[72mena]

> Once they figure out how to animate this stuff, it puts the movie industry out of business.

I'm also intrigued about the potential of AI-generated animation.

However, I don't think the industry would be "out of business", but rather they would simply evolve into a new phase. The established movie industry will most likely have access to the most expensive and performant AI models to make short and long form animations, which would be time and cost prohibiting for hobbyists.

[lordfrito]

Agree, the movie industry won't be out of business overnight.

Like IBM, the rumors of "company X" demise are greatly exaggerated, and this tech is far from mature. But my god at first I thought this was real. The clock is now ticking, fast forward several generations, and what are we dealing with here?

To me this is a Napster moment. If your job is related to the movie making industry at all, you should be sitting up and taking notice. The industry is a massive/slow behemoth that is a ripe target for this kind of disruption. What's the point of building sets once these tools become photorealistic? Yes we're still in the Uncanny Valley, but that's just a matter of time to solve these kinds of problems (deepfakes anyone?).

CGI killed the traditional animation industry. Even Disney shuttered it's traditional animation department. I think we're looking at the same kind of disruption here on the live action side of things. Why have a studio lot at all ? Equipment rental, prop rental, stunt actors, logistics, food service, you name it. Talk about the end of brick and mortar.

My guess is it will look a lot like the music industry, which has essentially become all Marketing and Promotion, where the actual production of music has almost become an afterthought. The Marketing arms of the industry may be the only thing that survives the transition in some recognizable form.

There will always be a demand for "live action", just like traditional animation is still being done in some niche corners. [1] But that's the exception, not the rule. You'll continue to have enthusiasts using traditional methods for the sake of it. But I think the clock is now ticking. It may be in its primitive infancy, but add time and the tech stack will eventually mature.

Lately, more and more, I feel like I'm actually living in the future.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGOneMdjpw4

[tetris11]

There won't be a sea of new young faces trying to break into a role anymore, or be an extra, or work on the stage crew, since they just won't be able to compete with the AI alternatives. Hollywood thrives on a human pyramid of desperately motivated individuals trying to get noticed and willing to do anything. This might shatter that base, and could have knock on consequences: agent-star exclusivity, entourages, glam mags, production crews. Celebrities will be the same ones we see today, the door for new talent is closing fast.

[lordfrito]

This. The trend has already started, tech like this will (eventually) accelerate the transition.

People don't go to movies to see movie stars anymore. They go to see Marvel characters. [1]

I think we're at the bookend of a transitional era for movies (and for many other things). Transition started with Napster, iPod, Netflix, etc. and ended with the "mainstreamization" of Marvel. Traditional movies are dead, what's left is something that really doesn't look anything like the movie industry I grew up with. Like other art forms (opera, theater, orchestras, etc) traditional movie story telling just isn't where it's at any more, the "masses" have moved on. The industry used to be full of passionate creative types. Now it's full of people working their butts off to get their name somewhere in the 20 minutes of credits at the end of a film, for the prestige of being able to tell their friends they work in the industry. It's a self-sustaining business at this point, full of nepotism, cronyism, and people happy just to stay employed doing whatever it is they do (digital work, setting up lights, renting equipment, managing the logistics).

I've asked my cinemaphile friends if they can name a big up and coming director? Who is the next Tarantino? No one has any real answer. At best I get JJ Abrams, who (at 56) is on the tail end of his career, and if anything he's a symptom of the problem (mom and dad worked in the business). It's a group of insiders churning out jobs for their kids and a steady stream of income. Hollywood is nothing more than a brand now.

Whatever the "future" is, it's here. More Marvel, less relevance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj8JK6c5x3M

[rdlw]

> name a big up and coming director

Villeneuve! Bladerunner and Dune were both beautiful and highly stylized, and his work is enough to sell me on Cleopatra and Rama. Yes he's also in his 50s,but at least that means he's getting huge budgets to do what he wants now.

Wes Anderson is a similar story, though he's been doing it for longer because his films don't need as big a budget. Most people I know would go to see "the new Wes Anderson" sight unseen.

Although I haven't seen his earlier acclaimed work, Bong Joon-ho certainly does not seem to be at "the tail-end of his career".

I think the reason these directors are all in their 50s is that studios aren't willing to trust younger directors as much, but that just means there ARE up and coming directors in their 20s and 30s who are making low-budget short/art films, who have not yet found public appeal.

Expanding to TV series, Alex Hirsch is not technically a director but his name is a major stamp of quality assurance.

Edit: Ari Aster is 36. Jordan Peele is 43 but just beginning his directing career. Roger Eggers is 39. Damien Chazelle is 37. I'm using age here as a metric for being at an early point in their career.

[lordfrito]

I have no problems with Villeneuve... he's more than competent, definitely interesting. But (to me anyways) directors like this aren't the same league as the giants that came before them. I'd trust him enough not to mess up an interesting picture, but he's not really pushing the envelope as much as before. I'll take another Tarantino or Rodriguez, and I doubt we'll see the likes of Kubrick, Welles, Fellini, Tartovsky, Leone, etc. ever again. Heck I'd settle for another Spielberg, he may be a bit saccharin, but he has a killer instinct for the art based on his mastery every single aspect of filmmaking.

> I think the reason these directors are all in their 50s is that studios aren't willing to trust younger directors as much

That's sort of my point... Until recently, every generation had it's great young directors. Seems that is no longer the case. Now you have to play the studio game before they give you a film, and by the time they do you're such a predictable and "safe" player that you can't make (or don't want to make) an edgy / important / risk-taking statement-making kind of film.

