This one’s really tough. I have a degree in digital art and design, so my eye instantly picked up on the ai images, maybe more so than someone who doesn’t have a background in art. I don’t think it’s something we should so quickly and readily brush under the rug and say it’s not a big deal overall, because that’s what supporters and creators of ai software want. They want us to accept it little by little, so they can keep pushing the goal posts so that eventually down the line movies will be written, directed, created, produced, and edited by ai, and the only people making money will be the shareholders and CEOs of film studios, regardless of how indie the film is. There are countless graphic artists who would take super low pay just to have the chance to design for a film and have their name in the credits, not to mention those images could be created in one sitting using photoshop and illustrator. The text-to-image pipeline that current ai has granted us feels so lazy and disingenuous, regardless of it saving money, time, etc. Storytelling is a uniquely human trait, and removing the humanity from that feels so dystopian.
The only thing that will forever be there is change. People hated electricity, trains, machines, gosh so many people cried even about the internet, smartphones etc. We cant stop this movement, we have to accept it. Like every human had to do in all of our history. Easy as that. People lost their jobs cause alarm clocks came along, just one of millions of examples. Less people will successfully draw, write, sing, and work in certain areas.. which is just fine. Our society will adapt as always. There will be niches for human products nonetheless.
Ultimately, I totally agree. I think though that this particular film needs to be shown some grace as it was completed nearly 3 years ago before all of this was such a hot button topic and their intent (seemingly) was to use AI as a creative launch point for their graphic artist to then edit. Maybe they liked the uncanny valley aspect of the AI’s tendencies and that’s why it still doesn’t feel too different from what its original generative state was, but either way I think much more egregious usages from larger budget studios will certainly start to crop up and those films I can get behind making an example out of by not supporting them.
Very good explanation. AI can’t replicate creativity. It can mimic it, but not BE creative. No art should be 100% AI. And AI can be a really cool tool to use to enhance possibilities/capabilities
The problem with the argument of "using AI only for 3 images" is that this is how this starts. Studios will test the waters by adding it little by little, and eventually it will become difficult to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable. This is done on purpose and it's important that we as the consumers show the studios that we will not accept it, even in small amounts.
Okay, now go complain where it really matters then. Disney has been using AI for their animated movies for the last five or so years. The Dune movies have entirely AI generated blue eyes for characters. There you go, two massive examples from big budget movies and you aren't doing anything about them using it there. It's only a problem when an indie movie with a budget of 1.5 million has to cut some corners. Those big budget movies are fine to use AI though and not pay artists, right?
@@KiaraJasmine-s1h of course you don't care, you are not an artist running out of a job. If your job was the one being affected I bet you WOULD care and would want people being on your side.
In my opinion, a couple basic stills in a low budget film are kind of whatever. But I do think it sets a dangerous precedent. We'll have a nuanced conversation in relation to a small niche film, but when a massive corporation sees you can use a lil AI and still have a successful run they're going to exploit it for blockbusters and all nuanced conversation will be lost.
But don’t u think that big studios will have a LOT more competition if “anyone” can make a great movie or tv show .. without the extreme budgets Imagine all the creatives who work for example Disney now.. they will be able to create their own movies instead of working for a boss
@@r080486 As an animator I PROMISE you a disney animator is not going to use AI to generate a film. They're going to animate it. This doesn't open doors. it will allow for easier creative expression but all it will do, ultimately, is overcrowd creative spaces with generated content. The "good stories" won't even have an easier time finding an audience. I know because there are plenty of amazing creators today and people complain that there's nothing to watch.
@@devonmunn5728 but who are they not paying? it's not a person they hired, since they aren't hiring a person for that work. My biggest issue is this overreaction to the issue. Why is it that when robots take over manufacturing jobs people hardly bat an eye but suddenly when it's people in the entertainment industry they're treated like sacred cows.
I think my issue is that there are thousands no millions of artists that would have killlleedddd for this opportunity and probably would have even done it for free. It just doesn’t make sense
@@cottomw69or maybe they just literally don’t care and wanted to go the easy,cheap route. You’re literally such a Square for caring so much about A COUPLE images. Sooner or later movies are gonna use AI and eventually full movies will be AI.
Quick note about the black and white footage: It's explained quickly in the intro bit that there were behind the scenes cameras filming and that those scenes were put in between the footage that aired as part of the documentary, so those scenes are - from what I recall - also footage in-universe. Thank you so much for the explanation at the start about the AI use, I didn't know when I saw the film!
Visual ai wouldn't exist without all the artwork from artists that it was trained on and now it's being used to take jobs from those same artists. That is so evil and that's why people are against it. Visual ai is a parasite that would be nothing without actual artists and until it is made etchically (using source material that is not copyrighted) it should not be accepted.
Like did we not just have strikes due in part to these companies wanting to basically never hire or pay actors for their image being used? Some people really don't learn anything
The only thing that will forever be there is change. People hated electricity, trains, machines, gosh so many people cried even about the internet, smartphones etc. We cant stop this movement, we have to accept it. Like every human had to do in all of our history. Easy as that. People lost their jobs cause alarm clocks came along, just one of millions of examples. Less people will successfully draw, write, sing, and work in certain areas.. which is just fine. Our society will adapt as always. There will be niches for human products nonetheless.
@@bta8355 Obviously change will happen and we will all adapt. I don't hate the use of AI entirely just not when it's being used with other peoples stolen work
@@bta8355"things always change" is a lame excuse to not fight back when serious injustice is happening. No one is trying to stop change, we are trying to stop injustice.
@@bta8355You're obviously not a creative person, who worked years, even decades to accrue because otherwise you wouldn't have written what you just wrote. I've studied art and design since 2004, have been drawing since I could pick up a pencil (I'm now 46 years old.). So now I have to compete with AI and these cheap/greedy companies who want to save money by not hiring artists/designers? Really? Sorry but I'm really pissed about this.
funny how last years prevalent discussion about ai in writing and tv/film seemingly hasn’t transitioned into understanding discussions about artists who work for these productions? Something tells me people will act surprised when all aspects of the creative process are removed for the sake of saving a quick buck. If AI is curating your film, it’s shit. If you want it to be written, designed or produced by AI then what is the point of film at all?
Exactly and I'm surprised horror fans don't seem to care. Don't we love trashy horror from the 80s because even if it isn't highly rated cinema, it offers something in its atmosphere, practical effects, gore, etc. With AI, all that would lose its value.
I'm surprised that the horror fans have been so dismissive of the criticism for use of AI. Horror fans are usually the ones who champion artists and practical effects. Look at a movie like Terrifier. Not the best, but it's use of practical effects has had a huge factor into why it's so popular among horror fans. The Thing prequel, would be more loved if it had actually used the practical effects instead of CGI. Because at least you can enjoy what the artists have created. People say that it does not matter. But it does. This tiny use could lead to a larger problem. Most already hate the use of CGI over practical in horror movies. Do we really need AI blood effects and gore, how about instead of applying the make up for art the clown, they just use AI. It would save money and time. But it would lead to many artists losing jobs. It's very odd, because horror fans celebrate the artists the most, but are saying it's okay they used AI instead of someone's actual art? Tom Savini, Gregg Nicotero and people like them won't emerge again in the future if we let AI take over.
I'm guessing since this is a indie film some people are too attached to supporting an indie film that they don't want to throw away a chance at supporting it over the AI use as they feel like it would contribute to original material being supported even less then it already is and I can understand that sentiment but I don't blame people whose potential enjoyment of the film is soured, ruined or people deciding to straight up not watch it
I think the reason we don't care much about it is because , alot passion went into this movie , it's really well crafted movie , I think 3 ai images labels a tremendous hard work into movie as lazy is just ignorance , another thing spider verse team used AI to animate minor animations and they didnt this much shit
It's literally three still images on screen for a total of maybe 15 seconds in an hour and a half movie. No shit nobody actually cares. Watch the movie before saying nonsense just to rage bait
Are they good movies? Then I truly don't care. Are they shit? Well then I won't watch them. Just like now, most movies are absolute garbage and I don't watch them. This literally changes nothing. If human's can't make better movies than AI then there is no point in humans making movies. Not that I think AI is going to replace auteur driven film anytime soon.
@@notyourdad first, saying most movies now are garbage is blatantly untrue or you haven’t watched enough recent movies or you don’t care about cinema (which is fine) But your opinion is not important. We don’t care that you like or dislike movies made by humans. People don’t make movies only to please you. Whether you like it or not, you love the movies you love because there is an actual person behind that camera who has a vision, an opinion, feelings, who wants to tell you something. It could be a favourite subject of theirs, a part of their life, or a completely invented scenario but it comes from somewhere in their brain, something that moves them. And that’s inherently human. It could be the worst piece of art or a masterpiece and it would not change a thing because it’s still art. Worst of all, you think the only thing that matters about this is your opinion, your satisfaction. If we want to be generous and make it less selfish, you only care that people will like it. That it works. You’re ignoring the fact that movies, while also being your little entertainments, are peoples’s jobs, careers and passion. And by turning a blind eye on AI art and the way it could take over or at least replace a lot of artists’ jobs, you’re allowing millions of people to lose their job, their whole lives for some and you’re stripping art from its purpose and its essence. You want something pretty to look at. But that has never been and will never be what art is.
@@-nina-8498 First of all, I do watch a lot of movies. I have almost 3000 movies logged on Letterboxd. Recently I've been watching a movie or two a day while trying to get my backlog down. But that is neither here nor there, the fact remains that most art, no matter what the medium, is garbage. And if you are not aware of this it would appear you are the one who doesn't watch a lot of movie and only focus on the big mainstream stuff that comes out, but you seem to be unaware of the vast ocean of absolutely terrible movies that get produced every year that no one should ever have to sit through. I'm talking about what used to be called straight to video productions, amateur productions, and B-movies - those comprise the vast majority of film produced on a yearly basis and most of it is very bad and you haven't even heard of a fraction of those films. You can't point at the top 200 movies released each year and say "Look, most of these are not garbage." because you would absolutely be correct, but those don't even account for 10% of all movies produced each year. You're looking at the cream of the crop with the biggest budgets and most talent behind them and thinking it's not so bad, ignoring the vast majority of films you don't even know exist. Additionally, I never said people should stop making movies. But I don't discriminate against a movie made by AI just because it's made by AI. Just as I don't discriminate between movies made by men, woman, transgender, gay, bi, straight, white, black, asian, whatever. I judge a movie by whether or not it is any good. And if the movie is good, and it's made by AI, why should I care? Now, it's up to people to prove that they have something to add to the space and that they can make films that are more compelling than what AI can produce, and if they can't, well tough luck - that means they have nothing of value to add and shouldn't be making movies in the first place, and if you think people will be outcompeted by AI in film then that means you don't think people have anything of value to add yourself either, because if you did you'd have faith in people making movies for many decades still and wouldn't sit around worrying about AI taking over.
@@leviticusprime4904 Evidently it's awful as well. It makes "more sense" for blue collar jobs to be replaced by machines because a lot of them (not all, rectify me if I'm wrong, I'm definitely not an expert on this) are more technical than artistic, which means the emotion put into the labour is not important. When I say it makes sense, I obviously don't mean it hasn't awful consequences for people's lives, that's why we should establish strict rules about the use of machines/ AI. We should not be anti AI or machines because it would mean being anti-progress. If machines/ AI can help human beings without taking their jobs away, they could actually have a purpose. The reason why I'm so against AI is because it will be used so companies/ studios/people that are already rich don't "waste" money on human beings. And it should be the same for blue collars and machines.
My issue with AI is that it feels cheap, if you don't care enough about your film to pay for some illustrations why should I care about your film as well? It doesn't take much away from the experience of watching a movie, but it's like supporting someone who makes a movie just for the money of it.
I totally understand that sentiment but I disagree when it comes to this movie in particular because I could tell they put a lot of work and passion into it
While that can be true in some regards, there is an entire crew of people who put their all into this movie who had no part of that decision. I thought it was a great movie! I obviously don’t agree with that decision, but I can still support all the other people who made it.
That's one of the layers of why AI is bad The stealing and horrible database that even have CP in it (and general web 3 crypto bullshit that comes with generative AI) are even bigger
the thing i find iffy about it is that it's cutting corners by using AI which steals others work. them saving time and money comes at the expense of artists in general and the artists who's artwork was stolen to create the image
every artist clicked "agree" or "accept" to the terms and conditions to social media. If you willingly put your art/pics on social media websites you've already consented to other people/companies using your art however they want. I don't know why people are surprised, this is common knowledge for over a decade now
Sorry about the super long comment. But some insight from within the industry here. As someone who knows how it works on the inside I can assure you that AI is used in other movies too. Big blockbuster movies even. It's just that some people do it better and fix the image before using it so it's more convincing and you'll never know about it. In case people don't know, every single image used in movies needs to go through the clearance department in order to be legally allowed to be used. Also every name, address, leaflet, phone number...EVERYTHING, no exaggeration. So if AI has been used, the legal, clearance and production teams KNOW about it because they keep a record of everything used in a movie and how it was made and where it came from. It's called a clearance report. If it's a stock image, it says on their report it's a stock image with the reference number. If it's original, it says it's original. If it's AI, some productions and legal teams DO NOT allow it. Some do but only for very difficult large designs that would take ages to do and there is no possible time to do it with an artist, because they can't postpone filming to wait for something to be designed and made when they are paying $100.000 a day renting studio stages. In the case of LNWTD, all the images could have been easily created with an iStock account. Many things could have happened here. Maybe this movie was made when the concerns around AI images were not on people's minds as they are now. Everyone was playing with it and just having fun. Maybe they did not want to pay for a stock images account or an artist so they went the cheap route. Maybe they were made in post production when the graphics department had already left and the director or producer took it upon themselves to create the images with AI to avoid paying 250 a day for a graphics person. Many possibilities here, and all of them could have been avoided, specially since these are some really basic flat designs and not some intricate 15ft x 15ft tapestry. I feel like AI can be incorporated into the workflow if done correctly, for example, looking for inspiration or ideas. But the elements in those images could have been taken straight out of iStock, be composited together and voila. Job done. And the original artists would be getting paid for it too.
I don't understand why AI is being used to automate things that people put passion into. Like use AI for financial positions, logistics, mundane office work. Don't use AI for art.
Yeah, those title cards to me looked like stock images layered up Photoshop style, but made to look like the 1970s actual layering they did back then, with transparencies, mattes and backlighting. I didn't linger on them long enough to spot the A.I. of them.
