Extras worry they'll be replaced by AI. Hollywood is already doing body scans

https://text.npr.org/1190605685

by rntn • 3 years ago

74 112 3 years ago

text.npr.org

FreshStart• 3 years ago

In the end the whole economy can run on one server. And all the guys to whom it still matters can visit it or sleep near there "monopoly" all cozy and happy. Like a zoo of greedy and needy. The normies can occasionally drop by and feed them odeuvre and watch them chang a suit for another. We need zookeepers who prevent the whole post scarcity panic to set in ..

FirmwareBurner4• 3 years ago

I'm surprised this is big news right now as I remember reading in the news all the way back in 2003 that for the Matrix sequels, the role of Seraph(the guardian of the Oracle) was supposed to go to the famous Jet Li, but he turned it down as WB had him sign off the rights to his digital image and Kung-Fu moves which he refused as he considered that his proprietary IP, so his role went to a lesser known actor who had less bargaining power.

So even 20 years ago, before the advent of ML driven deep-fakes, the tech existed to capture, digitize and generate photorealistic copies of actors[1], which they used for the Matrix sequels, so the writing was on the wall for at least that long.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3vbzU1PiE

JKCalhoun• 3 years ago

Apparently Peter Jackson did not hire over 10,000 orc extras for the battle of Helm's Deep.

And matte paintings have been taking away jobs from set-builders for some time....

Actually I am in favor of real human actors, practical effects — just pointing out that things are going the way they've always gone.

gamblor956• 3 years ago

The difference is that those orcs were always CGI, not scans of real humans, the exceptions being the orcs in the foreground with speaking or stunt roles.

And matte paintings were always parts of the sets, not in lieu of them.

Eumenes• 3 years ago

The orc union must've been furious!!

ecshafer• 3 years ago

Kubrick was going to actually get 10k+ soldiers for his Napoleon though.

NoZebra120vClip2• 3 years ago

"Camelot!"

"It's only a model."

ortusdux• 3 years ago

The Matrix Reloaded credits include 550+ VFX artists. Yes it was possible to fully render people 20 years ago, but it took a well paid army. We are quickly approaching the point where a team of 3 can procedurally generate crowds in minutes. It's a whole different beast.

FirmwareBurner4• 3 years ago

We are quickly approaching the point where a team of 3 can procedurally generate crowds in minutes

Have you checked the VFX in recent movies? Most look worse than 20 years ago precisely because clueless directors have been tricked to believe that one guy with a computer can do the work of 100 VFX artists used to do by hand in the past, so VFX get rushed and end up looking like dogshit.

Yes, modern tech can get you 80% there of what used to be long painful manual labor, but you're still in uncanny valley so you still need the careful eye of experienced artists to do the rest to make it actually believable.

retrocryptid3• 3 years ago

Yes. But people who acted in that movie were told ahead of time their bodies were going to be digitized and manipulated and their agents were able to negotiate terms surrounding the use of those 3D models.

Imagine you were an extra in a Star Trek : Next Generation episode where the editor didn't notice you were caught on camera picking your nose. In the modern era, decades later, someone notices it on blue-ray and the scene goes viral. Should Paramont have the rights to generate a collection of NFTs based on your image? [Forget for the moment that NFTs are stupid.]

The law in this case leans towards "no" because it recognizes that as an actor, your image is a valuable asset actors usually control. Also, the idea of an NFT didn't exist in a form made manifest or even predictable in 1987 when you were an extra. Who owns the rights to your image applied to new technology? That question has been a little harder to answer recently.

And that's sort of what's going on. It's not that CGI and AI exist, it's that they're being applied in a non-traditional way without an explicit agreement ahead of time to divvy up the cash.

BGyss• 3 years ago

This debate should have started in earnest even before the Matrix sequels - digital crowds were used extensively throughout the 90s (Digital Domain's work on Strange Days and Titanic being the big examples) and the guilds have at least had some knowledge of these processes.

dmonitor2• 3 years ago

The fear, as I understand it, is that an actor will get scanned as an extra background mook in whatever movie, then not own the rights to their image when they get famous later.

With how advanced ML deep-fakes have gotten, digital actors could go from background details that nobody really cares about to "the lead actors are all digital homunculi, their visages the result of blending multiple actors together"

chimeracoder4• 3 years ago

The fear, as I understand it, is that an actor will get scanned as an extra background mook in whatever movie, then not own the rights to their image when they get famous later.

