Netflix CEO Counters Cameron's AI Cost-Cutting Vision: 'Make Movies 10% Better'

Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos pushed back on director James Cameron's recent assertion that AI could slash film production costs by half, arguing instead for quality improvements over cost reduction during Netflix's first-quarter earnings call Thursday. "I read the article too about what Jim Cameron said about making movies 50% cheaper," Sarandos said. "I remain convinced that there's an even bigger opportunity to make movies 10% better."

Sarandos pointed to Netflix's current AI implementations in set references, pre-visualization, VFX sequence preparation, and shot planning. He said AI-powered tools have democratized high-end visual effects that were once exclusive to big-budget productions. The executive cited 2019's "The Irishman" as a benchmark, noting its "very cutting-edge, very expensive de-aging technology that still had massive limitations." In contrast, he referenced cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto's directorial debut "Pedro Paramo," which employed AI-powered de-aging at "a fraction" of The Irishman's cost. "The entire budget of the film was about what the VFX cost on The Irishman," Sarandos explained. "Same creator using new tools, better tools, to do what was impossible five years ago."

Give me attention!

[locater16]

I propose we use AI to put 20% more Nic Cage in all movies.

Re: Give me attention!

[devslash0]

If I could, I'd like to see Nick Cage's face on Rose in Titanic. "Draw me like one of your French girls."

Re:

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Nic Cage does _not_ approve Al

Netflix movies 10% better now

[r1348]

So they're aiming for a 10% Rotten Tomatoes rating, apparently.

What needs improving?

[JaredOfEuropa]

I think the single most important thing to improve in movies and entertainment in general, is the writing. Did the good writers all drop out a few Writers' Guild strikes ago, never to return? The current crop is so bad that I think an AI might actually do a better job.

Re:

[alvinrod]

I don't think they have, so it's smarter to aim for the 50% cost reduction. Slop vendors never profit from trying to make better slop. The money is in making the slop for less while keeping the quality the same, or at least insofar as anyone can tell.

Re: What needs improving?

[devslash0]

It's the young, useless generation. They are just reheating the same cold pancakes over and over again because they spend too much time caring about how they look on socials and trying not to offend anyone instead of honing their creativity.

So fun fact about Netflix films

[rsilvergun]

They're that bad on purpose. There's a method to the madness.

First you've got the general dumbing down of dialogue to make it so they can dub it into Chinese more effectively. Also you've got to take a lot of themes out of anything you write again for the Chinese market.

But even in addition to that you've got an entirely new problem with writing. People work. Non-stop now. 50 60 70 hour work weeks aren't uncommon with people under 50.

So Netflix founded people were watching Netflix while working.

Re:So fun fact about Netflix films

[alvinrod]

I don't think the people writing Netflix (or Hollywood in general) shows have ever "worked" in their lives, which is the problem. What they write is not something that anyone outside of their clique can relate to, which is why no one likes it. Hemingway, Vonnegut, and so many other of the most brilliant writers of the last century fought in wars or had other horrible yet interesting experiences before they penned the works for which makes their names recognizable even today.

People who've never experienced real discomfort or adversity tend not to produce good art. Maybe it's good enough for a Netflix series, but it's not something that will be remembered one hundred years from now, let alone next year.

Re:

[Shadow of Eternity]

late stage capitalism.

No such thing exists. Capitalism isn't a thing. Capitalism is simply the absence of a coercive violation of people's inalienable rights to have their own things and do what they want with them. The alternative to capitalism is a coercive system that's resulted in mass murder and totalitarianism literally every single time it's been tried.

Re:

[JaredOfEuropa]

As a capitalist, I understand the notion of late-stage capitalism. Capitalism in itself is a pretty simple thing: it just means that trade and industry are conducted (and owned by) private people, rather than controlled by the state. And it has brought us unprecedented wealth, not just for the few but for the masses as well. The idea behind "late stage capitalism" is that such wealth tends to concentrate in the hands of a few individuals, who can then use that wealth to exert power even over elected offi

Re:

[JaredOfEuropa]

( replying to myself as an addendum )
My objection to the term "late-stage capitalism" is that it implies that this concentration of wealth and power is the inevitable result of any form of capitalism.

Re:

[Shadow of Eternity]

That's the point. The term itself by definition presupposes the inevitability and necessity of that happening and the inherent evilness of their straw man of capitalism. It's no different than if they walked around saying "Doubleplus ungood capitalism" every time.

Re:

[trelanexiph]

Actually it implies that this is even a new "problem". Look at the forbes top 100 richest people. How many Rockafellers, DuPonts, Crockers, Morgans, etc. are still billionaires? Answer: practically none. For instance the best numbers I am aware of are for the DuPont family. The DuPont family wealth is approximately $18 billion, but due to inheritance and dispersion over 100 years worth of DuPonts, that wealth is now spread over more than 3500 individuals.
Wealth is always created in a concentrated man

The problem is not cost

[MpVpRb]

The problem is executives who hate creativity and continue to insist on sequels, remakes, reboots, franchises and other assorted retelling of old stories

Re:

[groobly]

It's their evaluation of risk/reward ratios. Maybe they are right.

Netflix "qualtiy"...

[FritzTheCat1030]

Netflix makes some of the absolute worst movies out there. 95% of Netflix original movies are completely unwatchable. They've adhered to the quantity over quality strategy for years. Making their movies 10% better is like throwing a thimble of water on a forest fire.

What about when AI makes movie making REALLY cheap

[skam240]

I think a way more interesting question than what's being asked here is what do people think about the potential for AI to make movie making REALLY cheap. Like one person with the proper software studio setup can afford to make whatever movie they want with a reasonable amount of effort. I ask because I think this is a realistic expectation for something that will happen in my lifetime.

A lot of very talented actors and crafts people would be out of work to be certain. I feel like the fact that anyone could

A 10% increase...

[LordHighExecutioner]

...of zero is still zero, also with the help of AI.

mo bettah

[groobly]

10% better is still 89% garbage.

How long before studios and directors are gone?

[LostMyBeaver]

I listen to a lot of audiobooks which will never become films or if they do will be a disaster on a "what Disney did to Artemis Fowl" scale.

I would love to say "<voice assistant name here> make me a 20 episode, 45 minute per episode series reminiscent of <insert book name here>. Use idealized actors. Limit gratuitous sex and violence. Make the actors hot without sexualizing them. Prefer European fashion over American. Use clear civilized accents and dialects. No nose talkers. Avoid Southern US t