Well said. I think it’s crazy if this is going to be the movie where we all collectively decide if AI is alright to use or not. There’s no way this is the first, there’s no way there aren’t many better funded Hollywood films that have already used AI. Complain to Disney, not an indie horror film
Oh yeah, AI is especially prevalent in the movie industry. The creators just had the respect for their viewers and confirmed that they used it. Disney and Dreamworks are already working on integrating it to their animated movies, yet we aren’t boycotting them-we’re boycotting a low budget indie movie. It’s truly heartbreaking because you can see how passionate everyone was on this set. Late Night with the Devil is one of my favorite movies that has come out recently-I haven’t seen this much love for the artistry of cinema for a long time. It’s definitely one of the best movies of the 2020’s so far.
Boycotting this movie but happily watching Spiderverse and Dune is just so poetically ironic. There's something about the little guy getting shit on for doing a fraction of what the big guys get away with that is tragically hilarious to me.
A lot of movies recently suck especially horror movies. The fact that I actually enjoyed watching the film says a lot. It’s shows that they were passionate with making the film and wanted to make it good. It’s been a long time that I was interested in a movie before.I could care less if they used AI because AI will never be able to compete with an artist. Also a lot of big name studios are already using AI in their thinking it could improve it.
The thing about them using AI, for even just these 3 images, is now ANYONE can use those 3 images for WHATEVER they want. Those images aren’t protected under copyright laws because they were artificially created, so no one can claim ownership of them. That means that technically anyone can make merch for this movie, using those 3 specific images, and the creators of the movie have absolutely no legal right to stop them. They might have thought this would save them a few hundred dollars in the beginning, but it could cost them thousands of dollars in the long run because they can’t come for people making unlicensed merch, because they don’t have a right to license those 3 images. Especially the TV show logo they used AI to create. They don’t have any legal authority to stop anyone from using it in future projects, on fan made merch, or for their own personal and commercial purposes.
I'm pretty sure someone can get in trouble for using it they can't just take it from the movie even though the studio used AI to generate the art the studio still owns it right? Maybe it's not attributed to a specific artist but the studio still owns it. Everything was in there movie is copyrighted by them unless it's something that they sampled like a music sample or a different image from say an album cover or anything like that that they would have to get permission from the copyright holder of those said intellectual properties Edit: I looked it up as I should have before making this comment and you are actually 1000% correct. No art generated by artificial intelligence can be copyrighted at all. That's crazy though this whole shit going on with the AI crap is nuts. But the movie was still great in my opinion. I don't understand why they couldn't hire at least one artist to do three images and they would have been fine so it does scream laziness in regards to it. Anyway my apologies for my erroneous statement.
@@kaismessiahbaby755 that’s why I love Google so much lol. I’m always looking something up. And I always like to say “you don’t know something, until you know something.”
And tbh? It needs to stay this way. AI should never reach a point where it can be licensed or copyrighted, because its entire existence relies on taking with no unique or creative twist. It's just take-take-take. I understand its here to stay but I think that until there are strict laws in place to contain it and regulate it, it's in our best interest to not encourage films to use it. I think it is reasonable to boycott films and art companies that use AI to send a message. That there's going to be a financial hit in using it in a time where it is actively a problem for artists and their livelihoods due to a lack of regulation. The day we have reasonable, protective laws surrounding it, is the day that I can accept it as a tool to be used for moments like this. And so long as artists involved are always fully consenting with its use.
Why would anyone want to buy merch using an AI image that isn’t even good. The studio themselves would want to make good quality merch. At that point they would just hire a graphic artist to do that.
Oh god, no wonder the images looked so dull! As an artist, AI generated art always looks lackluster and off. I won’t boycott this movie because of it, the movie as a whole was great and I want more like this compared to the big blumhouse disasters we keep getting. The AI definitely a little lazy though because it isn’t that hard to make a simple logo from Photoshop or even Canva, you don’t need anything crazy😭
The reason the images look "dull" is because that's how they looked in the 1970s. Watch some of the old Carson episodes on YT and you'll understand they were paying an homage to those old school graphics. It had nothing to do with the AI art. i.pinimg.com/originals/34/05/d0/3405d0c8aeb4bc346bd97cd1d54416ec.jpg
I think they used AI because they really wanted to nail down the 70s aesthetic and vibe. Making a logo in Photoshop and Canva is simple, sure, but making a logo that looks like it genuinely came from a specific era is a bit tricky.
the problem is they could have hired an artist for little money compared to the budget of the movie to make these images instead of having this mediocre AI, it sours the experience for me
While I in general agree with this point, I believe this was done a) before the writers strike, before the use of AI was *so much* in the public discourse as a big no no and b) by the paid graphic artists themselves. It seems that there wasn't necessarily a "job that was lost" due to this AI usage, but it made the paid graphic artists job easier. From the interviews I've read, it seems like they probably wouldn't do it again given the cultural discourse about AI and the broader implications that we all are aware of, but I think I read that they did this in like...2017...movies take a long time to get made and have a lot of production steps, and I can just see artists not knowing what was coming down the pipe. I think the producers are just trying to be upfront and honest about it, which I think is a good thing. Broadly I agree with you, but I think this *wonderful* film is the wrong target.
What about the other artists that who were working on the film? Don’t they count as an artist? There were multiple artists like the ones who worked on the setting/background, designing the clothes, drawing the layout/scenes for the movie, making the props and the ones who made the movies posters as well as editing the trailer. That’s a lot of people they had to pay for their work. Complaining over some AI image that was used as a cutaway that only lasted for a few seconds shouldn’t matter.
@@mehdigeek my point is that it doesn’t matter if you complain about the usage of AI because it’s still going to be used in a lot of films by big name companies regardless. Unless they decide to ruin a film using AI (letting it write an entire script), at that point they would have to stop using it entirely. But I’m the case with late night with the devil, the AI generated image did not affect the plot of the film and did not use it to write the movie. That’s why the AI generated images used in the film wasn’t important as a whole. Also the graphic artists were the ones who created the images using AI.
I Disagree because When The Movie was Being Worked On, Ai Wasn't Much of a Problem or was Controversial and they Wanted to try using it. I Agree that they Shouldn't have used it but it's not as bad as people are making it out to be.
I have been working full time as an artist for nearly a decade. There are so many problems with AI. First and foremost, it is absolutely theft. The technology is trained on human art. Recently a list was released of all the artists mid journey has been trained on thus far… I know some of the artists on that list personally. It is absolutely theft and there is currently no moral way to use AI art. I think it’s ESPECIALLY a shame that an indie movie would do this! I would have hoped they would hold the integrity of art and creativity even higher than big studios… Just because they are a small indie film, that does not give them a pass to steal from other artists. They save a buck, but to save, they are taking away from another artist. It isn’t right. AI art is morally wrong no matter how you slice it. I think it’s very important to speak up and fight back against ANY use of AI art BECAUSE it is currently just starting to make its way into mainstream. We need to push back against it any way we can. Yeah, maybe it will still be used in media in the future, but if the pushback is big enough, and consistent enough, maybe more stricter laws will be put in place regarding it. I agree it’s a total shame that they decided to use AI in what otherwise looked like a unique horror film. But it isn’t morally right to support it. Unfortunately they made a poor decision, and imo, a message of pushback has to be made, regardless of how big or small the film is. Maybe it is a losing battle, but I’d rather die trying than to just sit back and watch AI take over every creative space.
At a very high basic level, what upsets me in my industry, government, is their allowing fully AI analysis now whereas to do that job, I had to take tests and get degrees and all the things to do the same work. This literally puts me out of a job duty at the age of 50. Now what? Go back to school? Been there did that. I can't retire yet. Yes, it's a bigger issue at many levels.
@@steffymuze That is so frustrating! Yes, it certainly doesn't only affect the art world... I think a lot of people don't realize how vast and severe the impact will be on all different sorts of jobs if we don't push back against it and insist boundaries and laws be put in place regarding AI. It's such a scary time and I am sorry you are seeing an impact in your field as well.
This is pathetic. You clowns are really choosing to punish a small budget indie movie for three images, yet have nothing to say about Disney using AI for every small movement in the Spiderverse movies, or the Dune movies openly using AI for all of the blue eyes effects. Yet you are mad at and punishing an indie movie for three images. Do you not see how insane that is? Directors have openly been talking about using AI for a couple years now. Are all of y'all on Twitter just living under rocks?
No matter how good the movie is, when you use AI, it’s just objectively bad. It’s immediately a 0/10 to me. Boycotting the movie might hurt the people who worked on the movie, but they shouldn’t have started it first. They brought this upon themselves the second they used AI.
AI "Art" isn't art, an artists opinion. It's almalgamated images stolen/ taken from elsewhere. I honestly thought the mention about how this film used AI was about the script. It's already happening to writers being plagiarized by algorithms. Same thing with physical art.
Yeah, it's especially sad because I'm sure a lot of people have put in effort for this movie, from clothing to decorations, and even if it wasn't enough that they are already the ones getting the smallest payments, their job is also being replaced for a database of stolen pictures from actual artists
My boyfriend and I absolutely loved this movie. We saw it in a very small theater that was “packed” with about 15 people. The awkwardness and dark humor was appreciated by all and it made the theater atmosphere perfect for this movie.
I don't think people realize how inexpensive custom art from artists can be, like it wouldn't have made much of a dent in the budget. Unfortunately artists tend to underpay themselves, I am certain this images could have been done for $200-300 USD each. But instead they used a tool that steals art from artists to create 'new' pieces. I think that is what everyone is upset about. Also that if we say okay to this, than what will we allow later on. That being said I watched a screener for this film and really enjoyed it, I didn't pick up on the AI art probably because it was on a smaller monitor, but it was disappointing to find out.
I very much doubt that. It's likely that union rules would require them to hire the person as a set designer which pays a required $40/hour with a minimum numbers of hours.
I don’t get the protest…thats like protesting a movie because the script was proofread with spell check in word. Takes away from copy editors. You can’t demand a job stays in place purely because it will take away jobs. Don’t buy a car then, robots make 90% of those now.
I saw this last night and I think this is my fav movie of the year so far. I would actually argue that it is not found footage but Analogue Horror! I think everyone is using the term found footage because that is the only term the mainstream has at the moment. Analogue horror is my fav indie subgenre and this movie is the first one I’ve seen to use the faces in the distorted shots, hidden messages, etc. I need to rewatch it when I can rewind and go frame by frame to check for faces and codes and such. I’m so happy that this subgenere is finally hitting the big screen and I hope this opens the door for more movies!
The thing is they do keep trying to work this stuff in, and I feel that it's probably the thin edge of the wedge: last year it was AI in screenwriting, and how that had the potential to make writers obsolete/redundant. Now it's design elements and images in this. We all know that if Hollywood could save itself a bit of money, it would have zero reservations about knocking out a blockbuster in a computer. If it creeps in slowly and subtly enough, people will accept it piecemeal, and it will gradually become the norm (that's how these things work). The outcome in the long term: heading to a place of radically reduced human creativity in film. As a struggling film maker myself I do not want to see that. As a film lover and audience member I do not want to see that. Whilst I have reservations about condemning this film on the tiny, insignificant degree of AI it has used, I do think it's right to be having this conversation, and concerns should absolutely be made known to studios. The amount in this flick is small beans, true...however, it is this long term creeping in of this stuff over time (that this has been the first part of, that I'm aware of) that concerns me, and we should consider ANY amount of AI very carefully.
AI is a misnomer, it’s just machines that were trained on stolen artwork, proponents call it AI to make it sound like it’s anything other than that. It’s a way to avoid paying artists on two fronts, once from the stolen artwork and again when they use it instead of just hiring someone. I don’t really think accepting it as inevitable is an especially productive way to approach the conversation, because the way businesses get away with pushing ethical boundaries is by people being apathetic about it. It’s a known fact that when it comes to everyday products, across the board quality has gone down even as prices of everything go up, and “AI” is another extension of that: it’s forcing people to pay more for worse products while their wages go down in value. Personally I’m not interested in watching a film that considers the human component of art to be less important than making a product, regardless of the scale (if it was just a couple of small images, why couldn’t they just pay someone to do it). They didn’t care, so why should I. However, I don’t think review bombing is ever a good response. It’s not helpful, it does nothing, and it’s something that gets abused constantly by bigots. At least watch the damn thing before you review it.
Yeah films and art overall becoming fully soulless AI would not only put many people out of jobs and could even lead to it becoming more preferred over every other job it's just straight up depressing and never something to be accepted as a "inevitable". AI can be used ethically but using material based off stolen work is in no way ethical
Any one person couldn't draw a stick figure let alone anything more elaborate without the thousands of years of artistic evolution that has taken place. The same is true for writing. The same is true for music. Everyone builds their entire skill set as an artist entirely on the backs of others. Yet no one is accusing humans of stealing when they make their art. AI looks are the works produced by humans and does the same. It learns from the work that has been done before. The learning process is exactly the same except greatly accelerated and the results are in their infancy and thus flawed. A year ago AI didn't understand what made a hand a hand and how to draw it properly so it sometimes ended up with 6 fingers. Now that problem is all but gone, however there are still many issues. A toddler makes similar mistakes constantly and it takes decades before they can start to draw realistic things with proper scale, proportion, and perspective, and that learning is all built upon prior knowledge and is not developed in a vacuum by that individual. AI does the same thing. It mimics what it sees - what has been done before, and without it, just like humans, it could not do what it does. The only difference is that AI does not have a creative spark of its own but needs a human to tell it what to create. The funny thing is, if you're a creative person you know that you can't even take ownership of your creativity either - it's something you have no real control of - you can't force the creative spark to occur on demand - so in that sense you're not really any different than AI, you depend on an outside force to activate your creativity and make you create something.
I’m of two minds on this. It’s inevitable on one hand considering how far we’re advancing in technology. A.I is, and SHOULD BE, a tool for ethical uses to lighten the workload as long as we don’t get lazy. Sure, it would’ve been better to get an actual artist to do it but the fact that it stayed strictly on those transitions and nothing else shows these guys have some restraint. But it doesn’t become any less disappointing to know after all those months of striking to prevent this kind of thing from becoming more common, it all feels like a waste, especially when you consider how well they recreated the rest of the sets and atmosphere. So when you realize that, the question becomes “What for?” (Personally, the film’s an 8/10 for me)
from what I understand this movie was filmed 2 years ago prior to the strikes so hopefully they still mean something going forward. I just wish maybe they came out with their own disclaimer before they got caught.
"The black and white scenes in-between the commercial break are not found footage in anyway" The narrator mentions near the start of the movie that the black and white footage is behind-the-scenes footage, its not meant to be an objective shot. The only objective shots in this movie art the shots while Jack is possessed and has his hallucinations at the end of the film.
'Not a lot happening in the beginning' is dead wrong; what's building is suspense. The pacing is deliberate and highly effective. Are we talking about the same film?