Exactly. People are talking as if this is just about background roles, but that's not the point. Studios already use CGI people for background roles. That's cheap and easy, and there's no need to scan individuals for that.

The whole point of doing these body scans is to generate images that look like that specific actor. They're not doing that because they loved Joe Schmoe's performance as Silent Background Witness #4. They're doing that because Joe Schmoe might become a big star ten years down the line, and if that happens, they want to be able to produce movies with Joe Schmoe without paying him, or without even asking him beforehand at all.

epups3• 3 years ago

But if this is the fear, why should we care? If John Doe, who is currently a bartender, wants to concede to Warner his appearance in perpetuity in exchange for $1000, that's his business.

WalterBright4• 3 years ago

You can always turn fame into cash in other ways.

For example, Carrie Fisher (I'm reading her biography) lived off of her fame from Star Wars for the rest of her life (and she got the role in Star Wars because her mother was famous). Her movie roles after SW were not particularly memorable. But, like the Kardashians, she made a lot of money by being famous. Even her novels were autobiographical. Her show (Wishful Drinking) was about herself. When she needed money, she'd go to a SW convention and sign autographs.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

monetus• 3 years ago

An enjoyable old movie on this topic - https://www.inverse.com/culture/hollywood-sag-strike-ai-the-...

tiffanyg• 3 years ago

So now we're calling a 10-year-old movie "old"?

Well, slap my @$$ and call me "The Ancient"...

https://youtu.be/-KSXxJoYU3c

caesil• 3 years ago

The aneccdotes at the beginning really seem like the filmmakers are capturing 3D models of extras to make changes in post look more realistic on the same production, and then the extras are misreading the situation.

The whole article puts "extras fear" up front, and then follows up with a whole cascade of them not having evidence for those fears, studios dismissing those fears, CGI extras being something used for decades, etc.

Not sure what the story is supposed to be here.

retrocryptid3• 3 years ago

well... there is this whole labor action currently occurring where embodied actors want (among other things) more of a cut of profits generated from digital representations of actors. That might be where the fear's coming from.

falcolas• 3 years ago

IMO, the story is the studio is pushing for digital extras based on real actors with no compensation to those actors, and the technology is proven to exist.

Combined, it implies that the threat to actors’ livelihoods is quite real.

JoblessWonder• 3 years ago

I think the issue is that the extras have to have trust in ALL of the production companies involved to not misuse that data in the future. Why pay for processing power to create a sea of extras when you have the full body from your previous 25 productions? "I'm sure no one would notice... Let's do it just this once."

Although clearly even if it is codified in the union contract it just adds a layer of security for the actors... they still have to trust the production companies to do the right thing.

nmz• 3 years ago

The extras are not misreading the situation at all. Every single action taken is up to the individual, if a director wants to suddenly use the actors image in any way or something they'd disagree with, well they waved their rights so.

To say that fears are baseless because corporate will not take advantage of new methods and technology in spite of the workers is beyond ignorant. It's quite suspect, especially from a forum about the automation business.

kyleyeats2• 3 years ago

This is a story about exorbitantly rich actors. It impacts nobody else whatsoever, and if it does it's less than 1% of the total impact. The extras angle is just there so you will side with the actors over the studio. Otherwise you might get a very rich actor arguing with a only-sorta-rich studio exec, and then the public doesn't know who to side with.

SketchySeaBeast3• 3 years ago

Alexandria Rubalcaba is not an exorbitantly rich actor.

retrocryptid3• 3 years ago

Hunh. I wonder if the "inauthenticity" of AI generated CGI will lead to a resurgence of live theater? I was a drama dork as a kid so still get out to see live shows on a semi-regular basis, but I wonder if "normal people" will eventually tire of the uncanny valley. Can AI/CGI exit the uncanny valley fast enough?

asdff2• 3 years ago

Its definitely going to lead to some pushback I think. People crave the bespoke and the niche. Films that bother shooting in 70mm see these showings booked up a month out because there's so much demand for something a little bit more refined. It just depends on the willingness of money to invest into these things, and that tends to ebb and flow over time. Right now we seem to be at a highly commercialized crossroads with what sorts of films are being produced, but maybe in the future the pendulum will shift again and we will see something like Reservoir Dogs from the next Tarantino.

