going to be uprooted and a noticeable amount of people will end up making significantly less. A paradigm shift like your imaging will take time and there will be opposing forces to such a change. Right now the ones in power have an easier time dictating the first parts of that change, and the most likely thing that will happen is they let go of people because AI can do their job. Maybe the general public/government will rise up against this fast, but I think it will be at least a little slog but more likely a longer slog as those with the most influence and monetary power try to maintain that in the best way they can, while in the meantime a lot of damage will be done (sure its momentary like all things, but its not going to be pretty for a period). Hope Im wrong.
@@intotheunknown4466 I really do hear you, but all of your fears are based on the old paradigm. To be clear, the new paradigm is already here. I’m not sure how deeply you’ve dove into AI or the industry or the specifics of everything you’re talking about, but there is already so much more opportunity than is going away - even at the displacement levels - that I can’t even see how the fear version of this would play out. For example: if your job has been displaced, tell ChatGPT what your skills are and ask it what you could do to double the income you used to be making. You’ll see that there are truly infinite possibilities. AI can help you - anyone - chart a path forward. I just don’t think you’re understanding how to use it, and you’re making your projections based on outdated ideas and information. I mean no disrespect with that; I just can’t unsee the limitless ways to benefit from all this.
You either said that off the bat, or are very good at reading from the screen. Either way, you are very good. Totally agree with that you are saying. I am photographer - now it's youtube...
Haha, thank you for the compliment. That was off the cuff (I’m not reading anything) but in fairness, I’ve been doing this for a long time so I’ve put in my ten thousand hours. ;)
You are simply a marvelous gentleman for putting this together with such elegancy and follow through. AI is going to be the single biggest dissapointment Hollywood has ever seen. While it is very capable it is not human. In cannot dream, it cannot exzillerate where it has to to create the drama of the human expression that impresses and inspires the soul. There will be so many empty dead losses like Promethius that there will only be the the same drivel we are seeing now that appear to shoot for the blockbuster realm. It takes people. It takes dreamers. It takes humans to entertain humans. Inspiration cannot be programmed into a computer.
I appreciate the kind words, but don’t fall into the trap of imagining that Hollywood is not filled with extraordinarily creative people, dreamers, visionaries, and simply wonderful human beings. There are exceptions, as there are anywhere, but my experience has been that, broadly speaking, there is massive talent and kindness and humanity in Hollywood. And that’s partly WHY I’m not afraid of the paradigm shift - because I know just how much creativity there is out there.
Hollywood is often derided for its output or its politics or its greed or whatever. But I believe that’s all a natural by-product of the size and scope of the projects it has to make for the industry it has to sustain. I think it’s really hard to understand from the outside, and even its opaque nature is part of how it needs to function to survive. But simply needing millions of dollars to make a movie creates a power dynamic that has a whole lot of downline implications. You need privacy to protect your IP so you can market it without losing your shirt, you need authority hierarchies to keep the train on its tracks, you need thematic agendas to connect with wide enough audiences… all of these things manifest with some negative impacts on people along the way. It’s the nature of the beast. I think people do their best to juggle and balance. Or, that’s been what I’ve witnessed in my journey, anyway.
The paradigm shift being one from money/resources to none, simply spreads it out, which can help to overcome some of the problems with Hollywood. But it does remove some of what makes it great, too. And that’s why I think Hollywood will survive (though in a different form with different power structures) - because it IS filled with creative people. I think they’ll find and invent some pretty creative solutions. And I’m eager to see what unfolds.
You're correct from a scriptwriter and director POV. AI is scary for other industry workers, but it frees a lot of creatives. The bigger problem for the studios and other big broadcasters is piracy, which will decimate and is already decimating profitably, visual media is having it's Napster moment, but there isn't one Napster to blame, there are thousands of them. Piracy alone will put more people out of work than AI.
The smart people will apply AI to these problems and devise solutions. We already have the technology to solve these problems, we just don’t have the implementation at scale. Smart contracts and NFTs could authenticate content and distribute pay residuals; AI could scrape and identify pirated content and shut it down. Piracy only matters if there’s still a market for the thing being pirated, so if there is, then there’s a way to solve (or at least sufficiently address) the problem.
