The Film Industry is About to Change Forever
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 04. 2024
- Get the 7-step roadmap - "How to Survive the Paradigm Shift": fastscreenplay.com/survive
In this video...
Jeff explains how MOST people are completely misunderstanding the Paradigm Shift that is massively, rapidly, and irrevocably transforming the film industry.
Most people perceive it to be a Shift "From human to AI" - and they're experiencing an existential crisis because of this misunderstanding.
In fact, the Paradigm Shift is "From groups with resources to Individuals with none" - and this opens up a world of opportunity for literally every human being on the planet... provided we understand HOW to survive in the NEW era.
On Thursday, April 25th at 1pm Los Angeles time...
Jeff is delivering a LIVE, 60-90 minutes FREE training to give you a detailed roadmap of how to survive the paradigm shift. (It's not as scary as you think - it's empowering and freeing!)
Prior to the event, you can purchase recordings of the training for $27.
After the event, you can buy the mini-course we'll be turning it into for $97.
OR... attend LIVE for FREE... and take lots of notes and screen capture the video or whatever other tactic you want to use to pull all the value for free. It's all good!
fastscreenplay.com/survive - Krátké a kreslené filmy
The industry workers, of which I am one (IATSE), are aware that AI is going to drastically reduce the need for manpower in every aspect of production.
The number of hours I have logged in crew positions is well into the thousands. So my heart is absolutely with the crew as this paradigm shift unfolds.
When the thing we do goes through a massive transformation like this, it creates as existential crisis. The thing to understand is that the job you do (or even the vocation you have spent your life on) is not synonymous with who and what you are. It’s what you’ve done and what skill set you’ve developed. And the reality is that all of life is change. The intrinsic value you have, which includes the skill set you have and the insights that come from it, remain. They’re still a part of you. And the way to navigate the future is to look for ways to bring your unique value to the new paradigm.
My focus is story, and writing, and indie filmmaking. So that’s where my instinct recommends you look. The stories you can imagine will be unlike anyone else’s story, which makes it a unique value that only you can bring. But if creating stories isn’t what you’re drawn to, there are an infinite array of other possibilities - it’s a matter of where you put your focus.
I often use the analogy of horse-drawn buggy drivers in the era when motorized vehicles were introduced. If the job goes away, that doesn’t make the driver obsolete; it only makes the job obsolete. The driver has infinite new opportunity in the world. And if all he’s passionate about is driving horse-drawn buggies, then the challenge becomes finding a way to do that even in a world where it’s not the norm. But it’s certainly not the only option.
I hope this helps. I promise you, even though the future won’t look like the past, it will look amazing.
@@fastscreenplay Well said.👍
@fastscreenplay All A.i will do is destroy filmmarking as once A.i becomes avaliable for everyone to use we will just get lots of rubbish films posted online by pepole with no care or appreciation for actual filmmarking and filmmarking will tragically become a lost art.once anyone can create films it will just become the new trash/spam content on the same level as content on tiktok and its sad that that's something you could be potentially pushing for and you mention that pepole must move on but what about all the inspiring filmmakers out there who may not now get the traditional/true filmmarking experience
@@RBrady266 AI is going to allow far more people to express themselves in the visual arts medium on screen. What's being eliminated is the need to approach multi billion dollar corporate gate keepers to finance our dreams.
Creatives who wish to express themselves are not seeking out AI to "tell them stories as determined by AI" but rather, allow US to tell our stories as we visualize them in our heads using AI tool-sets to help manifest the grandeur and physicality of those imaginary worlds without need for massive film crews and facilities on par with some sprawling military operation.
@@RBrady266 You are expressing one possible scenario - the least likely one. Check out another video on my channel called "The Catastrophic Glitch (Don't Panic). You are imagining a vision of the future based solely around your fears and your current understanding of both what we have now, what we once had, what this technology means, and how it will be implemented.
The truth is, none of us can predict the future, so you can't possibly know that your imagining of the future is accurate. (Nor can I know that mine is accurate.) But yours presupposes a lot of things that time (and my experience) have shown me to be completely incorrect.
Firstly, you assume that there would be no countermeasures to all the negatives you imagine. This is, at best, naive. Of course people will develop countermeasures to outcomes we don't find favorable.
Secondly, you completely overlook the fact that STORIES COEXIST. Story is non-competitive. You can tell a story that is beautiful and human and AI can tell a million stories that are "spam/trash/rubbish" and the audience can watch them all. Garbage does not prevent quality from rising to the top. (And lest you claim quality will get buried by all the "noise", you misunderstand the role of curation.)
Lastly, you clearly know nothing about me. I have been in the film industry for 40 years... I've been teaching for 25... because my goal is to launch the careers of a thousand filmmakers and tell a billion stories. You find it "sad" that I suggest writers and filmmakers embrace new technology to express themselves MORE creatively and with an even GREATER reach at a HIGHER financial return so they can live a life of pure creative pursuit?... If you think that's "sad", then we have very different ideas of the human experience.
You are scared of AI. I get it. But your fear is blinding you to the extraordinary nature of this moment. Open your mind. Rethink your assumptions. See the power of the tool. And step into the new era. It's gonna be okay.
On one hand, this has been happening in the music industry for decades already. With synthesizers and drum machines, you can just press a button and have a beat play automatically and then press an automation on a synthesizer and you'll get a melody started. It changed the way that music was made but that doesn't mean there arent traditional musicians still doing things the old-fashioned way.
On the other hand, you could argue that AI is different, because in the case of the drum machine and synthesizer, it was the human hand using a computer tool, but with ai, the computer IS the hand. That's the part of all this that makes it a little unsettling...
Yep... totally agree. The key to remember is that stories coexist. One does not replace the other. No matter how good AI gets, it can never replace your unique ability to tell stories only you can tell. The challenge is entirely around how well you can package that so that it delivers a value in the marketplace (assuming survival is the goal). And that boils down to simple business dynamics that have remain unchanged through all of it. The fear we have is that we won't have any value in the marketplace due to the outsized power of the "competitor" (AI or people using AI). But it's just an irrational fear if we focus on core principles.
Excellent video - Thank you!
So I don't think anything you said is wrong. I think it's a healthy way for you to look at it. However... It's a very writer/director/producer/storyteller centric view of the situation.