TrackerFF2• 3 years ago

Modern movies are choc full of CGI - most of it people simply do not notice.

David Fincher's movies / shows is a good example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di4Byf1EzRE

ageitgey• 3 years ago

If you haven't played with recent video tools, you might think this is a "someday in the future concern." But the current off-the-shelf tools for transforming one actor into another are mind-blowing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIJXOU83fqE&t=0s

And that's just what's available off-the-shelf, not what specialized studios are doing with huge budgets. The Marvel movies are already close to being "animated movies in a live-action style". Even basic helicopter shots flying over real-life locations like the coast of California are totally CGI because it's easier to animate than get a permit. Actors entire bodies will be replaced on a whim because they didn't like the costume choice. Putting a new face on someone is not that big of a deal.

p1mrx• 3 years ago

So among the remaining pool of actors, the main qualification is no longer "be attractive", but "be skinny enough to not obstruct the background."

danuker• 3 years ago

Eh. Just act in front of a greenscreen and you're good.

autotune• 3 years ago

With the current SAG-AFTRA strike that won't be a problem once/if they go back to work.

kilroy123• 3 years ago

But it looks like shit and we can really tell the difference.

Case in point go watch the latest Top Gun movie. Sooo much better visually.

lsllc• 3 years ago

All Hollywood needs now is for all of the actors to parade up and down in lines outside their Studio offices with their arms above their heads for TSA style "full body scanning".

rapind2• 3 years ago

Remember when we were all talking about how bad "Big Tech" is? Hollywood's like "Hold my beer".

krapp3• 3 years ago

Who do you think is marketing AI to Hollywood and everyone else?

rapind2• 3 years ago

Oh absolutely. I’m just intimating there’s no moral high ground with any of these mega corps, whether it’s Alphabet or Disney.

cwkoss4• 3 years ago

Is it a societal good to pay a bunch of people to loiter in a coffee shop pretending to talk in the background of every coffee shop shot?

There are parts of what AI is doing that feels like it could harm artistic expression, but I'm not sure I care about this very much.

buffington3• 3 years ago

Is it a societal good to pay a bunch of people to loiter in a coffee shop pretending to talk in the background of every coffee shop shot?

I'd wager that more societal good comes from paying actual humans actual money than it does to digitize those humans' likenesses so that money can instead remain in producers' pockets.

epups3• 3 years ago

Playing devil's advocate here: do you feel the same when you use a calculator instead of a human computer who could be getting paid money instead of saving you some?

spullara• 3 years ago

This is so irrelevant. There is no need at this point to scan real people to make fake people. The entire thing is a term to be negotiated and let the union win one.

spywaregorilla• 3 years ago

Some of the complaints here seem to be focused on the idea that specific actors are being scanned and reused elsewhere. That's kind of silly of course. Maybe it is happening, but it's not like the background actors have any value to their individual image and if this is the hill to die on, just wait for some generative model to create a bunch of new ones.

Regardless... I can't see this really going anywhere. Background actors are just not important enough to matter.

jedberg3• 3 years ago

I follow a TV writer and show runner on Instagram, and he pointed out a consequence of AI that I think a lot of people are missing.

You know how people get really creeped out with ultra-targeted ads? Imagine if you had an entire TV show that was ultra-targeted. How creeped out would you be?

starkparker• 3 years ago

About Black Mirror season 6 episode 1-level creeped out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Is_Awful

jedberg3• 3 years ago

Yes he mentioned that too.

CamperBob22• 3 years ago

Ah, yes, Black Mirror, otherwise known as "Business Plan of the Week."

krapp3• 3 years ago

I don't think most people get really creeped out by targeted ads. That's a pathology that seems to only exist within the tech community.

I don't even know what an "entire TV show that was ultra-targeted" would even be, shows that could be customized by personal preference? That seems like something people would actually like.

jedberg3• 3 years ago

I don't even know what an "entire TV show that was ultra-targeted" would even be, shows that could be customized by personal preference? That seems like something people would actually like.