What I think, though, is that we’re looking at a paradigm shift, where even these concepts are obsolete. We tend to still look at the whole thing through the lens of yesteryear. But the technology is empowers us well beyond anything we have previously imagined or experienced.
@@fastscreenplay there was a school of thought that the future of music and film / tv was actually to give the content away for free and moneytize it in a way that didn't involve direct payment to access it. Which would cut out the pirates in theory. I made a low budget film and put it out for free on my own TH-cam channel. In a year it's had 5,000 views on TH-cam and 100 likes etc. I googled the film and can see it's had triple those views and downloads on more than one of the pirate sites, where my film sits alongside Hollywood content.
You killed it man. hell of a rant
its gonna be a long time before we have the computational power, from a hardware perspective, for people to prompt Ai to create custom motion pictures ..
Check out Sora. It’s here, and it’s evolving faster than you may think.
As usual, fantastic insights. I DO agree that people will still be at the creative epicenter of the process.
However, in regards to the legacy model vs the new: the real fear that lies beneath the perceived easy button that is AI is that the legacy model will still maintain control of the overall process and result in a hyper extension of consolidated gate-keeping because even fewer will now be capable of outputting so much more.
Thus, the same problem remains in regards to the rest of the field being able to explore our intrinsic values with the production capacity of Hollywood: the same old people (and their best friend's, sister's, cousin's girlfriend, etc.) Erect an even denser dome over opportunities so that they can gift the market with the bext Madame Web or Revel Moon.
It seems to me that AI needs a few more generations of advancement in visual effects and production value for individuals to bypass the Hollywood machine all together because I don't believe the financial gatekeepers will allow for enhanced partnership with the field because that too, would be considered an unnecessary, financial risk - even on a micro scale.
Yeah, I just think that fear is entirely imaginary. I don’t see how that could possibly be the way it plays out because of how technology evolves. I think there will be a concerted effort to continue gatekeeping, sure, but its long-term futility is certain.
These tools bring power into the hands of individuals. They level the playing field. Individuals will have the same tools the “gatekeepers” have, which means creativity and quality win - and that can come from anywhere. But even “winning” is a misnomer, because the paradigm is shifting, and I just don’t see it working that way. I think when we really wrap our heads around how things are changing, it’s much bigger and more profound than even the legacy structures we have always known. If I create a movie you want to pay me to see, no one else matters. Do it enough, and we each survive doing what we love.
Just make movies yourself and own them the 17k imax camera is out in December
Yep. As long as you know how to monetize them.
I would like to see an analysis on economics 101 principles being tried against post scarcity markets, such that the creative industry is increasingly becoming. Also. As a wishful creator myself, when I look to study a contemporary text I am at a loss for a good quality comparison. It's difficult to improve my craft when the average quality of similar works are so low. Furthermore, as a would be consumer, to try and find good quality works I end up paying curation sites like yt and their algorithm, such sites that the creators posting to those placed are slaves to the algorithm. In conclusion, in the future it seems the only ones reliably earning money from creative works are these engines and software license companies. Of course, I've not earned any money off of MY creativity as yet, I have paid money in the endeavour though. If creativity is socialised like this, who gets to keep their house?
Value is subjective. You’re assuming that will change because of algorithmic analysis, and I think that is overlooking the fundamental nature of human perception.
The whole idea of “post scarcity markets” (where there’s so much quantity the underlying thing loses its value) is just a new variable we have to account for. If you become a “market-of-one” by offering something the market values that only you can deliver, there is no “post scarcity”. You are scarce by definition. This is my whole point. Lean into it. Develop it. Package it. That will look different to the legacy paradigm. So we may need to use (or invent) new models. That’s part of what adapting to the new paradigm is all about.
If TH-cam (or whomever)‘s algorithms only serve up what you consider to be low quality, then in theory you should be able to game that to your advantage. (I would argue that worry is theoretical rather than realistic as it’s far more likely that it’s our quality that is insufficient to get noticed by the algorithm.) I’m a perfect example. I think I make great, thought-provoking videos but I languish with low view counts - I don’t get picked up by the algorithm for wider distribution, typically. But the reality is this is a niche topic and my videos are talking-head which most will find boring. Is that the algorithm limiting me? Or is it my lack of skill at delivering entertaining content when I only have a half hour to put something together?