Alright, hear me out:
The main issue with your argument to me is that not everyone working in film has the potential or even interest in becoming a full fledged movie maker. In the "Legacy" version of the film industry, a film takes sometimes hundreds if not thousands of people to make. All of those people have a small but very important part to play. Maybe they work on set as a builder, first AC or best boy. Maybe it's in post as a compositor, animator or VFX lighting artist or even as a sound design or foley artist (Yep, AI definitely coming for their jobs too). Remember, all these people have been making a fairly good living all these years. Many of them are out of work due to the strikes last year. All of these people now eventually face either their jobs disappearing or pivoting into making their own films as you say. Does that really seem realistic? We're talking hundreds of thousands of people just in film industry (maybe millions, I don't know) will all just suddenly start producing their own AI content and the streaming services will just start buying/licensing it?
Sure, some of them can and will "Pivot" into this new roll. However, I believe the real tragedy of all of this is that the vast majority will not. I work in the industry and know the kind of people who work in it and it's not all top tier money people like writers, directors and producers. What about all the artists who have worked for 15-20 years honing their skills in some very specialized craft that's required to produce a movie today? What if they have never been trained in writing or storytelling. What if they are the kind of people who can really only be artist? Yes, everyone has stories and could potentially be a storyteller in the sense you're describing but how realistic is that? Becoming a writer takes years of practice to even understand how to craft a compelling and believable story. How many people have you met who have come to you and said, I think I want to become a screenwriter but end up struggling to come up with a compelling story?
Also imagine what you say does happen and tons of people from the film industry "Pivot" and start flooding the market with AI content? How much of that will be any good? And that's assuming the streaming services are even even able to deal with this. Sure it democratizes the film industry but you still need to get your movie seen.
What if it ends up that the only way to get your film seen by the public is through a web based platform like CZcams? Imagine now that instead of competing on a mostly level playing field with other Hollywood writers/directors/storytellers who know the rules, and have schedules for releases, now you're competing with everyone else too. Everyone from all walks of life. Anyone with a Sora or whatever Text To Video account comes along next. Imagine your voice is now being drown out by millions of 15-25 year old kids who are all more "Hip" to all the latest of pop culture. It will be like CZcams but for anonymous AI generated content. Assuming it even goes that way of course.
Sure, there maybe some gems that float to the top but yours will have to be insanely good and appeal to ALL audiences to even receive any notice. Basically it will be CZcams rules but for just regular film makers. Imagine that. Imagine having to fighting something like the CZcams Algorithm for views?
Now, what if all this bad AI content flooding in creates negative connotations associated with AI movies? There will probably be A lot people who will see that as a bad thing (just like how they perceive GCI as ruining movies today) and not even give it a chance. On some level people will just associate bad storytelling with AI (again, just like CGI). Now a days, when I see a thumbnail that was obviously AI generated, I tend to have a slightly negative bias towards that account.
Okay, so say everything goes right and it's not the apocalypse like I'm making it out to be. Maybe Netflix (or whomever) becomes sympathetic to the plight of all these people and starts licensing this content (most likely at a much reduced rate sine it cost a fraction to make) and things turn out all good for the most part. You have to consider that for most industry people who are pivoting to AI content, a lot of their job will become like most CZcams producers jobs today; you'll have to keep cranking it out because you get paid to little for it and you need to stay relevant. And a lot of your job will now be self promotion and social media. You know first hand what that's like and so do most independent filmmakers. Being a CZcams personality is a tiring life. Competition will be very high. Can you imagine if all your friends who work in other specialized parts of the film industry were all suddenly expected to pivot into that lifestyle?
I don't know... Does this really seem realistic and sustainable?
I know it just seems like I'm am like all the other Doomers bitching about AI but I would honestly love to hear your take on how this will play out in a positive way. Because, I have not heard anyone give a compelling argument in favor of AI art at all. All of them deny that AI will ever take anyones jobs and that there will always be a need for people to make movies/art. Most people completely misunderstand how AI even works in the first place. You seem to at least understand that right now, it may not seem like a viable tool for story telling but it's just going to keep getting better and better.
I accept what you’re saying. And I’m not a soothsayer; I’m a guy just like you trying to figure out how to navigate this paradigm shift. But my life experience includes an extreme decades-long deep-dive into human creativity. And as such, I understand (probably better than most) not only how unique every individual and their story capacity really are, but all the resistance to doing it. You ask if I think it’s realistic - I absolutely do.
Simple math suggests that the 1000 True Fans theory is enough to sustain a creative person. And the new tech coming online make that achievable if it’s coupled with business principles (ie focusing on what an audience wants to willingly pay for). Your fears (in my admittedly biased and admittedly subjective opinion) come from looking at the future through the legacy model. A paradigm shift is a paradigm shift. We need to understand that what today is a nontraditional distribution strategy, for example, may become the norm moving forward. If there are currently a million people about to be displaced in the film industry and each of them needs only find 1000 true fans, that would be easily achievable (mathematically). With overlap and an array of new possibilities opening up, I think there’s even more opportunity than I’m suggesting. It just needs to be considering from a different angle.
I’m also not suggesting that this is the only way. Not everyone needs to make movies. Not everyone needs to become storytellers. The free training will go into more detail than I could cover here. I see at least three primary paths: Story, Skills, and Solutions. A great many people (majority) will move into the latter two areas.
Bottom line: I don’t know what the future holds. But I do know that it holds AI. And that means the paradigm is gonna change. And that means we need a strategy for dealing with the change. And if we look creatively, I think we can see more reason to be optimistic than to despair.
💯Totally agree with your views on this shift. Looking forward to the Thursday talk!
Really enjoyed the video. Thank you!
Hi, Jeff! It's been years. I'll definitely find some time to attend on Thursday. Your videos helped me in the past.
Yes, my years of trying to help writers are starting to show on my face.
I wrote my first ever feature screenplay at 17 (I am 28 now) and I had no clue what anything mearnt but your videos carried me through it all. Thank you, Jeff! A hero.
how much did you sell it for
Thank you so much for this video! Became a fan and a subscriber after this!!!
Welcome aboard. Thanks for saying Hi!
You killed it man. hell of a rant
I think to get a funding for the project often helps to create better work. But there is a threshold at which this rule breaks. TOO many chiefs spoil the soup.
And if we look at the music business, it is true that more artist are able to get their music out there through streaming services, but only a few artist are able to make a living out of that.
True. But they haven’t seen my free training. ;) I believe what they’re missing is an understanding of value in the marketplace. I think this is the underlying thread - most artists are (rightly) focused on their art/creative expression first, whereas what people pay for is what is valuable to them. There is no need to make a living if one doesn’t want to, but if that’s the objective, then focusing on the audience’s needs (if even just a niche audience who loves what the artist does) is how that happens. It’s a balance, and it’ll be different for everyone. My aim is to help artists understand the principles, so they can choose more deliberately.