Yes, but full of product placement and other marketing messages.

rusk• 3 years ago

A movie like "Being John Malkovich" except it's you!

barbariangrunge• 3 years ago

In video games, we've been using digitized people for ages, often not based off of a person at all. Nobody but a 3d modeller and a voice actor involved, plus some detailed texturing work, an animator, often from mocap

Newer tools are making the modelling part way easier, Eg, epics human making kit. Libraries like mega scans are enough for many projects too, and mixamo has replaced a lot of animator hours alone

Weird contrast, considering recent events

likenesstheft4• 3 years ago

This affects everyone. It represents your boss making demands of your likeness for ownership. Some of us already had to politely decline to sign away our likeness and alterations to it for no compensation in return. It's clear what they want to do. They want to just take the likeness of the most beautiful and the most productive. They know every keystroke on company hardware and your general performance patterns, and they want to steal your patterns and thought processes especially if you go full bore and give them 100% all the time as a rockstar. They want you without paying you. The only way against this is Federal legislation making it illegal. The Federal Government should also create steep fines levied against any company that already tried to push this envelope. Awful bosses will never learn otherwise. You cannot pretend to say things about inclusion, equity, diversity, only to then make a move like this. This move signifies attempted ownership of a person's entire being, and some groups have no gall at all and make it clear that they don't even intend to give you any money for it. It is out-in-the-open broad daylight theft while they laugh at the majority of the people who have no power to say or do anything since in these economic times they can just coerce you into doing it because of necessity.

They want your productivity, appearance, style, and abilities and they want to give you nothing. Don't be fooled into a sense of pride because you're an engineer or a designer or a director or an executive or even a CEO - don't be someone who thinks that an extra in Hollywood is far below you and that this doesn't affect you. The technology is the same and will be applied to everyone's likeness unless you say no and unless the Federal Government gets involved to issue laws with serious teeth against this brazen theft.

CamperBob22• 3 years ago

If it comes to that, Federal law won't be enough. The producers will just go offshore to search for talent they can exploit.

You can't fix this problem with guns.

asdff2• 3 years ago

This really wouldn't be that big of a leap to make. I remember seeing a behind the scenes special years ago about one of the star wars prequels. They'd have like a half dozen people in a wookie suit and then basically use software to copy and paste those people into an army. That was years ago. I imagine the only reason why they don't use pure AI now is that its cheaper to pay an extra their day rate and film them in costume to use as an initial template for cgi copy and pasting, than it is to pay a cgi artist to make that initial template extra design and copy and paste that. Maybe AI now changes that math.

game_the0ry• 3 years ago

I am not a fan of modern movies. More and more, movies look visually artificial. Like they try to make it look too aesthetically pleasing with no flaws. Most look like they are done in a studio with green screen.

But I must be in the minority bc the whatever-marvel-movie part 8 sells a lot of tickets.

I think for folks like me, there will still be a market for real actors in real scenes. Especially for live theatre / broadway. I refuse to let Disney choke me with fast-food visuals and marketing gimmicks.

robotnikman• 3 years ago

fast-food visuals

That a good way to describe it, I think I'm gonna steal this term and start using it myself.

ShowalkKama• 3 years ago

I wonder how long we'll have to wait for them to be used in porn. Who needs deepfakes when you have a 3d model?

TrackerFF2• 3 years ago

Ever since Hollywood started using the more modern but still manual "de-aging" tech, as seen in "The Irishman" - I've kept thinking: Consumer-grade deep turned out better. I remember when deep fakes became mainstream, some youtube hobbyist showcased his deep fake de-aging of Robert DeNiro, compared to what the movie makers did - and the deep fake looked better.

One problem was that DeNiro - while still a fine actor - was a man in his mid 70s trying to portray a man in his 20s/30s, as seen in the somewhat cringy fight scene.

So why not just do this: Get some cheap no-name actor / double do the acting, and let DeNiro license his face to the movie.

FWIW, I don't like that idea - but it seems to make sense? Especially with actors that are long gone. That's already been done. Speech synthesis is also becoming pretty remarkable, so you can also provide voice.

In fact, I'm surprised this tech hasn't completely taken over dubbing yet. Both the deep fake tech to get the right mouth movement, and speech synthesis to match the voice.

Anyway, I think that in 5-10 years this will be case. Unless SAG-AFTRA is powerful enough the curb that kind of use of tech.

likenesstheft4• 3 years ago

If having someone's likeness requires, by Federal law, consent in the form of a licensing agreement where the person receives compensation then that's more okay.

