It’s inevitable Hollywood will employ AI because it is now capable of creating interesting results. In a way, that’s what we mean by “intelligence”. If you interact with another human and you can always predict what they will say and do, then you are not likely to think they are very intelligent. It’s when they surprise you with something useful that you get the impression you are dealing with an intelligent person.
I’m experimenting with an AI service (stopwriting.com), which is a story development tool. I want to see if this is a legitimate way to help me produce screenplays. Given the stigma attached to AI it has a big hill to climb. (But then, hill climbing is an AI technique.)
My experience so far is that the AI is quite intelligent in its responses to what I tell it. And it has experience in parts of the industry I don’t, which is very helpful.
I think this service is extending the capabilities of the person who created it. In that sense, it isn’t taking jobs away or replacing human creativity.
This is the kind of area where I think we will see Hollywood adopt AI. I think creatives in the industry hate the idea of being replaced, but they may welcome its ability to improve the quality of what they do.
Sonny, I really like your articles, but the image you used for your thumbnail will probably give people migraines. I have one and have to get away from it!
Guys, storyboarding is one of the most important parts of the entire filmmaking process. Acting like it’s “just figuring out” what the film is is such an uninformed view. Figuring out the film is the entire point, so no, rushing that process is not going to help anyone make more creative movies..
I go back and forth on this particular issue. I just wrote about it earlier this month! I feel like it's the sort of thing that should be limited to experienced directors who have spent years working out their visual style? But obviously there's no way to enforce that. https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-thoughtlessness-of-ai-filmmaking
I read this article and very much agree with the sentiment. The weird thing about humans is that we need friction to become the most developed versions of ourselves but are constantly looking for ways to reduce friction. And yet, we want to watch other humans struggling to reach their own goals (literally the plot of every movie/book/story ever made that engaged an audience). The friction in storyboarding is not where these films need to "save money and move more efficiently". Efficiency is often the place creativity dies. Problem solving is where creativity thrives.
On the other hand, a friend worked on the ending credits for a major box office project, were paid about a grand a day for 4 months (they weren't the only person in the pipeline), and after having made the entire ending credits and delivered, the studio went with another ending credits they had fully paid for another studio to make. Another friend sold a film to one of the biggees; the film was shot, edited, and ready for release over the course of a few years when the studio shelved it in order to take a loss that year to offset their taxes. These studios know where cash is being wasted, and it isn't on storyboarding and pre-vis.
Rushing it won't help. But if AI can improve the quality of the storyboards, that might. And if it can make their production less expensive, then the process could be expanded, leading to better movies in visually and other ways.
In general, storyboards at the professional level are immaculately crafted. The shots you see in most finished movies, think the most expensive films like the superhero movies and big dinosaur films, are direct, one for one shots from the storyboards themselves. Timing is crafted in boarding, lens choices, camera angles, camera movements are all crafted in storyboarding. Even character acting is highly crafted in storyboarding, leaving room for actors to play, but honestly, not as much as you'd think. And, the artists being used on those films are incredibly high-skilled individuals who can draw just about anything in any way imaginable, from any angle and perspective you could possibly want. These entire films are dependent on the boards, and the idea that many of the monster box office films somehow need to spend less (considering it's not much compared to the overall costs of these films) on the most important part of the entire process is a fantasy being sold by ai companies to people who don't know what this and other parts of the process (like pre-vis) are. And yes, I'm including some of the famous directors who've recently come out in favor of using these tools in the boarding process. For maybe a handful of people who have a hard time drawing and refuse to use an artist to help them board, it might save some time, but those few individuals using these systems aren't going to offset the cost of running them. And, at the end of the day, cutting costs at this part of the process is not going to somehow justify the unbelievable cost and energy use of using ai. These companies can't see a way to make themselves solvent in the long run unless every single aspect of life is using their systems, and they're honestly just not needed for anything other than some math and medical uses which also won't be able to make them solvent.
I'm not downplaying the skills in making storyboards or their importance to getting the best quality possible. It's all part of the process where we need to respect the skills and creativity of everyone.
What I'm saying is that if AI can provide higher quality in producing the storyboards it could be valuable, even if it doesn't make the process faster or cheaper.
Also, what is the "professional level"? In a $50 million budget you can have immaculately crafted storyboards. What if your budget is $3 million?
Let's break this down a little bit. By saying "if ai can provide higher quality" you are downplaying the skills of people who provide the highest quality there is, whether you realize you are or not. Ai can not overplay these people. I've seen them and worked with a few of them, and it's not just their abilities to draw, but their abilities to think through a story in a series of pictures that makes them remarkable. Ai cannot think, feel, or understand, full stop.
