Disney Creates Task Force To Explore AI and Cut Costs (reuters.com) 96
Walt Disney has created a task force to study artificial intelligence and how it can be applied across the entertainment conglomerate, even as Hollywood writers and actors battle to limit the industry's exploitation of the technology. From a report: Launched earlier this year, before the Hollywood writers' strike, the group is looking to develop AI applications in-house as well as form partnerships with startups, three sources told Reuters. As evidence of its interest, Disney has 11 current job openings seeking candidates with expertise in artificial intelligence or machine learning.
The positions touch virtually every corner of the company - from Walt Disney Studios to the company's theme parks and engineering group, Walt Disney Imagineering, to Disney-branded television and the advertising team, which is looking to build a "next-generation" AI-powered ad system, according to the job ad descriptions. One of the sources, an internal advocate who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said legacy media companies like Disney must either figure out AI or risk obsolescence. This supporter sees AI as one tool to help control the soaring costs of movie and television production, which can swell to $300 million for a major film release like "Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny" or "The Little Mermaid." Such budgets require equally massive box office returns simply to break even. Cost savings would be realized over time, the person said.
The positions touch virtually every corner of the company - from Walt Disney Studios to the company's theme parks and engineering group, Walt Disney Imagineering, to Disney-branded television and the advertising team, which is looking to build a "next-generation" AI-powered ad system, according to the job ad descriptions. One of the sources, an internal advocate who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said legacy media companies like Disney must either figure out AI or risk obsolescence. This supporter sees AI as one tool to help control the soaring costs of movie and television production, which can swell to $300 million for a major film release like "Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny" or "The Little Mermaid." Such budgets require equally massive box office returns simply to break even. Cost savings would be realized over time, the person said.
hollywood accounting AI can make so that actors (Score:2)
hollywood accounting AI can make so that actors don't see an dime for there work.
Re: (Score:3)
hollywood accounting AI can make so that actors don't see an dime for there work.
Not just living actors, either. One of the intriguing possibilities for studios is using AI to computer generate new movies with beloved but long dead actors. There's a lot of potential money in new movies featuring John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Humphrey Bogart, etc. And since a studio would just be using their likeness, and there's not an actual living movie star doing the scenes, the fees to their estates would be wayyyyy cheaper than actual salaries for current living actors. This scares the shit out of SAG-
Re: (Score:3)
This seems to be the trend. All stories are remakes, reboots and sequels. All characters are AI replicas of past characters. No creativity, no originality, just a museum of nostalgia
Re: (Score:3)
hollywood accounting AI can make so that actors don't see an dime for there work.
Not just living actors, either. One of the intriguing possibilities for studios is using AI to computer generate new movies with beloved but long dead actors. There's a lot of potential money in new movies featuring John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Humphrey Bogart, etc. And since a studio would just be using their likeness, and there's not an actual living movie star doing the scenes, the fees to their estates would be wayyyyy cheaper than actual salaries for current living actors. This scares the shit out of SAG-AFTRA.
There's only potential there while people are alive that remember going to those people's movies when they were still alive.
The real money, and where this tech will eventually land, is in making up completely new "non" people as digital actors. No likeness = no one to pay. If they can shove enough data about various actors into an algorithm and have that algorithm spit them out a "doesn't look specifically like anyone, but sorta/kinda resembles a whole bunch of people" digital actor that can actually be dir
Re: (Score:2)
>The real money, and where this tech will eventually land, is in making up completely new "non" people as digital actors. No likeness = no one to pay. If they can shove enough data about various actors into an algorithm and have that algorithm spit them out a "doesn't look specifically like anyone, but sorta/kinda resembles a whole bunch of people" digital actor that can actually be directed to act half-decent, it'll be over for living actors outside of niche arthouse films. And believe me, if Hollywood
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's potential there as long as the movies that those actors were originally in are still aired, which might limit it to very famous movies and actors. But there's potentially lower fees and more profits if the studios base the AI characters on lesser known actors.
Re: (Score:3)
The real money, and where this tech will eventually land, is in making up completely new "non" people as digital actors. No likeness = no one to pay. If they can shove enough data about various actors into an algorithm and have that algorithm spit them out a "doesn't look specifically like anyone, but sorta/kinda resembles a whole bunch of people" digital actor that can actually be directed to act half-decent, it'll be over for living actors outside of niche arthouse films.