I would still prefer a full ban on this. Maybe it'd be okay if theater or non-CGI film end up becoming their own booming industries owing to people enjoying being together in a place and seeing the limits of modern practical effects. With these deep-fake films and shows being labeled as "CGI" and letting the market decide.

nimbius• 3 years ago

Unless SAG-AFTRA is powerful enough the curb that kind of use of tech.

Unlikely. after the '78 commercial strike most studios made sure to keep a buffer of more than a year of content. animation studios are effectively immune to strikes since most animators arent unionized, and most of the voice work isnt either.

SAG also routinely spent time trying to turn acting into a racket. Membership was notoriously difficult and hasnt evolved with content creation in the 21st century. Ultra Low Budget, Student, or Short Films do not qualify towards SAG-AFTRA eligibility (Youtube/TikTok/etc...) SAG-AFTRA membership is also restricted to SAG-AFTRA job sites, so it doesnt really "grow" per say. Were you a grip or gaff on the set of a Ford commercial and it wasnt a SAG-AFTRA job? you're not eligible to join.

SAG's demands in the current strike are nearly as unreasonable as the studios.

nebula88044• 3 years ago

Maybe they have been infiltrated by studio supporting people? Too many conspiracies to keep track of in this day and age.

mrweasel• 3 years ago

There's going to be a market for "verifiably produced by humans". Theater is already a semi-luxury, not easily replaced by A.I. It's interesting to see theaters survive when movies in many ways produce a better experience. It's my belief that will see something similar for other types of content, we will have the generic A.I. powered entertainment and news and then we'll have a smaller, more expensive, "made by humans" segment of movies, books, news and theater.

A.I. content is for the masses, not upper echelons of society and the hippies.

esalman4• 3 years ago

I'd bet on the same that AI generated content proliferation will increase the premium value for authentic, curated human-generated content.

ks2048• 3 years ago

Presumably they want to replace people with AI/CGI to reduce costs (also convenience and speed, etc, but it seems those could be reduced to costs too). And yet, it seems the modern CGI-heavy movies budgets keep increasing?

PurpleRamen• 3 years ago

It's important to control the flow of money. As long as it flows into your companies, you can charge whatever amount you want, and drive the system to your benefit. Hollywood-accounting at it's best.

pleb_nz2• 3 years ago

Modern movies then look to continue down this path of looking fake and getting worse.

I watched some movies from the 80s recently, kids movies, and I was blown away with the special effects. IMO they were more enjoyable than what's being output today from a special effects POV and the overall cinematic experience and skills involved.

Today's movies just seem so fake, empty and forced.

Obviously there are some exceptions if you go looking.

Spivak• 3 years ago

I think this is being unfair to modern movies and I say this as someone who loves old 70s-90s horror movies. They do have a very real quality to them on account of the very good practical effects, comically bad "cgi", little in the way of studio staging, and often very little in the way of soundtrack. It creates a vibe that is really hard to replicate.

But modern movie style has its pros, the dreamlike quality that once your brain adjusts to the clean unreality makes it feel far more real and lets movies push further in bending reality, the truly incredible soundtracks that amplify emotional moments and build such beautiful tension, modern cgi that puts even the best horror makeup to shame, waaaaay better audio compression and mixing making jump scares truly terrifying and action hit harder, the ability to bend or break the rules of camera focus to create movies where the whole screen is sharp to show off the set or build dramatic irony for someone paying attention.

There is a lot to love about movies in the last 15 years. People seem to have forgotten how fucking good the first two Iron Man movies were, how mind boggling the first Avatar was visually. We've been eating so well we're sick of the taste.

pleb_nz2• 3 years ago

I have to say I disagree. But I also did say there are some exceptions. Personally I wouldn't include Iron Man in that list of exceptions. The first Avatar I would.

pipeline_peak3• 3 years ago

This isn’t surprising by any means, look how far NPCs have evolved since GTA3 to GTA4.

Hollywood doesn’t need a bunch of blah blah men to sit in a coffee shop and pretend to talk.

esalman4• 3 years ago

So basically eliminate every movie genre except animation?

pipeline_peak3• 3 years ago

I’m not sure how I led you there. I simply meant it’s only a matter of time until physical background characters become obsolete.

freddealmeida• 3 years ago

Imagine growing up to be an extra in a film AI is good for this industry.

Extras worry they'll be replaced by AI. Hollywood is already doing body scans

Related Stories