@@fastscreenplay That is true. As artist we struggle to think customer centered (and most company struggle with this too)
Besides this we also don’t own the platforms. This contains the risk that we replace one gatekeeper with another - the algorithm. That's why we need to build our independent network and platform.
And this is the hart job - to make a genuine direct connection to our audience.
I agree that’s the hard job - but it’s not as hard as it seems. It just requires understanding some time tested business principles (which is the whole reason I’m building the new resource I’m building - to help writers with that).
Been watching you for years, Jeff. I love that you've become the pied piper of AI cinema! This is indeed an exciting moment. I'm thrilled you're in the lead on this - it snaps right in to the FAST screenplay concepts you've been preaching forever!
Thanks Jeff. I don't know about pied piper of AI cinema, but hopefully the pied piper of using this technology to achieve our human goals rather than withering in the shadows because we're scared of it!
@@fastscreenplay I always come away from your videos inspired. What more could one ask for?
AI cinema... LMFAO! 🤣
@@skyko 🤦🏼♂️
Great info! I am curious as to the effect of AI and this video helps make some sense of what AI is how it may progress and affect us as writers.
Happy to help!
You might want to look into LA Castle Studios , they can put an entire movies together with just 4 or 5 people .. Below the line workers may never become obsolete but they will become minimal at best by the time the next IATSE contracts come up in 3 years after this one settles …if it settles ..
What I disagree with in your comment is the language. The workers won’t become obsolete, and using that language is precisely the problem. It’s the jobs that may or may not become obsolete. The workers are each unique individuals with whole worlds of imagination and story in their minds. And that is what they’ll need to focus on and use to begin the next chapter in the new era.
I don’t celebrate the loss of their job or their vocation, and I urge you to stop doing so, too (for the effect it has on your own thinking). Losing one’s job or vocation is frightening and sad. It’s just that the solution is to see within it the opportunity inherent in what comes next.
@@fastscreenplay The workers are already becoming obsolete .AI will replace most every below the line worker in this business. The unions are already admitting when these contracts are over business will never go back to what it once was . Work will consist of maybe 85 million hours of filming down from a high of 121 million hours and a low of 71 million hours during covid . The WGA and SAG both signed their death warrants when they signed those contracts . They protected the top 1% and left the rest out to starve .During the last strike the studios went out and hired AI technicians with a starting salary from anywhere from 300,000-900,000 a year to start . Studios have sunk billions with a B into AI ,to think they are just going to say let’s not use it is ludicrous at best . Nobody in this business has a secure job we are all day players even if you’re on the same show for 20 seasons be you a writer , actor , Teamster or IATSE member. Anyone who thinks they can change the dynamic of the industry is only fooling themselves and others . AI will come up with ideas faster and better than any human can produce and it can’t be stopped because the WGA and SAG/AFTRA both opened the door to let it in .
I'm wondering if current screenwriting software incorporates A.I. in any way. I used to write in Canada in the early aughts, so it's over twenty years. I was using Movie Magic Screenwriter with actual discs back then. I am sure you have some vids on the topic, but I just stumbled on the channel and found this video informative. Bit intimidated by the free cloud stuff/versions and since I'm kind of just getting back into practice mostly wondering what current preferences are or if any freeware is recommended.
The software doesn’t matter. The stories do. Don’t worry too much; there are plenty of options today. Just don’t use AI to write your stories for you. Use it as a tool to make you a better human writer. That’s what will pay off in the long run. Mark my words.
I haven’t touched AI yet but I’m nothing but excited about the opportunities it will bring.
'Thanks'... for reminding us that every new day is a new opportunity... to do new things, try new things, probably make the effort to write better... using new tools and ideas. 'Very Positive... thanks, and I trust you'll be launching your own 'new film, prodco, distrib bunch' as your approach to your vision.
Brian Couch
Toronto
You're correct from a scriptwriter and director POV. AI is scary for other industry workers, but it frees a lot of creatives. The bigger problem for the studios and other big broadcasters is piracy, which will decimate and is already decimating profitably, visual media is having it's Napster moment, but there isn't one Napster to blame, there are thousands of them. Piracy alone will put more people out of work than AI.
The smart people will apply AI to these problems and devise solutions. We already have the technology to solve these problems, we just don’t have the implementation at scale. Smart contracts and NFTs could authenticate content and distribute pay residuals; AI could scrape and identify pirated content and shut it down. Piracy only matters if there’s still a market for the thing being pirated, so if there is, then there’s a way to solve (or at least sufficiently address) the problem.
What I think, though, is that we’re looking at a paradigm shift, where even these concepts are obsolete. We tend to still look at the whole thing through the lens of yesteryear. But the technology is empowers us well beyond anything we have previously imagined or experienced.
@@fastscreenplay there was a school of thought that the future of music and film / tv was actually to give the content away for free and moneytize it in a way that didn't involve direct payment to access it. Which would cut out the pirates in theory. I made a low budget film and put it out for free on my own CZcams channel. In a year it's had 5,000 views on CZcams and 100 likes etc. I googled the film and can see it's had triple those views and downloads on more than one of the pirate sites, where my film sits alongside Hollywood content.
You either said that off the bat, or are very good at reading from the screen. Either way, you are very good. Totally agree with that you are saying. I am photographer - now it's youtube...
Haha, thank you for the compliment. That was off the cuff (I’m not reading anything) but in fairness, I’ve been doing this for a long time so I’ve put in my ten thousand hours. ;)
Your skill at asking questions of Large Language Models will be a major part of your future success.
You can get a lot of good feedback, but you have to do the work.
I've had AI's generate story ideas, and then go on to generate 120 scenes using the Hero's Journey Template.
They still needed a lot of work to create a usable script.
Yeah, I hear that. The real skill, I think, will be in knowing which questions to even ask. And this is why AI is a tool, rather than a solution.
Thank you for your thoughts on this important subject. Fellow screenwriter here, I especially enjoy the fact that the paradigm is shifting to a new one where it could possibly democratize the process even more. Thinking about the subject, I considered the idea of the holodeck in Star Trek and holonovels. One can write a page and cover real book that Picard will read down the line, or write a holonovel that Lt. Barclay or Ensign Kim can enjoy on the holodeck. Both involve storytelling, just in very different forms, and both can be enjoyed on a fundamental level.