Yeah - I just can't wait to see all these faux actors posing on red carpets for publicity shots, signing autographs at film festivals, and setting their handprints in cement on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. That ought to be quite the spectacle...
Re: hollywood accounting AI can make so that actor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The think is a big part of film culture is the cult of celebrity. Will people relate to digital âoeactorsâ who never walk the red carpet, or get candid photos taken by paparazzi, or go through messy celebrity divorces?
That shit isn't nearly as popular outside the Hollywood elite club as what the Hollywood elite club would like us all to believe. Just because the media obsesses over itself doesn't mean the rest of us are wrapped up in it. Teen girls? Maybe. But I have yet to speak to an adult that cares about any of it outside of said media personalities themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no demand for this type of content, otherwise we'd be seeing more of it.
H-O-W-E-V-E-R
There is always a demand for a HD Remaster, and this is the quickest way to get one. Instead of painfully touching up every frame of an old film into beautiful 4K video. You could just let the AI replicate the character (not the actor), and pretty much get away with using property they already own to create a 4K edition of a film that simply took all the information found in the original film, remade it, frame-for-
Re: hollywood accounting AI can make so that actor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've got legal issues there. SCOTUS opened up the can of worms with NIL for college athletes. Do you think that actors aren't going to sue using that as a precedent?
Re: (Score:2)
The thing with AI, is that it's a little wide to classify as "all AI bad"
AI, explicitly "text" LLLM AI, like GPT, is only good at organizing, filtering and reformatting textual data. It's NOT able to create on it's own, it has no experience with anything, it ultimately doesn't know what anything it talks about is.
Likewise, Image AI is also not good at anything. It might give you some starting point if you need to throw spaghetti at the wall to figure out what "The devil eating a horse" might look like, if y
How about stop making expensive garbage? (Score:2)
And I surely can't wait for an endless stream of AI-generated optimised fan-service-laden celebrity-worshiping reboot-fiestas.
I know what you're thinking (Score:1)
Thing is, what are you going to watch that Disney doesn't own? Pretty much just Warner Brothers, who's going to follow Disney's lead.
You could give up movies & TV entirely I guess. But most folks watch TV because they're tired after a long day's work. So even if you and a handful of other's stop watching most won't. Which is what Disney was counting on as though bought out all their potential competitors.
Ain't mono
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, now that the AI genie is out of the bottle, the big monopolies will lose their monopoly because the small creators will have very powerful tools.
People said the same thing would happen to the major record labels once modern computing hardware made it trivial for anyone to set up a recording studio at home. Sure, a few indie artists have achieved fame, but for the most part the traditional industry still maintains their stranglehold over the market.
Disney has a media empire to promote their content, whereas some random dude uploading their crap to YouTube has to compete with a million other idiots who are doing exactly the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, now that the AI genie is out of the bottle, the big monopolies will lose their monopoly because the small creators will have very powerful tools.
People said the same thing would happen to the major record labels once modern computing hardware made it trivial for anyone to set up a recording studio at home. Sure, a few indie artists have achieved fame, but for the most part the traditional industry still maintains their stranglehold over the market.
Disney has a media empire to promote their content, whereas some random dude uploading their crap to YouTube has to compete with a million other idiots who are doing exactly the same thing.
Disney's media empire is getting pretty rough around the edges. The live action reboots have been pretty bad, and they have lost money on a number of them. After Disney went on a buying spree a few years back, it tried to turn all of the purchases into Disney products.
An example is when they bought ESPN. They turned it into a Disney Product, where a princess is elevated to deity status. Except in male dominated sports like fooball, the Quarterbacks became the Disney Princess. As well as Disney Princess t
Won't save them (Score:3)
And Disney is still bleeding so badly that they'll likely be chopped up at some point by Wall Street or Chinese investors who buy their wreckage in a court auction. They're already selling off assets [cnbc.com] to try to get ahead of this fate,
Re:Won't save them (Score:4, Insightful)
And Disney is still bleeding so badly that they'll likely be chopped up at some point by Wall Street or Chinese investors who buy their wreckage in a court auction. They're already selling off assets [cnbc.com] to try to get ahead of this fate, but Iger is a man who loves to grow on debt.
And you know what is completely retarded for a business to do in a 5.5% interest environment? Hire a man who only knows how to grow by buying on credit.