I feel like any suspense it tried to build was squashed because the reveal of the plot was practically spoon fed by the opening scene. This movie was a lot of tell not show imo
@@katie-gf5wq You mean quashed, but let's not nitpick. Suspense is something that is objective, in my opinion. 'Conversations with the Devil' builds suspense because the book introduces Lily's character without her being present, therefore we look forward to her entrance to the film. Lily glaring into the camera inappropriately builds tension and unease. Her comments to Jack about seeing him again and meeting him at the Grove are chilling. What deal was made there? Was there a seance or sacrifice or both? Please use your brain and not be played like a sucker into believing there was no legitimate suspense in this film. There's plenty of shit horror out here. Don't shit on some good horror
@@yusefendure you’re telling me to use my brain, but also saying the film’s suspense built on the question of what sacrifice jack made? It could not have been more clear from the intro that he sacrificed his wife for fame to beat out Johnny Carson. I’m usually not one to figure out the storyline for movies early on, but damn it was predictable and my thoughts never were questioned or wavered at any point. I mean come on. Ps I also did mean squashed
@@katie-gf5wq No. Jack 'sacrificing' his wife is as ambiguous as the ending. What you skipped over was how the Grove alluded to the very real Bohemian Group. The details of Jack's relationship to the the Grove are still a mystery. That builds suspense, but for you, it doesn't. Makes perfect sense.
@@katie-gf5wq Late Night with the Devil is not a mystery. The information about Jack's possible 'deal with the devil' was set up from the beginning. Did Jack make a deal to sacrifice his wife to become the late night king of ratings? Who made the deal? Was it the Grove? How did Abraxis recognize Jack? Was the demon at the Grove? The point of the film was NOT to solve any of those questions. Mysteries do that. Suspense thrillers build tension on the journey to the final tragedy.
Though I agree that several human artists had a hand in the creation of this film and it's not fair that their work be turned away from, if we don't start boycotting films that feature any usage of AI in them, then how far does that go? Excusing this film for merely "three AI images" (even though they're featured in the film much more prominently than that) is a slippery slope argument that will eventually turn into people becoming much more accepting of any AI usage in film than they realize, which will turn into a massive takeover in the industry. And considering the most recent news about OpenAI's mission to start convincing studios to utilize AI much more prominently in movies, I think this is something we need to start taking very seriously. Also, further considering the actual human artists that lent their craft to this film, they were already compensated for their work. A collective boycott of the film is not going to affect them personally.
100% agreed - and in fact, I'd like to jump off of this and note that the prominent usage of the AI imagery within the film isn't even just damaging towards graphic designers. The extremely blatant use of it within the sets, both with the aforementioned logo imagery and other noticeable AI usage within the design, is extremely damaging towards production designers. If generative AI were used in the screenplay or if AI was used in place of the actors, people would be in uproar - it's depressing to see that people are willing to overlook it in areas they don't deem as important.
@@beneales all this energy and hatred for an indie movie using ai for background images is insane. Go get mad at Disney or Dennis Villenueve, they both have openly been using AI in their movies for multiple years now. It's okay for the Spiderverse movies to use AI from beginning to end for every single minor character movement, the Dune movies are fine with entirely AI generated blue eyes, but you draw the line at three images? Do you not realize how insane you and everyone else crying about this is? You're already WAY behind the curve. Catch up with the times, it's been happening for years already.
The hype train around movies can inflate your expectations. When the movie Fargo was first released there was so much hype around it that when I finally saw it, I was underwhelmed. I watched it again years later on late night cable after the hype died down and finally saw that it was a damn good film.
The use of technology is inevitable but it needs to be use in am ethical way, imo the way this production uses it is unethical, simply because there are still no laws protecting the intelectual property of visual artists and there for all generative AI is violating their intellectual properties and threatening their livehood, I think is ok and fair not to support any production that does not respect all artists, yes they are filmakers but just because they exploit another area of art does not make it ok, just because it doesn't affect them directly (yet)
Yeah it's how something is being used. I myself am not on the "Tech = bad" train as it isn't a black & white thing however since AI "art" is basically a amalgamation of various artists works who are never credited just makes it unethical
On AI: I think that many artists would have done work for this film for free, just to be a part of the project. It doesn't impact me enough to sway my opinion on the film itself, but it is something to put out so the creators are aware of the consumer's opinion for future works.
I loved the movie but had no idea AI was used. Regardless, the film was amazing and I'd recommend it to fans of the original Evil Dead and the "Satanic Panic" subgenre.
This took place in 1977, not '97, and Ghostwatch dealt with similar subject matter in the 1980s. The pacing was great, and the set-up at the film's beginning was akin to documentaries from the 1970s, so it was just a MacGuffin. This is a great film that satirizes the power of media to hypnotize viewers and make them see what they want instead of reality. Another movie from the 1970s relevant to this discussion is 'Network' by Sidney Lumet.
I think more than anything it’s disappointing. AI isn’t inherently bad but the way it’s used now… not great. I think I would have a less bitter view of AI if it wasn’t constantly paraded as something to take artists jobs by tech bros lol. It’s disappointing as an artist to see people opt for something generated by a computer instead of a real person that dedicates their time to that skill. I was excited to see the movie until I knew about the AI thing, which just left a sour taste in my mouth.
also the in between scenes were “behind the scenes footage”, it said that in the intro to the movie somewhere, that’s why i also think they last for as long as they do
The images look like rip off steven rhodes shirts. Im sorry but why can people understand why using AI to replace actors who are extras in films=bad but not understand that using AI to replace graphic designers ALSO=bad.
Why is it bad? If your work can't compete with AI then your work isn't anything special and you should look for a new job. Jobs become obsolete all the time as technology advances - this is nothing new - it's been going on since time immemorial.
@@8bitbee148 It's literally not. They do not take work and replicate it one to one nor do they even take bits and pieces of other people's work to create new work, they use other people work to teach the AI what certain things might look like and how you might replicate that specific style. It is really not very different than what human beings do when they learn art. They absorb and look at the existing thing, replicate it, and create new things based on the same techniques. We're just teaching a machine instead of a human. At no point is the material that's used to teach the machines used directly in the end product.
"Is it ethical to use AI for artistic purposes when it takes away a job from a human?" No. Just full stop, no. AI 100% is not creating anything new, it's scraping artists' work and rejiggering it into facsimiles of original art, all to save money that could be given to talent. And for such small elements that are the kind of "slippery slope" that are really meant to ease people into the idea that SOME stealing and farming out work is okay, and that line will progress as much as they can get away with, moving the goal posts every time.
I could see why they would justify the use of it if it was for some crazy editing or if it was an insanely cool image. I still would not agree, but I could see why they would use it. But not for a transitional still?? 😭 It feels so... lazy to me. Like, there are hundreds of thousands of images made by REAL people that looked like the ones they created. It sends the message, to me, that they're not willing to invest in their project but expect great turn-out. It especially comes off as lazy because the images weren't anything special or original. The supposed artist that further edited the images could have created something less lifeless imo, and probably a lot better. Doesn't make sense to me. 😶
And, like you said, they weren't HUGE parts of the movie. They were stills, and because it was a low budget movie, it makes even less sense to me to use a tool like AI on something that was kind of insignificant.
@@CHlODOS yeah instead of paying the extras on set let's pay for a couple graphics on screen for 15 seconds. Great idea Maybe save this energy for something that matters. Go get mad at Disney for using AI in the Spiderverse movies for every single minor character movement or Dune for using AI on all blue character eyes. This is extremely inconsequential.
@thequinlanshow3326 I have no idea why when someone criticizes a specific thing, you all suddenly believe we don't have the same feelings for topics alike. The topic is this movie and its usage. Not Disney movies. Stay focused. Using AI for something so simple as graphics opens the floodgates to replacing people's jobs. It's already happening. Not just with graphics, but with writing. Like, can we be serious. for the love of god
@thequinlanshow3326 You all want to talk about nuance, but ironically, refuse to acknowledge that this movie and a Disney movie are completely different things and invariably will have different solutions or criticism. You also seem to refuse to acknowledge the bigger world consequences of accepting AI. One thing I dislike specifically about your crowd is that you think it's "inconsequential" when it is literally the straw that can break the camels back. There are already AI writing sites and apps that students are cheating with to write essays for them. Do you not see how that scenario and its consequences may be applicable to other forms of AI???
"And when it comes to... a lower budget production, if it allows them to save a little bit of time and money... I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to rely on AI..." I've been seeing some variation of this argument since the news broke and it's been driving me up a wall. I understand the sentiment, but artists with smaller budgets should invest in other artists BECAUSE they know what it feels like to not have ideal funding. It's a matter of respect and empathy. Not to mention the blatant plagiarizing that's been happening, which you've touched on. It's a shame -- with the borderline-creepypasta premise and devil/possession angle, it seemed like this one was tailor-made for me. Even more so when I discovered Joel Anderson, director of Lake Mungo, was tied to it. Talk about cutting corners! That man wanted a completely different and way more conventional movie, but because he had such a tight budget he decided to make it a mockumentary/found footage hybrid, and IMO Lake Mungo is more memorable for it. I was so looking forward to seeing what he'd achieve with Late Night, but I just can't morally get behind a movie that uses AI, no matter how small the usage seems to be; that's how they're gonna warm us up to bigger and more detrimental exposure, right?
My issue with anything like this is that they could've easily gotten someone to design these pictures VERY cheap. Like people don't even realize how little money they would have to put forward to get this done the traditional way. The world is full of artists who would be happy to get their artwork in a movie. The art world is saturated as is, there is absolutely no need to make these kinds of pictures with AI.
I personally loved the movie my only issues were the moments of CGI that were used in the movie. I loved the lead, I was invested in the story, the surrounding cast were great, I liked the different take on an exorcism movie having it happen on a television network, it was creepy, the practical work was good especially during the hypnosis scene which is my favorite sequence in the movie, loved the third act, and loved how the movie was shot as a show from the 1970’s especially with the camera work. It was a 9/10 movie for me. Feels good to have great horror movies back after so many stinkers this year.
Solid review! If you haven’t yet I highly recommend two films that are very similar in tone to Late Night which are Ghostwatch & WNUF Halloween Special. Like Late Night, both movies are about a “live” television broadcast on Halloween night where by the end everything goes horribly wrong.
I'm going to leave a broad comment here because I started responding to others. In general, I agree with most people - AI in film is a slippery slope and should not be used at the expense of jobs. From interviews I've read, it seems like there are two important details that are getting lost in the dialogue 1) I believe the actual stills were created in like 2017...I don't remember the exact time but well before COVID and well before the writers strike. The cultural discourse around AI was very different and in hindsight, we know it is wrong, but I don't think all of us complaining here would have known the depths of danger of AI in artistic mediums significantly pre-writers strike, and 2) the paid graphic artists were the ons who made that decision to use it and edit it, so it is not necessarily as if a specific job was lost. WHILE I IN GENERAL AGREE on principle that AI should not be used in film, it also most certainly is with lots of other films and these folks are just being upfront about it. I just don't think this indie horror should be the one to get kicked to the curb. While I agree it's "how it starts", the danger feels more prescient in a Marvel film. While I understand the horror community is one to demand authenticity and respect for artists, I also think we can't became a cancel police because of one situation. However, I might eat my words, and we may point to Late Night With The Devil as the downfall of modern film. Who knows. For now, I'm totally enchanted by it, and I think the worst part were the interstitials.
@@CampCounselerSteve It seems like you are responding to a broad idea rather than my comment in particular, since the risk of job loss due to AI is a pretty small component of what I just wrote about.
I loved this movie- thought it was original- loved the 70's vibe- ending was great- the CGI made sense to the era and this type of movie- don't agree with you this time
10:33 I think it would have been nice if they made their own commercials, kind of like what they did in the show 'WandaVision', where the commercials were sort of foreshadowing events in the show
i really liked the movie.. are we shocked that AI is being used? it’s probably been used before and people haven’t noticed it lol. i’m not going to let that ruin my whole perception of the movie.
I think I'm more willing to forgive an indie production for using AI especially because they didn't overindulge in it. However I would be way more mad if a big Hollywood studio did the same thing since they have the massive budget to hire real people. Obviously hiring actual artist should be what every production strives to do but indie film makers have way less resources to work with and are often forced to cut corners. Overall this situation is really nuanced and simply boiling it down to "AI = bad which means movie = bad" is really ignoring it's complexity
i'm an artist. i'm strongly against AI, and honestly? i wouldn't forgive this, no matter how small it is. until we can actually find a way to use AI ethically (most likely building a closed database with artists who did get paid to use their art in it) AND it's actually monitored and regulated (and no, things like steam where you have to say you used AI don't work, because how do they actually check that you didn't when it's a trust me bro), AI should not be used in art and movies. it DOES show a lack of care here, because why did they put in the effort for the rest of the movie, but here they said "just generate something in AI it's fine"? if they had an artist in charge of this, why didn't they pay someone to actually draw these images instead of just slapping a prompt into AI? honestly it IS embarrassing to pay an "artist" to write a line of text for AI to generate an image when anyone can do that and get the same shitty results for free, when that same amount they paid would've likely been enough for someone to draw that same image with actual quality and care to detail. besides, this sends a message to producers. if just a "small and insignificant" use like this is let slide, they hear that people don't care as much as they say they do. it gives them an open opportunity to slowly increase their use of AI and to keep pushing things until people just accept them. yes, they will do it anyways, but saying "yeah this one is fine" just gives them more leeway than they have already.
This is the truth. I love this comment and I’m grateful, as a freelance artist myself, that you said this here. Their use of AI imagery is such a lazy, disrespectful, and shameful choice to make. It makes me *extra* appreciate art made entirely from the ground up, art that is a labor of love
I just saw this movie last night, at home and my husband and I loved it. I waited to watch your video, because I didn’t want any spoilers, bias, etc. I usually agree with your reviews, but I honestly feel that this movie is a 4.5 out of 5 (the half point off, would be the cgi at the end) but I absolutely adored how the "behind the scenes" varied from the "found footage/TV show program". It felt like it was supposed to feel...you as a viewer, catching a glimpse of what happens behind the "curtain", which was super in line with the documentary feeling. I thought this movie was superb and will buy a physical copy to add to my collection of cozy day viewing horror.
I understand the arguments against AI, but so much creativity and care went into this film. Everyone was messing around with AI images when this movie was being filmed as well, which is important context.
@@smudge7057 it did, if they didn't pay for it, then it is cheap, it looks cheap, it is unethical and should go burn in hell alongside every other crypto scam
personally i will not be watching this movie. i don't think we should reward them for their use of AI. regardless of any passion they might have had for this movie, what they did was unethical and poisoned the movie as a whole for me. if we excuse this, eventually the excuse will be "they only used it to write a couple of scenes whats the big deal" until it spirals from there.