If you genuinely believe you can’t find quality to learn from or model, I think that’s disingenuous. If you perceive it all to be poor quality, simply make what you imagine and test it. If your value assessment is accurate, your content should be better than what’s out there and you’ll get traction. What I’ve found, personally, is that when I lament the poor quality I perceive, it’s because I’ve always done so from an armchair critic perspective - doing the work of making actual attempts to create my own better quality content reveals the nuances of the reality of my “low quality” perception (ie, I discover it ain’t as easy as it looks)… which ends up making clear in my mind why the algorithm works the way it does.
Art is hard to do well. My advice to any aspiring artist is to refrain from criticism and judgment, and instead focus on reasons and dynamics and principles, and the path forward becomes a whole lot clearer. And achievable. Regardless of the quantity of “competition” or the nature of the algorithm.
It has happened in the music business. The problem is not AI it is giving an unskilled person the resources to make music?movies that are cookie cutter but take up space in the market place this devalues what a skilled artist does and makes it impossible to make a living doing your art. it has already started. the market is flooded with product, distributers no longer give out MG's streamers pay pennies. it is what it is but the days of having an actual skill in the creative arts and it being worth a livable wage are few. yes you can adapt and make no budget films like everyone else and live off the minimum wages. just my two cents
I was with you till the end. The idea that you’re stuck making minimum wages is an idea born of the legacy model. If you are bringing value to the market, the market will pay for that value. If you are creating commodity films, they will be devalued. Instead, create uniquely valuable films. It will change how you see the who paradigm shift.
I read that Francis Ford Coppola said Hollywood will undergo a Renaissance.
@@yolandagaines1760 If he did, I agree with him.
This is a good analysis. But what you are leaving out is that self-published cinema means people wont be getting paid for making cinema anymore unless you go viral with your creation.
@@ethnicalbert That’s quite literally what the training I was promoting was all about. I’ve spent the past months building a resource to solve this very problem. Not only will we get paid to make cinema, we’ll have literally limitless opportunity to do so. It’s just a new paradigm, so it won’t look quite the same.
This is an 18:47 minute TH-cam video that could be 5 minutes.
You think? I think it could be about 12 or 13 minutes, but I think condensing it to 5 would strip it of several vital points.
In any event, I had an hour to get this done. I either do talking-head or it doesn’t get done. I thought the former would be of more value to more people. Sorry you disagree. Try watching on 2x next time if that helps. (It’s the only way I can watch them back myself.)
This is exactly what I’ve been telling everyone.
There aren't that many of us out there who see it yet, but I'm glad you've found another one. :) (Check out my TED Talk; I've been saying this stuff for decades now.)
Excellent video - Thank you!
This has been occurring thr music industry which is why its profitable for independent artists than to be signed with a label. Labels over the last 3 years are cutting people leven artists they signed because they plan on creating their own AI singers. Yes AI is their and you will ne able to create movies with the software I am weary of the TOS of the AI service. Will the service have rights to own or sell your ideas like adobe wants to do. Thats the tricky part and be aure to read those contracts and carefully while creating your movie.
@@soulfulgeocatcher Yes, “they” will be able to make their own AI gen artists and content. But that will never replace your unique original voice.
TOS will never prevent you from owning original content. That would be shooting their own business model in the foot. A simple understanding of the business dynamics I teach renders these fears moot.
Interesting video. Thanks for posting it.
I don't work in film or TV any more but i have friends who still do. Here's my take:
•The $800 studio project was probably not pulled because of AI alone. It's likely that commissioning decisions by Netflix, Apple or Amazon were at least a significant factor. It's bad PR to blame your paymasters. It's safer to blame Sora.
• Hollywood will commission, get and protect high end text to video. It will understand "screenplay" prompts and probably use virtual production design that will still be labour intensive. It will be a long time before an auteur can control all the elements in a shot in the same way as a director has control of all the elements in the legacy production model. AI doesn't construct an image from components as we understand them- it works with surface impressions.
•Yes, there will be a new cinematic paradigm and we will get to see movies that would never have happened. Bring it on. We saw this with movies shot on 16mm and camcorders. New production paradigms will be AND not OR - they will be another tool not an alternative.
