In the summer, both screenwriters and the actors' guild went on strike in Hollywood - simultaneously for the first time. One of the points of contention with the producers was how to deal with AI, because as the quality of AI systems increases, so does the concern that generative algorithms could make entire professions obsolete in the future. For the actors, one of the issues was therefore who gets the rights to a digital twin (and thus to the income generated by it). Here it was ultimately possible to agree binding guidelines, according to which digital replicas require the explicit consent of the actor on the one hand and the intended use must also be stated on the other.
But how realistic is it that people in front of the camera will first be replaced by AI copies, and later perhaps by completely virtual characters? In fact, not everyone is afraid of this scenario. Ben Affleck, who became famous as an actor but now also directs films and has founded his own production company, Artists Equity, recently summarized in a panel discussion why he does not believe AI poses an immediate threat to filmmakers. He even went so far as to claim that “films will be one of the last things to be replaced by AI”.
At most, generative AI is capable of demonstrating certain manual skills in order to create variations or combinations of existing works. Such a system cannot produce anything new, let alone art, as it has no aesthetic sense of its own (he literally calls it “taste”). “Craft is knowing how to work, art is knowing when to stop,” says Affleck. There are also the problems of consistency, lack of control and lack of quality.
Bringing actors together, recognizing the chemistry that this creates and constructing something from it is something that an AI is far from capable of. He therefore sees no danger of filmmakers being replaced by AIs. Of course, it would be different in the field of visual effects, for example, where AI is already making a lot of things easier - anyone working here will have to dress warmly. But it could also have advantages if you don't need 1000 people for a rendering, because production would become much cheaper and anyone with an idea for a film could implement it more easily. And if demand remains the same, you could make two seasons of a fantasy series like House of Dragon for the same price as one today.
Ideally, generative AI could easily generate further revenue, for example through automatically calculated alternative plots of existing films and series, or character avatars that can be used by fans on socials, or similar.
So is everything half as bad with the AIs? We're not quite so sure, even if we find the optimistic outlook tempting. Certainly, it is often the acting magic that creates good films and captivates the audience. Whether AI-generated characters can keep up once they've left the Uncanny Valley and actually seem 100% natural remains to be seen - we think not, but who knows. But even if they act flat and wooden, their use will be so cheap that they will prevail in some casting for cost reasons.
Ultimately, the decisive factor will be whether such films will still find an audience, and at this point we are a little pessimistic. After all, you can get used to almost anything - to take an example from the music business: the use of autotune, i.e. the “correction” of pitches in vocals, is absolutely inflationary. Originally introduced in the 90s to correct errors in the recording and thus be able to produce faster, the (more or less pronounced) synthetic sound has established itself as a typical sound that does not seem to bother many, but on the contrary is even well received. Consequently, you no longer have to sing particularly well to land a hit. Perhaps we'll see something similar in movies.
;){kind=avatar}