I believe they have boxed in Kathleen Kennedy, and Harvey Weinstein's creepy assistant Leslie Hedland, who ended up getting money funneled by Kennedy for the over budget Star Wars "The Acolyte", money from other projects. I'm not certain what attributes make a staff assistant the right choice to spend maybe a half billion dollars on a film.
That Kennedy and her people had a political agenda that was more important than actually telling a good story was obvious, where some of the original shoots were so offensive that massive reshooting and editing was done, which retained "The Message!", but ate up a lot of money, and often wrecked the continuity. Made for incredibly expensive films that looked like they were done up by rejects from a gender studies class, despite the special effects.
Disney worked long and hard to destroy their brand. The succeeded.
How about using AI to generate QUALITY CONTENT ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Try to make something original in animation. No need to re-hash and redo classics in live animation. How about NEW stuff.
Quit fscking up properties you buy...so far you killed Star Wars and even Marvel to a great extent.
Rather than stay with the themes that made those properties so valuable and popular at their beginnings....you've tried to make them something they weren't and often, seemingly going out of your way to ruin the great characters we came to love.
Make the parks something fun to go to without having to hock a kidney.
We know things are expensive, but C'mon....you've priced things to where it's hard for anyone making less than a Saudi Prince to go there.
Let folks more freely park hop like they used to not long back.
Quit pandering to China....you are a US company, make stuff for US first....
Maybe AI can help you out with some of this and the many other ways you've lost your way on over the past decade or two.
Otherwise you will continue to lose stock value and lose money and fans.
Why not use AI to re-discover who your REAL audience is and what they really want to see for entertainment....(hint, they don't want to be preached to). They want simple, wholesome entertainment....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about using AI to generate QUALITY CONTENT (Score:5, Insightful)
We all love to talk a big game about how everyone wants "original" properties but the audience reception tends to tell the studios a different story.
Let's just talk family entertainment in the past few months. Pixar put out "Elemental" and Dreamworks put out "Ruby GIllman, Teenage Kraken", both original properties and they both kinda flopped. Meanwhile "Super Mario Bros" made like a billion dollars. We can say those movies aren't "good" but thats a different argument than original stories.
"The Little Mermaid" rehash everyone got their pantaloons in a twist about is the 5th highest grossing film this year, posting up over $500M.
"Oppenheimer" is the only original movie to crack the top 10 this year and it's a biopic.
"Sound of Freedom" is #11, "Elemental" #15 and "M3gan" is #20. Everything else is a sequel or reboot (or soft-sequel-reboot, otherwise known as a seaboot)
As much as I agree in desiring more original stories in film If you're a movie executive and you look at the top this year (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2023/) what are you gonna finance next?
In most ways we get the media we deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the free publicity for Oppenheimer and Barbie in the past month. Everywhere I turn, whether TV or internet, people are talking about these 2. Why? I have no freaking clue. Is it a grassroots media movement? Or is it orchestrated by media owners (because let's face it, most media belong to a handful of large media companies)?
That's what's needed to drive excitement. I saw almost nothing on Elemental. Few m
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the concept of "original" is malleable to the point where it becomes meaningless but generally we understand it as "a story not based on an existing IP or characters".
Even "Elemental" and "Teenage Kraken" you could say aren't because they based on folklore but I would say they are as there was no existing media around them before.
But underneath my point is the fact that I don't think it matters, "original" to me is a criticism that is layered on top of what a person really is criticizing because if it
Re: (Score:2)
Some people want original stories and some don't. Some people want original stories sometimes and not other times. There is a place for both. It's also likely related to the differences between conservative and non-conservative behavior. People have been telling the same stories over and over for thousands of years.
Re: (Score:2)
We all love to talk a big game about how everyone wants "original" properties but the audience reception tends to tell the studios a different story.
Once you start recognizing common tropes (and don't even get me started on the overuse of Hero's journey), nothing is original anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Sound of Freedom" a low budget affair that execs did everything they could to kill is 11, while Oppenheimer is 10... Tells you a lot just how much luck the thought leaders in Hollywyrd are actually having keeping the public in line. Not none, but not the grip they used to have by any means.
As far as Little Mermaid goes Gen-Y are all into nostalgia right now. Grab any property from the middle-80s - lates 90s right now an the majority of that 1980-1990 cohort will snap it up like its crack.