•If you want to keep on top of AI then learning how to text prompt effectively might be a good idea because older directors have been conditioned to getting exactly what they ask for and right now AI doesn't do that.
•Ask yourself why people post demo movie trailers made with AI and not demo scenes that build emotion. Explosions are easy, emotions are difficult.
I agree in principle. Check out my last ten videos or so. I’ve made all these points as well. AND not OR. All of it will coexist.
@@fastscreenplay
Thanks. I subscribed and took a look at some of your other videos. Lots of it resonated with me. I'm really glad I found your channel.
@@richardhall5489 Me too! Reach out if you want me to address anything specific.
Unfortunately, we have a failure to communicate. We have a failure to enunciate. We have a failure to aggregate. And we have an educational system that fails to educate.
@@jeffsilverberg5848 I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, but thanks for watching and commenting. Here’s to your success in the new era!
A.I. will give everyone an equal opportunity to make a project. Freedom for all goddamn it.
"paradigm shift is coming....and you should pay me to explain it" Can you also explain what the book sellers should do now that they invented the radio
Umm… did you see that the training is free? :)
@@fastscreenplay Attend my free timeshare seminar
It’s a huge gamble everytime ugh expensive
@@katieking7671 Depends on how you approach it.
It’s fascinating that you have some level of prescience on where this technology is going but then discard other areas it is going towards if it conflict with your optimistic outcome… as well as cite other industries (music) with clearly optimistic stance one how all that has been shaking out.
You might want to take the temperature outside of the musicians or working folk in that industry before you cite it as a positive… “free” or low cost distribution have been a total net negative for working musicians who didn’t already have a large audience, the handful of break through TikTok artists do not account for the millions of artists who are unable to turn a profit off of millions of streams… this doesn’t even account for artists who have 100’000’s of streams before you get to the many tiers below that.
And AI isn’t actually comparable to what the internet did to music… we will in all likelihood of putting the current known technologies prompt to generate entertainment… and it will not be good for either medium.
It’s fascinating that people seem to not want to cite what has happened in the freelance drawing field… as it would offer lessons optimists don’t want to address… seemingly because it offers some very real insights as to what lies ahead when AI is good enough for general audiences.
This industry is already imploding under the weight of the variety of selections audiences have to spend free time and a movement towards short for media when it comes to passive entertainment.
With respect, you are cherry-picking soundbytes from what I said rather than the full-context nature of what I said, and using it to support a straw man argument.
Of course AI is different. Radically so. That’s the point. It’s a paradigm shift. Your whole pushback is built on the assumption that the future looks like the past. Whereas my position is that this is a genuine paradigm shift and will end up looking radically different in almost every way.
You talk about “the industry” when my whole argument is that “the industry” is about to change forever, and you’re assessing my optimism at what it is likely to become with metrics entirely form what has been.
Yes, the problems you describe are real. In the old paradigm. But what is missing from all of your examples are the very things I’m teaching - value in the marketplace, the paths that apply tested business principles to it, and nontraditional distribution strategies (all of which are made possible, in part, by the new paradigm).
I accept your fear and your pessimism. I just see it quite differently. And not because I’m blind to the challenges you mention, but because of them.
You can make a movie with no budget now using a dslr, and you could 5 years ago. If you knew After Effects, you could add all kinds of effects like the ones you describe. But most people who did this never got distribution of any kind. The really clever ones did. This at every tech junction. For example, only **one** non-budget iPhone shot movie got distribution. One. The thing is, the audience wants gatekeepers. They don't want to have to sift through 1 000 000 options. They don't have the time. So, one way or another you are always faced with the same problem. Even on TH-cam. The algorythm is the gatekeeper
Check out five and ten year old videos on my channel - I’ve been saying this is possible the whole time. :)
As to the distribution question, I agree with your identification of the larger problem (What I’m aiming to present is a solution), but no, it’s incorrect to say that only one iPhone movie got distribution. Perhaps only one got traditional distribution - but the whole point is that we’re entering a new paradigm. Traditional distribution is getting disrupted too. The algorithm is the gatekeeper for its platform, not the whole ecosystem.
It does mean a lot more films struggling to find eyeballs and relatively less viewers
But at lower cost. So what’s required to recoup the investment is a lot lower, which means vastly more profitable films, particularly at the micro level. It’s a paradigm shift, that’s all.