Bet you love Spiderverse and the Dune movies though. No problems with them using AI literally from the start of the movie until the end, with the directors being very open about using it. Gotta get mad at this small indie movie 😂
When you see a actors playing professional sport players, you don't get upset that they don't use "real talent" by hiring a real sports star that spent his hard earned "time and money" to become what he is, a professional. I think the whole being upset about AI in film is absolutely ridiculous, and yall better get used to it...AI isn't going anywhere.
Regarding AI: did you see Tyler Perry's take on AI? He is pausing an $800 million expansion of his Atlanta studio because of what he saw an AI video generator (Sora) produce. So the future you mention is basically here. You are so right: it's terrifying.
Feels like you dont like the movie for being what its supposed to be. This is definitely one of your most confusing reviews ive seen lol. Strongly disagree.
I don't see the reason of why people are hating them for deciding to use AI. Could they have used an artist and pay them? yes, could they have hired some interns and do it for free? yes, could they have paid 3 million usd for a pro artist? yes.. But hey its not our movie lmao. I dont see poeple trashing OpenAI for developing Sora lmao which will definitely help a lot of small studios which can't afford big productions so I am all in favor of AI, its another tool at our disposal.
I am 100% biased as an artist myself who is interested in film, but this really felt like a betrayal. It sounds dramatic, but after filmmakers and actors were fighting ao hard to make sure their jobs were protected from AI, it feels like a kick in the ass when they don't exhibit the same passion for protecting other artists. A lot of people have said "It's only a couple images, it doesn't matter that much!" To that i say, why couldn't they just afford to pay an artist/ graphic designer to draw them? Many artists I work beside only chargecon average 60-ish bucks for a single image like that used in the movie. Could they really not spare the money to commission a few images? I am against review bombing, and i'm not saying the creators should be crucified. However, I do feel like it's unfair to tell people to not boycott the movie just because it's indie and low budget. It's really just a matter of solidarity between cretices across all mediums, so we can work together to protect our livelihoods from AI. If artists and consumers like myself choose to not watch a movie because of something we don't agree with, it's our prerogative.
This movie is interesting because I feel like the concept was so good but it did so many things that just made no sense? Then, they ruined it all by cheaply using AI art... What were they thinking?
Yes I think there is nothing wrong with using a.i Imagine all the creative things people with little to no budget but great ideas can create with help of a.i
this is an indie film and i dont think that's an excuse as a "budget" thing. it would have been a great opportunity for a small artist too. to say that artists also worked on it after ai is a weird claim to make. why not just have that artist make it then? ai is taking opportunities away from people and that's a big problem. entry level jobs especially are being wiped because of ai. its difficult to move up and even get ur foot in the door. even if it was an extreme low budget or student film. there are students willing to work (sometimes for free!) just to have something on their resume.
"There need to be regulations around it" Just what sort of regulations would you formulate? And why? And exactly what ethical system or set of beliefs would you use to formulate 'regulations'; th' frickin Constitution? People are actin' stupid about AI. I thought it was only "old" people that got all up in arms about 'teck-noj-jee". I've seen enough of this to know, you need to calm down. But that does bring up an observation of mine. "Old" people are ubiquitous; that is, people who worry and freak out about every new thing that happens in society or doesn't happen.
How about a regulation that requires AI companies that to publish the names of the copyrighted works included in the datasets that their the AI models are trained on? Or one that requires them to pay a small royalty to the owners of the copyrighted work? Or an industry standard disclaimer that explains if AI was used in the making if the film? Or one that prohibits copyright on images that are completely AI generated? It took me about as long to think of these as it did to type them. I am sure people with a better understanding on law and the creative process than I have could come up with something effective and practical that won't hinder technological development or the production of good art.
this movie was incredibly effective and scary for me, but i do see what you mean in your criticisms. i thought it completely lived up to the hype, i saw it the day after seeing love lies bleeding and i was on a high for two really phenomenal, original movies. i mostly agree with your take on AI as well, i don’t think boycotting this movie would be helpful to anything, because at the end of the day, it’s a low budget, indie horror movie with hundreds of people involved who all worked very hard. however, like you said, this is very scary to see in a major movie. i know there’s likely been AI use in other movies that we haven’t noticed, but there is something really daunting about the director admitting to it and really noticing kind of how shitty the AI photos look. i think since this movie was made and edited before the strike, i do give it a bit more benefit of the doubt, but in general, i would think people working on an indie horror film would understand the importance of protecting art and originality. overall, it is definitely a disappointment and i wish they would’ve just hired somebody to do these photos, but i also know that this is only going to get worse with time and there truly isn’t much we are able to do as viewers right now. thank you for your amazing review!
also… kind of disappointed by the comments being so flippant about AI😭 i understand the severity in this movie isn’t horrible BUT the whole “i don’t care” attitude about people potentially losing their jobs and art as we know it being created by robots is a little weird🥴
@@evalucky7593 yeah exactly, it's always concerning to see how easy it is for some people to just be like "well this doesn't affect me personally so obviously it's not a big deal"
Yeah, I am a bit tired of possession movies. But I've been watching some Korean demonic/ghost movies like Wailing and Savaha. Have you checked out the latest big horror movie called Exhuma or Pamyo? It is about Korean shamans and a wealthy family in L.A who hired them to help them with strange happenings in Korea. I haven't seen it yet but planning to see it.
I feel they restricted the creative possibilities by trying to keep it as a documentary, which they didn’t successfully portray in my opinion. BBC ghost watch did it better. They should of straight up horror movie it, cut the fluff and padded the exposition where it was needed. The young actress and the whole backstory was woefully under-utilised
Any use of AI contributes to its increasing popularity and Hollywood’s dependency on it. I think it’s completely reasonable to want to not support this film because of that. Yes, other artists of all kinds worked on this film but let’s not forget that the increasing reliance of AI also affects them. Basically supporting this film supports the AI use which then sends the message that it’s okay. And it’s not.
Legislation is the first thing that quickly needs to happen concerning AI in regards to stealing images from artists/writers/etc online. It's the only thing that can protect us from entire films being made from plagiarized images and words. I'm sure AI will be the bane of artists of all kinds for years to come, but stopping theft will provide us a modicum of protection from it.
Thank you for the timestamps. I did skip the AI discussion for now just because it's been the only thing anyone has talked about regarding this movie for a while now and I just needed a break from it lol. I'll revisit that section of the video later on when I have more spoons for that topic again.
Would you fail a student if they had 8% of their final paper written by AI? The answer should be 100% yes and is applicable to filmmakers. Movies are a product, but they’re also an art form. Take away the art and movies become a soulless product. Remember the phrase give an inch and they take a mile but multiply it when discussing AI
Too bad AI has been used for years already by the biggest studios in Hollywood. Disney and Dennis Villenueve openly use AI for their movies. Please go get mad where it actually matters. All this negative energy for an indie movie yet you're giving fuckin Disney a pass. This comment section is pathetic
I liked the style of the movie, the acting, and the story pacing. It really felt like a talk show, so i think they nailed the on stage presence and jokes. If they would have had more "horror elements" i think it would have detracted from its believability and uniqueness.
4:51 This is an incredibly important note, thank you for mentioning it. This movie’s budget was microscopic compared to most great films we’re getting nowadays, and cutting a couple corners with AI probably helped them make it so great in other areas (cinematography, acting, etc.) This movie is NOT the enemy, I can almost guarantee larger studios have been quietly implementing AI for a few years now.
I’m sorry I don’t have an issue with AI being used in the movie. If most of the ppl have an issue with it why don’t actual artists actually try to make a play to try to work on movies?? I’m just saying it’s counterproductive to argue when you can just try to get into movies
I don’t think the film was anywhere near as good as everyone is claiming… absolutely not even 1 scary scene.. it’s more of a… thriller/drama imo. It was super unique for sure! It was just was too hyped up for me… I also didn’t get it really… did he kill his wife?? Was it cuz she held back his show? Why would her sickness hold back his show?? What’s with the tall trees thing? What was the meaning of the split head? What was with all the weird circus like scenes at the end? A hallucination or something?? It just didn’t explain much that I caught… I excepted way more tbh
AI is just a tool somebody uses to create things, like any other. I will say though, I don't think you're going to have to wait 100 years for AI films that are made with prompts. The technology is already there. I'd give it maybe 10 years.
AI is scary in that it could replace core aspects of what makes art enjoyable to consume and create. I don’t like that, as a writer, it could take away some of the human touch of creating stories and getting them published. I also don’t like that people will throw a random prompt into an AI chatbot and try to pass it off as being in the same league as human-produced art. They did not have to put in the same work to produce it as someone who creates it in other ways. Maybe that sounds very gatekeeping of me, but it enables people who did not work as hard to perfect their craft to be thrust into the same league as those who did. It can be a fun thing to play around with when you put in a silly prompt, but when it replaces the human touch and integrity entirely, that’s when I have a problem.
On Reddit, one of the people who worked in the props department claimed that the changes were almost certainly made by producers between SXSW and the wide release. The alternative they offered was that somebody on staff did it last minute and, if that's the case, they will get found out and lose their job.
I’m still really on the fence about seeing this movie because of the AI. I was really excited for it, but now I’m just disappointed. I do understand your point of why boycott a movie when so many other artists contributed, but I’m not sure if I agree. I think if we let something “small” slide, it may lead to companies thinking they can get away with “bigger” AI usage. It’s a really tough spot and idk how I feel about it. I’m really looking forward to your Immaculate review! I just saw it yesterday because you had posted on your Insta story that it made you cry 😅
Well Western civilization has become extremely dysfunctional and is in precipitous decline and under attack from multiple vectors, and many of us are going to suffer and die in the inevitable calamities to come, but people aren't willing to address the issues honestly because many of them are very uncomfortable because the truths are not what we have been brainwashed into believing, so instead people focus on pop culture trivialities and internet memes, but the negative feelings about the civilizational collapse bleeds through into the irrelevant pop culture "hot takes", plus the quality of the bread and circuses I mean entertainment have become lower quality, plus the world falling apart makes it harder to enjoy the entertainment. I deliberately wrote that as the mother of all run-on sentences, you're welcome.
Yes why wouldn't people enjoy an tool that steals from thousands of artists to regurgitate an shitty image that steals another artist's work, being pushed so art, something born out of passion, can be automated, while we work our shitty jobs like machines, why can't people enjoy this dystopic nightmare ????
The only thing I can think of being similar to this premise is a movie called Ghostwatch, that was made in 1993 and supposedly it had a lot of people upset because they thought it was a genuine BBC special.
Her saying this is a tired concept and done to death completely blew my mind. I don't think I've seen a reviewer just lie so blatantly in a review before. That was insanity
I'm boycotting and don't see my position changing as it becomes more prevalent. Yeah it doesn't support the other artists who worked on it but they chose do devalue their work by associating it with AI. It probably will continue to spread and be less detectable but that is no reason to dismiss it now. There are other films and I'll be fine missing this one.
@@PossessedbyHorror and ? If they hired an sex offender to appear in the movie but a lot of people didn't know would that not justify an boycott ? An boycott would make more people inside the industry side against the use of "AI" generated images because of that
Why do we have to have a conversations about it. People will use or they wont, people will like it or they won't. It will ruin part of the film industry or ti won't. Our conversation won't affect it one bit.
This one’s really tough. I have a degree in digital art and design, so my eye instantly picked up on the ai images, maybe more so than someone who doesn’t have a background in art. I don’t think it’s something we should so quickly and readily brush under the rug and say it’s not a big deal overall, because that’s what supporters and creators of ai software want. They want us to accept it little by little, so they can keep pushing the goal posts so that eventually down the line movies will be written, directed, created, produced, and edited by ai, and the only people making money will be the shareholders and CEOs of film studios, regardless of how indie the film is.
There are countless graphic artists who would take super low pay just to have the chance to design for a film and have their name in the credits, not to mention those images could be created in one sitting using photoshop and illustrator. The text-to-image pipeline that current ai has granted us feels so lazy and disingenuous, regardless of it saving money, time, etc.
Storytelling is a uniquely human trait, and removing the humanity from that feels so dystopian.
I love this take.
The only thing that will forever be there is change. People hated electricity, trains, machines, gosh so many people cried even about the internet, smartphones etc. We cant stop this movement, we have to accept it. Like every human had to do in all of our history. Easy as that. People lost their jobs cause alarm clocks came along, just one of millions of examples. Less people will successfully draw, write, sing, and work in certain areas.. which is just fine. Our society will adapt as always. There will be niches for human products nonetheless.
Ultimately, I totally agree. I think though that this particular film needs to be shown some grace as it was completed nearly 3 years ago before all of this was such a hot button topic and their intent (seemingly) was to use AI as a creative launch point for their graphic artist to then edit. Maybe they liked the uncanny valley aspect of the AI’s tendencies and that’s why it still doesn’t feel too different from what its original generative state was, but either way I think much more egregious usages from larger budget studios will certainly start to crop up and those films I can get behind making an example out of by not supporting them.
I agree, well said
Very good explanation. AI can’t replicate creativity. It can mimic it, but not BE creative. No art should be 100% AI. And AI can be a really cool tool to use to enhance possibilities/capabilities
The problem with the argument of "using AI only for 3 images" is that this is how this starts. Studios will test the waters by adding it little by little, and eventually it will become difficult to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable. This is done on purpose and it's important that we as the consumers show the studios that we will not accept it, even in small amounts.
Yup, I agree.
Why should we care as long as the movie is good I don't give a duck
Okay, now go complain where it really matters then. Disney has been using AI for their animated movies for the last five or so years. The Dune movies have entirely AI generated blue eyes for characters. There you go, two massive examples from big budget movies and you aren't doing anything about them using it there. It's only a problem when an indie movie with a budget of 1.5 million has to cut some corners. Those big budget movies are fine to use AI though and not pay artists, right?
Soon they will be whole movies in AI ,then what?
@@KiaraJasmine-s1h of course you don't care, you are not an artist running out of a job.
If your job was the one being affected I bet you WOULD care and would want people being on your side.
In my opinion, a couple basic stills in a low budget film are kind of whatever. But I do think it sets a dangerous precedent. We'll have a nuanced conversation in relation to a small niche film, but when a massive corporation sees you can use a lil AI and still have a successful run they're going to exploit it for blockbusters and all nuanced conversation will be lost.
Plus gives corps excuses to never pay people for their work
Thing is, this is how it starts. A little like this is okay, next movie its more, then more....