Its full on mid-li
Re: (Score:2)
What execs? If you don't release on the studio system then "movie execs" don't have any control over it and isn't that SoF did? Got a bunch of crowd sourcing and various capital around? I don't have an opinion on SoF as a movie but I feel like this "underdog" story it had is just a great little marketing campaign. This idea that it made $100m "in spite" is fantastic marketing, should give that team an award know your audience
Re: How about using AI to generate QUALITY CONTENT (Score:2)
>As far as Little Mermaid goes Gen-Y are all into nostalgia right now. Grab any property from the middle-80s - lates 90s right now an the majority of that 1980-1990 cohort will snap it up like its crack.
And it'd probably work if they could avoid updating these properties for the supposed 'modern audience'. For nostalgia to apply the product must be recognisable to its target audience.
Re: (Score:2)
Admittedly, they've failed on the marketing on a lot of these. I couldn't do anything without seeing ads for Mario, but Elemental I literally didn't hear of until after it was already in theaters, and this is the first time I've heard of Ruby Gillman. Not to mention them desperate to rely on theaters, which at least in my area have been terrible for years (even pre Covid) and had caused many people to just wait until things come out for streaming or sale at home. Not that AI is going to fix any of these t
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention elemental isn't a kids movie but was marketed as one. They even partnered with McDonald's for kids meals toys and cups. It's a tweens / young adult movie at best. The story has literally nothing of interest to children so the only thing that makes it a "kids movie" is that it's animated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How about using AI to generate QUALITY CONTENT (Score:2)
>You missed something. Elemental actually is doing surprisingly well - it's likely going to be a sleeper hit because it's already crossed $500M. Sure, opening weekend was a flop, but being a good movie word got around and it's a good movie that's been pulling steady numbers. (It did $30M opening weekend. Domestic returns are $140M, not something you get out of a bad movie that flopped opening weekend).
It won't be a surprise hit. Although it's doing surprisingly well, it's very much still in the red. It h
Re: (Score:1)
Not grand parent poster, but if I had to guess, Strange World and Lightyear would be an example of non-wholesome. Though those are 2022 films. Best guess would be take a look at Disney films with a high critics score and a very low audience score to find more.
Re: (Score:1)
So "wholesome" to you means fundamentalist-approved? That assumes fundamentalists are right. Occam's razor says they are not because there are hundreds of other religions/sects who claim to be the One Right Way. So even if there is a God, the chance of you being in the right sect is statistically low.
Re: How about using AI to generate QUALITY CONTENT (Score:2)
If they create original content, how will they cast someone in a diferente race, gender or hight from the original and have the anti-woke and woke factions fight each other and generate free advertising for them?
Re: (Score:2)
How about Disney use AI to try to re-learn how to make wholesome, quality, family entertainment for all ages again instead of the crap they've been spewing out lately?
Kids love watching crap. Have you ever ventured over to YouTube Kids and seen the kind of garbage kids are willing to veg out on? Once you realize this stuff isn't being made for you, it's being made for the crowd who loves singing along to "Baby Shark", it starts making a lot more sense.
I'm sure if the internet had existed back when Disney was putting out all their "wholesome" remakes of public domain fairy tales, there'd be people whining about how Disney butchered the beloved stories they remembered re
Re: How about using AI to generate QUALITY CONTENT (Score:2)
Using AI to do this won't happen, because AI generates content based on what's fed into it.
People CREATE content based on their life experiences and interpretation of the world and creative "a-ha" and "what if" moments.
AI has no imagination, no emotion. It's all math and algorithms. The same input will generate the same output. People have imagination--some more than others. The same input may not give the same output when it comes to creative art.
That's the best way I can put it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest waste of money: Executives (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is something I have read about pretty often lately with the very bloated budgets things are getting. The story I saw was comparing superhero films which ring up 300, 400M budgets meanwhile "Dune" which is still packed with stars and VFX cost a "mere" $165M and it was chalked up to having a director who knows what they want and gives solid directions and decisions to their team.
Meanwhile apparently the story with MI:7 is that they started shooting action set pieces before the script was even finished.
Re: (Score:2)
This would drive me mad. I mean, sure, if something's just not working for whatever reason you might decide to cut it and write around it, but as a general rule 'notes' should arrive long enough before shooting starts that re-writes are done before you're out of time to change the plans.