Second, if it "doesn't make the process faster or cheaper", then your final question about a $50 vs $3 million dollar budget becomes a bit moot. And again, without experience in this field it might be difficult to understand that the best boarding artists currently working on all levels of budgets of films, really can't be beat storytelling wise which is the whole point of this medium: tell stories in pictures and sell anything around the project to make it profitable. If you don't have an engaging product, you have nothing to sell. If the kernel of your film is made without soul, you have nothing.
Third, the "professional level" are people who are paid, generally a day rate for an eight hour day, to draw/put together storyboards. They work on a range of rates depending on the budget of the film. $3 million dollar films can afford exceptional boarding artists, and many directors also board for themselves because of all the decision making happening in that stage I mentioned above.
Last, if you read my response to Sonny above, you'll see that Storyboards are hardly the place studios are currently wasting money.
I don’t buy the first premise. What would it mean for people to be providing the highest quality there is? How does that even work?
Also, what makes you think AI can’t think? AI has been capable of thinking for decades. And what do you think understanding is? It’s making connections between concepts.
Do you mind explaining what it means for the product to have soul?
I’m skeptical that a film on a limited budget gets the great storyboard art you describe. Of course, it is possible to get good work on a budget. But your claim is that the work is so good no AI can do better on any aspect of it. I could accept that argument on a large-budget movie that pours money into each aspect, including the storyboards. But on a film where the budget is limited, I suspect the range of great artists willing to work on it shrinks.
I agree we shouldn’t deprecate storyboarding. It can make the final product a lot better (just like other parts of the process). I just don’t think applying AI to this (especially where the storyboard artist is employing it as a tool) is necessarily going to rush the process or make it any less creative.
At about 25:00, Ben states that a problem is that people seek to make money from something other than the entertainment that they produce. This isn't new. I read that the Star Wars franchise owners rewrote the script to whatever Star Wars episode had those little furbies in to have those furbies, I'm not a Star Wars fan, but most people know which movie it was, in order to make more toys. The entire Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comic book and movie thing was to sell those stupid toys.
In fact, what I heard a long time ago, maybe back in the 1990s on WBEZ, Chicago's public radio, was that studios were making movies for the Asian market that essentially demanded only continuous action and known quantities that were franchise movies with the same actors in predictable roles.
So, how much "AI slop" was always in production? Is AI slop truly a problem? Can certain production companies make money on their "entertainment", their stories, simply because they are NOT AI slop, either in the new sense or the old?
I've noticed a very disturbing sight. While providing transportation services the past few weeks throughout Long Island, which represents a diversity of socioeconomic and political ideologies, very few people display the American flag. Our Founders would be saddened if they were to see such a widespread lack of appreciation, especially in anticipation of our soon-to-be-celebrated 250th anniversary of the founding of our nation. Now is the time for us to unify to show each other and the world that we remain "the land of the free and the home of the brave" by proudly displaying our storied country's flag "from sea to shining sea." "O say can you see, by the dawn's early light, What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming, Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight O'er the ramparts we watch'd were so gallantly streaming? And the rocket's red glare, the bomb bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?" Star-Spangled Banner from the lyrics of "Defense of Fort M'Henry," a poem by Francis Scott Key: 9/14/1814
A "thumbs down" perspective is waving a white flag of surrender. I refuse to give up. WE THE PEOPLE must show the willingness to defend our democratic republic out of respect to those who courageously fought to win our independence. I will continue to display the red, white, and blue of our democratic republic and unite to fight on behalf of WE THE PEOPLE!
Huh? As an American born and bred, I feel no need to fly the flag and I don't consider it "sad". I say that what should make Americans sad is that the Republicans have succeeded in their silent coup of replacing our constitution with their unitary executive and that enough Americans support it. Dave is correct, flying the flag essentially says that one supports this criminal government that has taken over.
Trump and the GOP, including those on the SCOTUS should hang for it.
It’s a “thumbs up” to the vision of our Founders on behalf of We The People! From an outsider perspective, such as from many foreigners in town for the World Cup, many may wonder about the lack of American interest in their country. that will soon be celebrating 250 years of independence. Our flag was founded during what looked like a losing battle to show our courage and willingness to persevere. At the very least, out of respect to our Founders and the vision they created, we need to show our respect and willingness to advocate on behalf of We The People by displaying our flag.
No offense meant, Jim, but writing in all capital letters is considered shouting online. I personally won’t read anything in all caps. We have to have persuasive arguments, not shouting.
