this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
150 points (98.7% liked)

movies

2129 readers
278 users here now

A community about movies and cinema.

Related communities:

Rules

  1. Be civil
  2. No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
  3. Do not spam
  4. Stay on topic
  5. These rules will evolve as this community grows

No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

Of course he is scared, he's been coasting on rehashing Pocahontas but with blue aliens for a decade. He might actually have to put effort into it if anybody can make a movie.

[–] semisimian@startrek.website 31 points 4 hours ago (4 children)

You don't need AI to create soulless depictions of humanity, James Cameron already does that. I think he is just protecting his bread and butter from automation.

Snark aside, I grew up loving his movies. As a film student, I loved taking them apart in critique for his mastery of technical filmmaking. As a professor, I used the DVD extras from his films to show just how forward-thinking his knowledge was of VFX. But this Avatar garbage is just the result of a kid who finally leveled up enough to produce the comic book he wrote when he was 8. It's awful.

[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It’s bizarre that of all the things he could do he’s seemingly decided to devote the rest of his life to avatar

[–] errer@lemmy.world 2 points 40 minutes ago (1 children)

I mean the movies made like $5 Billion combined, doesn’t seem bizarre to me

[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 35 minutes ago

Sure but at that point in his career he certainly didn’t need to make cgi action slop just for money

[–] Godort@lemmy.ca 15 points 3 hours ago

Honestly, T2 and Aliens are masterworks of genre fiction. Titanic was also good, but it really was just "what if a love story had incredible VFX?"

After winning a few Oscars, I think he finally started believing his own hype. That's when he realized he could just make whatever he wanted, because studios would bankroll anything with his name attached.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 hours ago

It really is the shallowest teenage scribble of a franchise. You can picture him sitting in his dorm room, listening to Tarkus and Olias of Sunhillow until the grooves wore out, doodling weird furry giantess smut, imagining all the claymation he was gonna do to make the bestest sci-fi film since Dark Star.

[–] sudo@programming.dev 10 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

IIRC he's said its from when he was a teenager on mushrooms.

[–] semisimian@startrek.website 11 points 3 hours ago

I did not know this but I believe you completely, dear stranger.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 17 points 5 hours ago

In the future, "prestige television" will just be TV that uses real people in the production cycle.

Maybe we even get a channel that's "100% Human" and you need to spend $40/mo to subscribe

[–] AngularViscosity@piefed.social 6 points 4 hours ago

The age of artisanal media will be interesting.

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

He's not wrong, but I don't think the James Cameron of the last decade has any room to criticize others for not creating sufficiently "sacred" art.

[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 13 points 4 hours ago

Even James Cameron has room to criticize ai advocates

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

The Avata of Pandora? Oh sorry that was Frank Herbert.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Man, remember when CGI replaced animation, after animation replaced actors? It's a real shame we don't have actors anymore, since the moment they weren't strictly necessary. It would've been so much cooler if technology simply allowed new things to exist when they'd otherwise be implausible or unfundable.

[–] hydrashok@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

You’re not wrong, and I think I understand your point, but what is the current balance of CGI animated movies released per year versus hand drawn and painted? Now what does film landscape look like if we applied those same release ratios to live action films?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 26 minutes ago

Does that seem likely? Pointing a camera at actors is not inherently difficult or expensive. Even when AI is involved, it's best at turning whatever you have into whatever you describe - so you film real people in real costumes, and let CGI-for-dummies make up elaborate sets. Or you hire three great actors to play a dozen characters.

Even for CGI films, 'have' into 'describe' just means you can half-ass the animation and rendering. Productions can focus on writing, character design, and cinematography, then feed in some footage of actors in VR Chat, to get out a scene approaching Pixar quality. Is Pixar itself going to use that process? Probably not. But it's a million miles from typing 'funny scene high quality' and crossing your fingers.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 points 4 hours ago

I want to know what the writer, director, and the cast and crew of Simone think about AI replacing actors.

(the movie is about creating an AI actor)