But don’t u think that big studios will have a LOT more competition if “anyone” can make a great movie or tv show .. without the extreme budgets
Imagine all the creatives who work for example Disney now.. they will be able to create their own movies instead of working for a boss
@@r080486 As an animator I PROMISE you a disney animator is not going to use AI to generate a film. They're going to animate it. This doesn't open doors. it will allow for easier creative expression but all it will do, ultimately, is overcrowd creative spaces with generated content. The "good stories" won't even have an easier time finding an audience. I know because there are plenty of amazing creators today and people complain that there's nothing to watch.
@@devonmunn5728 but who are they not paying? it's not a person they hired, since they aren't hiring a person for that work. My biggest issue is this overreaction to the issue. Why is it that when robots take over manufacturing jobs people hardly bat an eye but suddenly when it's people in the entertainment industry they're treated like sacred cows.
I think my issue is that there are thousands no millions of artists that would have killlleedddd for this opportunity and probably would have even done it for free. It just doesn’t make sense
Many people on Twitter had decided to share their own illustrations for the images! It's just so easy to actually hire a human...
@@cottomw69or maybe they just literally don’t care and wanted to go the easy,cheap route. You’re literally such a Square for caring so much about A COUPLE images. Sooner or later movies are gonna use AI and eventually full movies will be AI.
many ppl on Twitter have said they would have done it for $50 and their name in the credits lol
I would literally have done it for FREE if they put me in the credits. That's how simple it is they just HATE art.
oi, then maybe they should learn ta use AI.
Quick note about the black and white footage: It's explained quickly in the intro bit that there were behind the scenes cameras filming and that those scenes were put in between the footage that aired as part of the documentary, so those scenes are - from what I recall - also footage in-universe.
Thank you so much for the explanation at the start about the AI use, I didn't know when I saw the film!
Visual ai wouldn't exist without all the artwork from artists that it was trained on and now it's being used to take jobs from those same artists. That is so evil and that's why people are against it. Visual ai is a parasite that would be nothing without actual artists and until it is made etchically (using source material that is not copyrighted) it should not be accepted.
Like did we not just have strikes due in part to these companies wanting to basically never hire or pay actors for their image being used? Some people really don't learn anything
The only thing that will forever be there is change. People hated electricity, trains, machines, gosh so many people cried even about the internet, smartphones etc. We cant stop this movement, we have to accept it. Like every human had to do in all of our history. Easy as that. People lost their jobs cause alarm clocks came along, just one of millions of examples. Less people will successfully draw, write, sing, and work in certain areas.. which is just fine. Our society will adapt as always. There will be niches for human products nonetheless.
@@bta8355 Obviously change will happen and we will all adapt. I don't hate the use of AI entirely just not when it's being used with other peoples stolen work
@@bta8355"things always change" is a lame excuse to not fight back when serious injustice is happening. No one is trying to stop change, we are trying to stop injustice.
@@bta8355You're obviously not a creative person, who worked years, even decades to accrue because otherwise you wouldn't have written what you just wrote. I've studied art and design since 2004, have been drawing since I could pick up a pencil (I'm now 46 years old.). So now I have to compete with AI and these cheap/greedy companies who want to save money by not hiring artists/designers? Really? Sorry but I'm really pissed about this.
funny how last years prevalent discussion about ai in writing and tv/film seemingly hasn’t transitioned into understanding discussions about artists who work for these productions? Something tells me people will act surprised when all aspects of the creative process are removed for the sake of saving a quick buck. If AI is curating your film, it’s shit. If you want it to be written, designed or produced by AI then what is the point of film at all?
this
Exactly and I'm surprised horror fans don't seem to care. Don't we love trashy horror from the 80s because even if it isn't highly rated cinema, it offers something in its atmosphere, practical effects, gore, etc. With AI, all that would lose its value.
As long as I'm entertained I'm fine with it. I was definitely entertained by this movie.
It just feels like they want to make as much money as quickly as possible
@@cottomw69 I think that's kinda why people make movies
I'm surprised that the horror fans have been so dismissive of the criticism for use of AI.
Horror fans are usually the ones who champion artists and practical effects. Look at a movie like Terrifier. Not the best, but it's use of practical effects has had a huge factor into why it's so popular among horror fans.
The Thing prequel, would be more loved if it had actually used the practical effects instead of CGI. Because at least you can enjoy what the artists have created.
People say that it does not matter. But it does. This tiny use could lead to a larger problem. Most already hate the use of CGI over practical in horror movies.
Do we really need AI blood effects and gore, how about instead of applying the make up for art the clown, they just use AI. It would save money and time.
But it would lead to many artists losing jobs.
It's very odd, because horror fans celebrate the artists the most, but are saying it's okay they used AI instead of someone's actual art?
Tom Savini, Gregg Nicotero and people like them won't emerge again in the future if we let AI take over.
I'm guessing since this is a indie film some people are too attached to supporting an indie film that they don't want to throw away a chance at supporting it over the AI use as they feel like it would contribute to original material being supported even less then it already is and I can understand that sentiment but I don't blame people whose potential enjoyment of the film is soured, ruined or people deciding to straight up not watch it
Did you actually watch this movie? A lot of creativity and care went into it
I think the reason we don't care much about it is because , alot passion went into this movie , it's really well crafted movie , I think 3 ai images labels a tremendous hard work into movie as lazy is just ignorance , another thing spider verse team used AI to animate minor animations and they didnt this much shit
It's literally three still images on screen for a total of maybe 15 seconds in an hour and a half movie. No shit nobody actually cares. Watch the movie before saying nonsense just to rage bait
I agree that using AI was a bad idea but it definitely did not spoil the movie for me.
I think we’re going to look back at this when movies are 100% AI and say, “We should’ve stopped it then.”
Are they good movies? Then I truly don't care. Are they shit? Well then I won't watch them. Just like now, most movies are absolute garbage and I don't watch them. This literally changes nothing. If human's can't make better movies than AI then there is no point in humans making movies. Not that I think AI is going to replace auteur driven film anytime soon.
@@notyourdad first, saying most movies now are garbage is blatantly untrue or you haven’t watched enough recent movies or you don’t care about cinema (which is fine)
But your opinion is not important. We don’t care that you like or dislike movies made by humans. People don’t make movies only to please you.
Whether you like it or not, you love the movies you love because there is an actual person behind that camera who has a vision, an opinion, feelings, who wants to tell you something. It could be a favourite subject of theirs, a part of their life, or a completely invented scenario but it comes from somewhere in their brain, something that moves them. And that’s inherently human.
It could be the worst piece of art or a masterpiece and it would not change a thing because it’s still art.
Worst of all, you think the only thing that matters about this is your opinion, your satisfaction. If we want to be generous and make it less selfish, you only care that people will like it. That it works.
You’re ignoring the fact that movies, while also being your little entertainments, are peoples’s jobs, careers and passion. And by turning a blind eye on AI art and the way it could take over or at least replace a lot of artists’ jobs, you’re allowing millions of people to lose their job, their whole lives for some and you’re stripping art from its purpose and its essence.
You want something pretty to look at. But that has never been and will never be what art is.
@@-nina-8498 First of all, I do watch a lot of movies. I have almost 3000 movies logged on Letterboxd. Recently I've been watching a movie or two a day while trying to get my backlog down.
But that is neither here nor there, the fact remains that most art, no matter what the medium, is garbage. And if you are not aware of this it would appear you are the one who doesn't watch a lot of movie and only focus on the big mainstream stuff that comes out, but you seem to be unaware of the vast ocean of absolutely terrible movies that get produced every year that no one should ever have to sit through.
I'm talking about what used to be called straight to video productions, amateur productions, and B-movies - those comprise the vast majority of film produced on a yearly basis and most of it is very bad and you haven't even heard of a fraction of those films.
You can't point at the top 200 movies released each year and say "Look, most of these are not garbage." because you would absolutely be correct, but those don't even account for 10% of all movies produced each year. You're looking at the cream of the crop with the biggest budgets and most talent behind them and thinking it's not so bad, ignoring the vast majority of films you don't even know exist.
Additionally, I never said people should stop making movies. But I don't discriminate against a movie made by AI just because it's made by AI. Just as I don't discriminate between movies made by men, woman, transgender, gay, bi, straight, white, black, asian, whatever. I judge a movie by whether or not it is any good. And if the movie is good, and it's made by AI, why should I care?
Now, it's up to people to prove that they have something to add to the space and that they can make films that are more compelling than what AI can produce, and if they can't, well tough luck - that means they have nothing of value to add and shouldn't be making movies in the first place, and if you think people will be outcompeted by AI in film then that means you don't think people have anything of value to add yourself either, because if you did you'd have faith in people making movies for many decades still and wouldn't sit around worrying about AI taking over.
@@-nina-8498so how do you feel about machines replacing blue collar jobs?
@@leviticusprime4904 Evidently it's awful as well.
It makes "more sense" for blue collar jobs to be replaced by machines because a lot of them (not all, rectify me if I'm wrong, I'm definitely not an expert on this) are more technical than artistic, which means the emotion put into the labour is not important. When I say it makes sense, I obviously don't mean it hasn't awful consequences for people's lives, that's why we should establish strict rules about the use of machines/ AI.
We should not be anti AI or machines because it would mean being anti-progress. If machines/ AI can help human beings without taking their jobs away, they could actually have a purpose.
The reason why I'm so against AI is because it will be used so companies/ studios/people that are already rich don't "waste" money on human beings. And it should be the same for blue collars and machines.
I disagree, the black and white scenes felt like i was watching a behind the scenes type of footage at times.
Agreed, I immediately knew it was behind the scenes when the black and white happend.
My issue with AI is that it feels cheap, if you don't care enough about your film to pay for some illustrations why should I care about your film as well? It doesn't take much away from the experience of watching a movie, but it's like supporting someone who makes a movie just for the money of it.
I totally understand that sentiment but I disagree when it comes to this movie in particular because I could tell they put a lot of work and passion into it
While that can be true in some regards, there is an entire crew of people who put their all into this movie who had no part of that decision. I thought it was a great movie! I obviously don’t agree with that decision, but I can still support all the other people who made it.
I thought the movie was awesome🎉
That's one of the layers of why AI is bad
The stealing and horrible database that even have CP in it (and general web 3 crypto bullshit that comes with generative AI) are even bigger
the crazy thing is, it doesn't even cost a lot to pay an artist for this stuff.
the thing i find iffy about it is that it's cutting corners by using AI which steals others work. them saving time and money comes at the expense of artists in general and the artists who's artwork was stolen to create the image
And mind you some of the worst ethical offenses come from the priority of saving money
That's just "iffy" ? That's just straight up evil
@@devonmunn5728 yup literally the basis of our entire system and why there is so much suffering #lol
every artist clicked "agree" or "accept" to the terms and conditions to social media. If you willingly put your art/pics on social media websites you've already consented to other people/companies using your art however they want. I don't know why people are surprised, this is common knowledge for over a decade now
Sorry about the super long comment. But some insight from within the industry here. As someone who knows how it works on the inside I can assure you that AI is used in other movies too. Big blockbuster movies even. It's just that some people do it better and fix the image before using it so it's more convincing and you'll never know about it. In case people don't know, every single image used in movies needs to go through the clearance department in order to be legally allowed to be used. Also every name, address, leaflet, phone number...EVERYTHING, no exaggeration. So if AI has been used, the legal, clearance and production teams KNOW about it because they keep a record of everything used in a movie and how it was made and where it came from. It's called a clearance report. If it's a stock image, it says on their report it's a stock image with the reference number. If it's original, it says it's original. If it's AI, some productions and legal teams DO NOT allow it. Some do but only for very difficult large designs that would take ages to do and there is no possible time to do it with an artist, because they can't postpone filming to wait for something to be designed and made when they are paying $100.000 a day renting studio stages. In the case of LNWTD, all the images could have been easily created with an iStock account. Many things could have happened here. Maybe this movie was made when the concerns around AI images were not on people's minds as they are now. Everyone was playing with it and just having fun. Maybe they did not want to pay for a stock images account or an artist so they went the cheap route. Maybe they were made in post production when the graphics department had already left and the director or producer took it upon themselves to create the images with AI to avoid paying 250 a day for a graphics person. Many possibilities here, and all of them could have been avoided, specially since these are some really basic flat designs and not some intricate 15ft x 15ft tapestry. I feel like AI can be incorporated into the workflow if done correctly, for example, looking for inspiration or ideas. But the elements in those images could have been taken straight out of iStock, be composited together and voila. Job done. And the original artists would be getting paid for it too.
I feel like Marvel has been using AI since the beginning lol. That franchise is so braindead.
Godzilla Kong was all AI. No way in hell a human could've made that generic and soulless cash grab
I don't understand why AI is being used to automate things that people put passion into. Like use AI for financial positions, logistics, mundane office work. Don't use AI for art.
Yeah, those title cards to me looked like stock images layered up Photoshop style, but made to look like the 1970s actual layering they did back then, with transparencies, mattes and backlighting. I didn't linger on them long enough to spot the A.I. of them.
Well said. I think it’s crazy if this is going to be the movie where we all collectively decide if AI is alright to use or not.
There’s no way this is the first, there’s no way there aren’t many better funded Hollywood films that have already used AI.
Complain to Disney, not an indie horror film
I didn’t expect this Movie to get Dunked on SO much by everybody. Goddamn. I thought it was Great.
Oh yeah, AI is especially prevalent in the movie industry. The creators just had the respect for their viewers and confirmed that they used it. Disney and Dreamworks are already working on integrating it to their animated movies, yet we aren’t boycotting them-we’re boycotting a low budget indie movie. It’s truly heartbreaking because you can see how passionate everyone was on this set. Late Night with the Devil is one of my favorite movies that has come out recently-I haven’t seen this much love for the artistry of cinema for a long time. It’s definitely one of the best movies of the 2020’s so far.
Boycotting this movie but happily watching Spiderverse and Dune is just so poetically ironic. There's something about the little guy getting shit on for doing a fraction of what the big guys get away with that is tragically hilarious to me.
A lot of movies recently suck especially horror movies. The fact that I actually enjoyed watching the film says a lot. It’s shows that they were passionate with making the film and wanted to make it good. It’s been a long time that I was interested in a movie before.I could care less if they used AI because AI will never be able to compete with an artist. Also a lot of big name studios are already using AI in their thinking it could improve it.
The thing about them using AI, for even just these 3 images, is now ANYONE can use those 3 images for WHATEVER they want. Those images aren’t protected under copyright laws because they were artificially created, so no one can claim ownership of them. That means that technically anyone can make merch for this movie, using those 3 specific images, and the creators of the movie have absolutely no legal right to stop them. They might have thought this would save them a few hundred dollars in the beginning, but it could cost them thousands of dollars in the long run because they can’t come for people making unlicensed merch, because they don’t have a right to license those 3 images. Especially the TV show logo they used AI to create. They don’t have any legal authority to stop anyone from using it in future projects, on fan made merch, or for their own personal and commercial purposes.