I think this is the right way to look at it. Obviously, Star Trek is our then-current imagination of the future, so it’ll be off by a wide margin. But the idea of a future that looks different to our own time, and that has different forms of storytelling, commerce, daily activity, ambitions… that is the reality. Things change. And we adapt to and live in the new world. AI is part of our world now, and increasingly in our future. What does that look like? Nobody can say. I can’t say. The detractors in my comments can’t say. But we do know that it’s different to today, as today is different to yesteryear. Personally, I know we can adapt and roll with it, because that’s the nature of the human experience. I look forward to the stories of tomorrow, and the ways in which they’re told.
I agree with your optimism but what’s giving people anxiety is how exactly films are going to be distributed. Remember scarcity increases value so if everyone is a filmmaker and making professional films the value of movies (which has already declined) is going to depreciate. On the other hand the demand for content is incredibly high with streaming so I would predict most films that do well on social will get subscription deals similar to what’s going on today.
Yes, but as I mentioned in another comment here (and in other videos on my channel) this fear comes from looking at the problem through the lens of the legacy model. Scarcity does increase value, and every individual has a unique window on the world - the ultimate in scarcity. Thinking that we are “competing” with one another is to imagine that story is competitive, which it’s not. We need to focus on the value proposition. I go into this in more detail in the free training tomorrow. But what you’re highlighting is exactly the problem I’m tackling.
I'm hoping it just drives the costs down a bunch. Big actors and executives get paid way too much money.
I get that perspective. But from the inside, the economics of that make sense. Actors bring marketing value so they are in demand on projects, which enables them to go to the highest bidder. And it’s worth it for the producer because of the added value they bring to the project (being able to get it seen when it might not otherwise). As for executives, their roles can be quite opaque to the outside, so it’s hard to appreciate what value they bring. But if they choose a winner over a money-loser, that has value to the company. And there’s a ton of nuance that goes into all this that just can’t be fully appreciated unless you’ve seen it in action. I don’t know too many executives that are genuinely not worth their rate. It’s competitive like anything - if they can get paid better elsewhere, they go, so a company pays a premium to have them. There are a ton of executives who are unsung heroes.
But anyway, I get your point, and the ability to drive down costs or do more with less is a net benefit in my opinion, too.
As usual, fantastic insights. I DO agree that people will still be at the creative epicenter of the process.
However, in regards to the legacy model vs the new: the real fear that lies beneath the perceived easy button that is AI is that the legacy model will still maintain control of the overall process and result in a hyper extension of consolidated gate-keeping because even fewer will now be capable of outputting so much more.
Thus, the same problem remains in regards to the rest of the field being able to explore our intrinsic values with the production capacity of Hollywood: the same old people (and their best friend's, sister's, cousin's girlfriend, etc.) Erect an even denser dome over opportunities so that they can gift the market with the bext Madame Web or Revel Moon.
It seems to me that AI needs a few more generations of advancement in visual effects and production value for individuals to bypass the Hollywood machine all together because I don't believe the financial gatekeepers will allow for enhanced partnership with the field because that too, would be considered an unnecessary, financial risk - even on a micro scale.
Yeah, I just think that fear is entirely imaginary. I don’t see how that could possibly be the way it plays out because of how technology evolves. I think there will be a concerted effort to continue gatekeeping, sure, but its long-term futility is certain.
These tools bring power into the hands of individuals. They level the playing field. Individuals will have the same tools the “gatekeepers” have, which means creativity and quality win - and that can come from anywhere. But even “winning” is a misnomer, because the paradigm is shifting, and I just don’t see it working that way. I think when we really wrap our heads around how things are changing, it’s much bigger and more profound than even the legacy structures we have always known. If I create a movie you want to pay me to see, no one else matters. Do it enough, and we each survive doing what we love.
I would like to see an analysis on economics 101 principles being tried against post scarcity markets, such that the creative industry is increasingly becoming. Also. As a wishful creator myself, when I look to study a contemporary text I am at a loss for a good quality comparison. It's difficult to improve my craft when the average quality of similar works are so low. Furthermore, as a would be consumer, to try and find good quality works I end up paying curation sites like yt and their algorithm, such sites that the creators posting to those placed are slaves to the algorithm. In conclusion, in the future it seems the only ones reliably earning money from creative works are these engines and software license companies. Of course, I've not earned any money off of MY creativity as yet, I have paid money in the endeavour though. If creativity is socialised like this, who gets to keep their house?
Value is subjective. You’re assuming that will change because of algorithmic analysis, and I think that is overlooking the fundamental nature of human perception.
The whole idea of “post scarcity markets” (where there’s so much quantity the underlying thing loses its value) is just a new variable we have to account for. If you become a “market-of-one” by offering something the market values that only you can deliver, there is no “post scarcity”. You are scarce by definition. This is my whole point. Lean into it. Develop it. Package it. That will look different to the legacy paradigm. So we may need to use (or invent) new models. That’s part of what adapting to the new paradigm is all about.
If CZcams (or whomever)‘s algorithms only serve up what you consider to be low quality, then in theory you should be able to game that to your advantage. (I would argue that worry is theoretical rather than realistic as it’s far more likely that it’s our quality that is insufficient to get noticed by the algorithm.) I’m a perfect example. I think I make great, thought-provoking videos but I languish with low view counts - I don’t get picked up by the algorithm for wider distribution, typically. But the reality is this is a niche topic and my videos are talking-head which most will find boring. Is that the algorithm limiting me? Or is it my lack of skill at delivering entertaining content when I only have a half hour to put something together?
If you genuinely believe you can’t find quality to learn from or model, I think that’s disingenuous. If you perceive it all to be poor quality, simply make what you imagine and test it. If your value assessment is accurate, your content should be better than what’s out there and you’ll get traction. What I’ve found, personally, is that when I lament the poor quality I perceive, it’s because I’ve always done so from an armchair critic perspective - doing the work of making actual attempts to create my own better quality content reveals the nuances of the reality of my “low quality” perception (ie, I discover it ain’t as easy as it looks)… which ends up making clear in my mind why the algorithm works the way it does.
Art is hard to do well. My advice to any aspiring artist is to refrain from criticism and judgment, and instead focus on reasons and dynamics and principles, and the path forward becomes a whole lot clearer. And achievable. Regardless of the quantity of “competition” or the nature of the algorithm.
You are simply a marvelous gentleman for putting this together with such elegancy and follow through. AI is going to be the single biggest dissapointment Hollywood has ever seen. While it is very capable it is not human. In cannot dream, it cannot exzillerate where it has to to create the drama of the human expression that impresses and inspires the soul. There will be so many empty dead losses like Promethius that there will only be the the same drivel we are seeing now that appear to shoot for the blockbuster realm. It takes people. It takes dreamers. It takes humans to entertain humans. Inspiration cannot be programmed into a computer.