Awesome interview Sonny, thank you.
Excellent work.
It’s inevitable Hollywood will employ AI because it is now capable of creating interesting results. In a way, that’s what we mean by “intelligence”. If you interact with another human and you can always predict what they will say and do, then you are not likely to think they are very intelligent. It’s when they surprise you with something useful that you get the impression you are dealing with an intelligent person.
I’m experimenting with an AI service (stopwriting.com), which is a story development tool. I want to see if this is a legitimate way to help me produce screenplays. Given the stigma attached to AI it has a big hill to climb. (But then, hill climbing is an AI technique.)
My experience so far is that the AI is quite intelligent in its responses to what I tell it. And it has experience in parts of the industry I don’t, which is very helpful.
I think this service is extending the capabilities of the person who created it. In that sense, it isn’t taking jobs away or replacing human creativity.
This is the kind of area where I think we will see Hollywood adopt AI. I think creatives in the industry hate the idea of being replaced, but they may welcome its ability to improve the quality of what they do.
Sonny, I really like your articles, but the image you used for your thumbnail will probably give people migraines. I have one and have to get away from it!
The Matrix gif? I'm sorry!
Wait ‘til you hear from the epileptics…
Yeah, it's distracting. I had to hide it to listen to the podcast.
Guys, storyboarding is one of the most important parts of the entire filmmaking process. Acting like it’s “just figuring out” what the film is is such an uninformed view. Figuring out the film is the entire point, so no, rushing that process is not going to help anyone make more creative movies..
I go back and forth on this particular issue. I just wrote about it earlier this month! I feel like it's the sort of thing that should be limited to experienced directors who have spent years working out their visual style? But obviously there's no way to enforce that. https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-thoughtlessness-of-ai-filmmaking
I read this article and very much agree with the sentiment. The weird thing about humans is that we need friction to become the most developed versions of ourselves but are constantly looking for ways to reduce friction. And yet, we want to watch other humans struggling to reach their own goals (literally the plot of every movie/book/story ever made that engaged an audience). The friction in storyboarding is not where these films need to "save money and move more efficiently". Efficiency is often the place creativity dies. Problem solving is where creativity thrives.
On the other hand, a friend worked on the ending credits for a major box office project, were paid about a grand a day for 4 months (they weren't the only person in the pipeline), and after having made the entire ending credits and delivered, the studio went with another ending credits they had fully paid for another studio to make. Another friend sold a film to one of the biggees; the film was shot, edited, and ready for release over the course of a few years when the studio shelved it in order to take a loss that year to offset their taxes. These studios know where cash is being wasted, and it isn't on storyboarding and pre-vis.
Rushing it won't help. But if AI can improve the quality of the storyboards, that might. And if it can make their production less expensive, then the process could be expanded, leading to better movies in visually and other ways.
In general, storyboards at the professional level are immaculately crafted. The shots you see in most finished movies, think the most expensive films like the superhero movies and big dinosaur films, are direct, one for one shots from the storyboards themselves. Timing is crafted in boarding, lens choices, camera angles, camera movements are all crafted in storyboarding. Even character acting is highly crafted in storyboarding, leaving room for actors to play, but honestly, not as much as you'd think. And, the artists being used on those films are incredibly high-skilled individuals who can draw just about anything in any way imaginable, from any angle and perspective you could possibly want. These entire films are dependent on the boards, and the idea that many of the monster box office films somehow need to spend less (considering it's not much compared to the overall costs of these films) on the most important part of the entire process is a fantasy being sold by ai companies to people who don't know what this and other parts of the process (like pre-vis) are. And yes, I'm including some of the famous directors who've recently come out in favor of using these tools in the boarding process. For maybe a handful of people who have a hard time drawing and refuse to use an artist to help them board, it might save some time, but those few individuals using these systems aren't going to offset the cost of running them. And, at the end of the day, cutting costs at this part of the process is not going to somehow justify the unbelievable cost and energy use of using ai. These companies can't see a way to make themselves solvent in the long run unless every single aspect of life is using their systems, and they're honestly just not needed for anything other than some math and medical uses which also won't be able to make them solvent.
I'm not downplaying the skills in making storyboards or their importance to getting the best quality possible. It's all part of the process where we need to respect the skills and creativity of everyone.
What I'm saying is that if AI can provide higher quality in producing the storyboards it could be valuable, even if it doesn't make the process faster or cheaper.
Also, what is the "professional level"? In a $50 million budget you can have immaculately crafted storyboards. What if your budget is $3 million?