I'm pretty sure someone can get in trouble for using it they can't just take it from the movie even though the studio used AI to generate the art the studio still owns it right? Maybe it's not attributed to a specific artist but the studio still owns it. Everything was in there movie is copyrighted by them unless it's something that they sampled like a music sample or a different image from say an album cover or anything like that that they would have to get permission from the copyright holder of those said intellectual properties
Edit: I looked it up as I should have before making this comment and you are actually 1000% correct. No art generated by artificial intelligence can be copyrighted at all. That's crazy though this whole shit going on with the AI crap is nuts. But the movie was still great in my opinion. I don't understand why they couldn't hire at least one artist to do three images and they would have been fine so it does scream laziness in regards to it. Anyway my apologies for my erroneous statement.
@@kaismessiahbaby755 that’s why I love Google so much lol. I’m always looking something up. And I always like to say “you don’t know something, until you know something.”
Technically anyone can make merch for this movie 🤓🤓🤓 what a dumbass comment
And tbh? It needs to stay this way. AI should never reach a point where it can be licensed or copyrighted, because its entire existence relies on taking with no unique or creative twist. It's just take-take-take.
I understand its here to stay but I think that until there are strict laws in place to contain it and regulate it, it's in our best interest to not encourage films to use it. I think it is reasonable to boycott films and art companies that use AI to send a message. That there's going to be a financial hit in using it in a time where it is actively a problem for artists and their livelihoods due to a lack of regulation. The day we have reasonable, protective laws surrounding it, is the day that I can accept it as a tool to be used for moments like this. And so long as artists involved are always fully consenting with its use.
Why would anyone want to buy merch using an AI image that isn’t even good. The studio themselves would want to make good quality merch. At that point they would just hire a graphic artist to do that.
Oh god, no wonder the images looked so dull! As an artist, AI generated art always looks lackluster and off. I won’t boycott this movie because of it, the movie as a whole was great and I want more like this compared to the big blumhouse disasters we keep getting. The AI definitely a little lazy though because it isn’t that hard to make a simple logo from Photoshop or even Canva, you don’t need anything crazy😭
The reason the images look "dull" is because that's how they looked in the 1970s. Watch some of the old Carson episodes on YT and you'll understand they were paying an homage to those old school graphics. It had nothing to do with the AI art. i.pinimg.com/originals/34/05/d0/3405d0c8aeb4bc346bd97cd1d54416ec.jpg
I think they used AI because they really wanted to nail down the 70s aesthetic and vibe. Making a logo in Photoshop and Canva is simple, sure, but making a logo that looks like it genuinely came from a specific era is a bit tricky.
@@rurubelle2920 it really isn't tricky if you work with graphic designers... a lot of them have fun trying to do that and nail it
the problem is they could have hired an artist for little money compared to the budget of the movie to make these images instead of having this mediocre AI, it sours the experience for me
While I in general agree with this point, I believe this was done a) before the writers strike, before the use of AI was *so much* in the public discourse as a big no no and b) by the paid graphic artists themselves. It seems that there wasn't necessarily a "job that was lost" due to this AI usage, but it made the paid graphic artists job easier. From the interviews I've read, it seems like they probably wouldn't do it again given the cultural discourse about AI and the broader implications that we all are aware of, but I think I read that they did this in like...2017...movies take a long time to get made and have a lot of production steps, and I can just see artists not knowing what was coming down the pipe. I think the producers are just trying to be upfront and honest about it, which I think is a good thing. Broadly I agree with you, but I think this *wonderful* film is the wrong target.
but the graphic artists were the ones who used the AI. There was no job lost, it was a tool used by the employed artists.
What about the other artists that who were working on the film? Don’t they count as an artist? There were multiple artists like the ones who worked on the setting/background, designing the clothes, drawing the layout/scenes for the movie, making the props and the ones who made the movies posters as well as editing the trailer. That’s a lot of people they had to pay for their work. Complaining over some AI image that was used as a cutaway that only lasted for a few seconds shouldn’t matter.
@@alkaline8681 those artists were paid, I’m not sure what your point, plagiarism is bad even if the other 95% is original and paid for
@@mehdigeek my point is that it doesn’t matter if you complain about the usage of AI because it’s still going to be used in a lot of films by big name companies regardless. Unless they decide to ruin a film using AI (letting it write an entire script), at that point they would have to stop using it entirely. But I’m the case with late night with the devil, the AI generated image did not affect the plot of the film and did not use it to write the movie. That’s why the AI generated images used in the film wasn’t important as a whole. Also the graphic artists were the ones who created the images using AI.
"We edited these images" *editing was just adding the logo*
So why does this matter?
@@applemanjudah it's a joke Judah...
I think the ai discussion should have been its own video and not a part of the review
No kidding
I Disagree because When The Movie was Being Worked On, Ai Wasn't Much of a Problem or was Controversial and they Wanted to try using it. I Agree that they Shouldn't have used it but it's not as bad as people are making it out to be.
I have been working full time as an artist for nearly a decade. There are so many problems with AI. First and foremost, it is absolutely theft. The technology is trained on human art. Recently a list was released of all the artists mid journey has been trained on thus far… I know some of the artists on that list personally. It is absolutely theft and there is currently no moral way to use AI art.
I think it’s ESPECIALLY a shame that an indie movie would do this! I would have hoped they would hold the integrity of art and creativity even higher than big studios…
Just because they are a small indie film, that does not give them a pass to steal from other artists. They save a buck, but to save, they are taking away from another artist. It isn’t right.
AI art is morally wrong no matter how you slice it. I think it’s very important to speak up and fight back against ANY use of AI art BECAUSE it is currently just starting to make its way into mainstream. We need to push back against it any way we can. Yeah, maybe it will still be used in media in the future, but if the pushback is big enough, and consistent enough, maybe more stricter laws will be put in place regarding it.
I agree it’s a total shame that they decided to use AI in what otherwise looked like a unique horror film. But it isn’t morally right to support it. Unfortunately they made a poor decision, and imo, a message of pushback has to be made, regardless of how big or small the film is. Maybe it is a losing battle, but I’d rather die trying than to just sit back and watch AI take over every creative space.
At a very high basic level, what upsets me in my industry, government, is their allowing fully AI analysis now whereas to do that job, I had to take tests and get degrees and all the things to do the same work. This literally puts me out of a job duty at the age of 50. Now what? Go back to school? Been there did that. I can't retire yet. Yes, it's a bigger issue at many levels.
@@steffymuze That is so frustrating! Yes, it certainly doesn't only affect the art world... I think a lot of people don't realize how vast and severe the impact will be on all different sorts of jobs if we don't push back against it and insist boundaries and laws be put in place regarding AI. It's such a scary time and I am sorry you are seeing an impact in your field as well.
This is pathetic. You clowns are really choosing to punish a small budget indie movie for three images, yet have nothing to say about Disney using AI for every small movement in the Spiderverse movies, or the Dune movies openly using AI for all of the blue eyes effects. Yet you are mad at and punishing an indie movie for three images. Do you not see how insane that is? Directors have openly been talking about using AI for a couple years now. Are all of y'all on Twitter just living under rocks?
No matter how good the movie is, when you use AI, it’s just objectively bad. It’s immediately a 0/10 to me. Boycotting the movie might hurt the people who worked on the movie, but they shouldn’t have started it first. They brought this upon themselves the second they used AI.
AI "Art" isn't art, an artists opinion. It's almalgamated images stolen/ taken from elsewhere.
I honestly thought the mention about how this film used AI was about the script. It's already happening to writers being plagiarized by algorithms. Same thing with physical art.
Yeah, it's especially sad because I'm sure a lot of people have put in effort for this movie, from clothing to decorations, and even if it wasn't enough that they are already the ones getting the smallest payments, their job is also being replaced for a database of stolen pictures from actual artists
Is not even real AI or machine learning
Is just an fancy term
@@plaguedoctorjamespainshe6009 It's a collection & amalgamation algorithm, there is no thought or creativity to it
@@nivekian I know, it just regurgitates what it is prompted
Hard disagree
My boyfriend and I absolutely loved this movie. We saw it in a very small theater that was “packed” with about 15 people. The awkwardness and dark humor was appreciated by all and it made the theater atmosphere perfect for this movie.
I was cracking up through almost the entire movie! The moral of the story: Showbiz is the Devil!
I don't think people realize how inexpensive custom art from artists can be, like it wouldn't have made much of a dent in the budget. Unfortunately artists tend to underpay themselves, I am certain this images could have been done for $200-300 USD each. But instead they used a tool that steals art from artists to create 'new' pieces. I think that is what everyone is upset about. Also that if we say okay to this, than what will we allow later on.
That being said I watched a screener for this film and really enjoyed it, I didn't pick up on the AI art probably because it was on a smaller monitor, but it was disappointing to find out.
I heard that the AI was not present in the screening at SXSW
@@devonmunn5728 I had a screener from the distributor and it definitely had those images, but I didn't realize they were AI aha
I very much doubt that. It's likely that union rules would require them to hire the person as a set designer which pays a required $40/hour with a minimum numbers of hours.
I don’t get the protest…thats like protesting a movie because the script was proofread with spell check in word. Takes away from copy editors. You can’t demand a job stays in place purely because it will take away jobs. Don’t buy a car then, robots make 90% of those now.
I saw this last night and I think this is my fav movie of the year so far. I would actually argue that it is not found footage but Analogue Horror! I think everyone is using the term found footage because that is the only term the mainstream has at the moment. Analogue horror is my fav indie subgenre and this movie is the first one I’ve seen to use the faces in the distorted shots, hidden messages, etc. I need to rewatch it when I can rewind and go frame by frame to check for faces and codes and such. I’m so happy that this subgenere is finally hitting the big screen and I hope this opens the door for more movies!
AI should be a TOOL and not a replacement. AI can and will never be truly creative. It can AID people with shortcuts but it is not THE shortcut.
And this is what bothers me about it, exactly this
The thing is they do keep trying to work this stuff in, and I feel that it's probably the thin edge of the wedge: last year it was AI in screenwriting, and how that had the potential to make writers obsolete/redundant. Now it's design elements and images in this.
We all know that if Hollywood could save itself a bit of money, it would have zero reservations about knocking out a blockbuster in a computer.
If it creeps in slowly and subtly enough, people will accept it piecemeal, and it will gradually become the norm (that's how these things work). The outcome in the long term: heading to a place of radically reduced human creativity in film. As a struggling film maker myself I do not want to see that. As a film lover and audience member I do not want to see that.
Whilst I have reservations about condemning this film on the tiny, insignificant degree of AI it has used, I do think it's right to be having this conversation, and concerns should absolutely be made known to studios. The amount in this flick is small beans, true...however, it is this long term creeping in of this stuff over time (that this has been the first part of, that I'm aware of) that concerns me, and we should consider ANY amount of AI very carefully.
AI is a misnomer, it’s just machines that were trained on stolen artwork, proponents call it AI to make it sound like it’s anything other than that. It’s a way to avoid paying artists on two fronts, once from the stolen artwork and again when they use it instead of just hiring someone.
I don’t really think accepting it as inevitable is an especially productive way to approach the conversation, because the way businesses get away with pushing ethical boundaries is by people being apathetic about it. It’s a known fact that when it comes to everyday products, across the board quality has gone down even as prices of everything go up, and “AI” is another extension of that: it’s forcing people to pay more for worse products while their wages go down in value. Personally I’m not interested in watching a film that considers the human component of art to be less important than making a product, regardless of the scale (if it was just a couple of small images, why couldn’t they just pay someone to do it). They didn’t care, so why should I.
However, I don’t think review bombing is ever a good response. It’s not helpful, it does nothing, and it’s something that gets abused constantly by bigots. At least watch the damn thing before you review it.
Yeah films and art overall becoming fully soulless AI would not only put many people out of jobs and could even lead to it becoming more preferred over every other job it's just straight up depressing and never something to be accepted as a "inevitable". AI can be used ethically but using material based off stolen work is in no way ethical
But when aspiring artists are "trained" on the artwork of artists they study, that's not stealing. Only when machines do it.
Any one person couldn't draw a stick figure let alone anything more elaborate without the thousands of years of artistic evolution that has taken place. The same is true for writing. The same is true for music. Everyone builds their entire skill set as an artist entirely on the backs of others. Yet no one is accusing humans of stealing when they make their art. AI looks are the works produced by humans and does the same. It learns from the work that has been done before. The learning process is exactly the same except greatly accelerated and the results are in their infancy and thus flawed. A year ago AI didn't understand what made a hand a hand and how to draw it properly so it sometimes ended up with 6 fingers. Now that problem is all but gone, however there are still many issues. A toddler makes similar mistakes constantly and it takes decades before they can start to draw realistic things with proper scale, proportion, and perspective, and that learning is all built upon prior knowledge and is not developed in a vacuum by that individual. AI does the same thing. It mimics what it sees - what has been done before, and without it, just like humans, it could not do what it does. The only difference is that AI does not have a creative spark of its own but needs a human to tell it what to create. The funny thing is, if you're a creative person you know that you can't even take ownership of your creativity either - it's something you have no real control of - you can't force the creative spark to occur on demand - so in that sense you're not really any different than AI, you depend on an outside force to activate your creativity and make you create something.
I’m of two minds on this.
It’s inevitable on one hand considering how far we’re advancing in technology. A.I is, and SHOULD BE, a tool for ethical uses to lighten the workload as long as we don’t get lazy. Sure, it would’ve been better to get an actual artist to do it but the fact that it stayed strictly on those transitions and nothing else shows these guys have some restraint.
But it doesn’t become any less disappointing to know after all those months of striking to prevent this kind of thing from becoming more common, it all feels like a waste, especially when you consider how well they recreated the rest of the sets and atmosphere. So when you realize that, the question becomes “What for?”
(Personally, the film’s an 8/10 for me)
from what I understand this movie was filmed 2 years ago prior to the strikes so hopefully they still mean something going forward. I just wish maybe they came out with their own disclaimer before they got caught.
@@PossessedbyHorror Same here
"The black and white scenes in-between the commercial break are not found footage in anyway"
The narrator mentions near the start of the movie that the black and white footage is behind-the-scenes footage, its not meant to be an objective shot. The only objective shots in this movie art the shots while Jack is possessed and has his hallucinations at the end of the film.
'Not a lot happening in the beginning' is dead wrong; what's building is suspense. The pacing is deliberate and highly effective. Are we talking about the same film?