I appreciate the kind words, but don’t fall into the trap of imagining that Hollywood is not filled with extraordinarily creative people, dreamers, visionaries, and simply wonderful human beings. There are exceptions, as there are anywhere, but my experience has been that, broadly speaking, there is massive talent and kindness and humanity in Hollywood. And that’s partly WHY I’m not afraid of the paradigm shift - because I know just how much creativity there is out there.
Hollywood is often derided for its output or its politics or its greed or whatever. But I believe that’s all a natural by-product of the size and scope of the projects it has to make for the industry it has to sustain. I think it’s really hard to understand from the outside, and even its opaque nature is part of how it needs to function to survive. But simply needing millions of dollars to make a movie creates a power dynamic that has a whole lot of downline implications. You need privacy to protect your IP so you can market it without losing your shirt, you need authority hierarchies to keep the train on its tracks, you need thematic agendas to connect with wide enough audiences… all of these things manifest with some negative impacts on people along the way. It’s the nature of the beast. I think people do their best to juggle and balance. Or, that’s been what I’ve witnessed in my journey, anyway.
The paradigm shift being one from money/resources to none, simply spreads it out, which can help to overcome some of the problems with Hollywood. But it does remove some of what makes it great, too. And that’s why I think Hollywood will survive (though in a different form with different power structures) - because it IS filled with creative people. I think they’ll find and invent some pretty creative solutions. And I’m eager to see what unfolds.
its gonna be a long time before we have the computational power, from a hardware perspective, for people to prompt Ai to create custom motion pictures ..
Check out Sora. It’s here, and it’s evolving faster than you may think.
Just make movies yourself and own them the 17k imax camera is out in December
Yep. As long as you know how to monetize them.
It has happened in the music business. The problem is not AI it is giving an unskilled person the resources to make music?movies that are cookie cutter but take up space in the market place this devalues what a skilled artist does and makes it impossible to make a living doing your art. it has already started. the market is flooded with product, distributers no longer give out MG's streamers pay pennies. it is what it is but the days of having an actual skill in the creative arts and it being worth a livable wage are few. yes you can adapt and make no budget films like everyone else and live off the minimum wages. just my two cents
I was with you till the end. The idea that you’re stuck making minimum wages is an idea born of the legacy model. If you are bringing value to the market, the market will pay for that value. If you are creating commodity films, they will be devalued. Instead, create uniquely valuable films. It will change how you see the who paradigm shift.
DUDE! The film industry HAS ALREADY collapsed. It was OVER circa 2005. Ever since then, there has been this major "Progressive" or Globalist" or "LGBTQRX709" agenda that the MAJORITY of people despise with every bone in their body. The young kids may fall for this, but none of us will watch ANY of it. I'm fine with independent cinema and reruns of classics.
That’s a mighty broad brush ya got there. Rage on, my friend. Every human being has a unique window on the world. Tell your stories.
🎉
Interesting video. Thanks for posting it.
I don't work in film or TV any more but i have friends who still do. Here's my take:
•The $800 studio project was probably not pulled because of AI alone. It's likely that commissioning decisions by Netflix, Apple or Amazon were at least a significant factor. It's bad PR to blame your paymasters. It's safer to blame Sora.
• Hollywood will commission, get and protect high end text to video. It will understand "screenplay" prompts and probably use virtual production design that will still be labour intensive. It will be a long time before an auteur can control all the elements in a shot in the same way as a director has control of all the elements in the legacy production model. AI doesn't construct an image from components as we understand them- it works with surface impressions.
•Yes, there will be a new cinematic paradigm and we will get to see movies that would never have happened. Bring it on. We saw this with movies shot on 16mm and camcorders. New production paradigms will be AND not OR - they will be another tool not an alternative.
•If you want to keep on top of AI then learning how to text prompt effectively might be a good idea because older directors have been conditioned to getting exactly what they ask for and right now AI doesn't do that.
•Ask yourself why people post demo movie trailers made with AI and not demo scenes that build emotion. Explosions are easy, emotions are difficult.
I agree in principle. Check out my last ten videos or so. I’ve made all these points as well. AND not OR. All of it will coexist.
@@fastscreenplay
Thanks. I subscribed and took a look at some of your other videos. Lots of it resonated with me. I'm really glad I found your channel.
@@richardhall5489 Me too! Reach out if you want me to address anything specific.
You have totally given me hope. I've been script writing for years, but it always seemed a lost cause to reach that goal of having someone purchase and produce when the industry is such a tight market. I've started learning UE5 so that I can create my own stories and it looks like using AI would be the obvious next step. I will be working during your seminar, but I will definitely purchase it. Thanks.
I'm going to express my disagreement with you as cordially and balanced as I possibly can.
First of all, I fully acknowledge and appreciate your enthusiasm and hope for the future. That is an admirable quality to have, and is seldom seen during the bleak times we're living through. Hope for the future is an essential step in our march forward, both individually and collectively, and is something I aspire to. Going into this video, I was interested to hear what you had to say and possibly even see things a bit differently.
Suffice to say, it has only made my stance stronger. Before I delve into our differences, let me say that A) the idea of self-published art is enticing and B) I don't deny that human creativity will be possible within the realm of AI. But let's just get real for a second: it WILL stifle artistic expression, especially when placed in the hands of studio executives -- or, at least, the worst of them.
I'm surprised you failed to mention actors. Along with good dialogue, direction, cinematography, music, etc., actors are what REALLY bring filmed media to life. An AI replication of a performer, be they already existing or yet to exist, fundamentally lacks the varied, nuanced, and raw emotions and life experiences of a human being. While it may be able to replicate them, it does not have them. It isn't sentient. Human beings are. The human experience is called that for a reason; we live and feel it in a way that no other being ever could, especially not AI. It may replicate, or perhaps duplicate, the idiosyncrasies of human expression, but it will never have it, and thus will always be inauthentic, and in the cases of deceased performers, extremely disrespectful.
Another thing which you completely left out of your argument is that in the Capitalist system we all live under, goods and services are produced solely for profit -- specifically, that of corporations, and even more specifically, its executives and shareholders. As you mentioned, human labor is expensive, possibly the most expensive part of a business. How do companies maximize their profit? Cut labor costs. How do you do that? Cut the laborers themselves. What's the most effective way to do that? Replacing them.
One example which comes to mind is the takeover of ride share platforms, such as Uber and Lyft. Before this advancement, taxicabs were a common way to get around the city, or get from point a to point b without having to drive. In comes Uber. What happens to the taxi drivers? Under one system, it would be great for them: easier and better jobs with better wages and higher quality. Great!
