Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI

Nicolas Cage Says AI Is Nightmare And His Cameo in 'The Flash' Deceptive 68

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Nicolas Cage weighed in on the debate over the use of artificial intelligence in movies, and had some critical words about his brief cameo in Warner Bros. The Flash, in a new interview published this week. From a report: On the subject of AI, the Renfield actor told Yahoo! Entertainment that he has a rather dim view of the technology. "AI is a nightmare to me," Cage said. "It's inhumane. You can't get more inhumane than artificial intelligence ... I would be very unhappy if people were taking my art ... and appropriating [it]." Yet it wasn't AI, Cage said, that was responsible for his cameo in last summer's The Flash. The film envisioned a younger Cage as a multiverse version of Superman that inspired by Superman Lives -- Tim Burton's Man of Steel project that was famously canceled before it could get off the ground in 1998.

In The Flash, Cage's Superman was fighting a large creature with red lasers coming out of his eyes. But the actor says this was very different from what he actually shot for The Flash. "When I went to the picture, it was me fighting a giant spider," Cage said. "I did not do that. That was not what I did. I don't think it was [created by] AI. I know Tim [Burton] is upset about AI, as I am. It was CGI, OK, so that they could de-age me, and I'm fighting a spider. I didn't do any of that, so I don't know what happened there."

That the 59-year-old actor was actually on set is a bit unexpected, as many watching the film just assumed the entire performance was created by CG. Cage said what was actually filmed, and what he was told the scene would be, was something more solemn. "What I was supposed to do was literally just be standing in an alternate dimension, if you will, and witnessing the destruction of the universe," he said. "Kal-El was bearing witness [to] the end of a universe, and you can imagine with that short amount of time that I had, what that would mean in terms of what I can convey. I had no dialogue [so I had to] convey with my eyes the emotion. So that's what I did. I was on set for maybe three hours."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nicolas Cage Says AI Is Nightmare And His Cameo in 'The Flash' Deceptive More

Nicolas Cage Says AI Is Nightmare And His Cameo in 'The Flash' Deceptive

Comments Filter:

  • I am sypathetic but (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Friday November 03, 2023 @09:18AM (#63976736) Journal

    I am sympathetic but Cage is really splitting hairs.

    What difference does it make to you as an actor if some human is taking a model they have made of you and moving things around in 3DSMax vs Stable diffusion just generating the entire thing?

    Its not like either process requires your participation in anyway if there is adequate prior material either train on or create the models from. Either way the studio gets to use your image for new outputs without new inputs from you.

    I guess the 'AI' might capture more of your personal style of movement etc, but that is just going to make for a 'better' fake, its no more or less a fake than CGI.. I guess there is also some argument about the better quality meaning they can use it places where they could not have got away with CGI but I am not sure that is true either, the standard of how good is good enough in special effects and CG, is a moving target. Look at lots of things we thought were amazing in 80s and 90s, that are not good enough to be used in B movies today.

    This really the same discussion that started all those years ago when they started inserting Fred Astaire into commercials and such. To some extent SAG-AFTRA is really trying to close the doors after the cattle are out of the barn here. They should done the legal work and established the rules on this a decade ago, we all knew this was coming. We just did not how fast and how cheaply.

    • At the end of the day isn't it all about human labour vs automation? CGI would still require someone to do the CGI work in 3DSMAX or whatever software, whereas (whether this is reality or perception) AI largely automates the whole process.

      I'm not taking a position, I'm just guessing at what would motivate someone to draw the distinction.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        At the end of the day isn't it all about human labour vs automation? CGI would still require someone to do the CGI work in 3DSMAX or whatever software, whereas (whether this is reality or perception) AI largely automates the whole process.
        I'm not taking a position, I'm just guessing at what would motivate someone to draw the distinction.

        That would require incorrectly assuming AI is largely automated.
        Philosophically then this could be a fear, as that is our goal for AI to eventually be, decades or centuries in the future.
        Realistically however they are more identical than you'd likely expect.