I feel like any suspense it tried to build was squashed because the reveal of the plot was practically spoon fed by the opening scene. This movie was a lot of tell not show imo
@@katie-gf5wq You mean quashed, but let's not nitpick. Suspense is something that is objective, in my opinion. 'Conversations with the Devil' builds suspense because the book introduces Lily's character without her being present, therefore we look forward to her entrance to the film. Lily glaring into the camera inappropriately builds tension and unease. Her comments to Jack about seeing him again and meeting him at the Grove are chilling. What deal was made there? Was there a seance or sacrifice or both? Please use your brain and not be played like a sucker into believing there was no legitimate suspense in this film. There's plenty of shit horror out here. Don't shit on some good horror
@@yusefendure you’re telling me to use my brain, but also saying the film’s suspense built on the question of what sacrifice jack made? It could not have been more clear from the intro that he sacrificed his wife for fame to beat out Johnny Carson. I’m usually not one to figure out the storyline for movies early on, but damn it was predictable and my thoughts never were questioned or wavered at any point. I mean come on.
Ps I also did mean squashed
@@katie-gf5wq No. Jack 'sacrificing' his wife is as ambiguous as the ending. What you skipped over was how the Grove alluded to the very real Bohemian Group. The details of Jack's relationship to the the Grove are still a mystery. That builds suspense, but for you, it doesn't. Makes perfect sense.
@@katie-gf5wq Late Night with the Devil is not a mystery. The information about Jack's possible 'deal with the devil' was set up from the beginning. Did Jack make a deal to sacrifice his wife to become the late night king of ratings? Who made the deal? Was it the Grove? How did Abraxis recognize Jack? Was the demon at the Grove? The point of the film was NOT to solve any of those questions. Mysteries do that. Suspense thrillers build tension on the journey to the final tragedy.
I think people will always value the human touch over AI
Though I agree that several human artists had a hand in the creation of this film and it's not fair that their work be turned away from, if we don't start boycotting films that feature any usage of AI in them, then how far does that go? Excusing this film for merely "three AI images" (even though they're featured in the film much more prominently than that) is a slippery slope argument that will eventually turn into people becoming much more accepting of any AI usage in film than they realize, which will turn into a massive takeover in the industry. And considering the most recent news about OpenAI's mission to start convincing studios to utilize AI much more prominently in movies, I think this is something we need to start taking very seriously.
Also, further considering the actual human artists that lent their craft to this film, they were already compensated for their work. A collective boycott of the film is not going to affect them personally.
100% agreed - and in fact, I'd like to jump off of this and note that the prominent usage of the AI imagery within the film isn't even just damaging towards graphic designers. The extremely blatant use of it within the sets, both with the aforementioned logo imagery and other noticeable AI usage within the design, is extremely damaging towards production designers. If generative AI were used in the screenplay or if AI was used in place of the actors, people would be in uproar - it's depressing to see that people are willing to overlook it in areas they don't deem as important.
exactly. actions have consequences...
@@beneales all this energy and hatred for an indie movie using ai for background images is insane. Go get mad at Disney or Dennis Villenueve, they both have openly been using AI in their movies for multiple years now. It's okay for the Spiderverse movies to use AI from beginning to end for every single minor character movement, the Dune movies are fine with entirely AI generated blue eyes, but you draw the line at three images? Do you not realize how insane you and everyone else crying about this is? You're already WAY behind the curve. Catch up with the times, it's been happening for years already.
@@InsomniaMagicK actions have consequences 🤓🤓🤓 you absolute clown
@@thequinlanshow3326 what makes you think people ARENT upset with Disney and other uses of ai? Cause I see a lot of flack given to them as well
I also left feeling a little lukewarm because of the hype but David Dastmalchian’s performance is what really made the movie for me. He was fantastic.
The hype train around movies can inflate your expectations. When the movie Fargo was first released there was so much hype around it that when I finally saw it, I was underwhelmed. I watched it again years later on late night cable after the hype died down and finally saw that it was a damn good film.
The use of technology is inevitable but it needs to be use in am ethical way, imo the way this production uses it is unethical, simply because there are still no laws protecting the intelectual property of visual artists and there for all generative AI is violating their intellectual properties and threatening their livehood, I think is ok and fair not to support any production that does not respect all artists, yes they are filmakers but just because they exploit another area of art does not make it ok, just because it doesn't affect them directly (yet)
Yeah it's how something is being used. I myself am not on the "Tech = bad" train as it isn't a black & white thing however since AI "art" is basically a amalgamation of various artists works who are never credited just makes it unethical
@MisterCaution It's different when you do art inspired by someone's work instead of tracing art made off of dozens of stolen artwork
On AI: I think that many artists would have done work for this film for free, just to be a part of the project. It doesn't impact me enough to sway my opinion on the film itself, but it is something to put out so the creators are aware of the consumer's opinion for future works.
They did
A lot of people made their own versions of the artwork in less than a day for free just to prove a point
There are 0 excuses for use of AI
Tell that to the unions. They don't allow people to do jobs like set design for free.
@@drgoremd it was to prove a point, they could've then easily bought their drawings
I loved the movie but had no idea AI was used. Regardless, the film was amazing and I'd recommend it to fans of the original Evil Dead and the "Satanic Panic" subgenre.
This took place in 1977, not '97, and Ghostwatch dealt with similar subject matter in the 1980s. The pacing was great, and the set-up at the film's beginning was akin to documentaries from the 1970s, so it was just a MacGuffin. This is a great film that satirizes the power of media to hypnotize viewers and make them see what they want instead of reality. Another movie from the 1970s relevant to this discussion is 'Network' by Sidney Lumet.
I’m an older adult and watched late night tv in the 1970s. I loved the movie bc it brought me back to when I was young.
I think more than anything it’s disappointing. AI isn’t inherently bad but the way it’s used now… not great. I think I would have a less bitter view of AI if it wasn’t constantly paraded as something to take artists jobs by tech bros lol. It’s disappointing as an artist to see people opt for something generated by a computer instead of a real person that dedicates their time to that skill. I was excited to see the movie until I knew about the AI thing, which just left a sour taste in my mouth.
Generative AI as it is is inherently bad, if not even evil
It would need to be redone from the ground up using only images they own
So do you like it or not? I've never watched a review and been so confused in my life....
Movie was great end of, and this is clear. Some people need to get a grip.
also the in between scenes were “behind the scenes footage”, it said that in the intro to the movie somewhere, that’s why i also think they last for as long as they do
The images look like rip off steven rhodes shirts. Im sorry but why can people understand why using AI to replace actors who are extras in films=bad but not understand that using AI to replace graphic designers ALSO=bad.
Why is it bad? If your work can't compete with AI then your work isn't anything special and you should look for a new job. Jobs become obsolete all the time as technology advances - this is nothing new - it's been going on since time immemorial.
@@notyourdad because it’s stealing
@@8bitbee148 It's literally not. They do not take work and replicate it one to one nor do they even take bits and pieces of other people's work to create new work, they use other people work to teach the AI what certain things might look like and how you might replicate that specific style. It is really not very different than what human beings do when they learn art. They absorb and look at the existing thing, replicate it, and create new things based on the same techniques. We're just teaching a machine instead of a human. At no point is the material that's used to teach the machines used directly in the end product.
"Is it ethical to use AI for artistic purposes when it takes away a job from a human?" No. Just full stop, no. AI 100% is not creating anything new, it's scraping artists' work and rejiggering it into facsimiles of original art, all to save money that could be given to talent. And for such small elements that are the kind of "slippery slope" that are really meant to ease people into the idea that SOME stealing and farming out work is okay, and that line will progress as much as they can get away with, moving the goal posts every time.
I could see why they would justify the use of it if it was for some crazy editing or if it was an insanely cool image. I still would not agree, but I could see why they would use it. But not for a transitional still?? 😭 It feels so... lazy to me.
Like, there are hundreds of thousands of images made by REAL people that looked like the ones they created. It sends the message, to me, that they're not willing to invest in their project but expect great turn-out.
It especially comes off as lazy because the images weren't anything special or original. The supposed artist that further edited the images could have created something less lifeless imo, and probably a lot better. Doesn't make sense to me. 😶
And, like you said, they weren't HUGE parts of the movie. They were stills, and because it was a low budget movie, it makes even less sense to me to use a tool like AI on something that was kind of insignificant.
@@CHlODOS yeah instead of paying the extras on set let's pay for a couple graphics on screen for 15 seconds. Great idea
Maybe save this energy for something that matters. Go get mad at Disney for using AI in the Spiderverse movies for every single minor character movement or Dune for using AI on all blue character eyes. This is extremely inconsequential.
@thequinlanshow3326 I have no idea why when someone criticizes a specific thing, you all suddenly believe we don't have the same feelings for topics alike.
The topic is this movie and its usage. Not Disney movies. Stay focused.
Using AI for something so simple as graphics opens the floodgates to replacing people's jobs. It's already happening. Not just with graphics, but with writing. Like, can we be serious. for the love of god
@thequinlanshow3326 You all want to talk about nuance, but ironically, refuse to acknowledge that this movie and a Disney movie are completely different things and invariably will have different solutions or criticism. You also seem to refuse to acknowledge the bigger world consequences of accepting AI. One thing I dislike specifically about your crowd is that you think it's "inconsequential" when it is literally the straw that can break the camels back.
There are already AI writing sites and apps that students are cheating with to write essays for them. Do you not see how that scenario and its consequences may be applicable to other forms of AI???
"And when it comes to... a lower budget production, if it allows them to save a little bit of time and money... I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to rely on AI..."
I've been seeing some variation of this argument since the news broke and it's been driving me up a wall. I understand the sentiment, but artists with smaller budgets should invest in other artists BECAUSE they know what it feels like to not have ideal funding. It's a matter of respect and empathy. Not to mention the blatant plagiarizing that's been happening, which you've touched on. It's a shame -- with the borderline-creepypasta premise and devil/possession angle, it seemed like this one was tailor-made for me. Even more so when I discovered Joel Anderson, director of Lake Mungo, was tied to it. Talk about cutting corners! That man wanted a completely different and way more conventional movie, but because he had such a tight budget he decided to make it a mockumentary/found footage hybrid, and IMO Lake Mungo is more memorable for it. I was so looking forward to seeing what he'd achieve with Late Night, but I just can't morally get behind a movie that uses AI, no matter how small the usage seems to be; that's how they're gonna warm us up to bigger and more detrimental exposure, right?
My issue with anything like this is that they could've easily gotten someone to design these pictures VERY cheap. Like people don't even realize how little money they would have to put forward to get this done the traditional way. The world is full of artists who would be happy to get their artwork in a movie. The art world is saturated as is, there is absolutely no need to make these kinds of pictures with AI.
I personally loved the movie my only issues were the moments of CGI that were used in the movie. I loved the lead, I was invested in the story, the surrounding cast were great, I liked the different take on an exorcism movie having it happen on a television network, it was creepy, the practical work was good especially during the hypnosis scene which is my favorite sequence in the movie, loved the third act, and loved how the movie was shot as a show from the 1970’s especially with the camera work. It was a 9/10 movie for me. Feels good to have great horror movies back after so many stinkers this year.
The Ai usage is not a big deal to me, it’s so minimal it’s dumb to argue about it. It’s not like it was heavily used.
Exactly
Solid review!
If you haven’t yet I highly recommend two films that are very similar in tone to Late Night which are Ghostwatch & WNUF Halloween Special. Like Late Night, both movies are about a “live” television broadcast on Halloween night where by the end everything goes horribly wrong.
I'm going to leave a broad comment here because I started responding to others. In general, I agree with most people - AI in film is a slippery slope and should not be used at the expense of jobs. From interviews I've read, it seems like there are two important details that are getting lost in the dialogue 1) I believe the actual stills were created in like 2017...I don't remember the exact time but well before COVID and well before the writers strike. The cultural discourse around AI was very different and in hindsight, we know it is wrong, but I don't think all of us complaining here would have known the depths of danger of AI in artistic mediums significantly pre-writers strike, and 2) the paid graphic artists were the ons who made that decision to use it and edit it, so it is not necessarily as if a specific job was lost. WHILE I IN GENERAL AGREE on principle that AI should not be used in film, it also most certainly is with lots of other films and these folks are just being upfront about it. I just don't think this indie horror should be the one to get kicked to the curb. While I agree it's "how it starts", the danger feels more prescient in a Marvel film. While I understand the horror community is one to demand authenticity and respect for artists, I also think we can't became a cancel police because of one situation. However, I might eat my words, and we may point to Late Night With The Devil as the downfall of modern film. Who knows. For now, I'm totally enchanted by it, and I think the worst part were the interstitials.
Why though? People aren't owed a job.
@@CampCounselerSteve It seems like you are responding to a broad idea rather than my comment in particular, since the risk of job loss due to AI is a pretty small component of what I just wrote about.
I loved this movie- thought it was original- loved the 70's vibe- ending was great- the CGI made sense to the era and this type of movie- don't agree with you this time
10:33 I think it would have been nice if they made their own commercials, kind of like what they did in the show 'WandaVision', where the commercials were sort of foreshadowing events in the show
AI is inevitable. Did people boycott digital movies to protect the film industry? Yeah, it's just as stupid.
i really liked the movie.. are we shocked that AI is being used? it’s probably been used before and people haven’t noticed it lol. i’m not going to let that ruin my whole perception of the movie.
I think I'm more willing to forgive an indie production for using AI especially because they didn't overindulge in it. However I would be way more mad if a big Hollywood studio did the same thing since they have the massive budget to hire real people. Obviously hiring actual artist should be what every production strives to do but indie film makers have way less resources to work with and are often forced to cut corners. Overall this situation is really nuanced and simply boiling it down to "AI = bad which means movie = bad" is really ignoring it's complexity
i'm an artist. i'm strongly against AI, and honestly? i wouldn't forgive this, no matter how small it is. until we can actually find a way to use AI ethically (most likely building a closed database with artists who did get paid to use their art in it) AND it's actually monitored and regulated (and no, things like steam where you have to say you used AI don't work, because how do they actually check that you didn't when it's a trust me bro), AI should not be used in art and movies. it DOES show a lack of care here, because why did they put in the effort for the rest of the movie, but here they said "just generate something in AI it's fine"? if they had an artist in charge of this, why didn't they pay someone to actually draw these images instead of just slapping a prompt into AI? honestly it IS embarrassing to pay an "artist" to write a line of text for AI to generate an image when anyone can do that and get the same shitty results for free, when that same amount they paid would've likely been enough for someone to draw that same image with actual quality and care to detail.
besides, this sends a message to producers. if just a "small and insignificant" use like this is let slide, they hear that people don't care as much as they say they do. it gives them an open opportunity to slowly increase their use of AI and to keep pushing things until people just accept them. yes, they will do it anyways, but saying "yeah this one is fine" just gives them more leeway than they have already.