Except, what's the reality? In our system, those taxi drivers are now suddenly out of work, including drivers who've put in YEARS of time and labor into what they do, and along the way, established a living that provides for them and their loved ones. Then, Uber comes along, and suddenly, that living is taken from them, and they struggle to adapt. Then, if self-driving cars came along, and what happens to the Uber drivers?
The reason why so many studios are wet for AI is because it's an efficient way to make money. Honestly, AI at its worst is exactly the same as many of these executives: something devoid of creativity or artistic integrity. The idea that AI technology will lead to some sort of creative renaissance and not be exploited and/or used against independent artists is both idealistic and unrealistic.
A computer-generated product might be more symmetrical, time efficient, or in a technical sense of the word "higher quality" than a human product. But I would argue that the imperfections of human art is EXACTLY what makes it SUPERIOR to computer art. Could one be used to compliment the other? Absolutely. Human beings CAN use technological advancement to their benefit. But in many cases, a human-made film set will still have more character because of the physical effort and TLC only doable by real people (granted, it does depend on the genre). Cheaply-made paint blood from a schlocky 70s horror flick is still more realistic than badly-done CGI blood. Neither are good, necessarily, but whatever cheesy paint blood was used back then is still physical matter, and so it does, in a way, blend better with reality.
I know that many will say that I'm acting like a typical cranky old man bemoaning change and failing to embrace the future. But honestly? That kind of sounds like gaslighting. It could easily be interpreted as: "Your own filmmaking preference is obsolete and unrealistic, so you better get with the times and deal with it." Sorry, I'm not gonna sacrifice my artistic integrity, nor my visions for anything, and I encourage everyone out there to do the same. There are certain things that are timeless, and human-made art is one of them.
AI might be a massive step forward for technology, but could be a massive step back for the human creativity which has defined literally all of human history, and enhanced billions of lives. If you think that sounds old fashioned, call me a dinosaur all you want. It won't stop me from doing what I love, nor should it stop anybody.
I’ve addressed all three points in other comment responses, but I wish you great success!
@@fastscreenplayGlad to see others are pushing back.
@@mixmastercj100 Me, too! I just wish they were hearing my message rather than just pushing back against the technology - which I have no control over and nothing to do with. I am 100% AI agnostic. I’m not for it or against it. I’m for human storytelling and human beings living their best life in the moment in which they’re in. All the pushback ignores that, wanting to instead rage against the situation. And unfortunately, I think it sidesteps a much deeper and more profound conversation.
Ah, well.
@@fastscreenplay I hear you. You seem like a decent guy, and I truly believe you when you say you value human storytelling. You clearly have years of experience in this field, and it seems to me that your heart is in the right place.
I just think there should be a balance of the pendulum, where people who prefer not to use artificial intelligence get to do so and still reach their fullest potential, without having to worry about being drowned out or excluded. I don’t think we should all be Luddites and completely reject 21st century technology, because as you said, it ain’t going nowhere. Still though, there are certain things that have worked for years that just can’t afford to be stamped out. Shooting on film, practical effects, props, actors, cinematographers, etc. The human touch is timeless, and AI (and by extension CGI) should be used only when it’s literally impossible to be done realistically by people.
Hope that makes sense. :)
@@mixmastercj100 It makes total sense. But if you hear my message, I believe (adamantly) that both will coexist. We WILL be able to make films the legacy way. I don’t believe that’s going to disappear. It’ll just get flipped, so it’s the niche and the other way is the mainstream. Think vinyl. It was nearly wiped out until its fans revived it. Now it’s a huge industry again. I think legacy filmmaking won’t even disappear. The paradigm just shifts. Even horse-drawn buggy drivers in the new era of motorized vehicles could find ways to continue doing it if they were truly passionate about it.
The paradigm shift is not away from one technology toward another. It’s from a requirement for money and resources to empowerment for those who have none. That’s a big change with many implications. And navigating the bumpy road is all I’m talking about here. Hope this helps!
Ok so what you are saying is for every individual creator to embrace AI, form small teams and create their own independent creations making full use of these new tools. That sounds great and exciting. However, their creations are still going to be competing with the big Hollywood players who have bought out distribution and marketing. The issue with professional filmmakers is that producers and studios are increasingly opting to shortcut by hiring fewer creatives 'workers' or get away by underpaying creative workers using AI. It is not just a matter of the quality of the work, every filmmaker is pitted against a gigantic corporate machinery that has a lot of money thrown for it to succeed. Even if a few original indie filmmakers break big in this 'new era' the industry is by and large pretty fucked.
Does every single filmmaker have to create their own vertical business structure from script to production to distribution and marketing? Isn't it an absolute failure of the industry if that's what every artist has to do? Why are there no penalization on the big studios for the day light theft that is happening?
Personal responsibility and optimization can only eek out a few more years, but there needs to be more money coming into the industry that can support creators wanting to create cinema. Not just working on big holly wood Studio franchise movies or Brand commercials. There are THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE STRIKING ALL ACROSS NORTH AMERICA. This is not just about shifting your perspective and thriving. People are organizing and fighting for their rights.
With all due respect, you're thinking about the problems, the blame, and the future through the lens of the legacy paradigm. Yes, technically self-published cinema will be "competing" with Hollywood filmmakers, but that "competition" in the new era exists on a level playing field.
As I explain in the video (and several other videos, if you care to explore), STORIES COEXIST. They are not directly competitive. Studios can create films, you can create films, AI can create films, humans can create films... and the audience can watch ALL of them. If you create stories people want to watch, and figure out how to distribute to them, you can build an audience in the new era much more easily than you could in the legacy paradigm. But you're only considering the problem of yesteryear rather than incorporating the new realities of tomorrow.
Does every filmmaker have to create their own ecosystem? Of course not. There will be all sorts of new combinations of options. But if they want to, they can. Who says it's "what every artist has to do", though? Why would they? This just completely overlooks the tools and options the new era has thanks to these very technologies.
"paradigm shift is coming....and you should pay me to explain it" Can you also explain what the book sellers should do now that they invented the radio
Umm… did you see that the training is free? :)
@@fastscreenplay Attend my free timeshare seminar
You can make a movie with no budget now using a dslr, and you could 5 years ago. If you knew After Effects, you could add all kinds of effects like the ones you describe. But most people who did this never got distribution of any kind. The really clever ones did. This at every tech junction. For example, only **one** non-budget iPhone shot movie got distribution. One. The thing is, the audience wants gatekeepers. They don't want to have to sift through 1 000 000 options. They don't have the time. So, one way or another you are always faced with the same problem. Even on CZcams. The algorythm is the gatekeeper
Check out five and ten year old videos on my channel - I’ve been saying this is possible the whole time. :)
As to the distribution question, I agree with your identification of the larger problem (What I’m aiming to present is a solution), but no, it’s incorrect to say that only one iPhone movie got distribution. Perhaps only one got traditional distribution - but the whole point is that we’re entering a new paradigm. Traditional distribution is getting disrupted too. The algorithm is the gatekeeper for its platform, not the whole ecosystem.