        Cage seems to be referencing his current/recent experience, which makes it hard to interpret as philosophical instead of speaking to current events.

        It was a much larger leap between computer paint programs and photoshop effect plugins than there is a lea

      • That perception is dead wrong. Both require artists and programmers.

    • And... AI might help with his dream as an actor to appear in every movie ever released [youtube.com] even better than a clone. (SNL) :-)

    • What difference does it make to you as an actor if some human is taking a model they have made of you and moving things around in 3DSMax vs Stable diffusion just generating the entire thing?

      Cost. When it reaches a day's wage for an actor to stand in a magic electric booth they'll basically have every new actor scanned and should they hit it big down the road they'll be able to effectively use their likeness/voice/performance without paying them. The studios will have no problem doing that because actors need to pay rent. From my understanding that's what triggered the strike.

      It is a big deal, and it will affect you down the road even if you're not a performer. Remember that silly moment

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Cost. When it reaches a day's wage for an actor to stand in a magic electric booth they'll basically have every new actor scanned and should they hit it big down the road they'll be able to effectively use their likeness/voice/performance without paying them. The studios will have no problem doing that because actors need to pay rent. From my understanding that's what triggered the strike.

        Just so you know, other than celebrity actors (who are all donating millions to support the strike), most actors are pai

        • Just so you know almost everyone else makes no money between jobs either. It's somewhat amusing when people try this line of reasoning to gain sympathy for actors as if they are deserving of receiving money while not working. 50-80k is above median income and they aren't working full time all year round to get that like others have to do. Plenty of jobs are seasonal and people have to cobble together a patch work of different jobs to make it through the year.

          Then toss in that what they do for the most
      • The major studios certainly would like that but it won't happen for them. The talent agencies are the ones that will be capturing their talent then selling that likeness on their behalf for future works they don't even have to show up to. Their agent will just present them the choice to get paid without lifting a finger. A good agent won't let them agree to something that will tarnish their brand and hurt the ability to sell them to other projects. The unions are also making sure that not paying for a f
    • The difference is not in the technicalities but rather that no one asked his consent int he first place. "AI" as tech is interesting but current players are just using it to replace people and use their own work to do so, regardless of agreement or laws.
    • It misrepresents the acting and dilutes the actor's brand. Suppose you're hired for a WWII movie to play a US soldier stabbing a Japanese enemy. Then when the film comes out your character has been digitally altered to be an islamic terrorist stabbing a woman in a burning building.
      • LOL Nick Cage has by far done the most out of any actor in existence to dilute his own brand. The easy answer here is that the actor's representation take care of that in the contract ahead of time. A simple clause that any major alterations deviating from the original material that could have repercussions on the actor's brand have to be signed off on by the actor.
    • Both paths require artists, it's just different tools with different pros and cons.

  • He's right, although he's also wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nucrash ( 549705 ) on Friday November 03, 2023 @09:18AM (#63976738)

    No, that wasn't AI that did what he did. That was simply CGI manipulation of him. Regardless of the fact, he does have a point about the inhumanity of AI. The problem is that while it is far more impressive than previous mimicry, it's still a permutation of a mimicry. AI isn't bringing anything new to the mix. While there are somethings AI does fairly well, it still has a lot of issues and a fundamental lacking determination of right and wrong. Worse yet, it can't tell when it's screwing up and starts to eat it's garbage as gospel fact which then churns out further garbage.

    • No, that wasn't AI that did what he did.

      You may want to re-read the summary. He explicitly said he didn't think it was AI.

    • WTF are you talking about? AI in movies isn't remotely tasked with any problems that it would have to make moral determinations of right or wrong. If you are talking about technical right and wrong for where the pixels are going well then training the model is an act of letting it figure out right vs wrong moves to make over billions of tries until it figures out the "right" way. It's algorithms are entirely based on figuring out what's garbage and what's not.