Your dreaming if you think 'they' will allow you to have your movies get 'exposure'. Soundcloud diluted and ruined the independent music scene. If A.I. can generate a movie with top level graphics easily, everyone will do it, and the genre will die off and turn to nepotism-based industry (see how 90's dance music died when DJ's stopped using pressed vinyl records and song creators became 'common folk' who used software to make music. 20 years later and the industry is largely based on nepotism and family connections - see any major artist or producer who is 'let in' to the industry)
@@AlphaOmega888 Thank you for this comment. It’s a beautiful example of trying to predict the future by looking through the lens of the past.
You have totally given me hope. I've been script writing for years, but it always seemed a lost cause to reach that goal of having someone purchase and produce when the industry is such a tight market. I've started learning UE5 so that I can create my own stories and it looks like using AI would be the obvious next step. I will be working during your seminar, but I will definitely purchase it. Thanks.
Ok so what you are saying is for every individual creator to embrace AI, form small teams and create their own independent creations making full use of these new tools. That sounds great and exciting. However, their creations are still going to be competing with the big Hollywood players who have bought out distribution and marketing. The issue with professional filmmakers is that producers and studios are increasingly opting to shortcut by hiring fewer creatives 'workers' or get away by underpaying creative workers using AI. It is not just a matter of the quality of the work, every filmmaker is pitted against a gigantic corporate machinery that has a lot of money thrown for it to succeed. Even if a few original indie filmmakers break big in this 'new era' the industry is by and large pretty fucked.
Does every single filmmaker have to create their own vertical business structure from script to production to distribution and marketing? Isn't it an absolute failure of the industry if that's what every artist has to do? Why are there no penalization on the big studios for the day light theft that is happening?
Personal responsibility and optimization can only eek out a few more years, but there needs to be more money coming into the industry that can support creators wanting to create cinema. Not just working on big holly wood Studio franchise movies or Brand commercials. There are THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE STRIKING ALL ACROSS NORTH AMERICA. This is not just about shifting your perspective and thriving. People are organizing and fighting for their rights.
With all due respect, you're thinking about the problems, the blame, and the future through the lens of the legacy paradigm. Yes, technically self-published cinema will be "competing" with Hollywood filmmakers, but that "competition" in the new era exists on a level playing field.
As I explain in the video (and several other videos, if you care to explore), STORIES COEXIST. They are not directly competitive. Studios can create films, you can create films, AI can create films, humans can create films... and the audience can watch ALL of them. If you create stories people want to watch, and figure out how to distribute to them, you can build an audience in the new era much more easily than you could in the legacy paradigm. But you're only considering the problem of yesteryear rather than incorporating the new realities of tomorrow.
Does every filmmaker have to create their own ecosystem? Of course not. There will be all sorts of new combinations of options. But if they want to, they can. Who says it's "what every artist has to do", though? Why would they? This just completely overlooks the tools and options the new era has thanks to these very technologies.
🎉
This is going to create a lot of BAD films/tv because just because someone has a story doesn’t mean they r an artist in that respect, we go from quality art in films to an overload of “CONTENT” that just gets lost in the mix.
@@watchmyepics True. But increased accessibility has always had effect.
The internet made everyone accessible - which saw producers inundated by garbage submissions. And that led to them becoming even more closed off from newbies. Which made it harder for newbies to get noticed.
But that didn’t change the fact that anyone could make quality of they had the skills - and now were more able to access the people they needed to reach.
Those who lament the increase in NOISE are the ones who can only create the noise. Because those who can create quality - or who make that their mission - recognize that there is only upside here.
@@watchmyepics Or to put it more simply: Who cares? Make quality then, and it’ll be easier than ever to get noticed.
@@fastscreenplay how would it be easier amongst all the content that is already put out there??? Or someone like myself who goes to train for a year at a studio to become the best actor I can, but now am I responsible for being a director and cinematographer as well??? I want to move with times but how can someone be amazing at every aspect at film making? These are great discussions by the way and interesting as well.
@@watchmyepics Curation. When there’s too much signal to noise, curators emerge to highlight what’s good and worth watching. Audiences will find quality.