It’s fascinating that you have some level of prescience on where this technology is going but then discard other areas it is going towards if it conflict with your optimistic outcome… as well as cite other industries (music) with clearly optimistic stance one how all that has been shaking out.
You might want to take the temperature outside of the musicians or working folk in that industry before you cite it as a positive… “free” or low cost distribution have been a total net negative for working musicians who didn’t already have a large audience, the handful of break through TikTok artists do not account for the millions of artists who are unable to turn a profit off of millions of streams… this doesn’t even account for artists who have 100’000’s of streams before you get to the many tiers below that.
And AI isn’t actually comparable to what the internet did to music… we will in all likelihood of putting the current known technologies prompt to generate entertainment… and it will not be good for either medium.
It’s fascinating that people seem to not want to cite what has happened in the freelance drawing field… as it would offer lessons optimists don’t want to address… seemingly because it offers some very real insights as to what lies ahead when AI is good enough for general audiences.
This industry is already imploding under the weight of the variety of selections audiences have to spend free time and a movement towards short for media when it comes to passive entertainment.
With respect, you are cherry-picking soundbytes from what I said rather than the full-context nature of what I said, and using it to support a straw man argument.
Of course AI is different. Radically so. That’s the point. It’s a paradigm shift. Your whole pushback is built on the assumption that the future looks like the past. Whereas my position is that this is a genuine paradigm shift and will end up looking radically different in almost every way.
You talk about “the industry” when my whole argument is that “the industry” is about to change forever, and you’re assessing my optimism at what it is likely to become with metrics entirely form what has been.
Yes, the problems you describe are real. In the old paradigm. But what is missing from all of your examples are the very things I’m teaching - value in the marketplace, the paths that apply tested business principles to it, and nontraditional distribution strategies (all of which are made possible, in part, by the new paradigm).
I accept your fear and your pessimism. I just see it quite differently. And not because I’m blind to the challenges you mention, but because of them.
This is an 18:47 minute CZcams video that could be 5 minutes.
You think? I think it could be about 12 or 13 minutes, but I think condensing it to 5 would strip it of several vital points.
In any event, I had an hour to get this done. I either do talking-head or it doesn’t get done. I thought the former would be of more value to more people. Sorry you disagree. Try watching on 2x next time if that helps. (It’s the only way I can watch them back myself.)
Urgh. I am sorry if this comes across as aggressive but I feel this is such a tech bro fad mentality with arrogance and ignorance. If this takes hold I think it will seriously damage the quality of films in the future.
First of all, the writer tells the 'story'? No!! The story that the audience see is told through a collaboration between Writer, Director, HoDs, Actors, Editors, Composers etc. There are so many decisions, and one person writing prompts and clicking on sliders in AI software will never be as good as multiple people with life experience and craftsmanship. You aren't about to get AI to block and stage sequences better than Stanley Kubrick, AI compose music better than a custom made Trent Reznor score, or use software sliders to get acting better than Philip Seymour Hoffman. Filmmaking is about TASTE, not just technical ability to execute. A normal low budget movie wouldn't be able to hire the best talent so what it doesn't matter I hear you say? Perhaps you envision a two track system, with large studio traditional cast and crew films, and literally $0 budget AI indie films? Then where do you think the next generation of directors, crew, actors, editors etc. get to cut their teeth? Where can they get their start and learn?? Do you actually plan to grow your skillset to be as good as all those roles - even with mediocre craftsmen - combined? I doubt it.
This kind of attitude will likely make, at best, CGI sloppy shit with generic looks. The idea you can create with computers that are trained on existing data is also flawed. They cannot generate things on the edges, extreme things, interesting things - they are a reduced average, from multiple (oft stolen) sources. The biggest indie breakout films - Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, Searching - were all fundamentally original methods of telling a story with novel camerawork/editing. And what does this look like in 30 years? When AI films are based on other AI films, or will they still be using data from films made up until the year 2025? You'd struggle to keep up with the zeitgeist, never see a unique new creature design as intricate as the Xenomorph, or camerawork as aggressively novel as Natural Born Killers, or soundscape as original as Under the Skin. At this point, with how neural networks work, you cannot have the same precision in tweaking so many aspects as you can in conversations with human beings.
Will audiences even respect AI based work? We don't watch robots running races in the Olympics - even though they could go faster - we watch people. Film, art and all culture are intrinsically human things about human society. Already there is a perception that AI art is shit - after people are burned the first ten times, will they really be curious to watch another AI film? I can see AI use in limited applications to speed up CGI, deal with non creative jobs or help fix sound issues, but to make all the other creative roles and people redundant would result in worse films. You would also lose the marketing of charismatic stars, beautiful celebrities, stories from set, making of documentaries etc. The business needs stars, it needs taste filters, or we all drown in algorithm shit much like on CZcams. "Like, Comment and Subscribe while I try to pawn off this other product sponsorship and buy my course? My next film will be made in 2 weeks because otherwise the algorithm will ignore me and I won't have enough income." Yaaay, and I'm sure that will be just as incredible as American History X. Films are art - they aren't 'content'. The good ones stay in your mind because they connect, they are emotional, they are dense with skilled work in multiple areas that took months if not years - they are fundamentally an expression of humanity.
Most of the problems in the film industry today are because non film lovers took over the industry. They want limitless growth for shareholders, they want a manufacturing line, they want no risk. This creates a cycle of franchise, sequel prequel remake etc. However you can only go to the well so many times before people tire of another Fast and Furious or Disney live action remake. Studio bosses should retreat from their entire slate being $150mil + and instead lose a tentpole from their schedule and make fifteen $10mil films instead - I bet they would have a breakout smash hit, create many more future franchises, stars and careers doing this.
Tech bros also brought us streaming, which hurt the business and this new model is not truly sustainable or sensible. It was always about destroying the old model, taking marketshare and then starting the process of enshitification. This final stage has begun, with worse productions, shrinking catalogues and higher subscription costs. This is the real paradigm shift going on. It is true, production budgets need to reduce and the industry probably has to shrink due to increased audience time competition from internet / video games. But the actual films? Audiences showing up for Oppenheimer and Barbie strongly suggest people respond to ensembles of master craftsmen: auteurs + stars + quality + originality. In other words, the inverse of generic AI.