      You seem to think AI in movies is like LL

  • The term AI is overused (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Cage said what I have always said. The media calls code AI that's not really AI. In this case the media was referring to CGI as AI. Many consider Python trained The Wireless Backhaul configuration wizard I designed is considered AI. It is not. The AI Chatbots replacing employees that work in service departments, that's not AI. It's an automated knowledge base designed to work with voice prompts. Eventually this will backfire. The real AI applications right now scare me too. I believe we
  • The whole field is the study of how to deceive people that one thing is another.

    Of course the financial side of the entertainment industry would be full-steam ahead on such a thing...

    • >>The whole field is the study of how to deceive people that one thing is another.

      You could say the same thing about acting (or film making, or painting, etc)

      • The kind of acting that Hollywood usually hires, sure. But real acting is very different from that. AI is mostly the former; just imitation, not an attempt to explore.
        • LOL "real acting" it's all playing pretend.
          • Disagree. The difference is whether it's in the interests of revealing something, or in the interests of hiding something.

            I suppose you could pursue AI in the interests of understanding humanity rather than mocking and exploiting it, but that will be relatively rare.
            • Whether revealing or hiding something, acting is still playing pretend. You can disagree the earth is a spheroid but it doesn't make it so. What is an example of acting that wasn't playing pretend? I'm guessing whatever example you come with won't be acting.

              Mockery is a magnificent exercise in understanding and revealing humanity.
              • Is it "playing pretend" to ask a hypothetical question? Or to build a scientific model, which is never 100% accurate? Or to imagine what someone thinks or feels so that you can communicate better with them? Or to imagine at all?

                You're using dismissive language arbitrarily. Imagination is not a lie. But for that reason, business usually has little use for it. When I say "mockery," I don't mean satire: I'm saying it's an idiot's imitation of surface features.
                • You've gone off on some weird tangent. Hypothetical questions and scientific models aren't acting. Are you one of those people that gets obsessed with words that have multiple meanings then go off on tangents about other meanings that have no applicable context to the actual topic at hand? Did you try to switch the context of the word "acting" and call that "real'?
                  • Hypothetical questions, scientific models, and acting are all modeling behavior. You propose a fictional context in order to understand a real one.

                    This is completely on-topic, since I mentioned (1) that AI is counterfeiting, and (2) that it doesn't have to be.

  • Just enough technology... not too little, not too much. Horse buggies are okay but cars aren't. CGI is okay but AI isn't.

    • Re:Nicolas Cage is like the Amish (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Friday November 03, 2023 @09:50AM (#63976824) Journal

      Exactly!

      People need to get real about the proper context for the debate around machine learning, and generative AI. The technology is here. Its not going to go away.

      The entirety of the discussion needs to be about about who is going to be allowed to use it and for what.

      Nobody's agendas are new, none of the actives possible are new. All that is new is the speed and reduced cost. However those are advantages. They might be advantages on the same order access to printing press was in the 16th century. There certainly is an important discussion about what it means for society.

      Which is why I think American's if you value the first Amendment at all, and care about the intents behind it, ought to be very skeptical of the Administration issuing EOs on the subject and any attempts by congress to regulate it.

      • The technology is here, and the real power (ability to train huge models) is in the hands of very few, so what do we do? Keep improving it and beta-testing it for them? On the outside it looks very exciting and powerful, but it's tech that can and will be used, and has already been used, in very insidious ways.
    • For the cognitively impaired. One of the AI fights is about IP rights. AI using other people's works without permission. This can be a book someone written or an actor's likeness. Corporations making AI technology seem to think they don't have to respect IP rights and can use people's works for free without permission. However, when it comes to using their AI technology they are all about IP rights and will go after anyone infringing on their IP.

      So by and large this is the current issue being debate

  • we want rights to our own image and not be forced to give it up just to get work!