As for actors, who says you need to become a director or producer? Team up with a friend who wants to be that. Two or three people will be able to make great stuff on their own.
The beauty of the new era is that you’ll be able to do whatever you want to do, and outsource what you don’t or team up with others who do.
If you focus only on the negative, you necessarily tune out the positive. And this is the most exciting moment creators have ever had. I say this as someone who started as a child actor and has done every job in this industry - in six countries - over the past 4 decades. Now is by far the most exciting time. There are no gatekeepers. Develop your skills and a creative future is yours.
Self published cinemas wow
Foremost, it's impossible for an AI cartoon to duplicate the spontaneous nuance of a highly crafted actor Brando, Streep, or DDL.
The same can be said for the unique choices of a director, cinematographer, and most of all writer.
This also includes all of the uniquely nuanced contributions of every grip, every sound choice, even the small mistakes that - within bounds - add the texture of LIFE to film.
The question rather though is, will a new generation of people even care about the organic textures of acting and film creating?
Can they all be conditioned to be satisfied with adult cartoons?
For me, it best, these sound like incredible storyboard tools... If I'm going to watch animation I would rather it be in The surreal worlds of animation... The AI realism duplication rather gives me a sense of wanting to vomit.
@@destinypirate As someone who spent about 15 years teach actors how to achieve the nuances you describe - and who has deep dived into AI to understand it for what it is AND what it isn’t - I believe, in short order, we will absolutely be able to create the human interaction experience. In fact, I believe we’ll see whole new worlds of creative opportunity. Imagine being able to map your own emotions onto AI-generated (or refined) avatars - such that your own acting skills animate the avatar. The better an actor you are, the better then actors in your film. The better the writer you are, the more unique and valuable your stories.
You are still looking at the situation as competitive - where AI takes something away or competes with the human. But if you shift your perspective and awareness, the reality is that it’s a new tool and layer to incorporate (or not) into your creativity.
@destinypirate Also, I know that referring to AI generated video as “adult cartoon” is meant to be disparaging, but in using that phrase you’re actually cutting yourself off from a world of creative possibility. See it as something new, rather than as a lesser version of something you love, and you may be able to imagine new directions of creativity.
@@fastscreenplay it's only meant to be moderately disparaging just to bring a marker to this. You can't replace human quality. Animation is an absolutely wonderful thing and like most people I've enjoyed it from childhood cartoons to the works of studio Ghibli to the interesting applications in films such as 300.
However it is worth disparaging the very idea that humans can be replaced in all of their creativity and nuanced unpredictability in directing, cinematography, let alone writing and acting.
Now does that mean we won't have entire New generation to become cultured and to preferring what is very sophisticated adult animation? Probably not as most likely they will never develop the sense for artistic appreciation of human created film.
We've already seen the demise of artistic appreciation and music, literature, and the traditional visual arts.
@@fastscreenplay no AI is going to be able to have the lifetime of experience and unique study to create the dynamic type of friendship such as Thomas Mann and Hermann Hesse shared, this laid the fertile ground, through thee conversations that only they could uniquely share, for some of the greatest literature of the mid-century.
Can AI be useful? It's as useful as computing, for AI is simply sophisticated computing and can be certainly used to refine somebody's work as you suggest and likely more often will be used as a leaning post so people do not have to refine their work.
What the WGA didn’t destroy SAG/AFTRA killed the rest ..
Not sure what that means, but I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with my video. :)
DUDE! The film industry HAS ALREADY collapsed. It was OVER circa 2005. Ever since then, there has been this major "Progressive" or Globalist" or "LGBTQRX709" agenda that the MAJORITY of people despise with every bone in their body. The young kids may fall for this, but none of us will watch ANY of it. I'm fine with independent cinema and reruns of classics.
That’s a mighty broad brush ya got there. Rage on, my friend. Every human being has a unique window on the world. Tell your stories.
Almost 40% of the junk on server farms now is AI generated and it hasn't been around for a long time. There's a big chance that AI will choke off the internet as it is because it works like a tumour on the whole network. It will be an amazing day though.