The creative process of "everything is up in the air until it's on a theatre screen" makes me wonder how anything ever gets to those screens at all. "Oh, nice script, now let's change it to add in the producer's whim, then
Re: (Score:3)
I work in VFX, and will say the biggest waste of money on big budget films is the middle management and executives changing their minds too often and giving notes on shots when they are almost finaled, or even omitting entire sequences that have been worked on for a long time. Let's use AI to remove them and speed up their jobs.
I have a few properties that I follow semi-religiously and this story is 100% true. It's worse when you have a conglomerate company like Disney in charge of production, but it happens on the smaller scale too. I know a lot of Hasbro property films end up absolutely gutted by the time they reach the public because Hasbro itself steps in and changes all sorts of things from script to sets to specific dialog because the execs want to put their stamp on it before it goes out. I have to imagine a company as much
Re: (Score:1)
Disney is dying and that's a good thing (Score:2)
Every time a Disney movie flops at the box office, Walt and Roy laugh in hell.
Disney has lost its way (Score:2, Interesting)
According to Hollywood accounting, losing money (Score:3)
According to Hollywood accounting they are always losing money... So it makes sense they are trying to cut cost :p
They're not making the movies people want (Score:2, Troll)
The Little Mermaid and IJ5 are just two great examples. Both are anchors around Disney's neck that will probably never fully recoup their costs to produce.
No one except activists wanted a black Ariel; no one in their right mind wants to see an 80 year old IJ unless it's old Indy handing things off to his son or grandson in one last great adventure.
For a company with their clout, making these movies money printers should have been easy. It was only hard because they allowed people who wanted to "send a messa
Re: (Score:2)
Little Mermaid probably breaks even for Disney. Not a great performance but not a flop either
The Little Mermaid did break even, but just barely. The film needed to make at least $560 million globally, which it finally has crossed. PVOD and Blu-ray and DVD sales can also help the film make a bit more money for Disney. While The Little Mermaid didn't cross the billion-dollar mark like Disney might have hoped, the film still did better than some of the studio's other summer films including Indiana Jones and t
Re: (Score:2)
The only ones who thought Barbie would be a "flop" were woke white men who were horrified about a movie about women being in control and making fun of men. For everyone else, they just wanted a good time.
Barbie anti-woke (Score:1)
The only ones who thought Barbie would be a "flop" were woke white men who were horrified about a movie about women being in control
If you actually watch Barbie the movie is really about what a horror it is when women are in control... don't shot me I'm just the messenger telling you what the movie is saying. [youtube.com]
If you don't like that review you are a misogynist.
Re: (Score:2)
The impressiveness of the movie is how many different (and all probably valid) messages feel the movie was trying to present. Existentialism, patriarchy, misandry. It's like the split crowd who view "Starship Troopers" as parody or an ideal future society. Kinda because of Verhovens style, his eschewing of the source material and European pov, they're both kinda right in some ways?
That's what a good director and screenplay will get you though, a good movie.
Re: (Score:3)
Because the character was always white.
Correction. The character was always green. Over most of her body anyway. Seriously, she was half fish from an imaginary race of demi-humanoids who live under the sea. It amazes me that anyone would take issue with her skin color. There just isn't any particular skin color that a mermaid is _supposed_ to have. They're fantasy creatures.
Re: (Score:2)
> she was half fish
Transpeciesism! OMG, what will those twisted Godless liberals think of next! Lock them up before they talk my kids into being goldfish! My daughter even went "bloop bloop" last week.
Re: (Score:2)
There just isn't any particular skin color that a mermaid is _supposed_ to have. They're fantasy creatures.
A mermaid in another story, sure. But this story was written in 19th century Denmark. If Andersen's intent was for her to have an exotic appearance, he would have mentioned that. As this was not the case, logically she looked inconspicuous among Northern Europeans.
Re: (Score:2)
A mermaid in another story, sure. But this story was written in 19th century Denmark. If Andersen's intent was for her to have an exotic appearance, he would have mentioned that.
He intended her to be half-fish. That's pretty exotic. As for physical description, Andersen wrote that her skin was as clear and delicate as a rose leaf and that her eyes were blue like the sea. That's the extent of the description. "Clear and delicate" does not actually indicate a color. If you want to believe that his description implied a particular skin color, then remember that rose leaves are green.
Re: (Score:1)
So?