Sort of like punk rock, it takes a young and angsty person to take the kind of risks needed to push the envelope in interesting or artistically important ways. Once a director grows up, has kids and hits middle age, well they get a bit more boring, and it comes across in the toned down films they deliver. Lucas and Ridley Scott come to mind as two very capable directors that have "matured" enough to see that what matters is popular appeal and profitability. They start out as artists and end up as producers.

> but that just means there ARE up and coming directors in their 20s and 30s who are making low-budget short/art films, who have not yet found public appeal.

Absolutely! A24 films come to mind of course. They are about all that remains of the old way of making movies. Guys like Ari Aster come to mind. The sad part is I doubt we'll ever get a "mainstream" picture out of him. Hollywood and the masses have moved on from this kind of storytelling. So the "old way" of doing things has been relegated into some niche corner of limited commercial appeal.

Honestly I'm not quite sure how A24 manages to stay in business. They take a lot of chances for the limited budgets they are working with. Not all of their films are great, but all of their misses are interesting. At the end of the day what matters are they making enough money to keep going?

I don't understand how is A24 delivering the kind of high quality pictures that they are, while studios like Band/Empire/FullMoon (which seem to be in the same league, same small/mid budget arena, also seem to be taking the same kind of risks that have limited commercial appeal) can't deliver anything beyond direct-to-video and MST3K quality films? I mean is A24 really profitable? Or is this a labor of love for them? If A24 was profitable you'd think someone in Hollywood would take notice.

Thank god for A24! Any film they produce is an automatic "goes on my watchlist".

Lastly, Jordan Peele is another name that comes to mind. I'm not quite sure how he's crossed over to more mainstream appeal, but I'm glad it's there, his films are great.

Anyhow my 2 cents, I understand this is all a matter of opinion.

[carewell]

To be fair both Kubrick and Tarkovsky probably felt dwarfed by the likes of Vertov, Eisenstein, or even Chaplin. Specifically in terms of pushing the envelope. These were different times with different envelopes.

Villeneuve innovates in a different space, maybe not as philosophical as Tartovsky, and not as symbolic as Fellini... but I don't think that language and that storytelling would work nowadays anyway. There is also Nolan with his very sophisticated world building. Yes it's all pretty mainstream, but so was Kubrick and Tarkovsky (at least in the USSR).

You mention Tarantino (which I personally don't like), but there are many lesser known directors from the 90s-2000s with a fantastic filmography. Kim Ki-Duk and Noel Gaspar come to mind. The world of cinema has not stalled, maybe we need to look outside of Hollywood more eagerly (but then again, neither Fellini nor Tarkovsky where Hollywood).

[lordfrito]

I love the interesting stuff coming out of South Korea. It's great to see foreign directors getting their due again.

I get why Tarantino divides people. He's sort of low brow, lowest common denominator cinema. But he loves spectacle, and he knows how to make things cinematic. In my mind, he's America's answer to Leone. Flashbacks and non linear storytelling, larger than life characters with larger than life conflicts, and use of music as a central part of the film experience. In many ways you could argue he's been copying Leone's style his entire career.

I miss Leone. We got so few films from him. But what films! No one other than Tarntino/Rodriguez (maybe Coen brothers) has really carried any of this kind of cinematic storytelling forward. Tarantino at his best has Leones sense of timing, subtle wit, conflict, and ability to suprise. But they miss most of the subtleties Leone brought, the subtext of humanity and tragedy hiding just below the surface of his films. Tarantino is simply spectacle, Leone was something greater.

[Slow_Hand]

I think perhaps your friends need to expand their circle of interest when it comes to film. The film industry is full brilliant up-and-comers with very distinct voices doing original works:

Ari Aster, The Safdie Brothers, Robert Eggers, Daniels, Greta Gerwig, Rose Glass

[lordfrito]

I love this list... especially fond of Aster.. these are some great young directors, when given the opportunity they'll deliver something worth watching. Notice there is a lot of overlap with A24 here.

As important as these voices are, they aren't "up and coming" directors in the classic sense. The studio system isn't interested in giving anyone here the chance to do something larger with more mainstream impact. These directors seem to be relegated to indie films, as Hollywood is no longer interested in risk taking.

To clarify: I'm not saying these aren't great directors, they are. I'm saying Hollywood doesn't want to work with this kind of talent, is no longer capable of developing this kind of talent, and wont take the kind of risks necessary to deliver the kinds of films they used to be able to using this kind of talent.

Spielberg and Tarantino are household names, because of the studio films they made. These other directors will likely never have that much mainstream appeal.

[Slow_Hand]

I suppose another thing that the people on my list have in common is that they're all writer/directors.

You could also say that most of them also fall into the category of "auteur" as well. Though that can be a little bit of a loaded term, so the individuals might reject that designation, even if they do embody it.

One director who does stand out as doing well-regarded indie stuff and now blockbuster films is Chloe Zhao. I haven't actually seen any of her films and couldn't comment on the content of her work, but she seems to check your criteria, if only on a surface level (nothing against Chloe).

What about Christopher Nolan? He seems to be winning all fronts as someone who is in bed with major studios, has wide critical acclaim, commercial success, and makes bold, creative movies. I guess he's not up-and-coming, though.

[prpl]

I love me some Gareth Evans. He might be a bit too focused on action to be a Tarantino though.