@@dresimon321 You’re basically describing the signal-to-noise ratio problem. But in my view, what you’re overlooking is the simultaneous power afforded to countermeasures. If indeed junk AI content “chokes” the internet, that won’t be of value to the majority of the marketplace, so tools and resources and opportunities to combat the problem will be developed - also powered by AI, which will likely have a neutralizing effect.
In the past, we deal with the signal-to-noise ratio of, say, good movies to bad movies, through curation. Review sites, upvoting, theaters dedicated to a specific caliber of content, etc. We’ll have the same thing (only automated) with AI. Filters that weed out AI junk content or curators who point you to the good stuff or whatever.
What you’re describing as a problem is only a problem as we adapt to the new paradigm. But if we look at the problem through the lens of the new paradigm, I think it quickly fades away into a nonissue (or perhaps more like a growing pain).
what till AI has it's own ideas and has it's own imagination! AI visual effects will be nice.
Depending on your definition, it’s already in the early stages of it.
You're wrong. Even the "intrinsic" value wil be catered for by an ai model 😢
Interesting. And how exactly does the AI live my life? By what mechanism does that occur?
@@fastscreenplay your life isn't that exceptional or unusual. Even if it is, there will be a "variable" input for that ☹️
Infomercial. Waste of time.
Infomercial for a free training. Hmm. Interesting take. :)
I’m sorry you can’t see the value of the message. I wish you extraordinary success regardless.
@@fastscreenplay If it was less than five minutes it would have been fine. What you said could have been done in five minutes. Thats all. Just too long. I wish you the best.
@@lincolnabc1 Fair enough. I disagree, though, so I guess it’s good that I’m the one that made it. ;) I wish you the best, too!
@lincolnabc1 Dude, you're so right. The video is like 18 minutes long and after 2 minutes in I also saw your comment and just stopped. It's like a used car salesman talking to the camera. It's probably because I'm exhausted from scams . Not that I would put one cent towards learning in filmmaking. Everything is available now to learn pretty much on your own. I took some video production course many years ago. And I learned very little. Because can't teach talent. Either you're original or not. And the ones who aren't and think they are? They scam others when it's not working.
@@lancegoodthrust546 lol. Imagine taking time out of your day to post a comment like this. You clearly have the time. You should watch the video. Double speed it. Much better use of your time than negative commenting. Think about it. Irony is lost on some people, eh?
I'm currently working with a screenwriter. We are using AI's to improve his script. We are impressed with help we are getting.
The film industry will be profoundly affected by the problems that the "vaccines" have caused.
I like the first half of your comment, but don't understand the second half. :)
well, this is nice spin, but sometimes a film technician just wants to be a film technician and not a filmmaker.
As far as intrinsic value, you’reconfused. Everything in our modern world, thanks to neoliberalism, has to have a market value. Intrinsic value is worthless unless there is a national market value.
You forgot the business part of show business, my friend.
@@TheVFXbyArt You might want to rewatch without your biases set to high. You haven’t said anything this video doesn’t agree with you on. You’re just not hearing the nuance that will open it up for you.
To be clear: Yes, a film technician just wants to be a film technician. As a horse-drawn buggy driver wanted to continue being a horse-drawn buggy driver. If the skill is no longer valued by the market, then you won’t continue getting paid for that skill. But that doesn’t make the horse-drawn buggy driver as a person obsolete. It makes their skill obsolete. We must shift to what is a valued skill in the new era.
Every human being has intrinsic value by nature of their exclusive, one-of-a-kind experience, and the unique set of skills, perspectives and insights that gives them. But, as you rightly point out, they need to turn that intrinsic value into a value the marketplace will pay for. If there is no longer a need for the value you were once providing, that doesn’t make you no longer valuable; it only makes that skill no longer valuable.
And when we recognize and appreciate that, we see nothing but opportunity in the new era, rather than fear of obsolescence.
If you’re new to me and my channel (as you clearly are) the one thing I have NEVER forgotten is the business part of show business. In fact, I see it more clearly than most. And I’m trying to show you that the business is about to change forever.
It’s just going to mean your original uniquely human experience based stories can rise to the top of a sea of cookie cutter shit spit out by AI
In agree and disagree simultaneously. Your uniquely human stories (presented to an audience that wants to pay for them - a key point I think people are overlooking here) will rise to the top over cookie cutter material. But don’t underestimate AI. It’s more creative than people who don’t keep up with it think, and will soon write as good or better than a human can. The point is that it doesn’t matter because stories coexist, so if your stories are unique and have value (or are coupled with value), audiences will still watch yours.