This is the truth. I love this comment and I’m grateful, as a freelance artist myself, that you said this here. Their use of AI imagery is such a lazy, disrespectful, and shameful choice to make. It makes me *extra* appreciate art made entirely from the ground up, art that is a labor of love
I just saw this movie last night, at home and my husband and I loved it. I waited to watch your video, because I didn’t want any spoilers, bias, etc.
I usually agree with your reviews, but I honestly feel that this movie is a 4.5 out of 5 (the half point off, would be the cgi at the end) but I absolutely adored how the "behind the scenes" varied from the "found footage/TV show program".
It felt like it was supposed to feel...you as a viewer, catching a glimpse of what happens behind the "curtain", which was super in line with the documentary feeling.
I thought this movie was superb and will buy a physical copy to add to my collection of cozy day viewing horror.
I understand the arguments against AI, but so much creativity and care went into this film. Everyone was messing around with AI images when this movie was being filmed as well, which is important context.
Why are people upset about AI when there are so many other jobs that are replaced by technology. Why is it unacceptable in the arena?
Exactly. Probably because these artists are a sensitive bunch. I mean they do art. Come on now. Bunch of snowflakes.
for those who think it's not a big deal have horrible taste in design because for me it made the entire production look cheap
@@smudge7057 it did, if they didn't pay for it, then it is cheap, it looks cheap, it is unethical and should go burn in hell alongside every other crypto scam
It’s supposed to be cheap in the context of the film.
They’d have to pay artists livable wages in the first place for money to be taken away by AI.
personally i will not be watching this movie. i don't think we should reward them for their use of AI. regardless of any passion they might have had for this movie, what they did was unethical and poisoned the movie as a whole for me. if we excuse this, eventually the excuse will be "they only used it to write a couple of scenes whats the big deal" until it spirals from there.
How do you know if it "poisoned the movie as a whole for you" if you haven't seen it yet? You should watch it, it's very good, highly recommended.
Lmao okay. It’s not going to do nothing other than you not seeing it 😂 still on tract for a million plus
You need to relax.
Bet you love Spiderverse and the Dune movies though. No problems with them using AI literally from the start of the movie until the end, with the directors being very open about using it. Gotta get mad at this small indie movie 😂
When you see a actors playing professional sport players, you don't get upset that they don't use "real talent" by hiring a real sports star that spent his hard earned "time and money" to become what he is, a professional. I think the whole being upset about AI in film is absolutely ridiculous, and yall better get used to it...AI isn't going anywhere.
Regarding AI: did you see Tyler Perry's take on AI? He is pausing an $800 million expansion of his Atlanta studio because of what he saw an AI video generator (Sora) produce.
So the future you mention is basically here. You are so right: it's terrifying.
I'm very critical of AI in art but I think this is fine. There's still so much they did to make this film great.
Feels like you dont like the movie for being what its supposed to be. This is definitely one of your most confusing reviews ive seen lol. Strongly disagree.
I know right, how else are you supposed to translate demonic possession. she has some of the worst horror takes I swear.😂😂
I don't see the reason of why people are hating them for deciding to use AI. Could they have used an artist and pay them? yes, could they have hired some interns and do it for free? yes, could they have paid 3 million usd for a pro artist? yes.. But hey its not our movie lmao. I dont see poeple trashing OpenAI for developing Sora lmao which will definitely help a lot of small studios which can't afford big productions so I am all in favor of AI, its another tool at our disposal.
I am 100% biased as an artist myself who is interested in film, but this really felt like a betrayal. It sounds dramatic, but after filmmakers and actors were fighting ao hard to make sure their jobs were protected from AI, it feels like a kick in the ass when they don't exhibit the same passion for protecting other artists. A lot of people have said "It's only a couple images, it doesn't matter that much!" To that i say, why couldn't they just afford to pay an artist/ graphic designer to draw them? Many artists I work beside only chargecon average 60-ish bucks for a single image like that used in the movie. Could they really not spare the money to commission a few images?
I am against review bombing, and i'm not saying the creators should be crucified. However, I do feel like it's unfair to tell people to not boycott the movie just because it's indie and low budget. It's really just a matter of solidarity between cretices across all mediums, so we can work together to protect our livelihoods from AI. If artists and consumers like myself choose to not watch a movie because of something we don't agree with, it's our prerogative.
This movie is interesting because I feel like the concept was so good but it did so many things that just made no sense? Then, they ruined it all by cheaply using AI art... What were they thinking?
Yes I think there is nothing wrong with using a.i
Imagine all the creative things people with little to no budget but great ideas can create with help of a.i
I liked the CGI in the end. It kind of reminded me of Ghostbusters or poltergeist
this is an indie film and i dont think that's an excuse as a "budget" thing. it would have been a great opportunity for a small artist too. to say that artists also worked on it after ai is a weird claim to make. why not just have that artist make it then? ai is taking opportunities away from people and that's a big problem. entry level jobs especially are being wiped because of ai. its difficult to move up and even get ur foot in the door. even if it was an extreme low budget or student film. there are students willing to work (sometimes for free!) just to have something on their resume.
I can't believe people are complaining over some pictures. Lol. Crying about they're taking our jobs. Lol.
"There need to be regulations around it" Just what sort of regulations would you formulate? And why? And exactly what ethical system or set of beliefs would you use to formulate 'regulations'; th' frickin Constitution? People are actin' stupid about AI. I thought it was only "old" people that got all up in arms about 'teck-noj-jee". I've seen enough of this to know, you need to calm down. But that does bring up an observation of mine. "Old" people are ubiquitous; that is, people who worry and freak out about every new thing that happens in society or doesn't happen.
How about a regulation that requires AI companies that to publish the names of the copyrighted works included in the datasets that their the AI models are trained on?
Or one that requires them to pay a small royalty to the owners of the copyrighted work?
Or an industry standard disclaimer that explains if AI was used in the making if the film?
Or one that prohibits copyright on images that are completely AI generated?
It took me about as long to think of these as it did to type them. I am sure people with a better understanding on law and the creative process than I have could come up with something effective and practical that won't hinder technological development or the production of good art.
this movie was incredibly effective and scary for me, but i do see what you mean in your criticisms. i thought it completely lived up to the hype, i saw it the day after seeing love lies bleeding and i was on a high for two really phenomenal, original movies. i mostly agree with your take on AI as well, i don’t think boycotting this movie would be helpful to anything, because at the end of the day, it’s a low budget, indie horror movie with hundreds of people involved who all worked very hard. however, like you said, this is very scary to see in a major movie. i know there’s likely been AI use in other movies that we haven’t noticed, but there is something really daunting about the director admitting to it and really noticing kind of how shitty the AI photos look. i think since this movie was made and edited before the strike, i do give it a bit more benefit of the doubt, but in general, i would think people working on an indie horror film would understand the importance of protecting art and originality. overall, it is definitely a disappointment and i wish they would’ve just hired somebody to do these photos, but i also know that this is only going to get worse with time and there truly isn’t much we are able to do as viewers right now. thank you for your amazing review!
also… kind of disappointed by the comments being so flippant about AI😭 i understand the severity in this movie isn’t horrible BUT the whole “i don’t care” attitude about people
potentially losing their jobs and art as we know it being created by robots is a little weird🥴
@@evalucky7593 yeah exactly, it's always concerning to see how easy it is for some people to just be like "well this doesn't affect me personally so obviously it's not a big deal"
Yeah, I am a bit tired of possession movies. But I've been watching some Korean demonic/ghost movies like Wailing and Savaha. Have you checked out the latest big horror movie called Exhuma or Pamyo? It is about Korean shamans and a wealthy family in L.A who hired them to help them with strange happenings in Korea. I haven't seen it yet but planning to see it.
I feel they restricted the creative possibilities by trying to keep it as a documentary, which they didn’t successfully portray in my opinion. BBC ghost watch did it better. They should of straight up horror movie it, cut the fluff and padded the exposition where it was needed. The young actress and the whole backstory was woefully under-utilised
Any use of AI contributes to its increasing popularity and Hollywood’s dependency on it. I think it’s completely reasonable to want to not support this film because of that. Yes, other artists of all kinds worked on this film but let’s not forget that the increasing reliance of AI also affects them.
Basically supporting this film supports the AI use which then sends the message that it’s okay. And it’s not.
The A.i thing not a big deal
That’s like getting mad about self check out
Legislation is the first thing that quickly needs to happen concerning AI in regards to stealing images from artists/writers/etc online. It's the only thing that can protect us from entire films being made from plagiarized images and words. I'm sure AI will be the bane of artists of all kinds for years to come, but stopping theft will provide us a modicum of protection from it.
Thank you for the timestamps. I did skip the AI discussion for now just because it's been the only thing anyone has talked about regarding this movie for a while now and I just needed a break from it lol. I'll revisit that section of the video later on when I have more spoons for that topic again.
Would you fail a student if they had 8% of their final paper written by AI? The answer should be 100% yes and is applicable to filmmakers. Movies are a product, but they’re also an art form. Take away the art and movies become a soulless product.
Remember the phrase give an inch and they take a mile but multiply it when discussing AI
Too bad AI has been used for years already by the biggest studios in Hollywood. Disney and Dennis Villenueve openly use AI for their movies. Please go get mad where it actually matters. All this negative energy for an indie movie yet you're giving fuckin Disney a pass. This comment section is pathetic
I liked the style of the movie, the acting, and the story pacing. It really felt like a talk show, so i think they nailed the on stage presence and jokes. If they would have had more "horror elements" i think it would have detracted from its believability and uniqueness.
4:51 This is an incredibly important note, thank you for mentioning it. This movie’s budget was microscopic compared to most great films we’re getting nowadays, and cutting a couple corners with AI probably helped them make it so great in other areas (cinematography, acting, etc.)
This movie is NOT the enemy, I can almost guarantee larger studios have been quietly implementing AI for a few years now.
Why is it ok take away work from artists to funnel it to say, acting? Why is it justified?
I’m sorry I don’t have an issue with AI being used in the movie. If most of the ppl have an issue with it why don’t actual artists actually try to make a play to try to work on movies?? I’m just saying it’s counterproductive to argue when you can just try to get into movies
I don’t think the film was anywhere near as good as everyone is claiming… absolutely not even 1 scary scene.. it’s more of a… thriller/drama imo.
It was super unique for sure! It was just was too hyped up for me…
I also didn’t get it really… did he kill his wife?? Was it cuz she held back his show? Why would her sickness hold back his show?? What’s with the tall trees thing? What was the meaning of the split head? What was with all the weird circus like scenes at the end? A hallucination or something?? It just didn’t explain much that I caught…
I excepted way more tbh
AI is just a tool somebody uses to create things, like any other. I will say though, I don't think you're going to have to wait 100 years for AI films that are made with prompts. The technology is already there. I'd give it maybe 10 years.
AI is scary in that it could replace core aspects of what makes art enjoyable to consume and create. I don’t like that, as a writer, it could take away some of the human touch of creating stories and getting them published. I also don’t like that people will throw a random prompt into an AI chatbot and try to pass it off as being in the same league as human-produced art. They did not have to put in the same work to produce it as someone who creates it in other ways. Maybe that sounds very gatekeeping of me, but it enables people who did not work as hard to perfect their craft to be thrust into the same league as those who did. It can be a fun thing to play around with when you put in a silly prompt, but when it replaces the human touch and integrity entirely, that’s when I have a problem.
On Reddit, one of the people who worked in the props department claimed that the changes were almost certainly made by producers between SXSW and the wide release. The alternative they offered was that somebody on staff did it last minute and, if that's the case, they will get found out and lose their job.
I’m still really on the fence about seeing this movie because of the AI. I was really excited for it, but now I’m just disappointed.
I do understand your point of why boycott a movie when so many other artists contributed, but I’m not sure if I agree. I think if we let something “small” slide, it may lead to companies thinking they can get away with “bigger” AI usage.
It’s a really tough spot and idk how I feel about it.
I’m really looking forward to your Immaculate review! I just saw it yesterday because you had posted on your Insta story that it made you cry 😅
Where was this concern for losing jobs when movies started to film on digital instead of film?
Plenty of jobs were lost, and the world kept turning.
Man, NOBODY, I mean NOBODY enjoys anything anymore. We're such a negative society. Why? Why does everything have to be bad?
Well Western civilization has become extremely dysfunctional and is in precipitous decline and under attack from multiple vectors, and many of us are going to suffer and die in the inevitable calamities to come, but people aren't willing to address the issues honestly because many of them are very uncomfortable because the truths are not what we have been brainwashed into believing, so instead people focus on pop culture trivialities and internet memes, but the negative feelings about the civilizational collapse bleeds through into the irrelevant pop culture "hot takes", plus the quality of the bread and circuses I mean entertainment have become lower quality, plus the world falling apart makes it harder to enjoy the entertainment. I deliberately wrote that as the mother of all run-on sentences, you're welcome.
Thank you, Alex Jones. Gotta grab my tin foil. @@smudge7057
Yes why wouldn't people enjoy an tool that steals from thousands of artists to regurgitate an shitty image that steals another artist's work, being pushed so art, something born out of passion, can be automated, while we work our shitty jobs like machines, why can't people enjoy this dystopic nightmare ????
The only thing I can think of being similar to this premise is a movie called Ghostwatch, that was made in 1993 and supposedly it had a lot of people upset because they thought it was a genuine BBC special.
I'm watching that soon.
Her saying this is a tired concept and done to death completely blew my mind. I don't think I've seen a reviewer just lie so blatantly in a review before. That was insanity
I'm boycotting and don't see my position changing as it becomes more prevalent. Yeah it doesn't support the other artists who worked on it but they chose do devalue their work by associating it with AI. It probably will continue to spread and be less detectable but that is no reason to dismiss it now. There are other films and I'll be fine missing this one.
a lot of them probably had no idea it was used since it was editing in post.
@@PossessedbyHorror and ? If they hired an sex offender to appear in the movie but a lot of people didn't know would that not justify an boycott ? An boycott would make more people inside the industry side against the use of "AI" generated images because of that
There is very little AI. This movie is so good that you can overlook it.
Just because you can overlook it doesn’t mean you should.
i dont get why people loved this movie. just watched it and it absolutely sucked
Agreed. This at best was a 3 outta 10. And the 3 is only for the 70s aesthetics.
Why do we have to have a conversations about it. People will use or they wont, people will like it or they won't. It will ruin part of the film industry or ti won't. Our conversation won't affect it one bit.