Re: (Score:2)
> You think totally revamping the look of an iconic Disney character, not to mention changing all the songs, the plot of the movie and the overall look of the movie is going to be okay with people?
That's what sequels do. Why is it okay for sequels? And superheroes have morphed over the years into different looks, going from Day-Glo flat Underoos into metallic near-gray fish-scale suits and robotic panels. And the Batmobile mutates more often than drunk fruit-flies camping on a Fukushima core.
Re: (Score:1)
So you'd be OK with a Chinese Black Panther? Or does this stuff only go one way? The thing is, it SHOULDN'T matter (and really doesn't) but these changes are only being made to appease certain groups of folks and that irks some people who've started noticing. Race, gender, and gender affirmation being the number #1,2, and 3 criteria for new media is becoming stupid. I don't actually think we could get great movies like 'Lord of the Rings' ever again since the entertainment industry refuses to respect the
Re: (Score:1)
> So you'd be OK with a Chinese Black Panther?
That character's back-story is tied to ethnicity. Ariel's is NOT.
Re: (Score:1)
She's a Danish Fairy Tale. She's been white for 200 years. I'm sure we can make up some scenario where Black Panther is made Chinese. I think it would really help diversity and inclusion. Why not? skin color doesn't matter at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Lets first think about what Disney IS..
Disney is NOT warner bros.. They are not Paramount.. they are a Media CONGLOMERATE.. and as such their revenue isn't tied to one thing..
Also Disney heavily IP's their products (something many others don't do because they don't OWN the work, WB, Discovery, etc.. are actually more distribution networks than anything).. vs. Disney is more like Amex (they are a bank and operate unto themselves vs
What happens if the talks fail completely? (Score:2)
What if the powers that control the big entities simply accept the loss of all the striking workers, and take the pain of experimenting with AI and such for the next couple of years? They could, actually, choose to take their ball and go home. "Hollywood" took home $6B last year... if you believe their figures. Sounds like a lot, except that that's pretty much everybody, and it means that it's not a huge industry overall.
There are already signs that some of the players are just going to walk away. If that h
Re: (Score:2)
For my taste, the best content is being produced outside Hollywood, mainly overseas, but also by indies. Hollywood these days is lucky if they can produce one good movie per year.
As best I can tell, what mainly keeps them afloat is various superhero movies that make most of their money outside the US, especially in Asia.
In addition, streaming has created a lot of demand for "limited series" which allow much more in-depth characterization and plot development. In the old days, Hollywood had serials. They
Re: (Score:1)
What if the powers that control the big entities simply accept the loss of all the striking workers, and take the pain of experimenting with AI and such for the next couple of years?
The very real danger here is that I could see AI doing a much better job than Hollywood writers have been of late.
The one thing AI can be trusted to do, is to make things up... perfect for the studios.
Re: (Score:1)
Disney can't imagine beyond capitalism (Score:2)
Why Have Film Costs Skyrocketed? (Score:2)
I don't understand why film costs have skyrocketed over the past several decades. When you look at a blockbuster in the 80's, such as Ghostbusters, the budget was about $30 million (~$90 million today) and it seems like studios got way more for their money back then. That got t
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood does not operate based on logic; it operates based on fads and ego. If your movie cost 300 million, I can outdo you by my movie costing 500 million. If your movie had 80% cgi, haha, my movie has 90% cgi.
I guess, after reading this... (Score:4, Funny)
...that Donald, Goofy and Mickey Mouse will go on strike immediately.
formulaic and predicable plots (Score:2)
Yea, thats nothing new in the industry. Turns out we are close to automating family sitcoms, high school dramas, and romantic comedies. People want to be entertained, dazzled, or placated. They don't care too much if a writer or actor is paid in the process. And while creativity, novelty, and the human condition are laudable artistic goals in entertainment there is also profit to consider.
A middle finger from me to Eisner and Iger (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much money would Disney save? (Score:2)
How much money would Disney save if it could come up with a working CEO-GPT? Bob Iger makes around $27 million per year. ChatGPT can already propose general CEO business strategies right now. Imagine what it could do if trained for a specific company's situation.
Then again, it would be cheaper to replace Iger with an H1-B visa holder with no further R&D or investment, and it's not clear which of these options (GPT, Iger, H1-B) would have the best outcome.
Fun fact (Score:1)
how do they pay this taskforce? In peanuts? (Score:1)