@@fastscreenplay I am content to live on a farm with some animals and let people consume meaningless shit if they want.
We each live a unique life journey. If that’s what you want to do, you go for it. That ain’t my jam, but I respect if it’s yours. Happy farming!
Having a broad knowledge of the industry you work in will be increasingly important in the future.
For instance, in the film industry, knowing the intricacies of various roles-from writing and directing to makeup artistry and sound engineering-will allow you to communicate your vision more clearly and collaborate more efficiently with AI tools. This knowledge will help you ensure that the AI-generated content aligns closely with your creative intentions, rather than relying on the AI to fill in gaps, which might not always meet your standards
As self-publishing movies become more common with the help of AI, the market will become saturated, making it essential to find ways to stand out.
@@FrancisHerding True. But always remember that you are a unique human interfacing with a unique window on the world. This means you will always have a perspective no one else will ever see. Which gives you stories only you can tell. To stand out, simply tell them effectively.
Compare self publishing movies to Indi game development not self publishing books.
You need the skills of entire team so the output might not look as shiny as a AAA game but if you have a unique idea it can be better than most AAA games.
Think of the Blair Witch Project. But AI can add that extra shine.
@@FrancisHerding You’re talking about indie film (which I’ve been doing for 40 years). Self-published cinema is as the name implies - done by a single person. Ai will enable a single person (or tiny team) to do all of it. It’s not about adding shine; it’s about empowering the individual.
I'm bored.
@@Antigone-yp6ht Then this channel ain’t for you. :)
Sir, with due respects,...you have given no new info and roll sentences that go nowhere,.. sorry,..
🥲
Dang this guy is annoying. Great insight, but hearing him explain it is like nails on a chalkboard
The bottom line is making films is no longer art, art comes from the human mind and the human soul or at least that's the kind of art that most people want when they look at a painting when they listen to a song or when they watch a film and AI will not enhance that at all. So it will just bring us down the continuum of the garbage films that have been put out now even without the use of the AI. Are you aware that people really don't go to the movies anymore? They are completely turned off by all the content it's being put out and most people are just watching stuff on TH-cam and podcasts these days where there are real humans still doing things. No doubt AI will have its place But I hope people don't think that they can just start writing great scripts and making their own films because now they can use the creativity of artificial intelligence
@@lyndarobertson6118 With all due respect, this is just silly. AI is a tool. As such, it can be used to sidestep human creativity, or it can be used to enhance human creativity. Some people will do the former, and some will do the latter.
Your note reveals that you see the world in black and white, yes or no, good or bad, on or off. You are taking the incredible variety and nuance and subtlety and kaleidoscope of human experience and reducing to binary thinking. This is silly and small-minded. And it’s where your cynicism comes from and, if left unchecked, will keep you in a box of limited imagination.
Art is and will always be art. We can use artificial tools or not. We can express what’s in our soul or we can make popcorn for the sake of spectacle. One does not negate the other, and neither will supplant or replace any of the infinite variations possible.
Stop seeing our world as limited and the game as zero-sum. There is infinite opportunity, infinite variety, and endless permutations. If you don’t like something, go make the “pure” version you see as preferable. The beauty and power of this moment (and this technology) is that it creates an environment in which all of it is available and achievable.
Art is expensive only a few can make it “
@@katieking7671 I dispute that idea. Historically, perhaps, but not today.
:LOL
?
All A.i will do is destroy filmmarking as once A.i becomes avaliable for everyone to use we will just get lots of rubbish films posted online by pepole with no care or appreciation for actual filmmarking and filmmarking will tragically become a lost art.once anyone can create films it will just become the new trash/spam content on the same level as content on tiktok and its sad that that's something you could be potentially pushing for and you mention that pepole must move on but what about all the inspiring filmmakers out there who want to experience the traditional way of filmmaking they may now not get the opportunity to experience such a thing
The way you feel about traditional filmmaking is the same way I feel about punctuation. So I guess we’re even. ;)
(Just giving you a hard time. Read through other comments here as I’ve written endlessly on this complaint.)