[dragonwriter]

> How long until we see blockbuster movies produced by a guy in his basement for <$1000?

Probably never. If AI is good enough to cover all the skills needed to do what would currently make a blockbuster movie for less than $1000, the demand for movies will be small enough relative to supply that there will be no such thing as a “blockbuster movie”

[theendisney]

Just like with games visual are only part of the formula. In theory you can make a truly fantastic movie (or game) for next to nothing. I didnt believe this before The man from earth. That cost 200K but it didnt have to.

Edit: perhaps 12 angry men was good enough at the time.

[jampa]

>Edit: perhaps 12 angry men was good enough at the time.

I recently watched it for the first time, and it was one of the best movies I've seen. I can't believe how invested I was, even though the plot was so simple.

[brcmthrowaway]

Because the movie is the epitome of humanism.

When AI slop figures out that formula, we are truly cooked

[xmprt]

I don't believe that consequence. It's never been easier for someone at home to make short videos - see TikTok and YouTube. In fact most people consume most content on those platforms. Yet there's still high demand for movies and blockbuster movies still happen (usually driven by hype on the aforementioned platforms).

On the other hand, I think the quality of movies and expectations will be a lot higher.

[dragonwriter]

> It's never been easier for someone at home to make short videos - see TikTok and YouTube. In fact most people consume most content on those platforms. Yet there's still high demand for movies and blockbuster movies still happen

This is obviously true, but I don't see how it relates to the question being discussed. "Short videos" and "blockbuster movies" are clearly widely separated categories, despite both being audiovisual content of some kind.

[dweekly]

The same argument could reasonably be used to explain why no YouTube influencer would ever get more than 1,000 subscribers - if everyone can upload videos that anyone can watch, nobody will really be famous because fame will become very evenly distributed, right?

[dragonwriter]

> The same argument could reasonably be used to explain why no YouTube influencer would ever get more than 1,000 subscribers -

No, that would require a radically different argument, in pretty much every way.

> if everyone can upload videos that anyone can watch, nobody will really be famous because fame will become very evenly distributed, right?

No, Youtube makes distribution cheap, but it doesn't substitute for most of the other things that differentiate between videos; most of the skills that provide variation between videos are still there, and not cheaply substituted via YouTube.