  • Not really a problem for established stars (Score:5, Interesting)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Friday November 03, 2023 @09:46AM (#63976818)
    Doesn't sound like Cage is suffering much. If so, it's a bit melodramatic. However, I do think AI/CGI is really bad for extras & newcomers to the filmed entertainment business. Film & TV executives have always been incredibly good at making very bad decisions regarding actors rights, welfare, & dignity. Perhaps the biggest change will be in adding extras to productions, i.e. it's way cheaper to use AI/CGI to put incidental, non-speaking characters into scenes. They already do it but AI promises to make it at least an order of magnitude easier & cheaper. So that traditional "way in" to the highly competitive acting world fades away dramatically. it'll probably get expanded to include incidental speaking roles as the technology improves, further diminishing opportunities for actors & making filming sets even more devoid of people for the stars to interact with in more authentic ways. Yeah, the relatively small number of high-end productions will probably stay with human extras but the majority of more budget-conscious ones probably won't. Also think of the costume & prop work that'll be replaced by post-production graphics. it's just another example of the typical corporate "enshittification" of things in life we used to enjoy. They'll soon become low-effort, formulaic, slick, almost cartoon-like productions with little or no originality & little or no dignity for those involved in the actual day to day making of them. Then the executives'll wonder why audiences are turning off. I wonder how they'll post-hoc rationalise it to say it's not really their fault... just another set of shitty executive decisions.

  • He should complain to his manager (Score:3)

    by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Friday November 03, 2023 @10:23AM (#63976916)

    Either his contract was ridiculously open ended, or his manager never communicated the changes.

    • Or studios and "AI" companies don't care much about the legal part of it and bet for current laws to be amended their ways.

    • Either his contract was ridiculously open ended, or his manager never communicated the changes.

      Most actor's contracts are open ended. There's nothing ridiculous about it. In many cases the final shoot may resemble nothing of what they did on the day, in some cases they just take the entire footage and hand it over to CG artists as reference material saying "this is what X looks like, but we want them to do Y with Z instead".

    • It's not really a concern for his representation. There is no way any studio can dilute his brand more than he's already done. They probably don't even read any scripts before booking him. "Do they have the money?" seems to be the only concern in Cage's camp.

  • Those image generation techniques are basically the exact opposite of what you would expect from a machine.
    They're great at lighting, compositing, imagining how materials behave, "coming up with ideas" to make the prompt work..
    But any sort of precision work such as getting text right, details that make sense, keeping up with the designs of characters, making places that are logically sound., this is where they fail.
    It's almost like we created dream generating machines.

  • "When I went to the picture, it was me fighting a giant spider," Cage said. "I did not do that."

    Well, jeez, I feel like I've been duped. You mean that really WASN'T a 30-year old Cage fighting a house-sized spider on the screen?!?!?! Man, you can't trust anything you see on screen anymore...

  • Well that isn't much to work with. I assume he made various expressions of deep concern about the destruction of the universe as he looked off into the distance.

    It sounds like they originally just wanted Cage's mug to appear in the film, and then later cooked up some additional CGI action sequences. No big deal, it happens all the time.

  • So ... (Score:2)

    by PPH ( 736903 )

    "What I was supposed to do was literally just be standing in an alternate dimension, if you will, and witnessing the destruction of the universe,"

    .... sort of like the United Nations.

  • Please don't mention that name to me again.

  • When physical effects teams that'd made things like Audrey 2 in Little Barbershop of Horrors were getting their art treated as obsolete with the rise of 3D CGI (with Jurassic Park cementing its acceptance into mainstream film making practice) the amount of concern shown by actors that their co-workers was if not zero then it was forgettable. I can't remember a damn being given by anyone, no "hey, this stuff has won Oscars, why not continue to support it?". Star Wars made stupid amounts of money with physica

  • How do we know this is the real Nicolas Cage and not some AI created deep fake?
  • Meh. When Mr. Coppola is already in every third movie made (same for Samuel Jackson for a while), your brand is already tarnished. If that actor's body of work could be harmed by anything, it would not be an insurmountable loss for humanity. Definitely falls under the category of first world problems. Biggest scandal since Steve Perry of Journey was outsourced to a Filipino.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close