What we need is for streaming to keep increasing costs and fully morph into cable (with perhaps a no-advert tier for a very high sum) then TVOD model to take off. You pay per film, but it's cheaper than a DVD / cinema ticket, because you don't have the expense of plastic or land rental rates/staff. Critically though, quality films earn directly and pull away as people are more discerning when their money is on the line for a specific film vs. a steaming all you can eat bundle. Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I would prefer to see 5 truly great individuals films for $25, than 20 poor / straight to TV movies for $25/mo?
Culturally, we need to deal with the damage smartphones + internet + apps are doing to mental health - especially with regard to attention spans and maintaining focus. TikTok addicts struggle to watch a 90+ minute film, and this is not only an existential threat to all long form films, but to the addicts health and future. There should be societal discussion about whether social media has been more damaging than good - if we should look at the platforms like a restricted drug due to individuals brain damage + societal cohesion risks. If no gov action happens, then it's quite likely we will see an organic class divide between those that shun/restrict social media being happier with better focus and productivity, and those addicts with ADD + Depression + Isolation + Conspiracy Theories + Misinformation. The first group with dismiss AI films, the second will love the AI content, as it will be perfectly created to give them a tiny endorphin rush every 15 seconds whilst making them numb to true joy / thought / curiosity / pleasure / introspection / need I go on?
TLDR:
Team > One person
Charismatic beautiful human stars > None to market with
Training next generation > No-one else with a job
Humans more impressed by human with talent > AI based material
Truly original novel creativity > Average from multiple data sources
Culturally relevant zeitgeist > Data going back years
Higher customisation control > Limits based on what sliders AI gives you
Taste > Algorithm
Curated Media > Social Media Platform
High quality individual film > Bundles of crap films
The true Paradigm shift needed? Recontextualize the value of film - raise prices and stop consumers treating them as disposable 'content'. Prioritise peoples health and stop them damaging brains with so much algorithm based social media. Personally, I would like the films of the future to be as creative, original and artistic like so many of the films of the 90s were, not a flooded marketplace of lower quality, machine made content, shouting for attention with less quality craftsmanship behind it.
PS. Sorry for such a long rant, but well done with the CZcams algorithm bait!! I see you replying to all these comments, you're playing the internet game the right way for clicks!
It may surprise you to know that I don’t disagree with the majority of what you said. I’m on your side, whether you choose to believe it or not. And it’s funny that you think of this as a “tech bro” perspective - I’ve been in the film industry for over 40 years, I’ve done literally every job you named with my own two hands, and I’ve taught screenwriting (without AI) for 25 years now. I love all the things you do, and I see all the social ills you do (and value teams and apprenticeship as you do).
Unfortunately, you’re raging against me because of your misunderstanding of both the technology and the moment. I didn’t create AI. Hell, I don’t even teach people to use it the way you’re railing against me for. I’m just a realist and a guy who recognizes that it’s less foolish to imagine where current trends are heating than it is to pretend we’re living in an era frozen in amber. Things change. Tech evolves. And the paradigm will shift whether we rage against it or not. Don’t shoot the messenger. Particularly when he’s trying to find ways to navigate the shift.
The cynical accusation that I’m clickbaiting is disingenuous, and you know it. (Or you would if you watched even a fraction of the 120 hours of content on my channel going back ten or twelve years.) I’ve made a compelling case and you’ve ranted against it not on its own merits but on the injustice of the evolution of human progress. I hear you. I sincerely do. I just also appreciate that no amount of fighting turns back the clock. So I appreciate the joy of the era we lived through, and I open my arms to whatever exciting new things await. And I would love nothing more than for you to join me.
THANK YOU.
What the WGA didn’t destroy SAG/AFTRA killed the rest ..
Not sure what that means, but I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with my video. :)
You're wrong. Even the "intrinsic" value wil be catered for by an ai model 😢
Interesting. And how exactly does the AI live my life? By what mechanism does that occur?
@@fastscreenplay your life isn't that exceptional or unusual. Even if it is, there will be a "variable" input for that ☹️
what till AI has it's own ideas and has it's own imagination! AI visual effects will be nice.
Depending on your definition, it’s already in the early stages of it.
Sir, with due respects,...you have given no new info and roll sentences that go nowhere,.. sorry,..
🥲
It’s just going to mean your original uniquely human experience based stories can rise to the top of a sea of cookie cutter shit spit out by AI
In agree and disagree simultaneously. Your uniquely human stories (presented to an audience that wants to pay for them - a key point I think people are overlooking here) will rise to the top over cookie cutter material. But don’t underestimate AI. It’s more creative than people who don’t keep up with it think, and will soon write as good or better than a human can. The point is that it doesn’t matter because stories coexist, so if your stories are unique and have value (or are coupled with value), audiences will still watch yours.
@@fastscreenplay I am content to live on a farm with some animals and let people consume meaningless shit if they want.
We each live a unique life journey. If that’s what you want to do, you go for it. That ain’t my jam, but I respect if it’s yours. Happy farming!
I'm currently working with a screenwriter. We are using AI's to improve his script. We are impressed with help we are getting.
The film industry will be profoundly affected by the problems that the "vaccines" have caused.
I like the first half of your comment, but don't understand the second half. :)
Infomercial. Waste of time.
Infomercial for a free training. Hmm. Interesting take. :)
I’m sorry you can’t see the value of the message. I wish you extraordinary success regardless.
@@fastscreenplay If it was less than five minutes it would have been fine. What you said could have been done in five minutes. Thats all. Just too long. I wish you the best.
@@lincolnabc1 Fair enough. I disagree, though, so I guess it’s good that I’m the one that made it. ;) I wish you the best, too!
:LOL
?
All A.i will do is destroy filmmarking as once A.i becomes avaliable for everyone to use we will just get lots of rubbish films posted online by pepole with no care or appreciation for actual filmmarking and filmmarking will tragically become a lost art.once anyone can create films it will just become the new trash/spam content on the same level as content on tiktok and its sad that that's something you could be potentially pushing for and you mention that pepole must move on but what about all the inspiring filmmakers out there who want to experience the traditional way of filmmaking they may now not get the opportunity to experience such a thing
The way you feel about traditional filmmaking is the same way I feel about punctuation. So I guess we’re even. ;)
(Just giving you a hard time. Read through other comments here as I’ve written endlessly on this complaint.)