Let's break this down a little bit. By saying "if ai can provide higher quality" you are downplaying the skills of people who provide the highest quality there is, whether you realize you are or not. Ai can not overplay these people. I've seen them and worked with a few of them, and it's not just their abilities to draw, but their abilities to think through a story in a series of pictures that makes them remarkable. Ai cannot think, feel, or understand, full stop.
Second, if it "doesn't make the process faster or cheaper", then your final question about a $50 vs $3 million dollar budget becomes a bit moot. And again, without experience in this field it might be difficult to understand that the best boarding artists currently working on all levels of budgets of films, really can't be beat storytelling wise which is the whole point of this medium: tell stories in pictures and sell anything around the project to make it profitable. If you don't have an engaging product, you have nothing to sell. If the kernel of your film is made without soul, you have nothing.
Third, the "professional level" are people who are paid, generally a day rate for an eight hour day, to draw/put together storyboards. They work on a range of rates depending on the budget of the film. $3 million dollar films can afford exceptional boarding artists, and many directors also board for themselves because of all the decision making happening in that stage I mentioned above.
Last, if you read my response to Sonny above, you'll see that Storyboards are hardly the place studios are currently wasting money.
I don’t buy the first premise. What would it mean for people to be providing the highest quality there is? How does that even work?
Also, what makes you think AI can’t think? AI has been capable of thinking for decades. And what do you think understanding is? It’s making connections between concepts.
Do you mind explaining what it means for the product to have soul?
I’m skeptical that a film on a limited budget gets the great storyboard art you describe. Of course, it is possible to get good work on a budget. But your claim is that the work is so good no AI can do better on any aspect of it. I could accept that argument on a large-budget movie that pours money into each aspect, including the storyboards. But on a film where the budget is limited, I suspect the range of great artists willing to work on it shrinks.
I agree we shouldn’t deprecate storyboarding. It can make the final product a lot better (just like other parts of the process). I just don’t think applying AI to this (especially where the storyboard artist is employing it as a tool) is necessarily going to rush the process or make it any less creative.
At about 25:00, Ben states that a problem is that people seek to make money from something other than the entertainment that they produce. This isn't new. I read that the Star Wars franchise owners rewrote the script to whatever Star Wars episode had those little furbies in to have those furbies, I'm not a Star Wars fan, but most people know which movie it was, in order to make more toys. The entire Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comic book and movie thing was to sell those stupid toys.
In fact, what I heard a long time ago, maybe back in the 1990s on WBEZ, Chicago's public radio, was that studios were making movies for the Asian market that essentially demanded only continuous action and known quantities that were franchise movies with the same actors in predictable roles.
So, how much "AI slop" was always in production? Is AI slop truly a problem? Can certain production companies make money on their "entertainment", their stories, simply because they are NOT AI slop, either in the new sense or the old?
I've noticed a very disturbing sight. While providing transportation services the past few weeks throughout Long Island, which represents a diversity of socioeconomic and political ideologies, very few people display the American flag. Our Founders would be saddened if they were to see such a widespread lack of appreciation, especially in anticipation of our soon-to-be-celebrated 250th anniversary of the founding of our nation. Now is the time for us to unify to show each other and the world that we remain "the land of the free and the home of the brave" by proudly displaying our storied country's flag "from sea to shining sea." "O say can you see, by the dawn's early light, What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming, Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight O'er the ramparts we watch'd were so gallantly streaming? And the rocket's red glare, the bomb bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?" Star-Spangled Banner from the lyrics of "Defense of Fort M'Henry," a poem by Francis Scott Key: 9/14/1814
Are you sure you meant to leave this comment on a podcast about AI in filmmaking?
A "thumbs down" perspective is waving a white flag of surrender. I refuse to give up. WE THE PEOPLE must show the willingness to defend our democratic republic out of respect to those who courageously fought to win our independence. I will continue to display the red, white, and blue of our democratic republic and unite to fight on behalf of WE THE PEOPLE!
Huh? As an American born and bred, I feel no need to fly the flag and I don't consider it "sad". I say that what should make Americans sad is that the Republicans have succeeded in their silent coup of replacing our constitution with their unitary executive and that enough Americans support it. Dave is correct, flying the flag essentially says that one supports this criminal government that has taken over.
Trump and the GOP, including those on the SCOTUS should hang for it.
That's easy to understand: Waving the flag right now feels like a "thumbs up" to the way things are going.
It’s a “thumbs up” to the vision of our Founders on behalf of We The People! From an outsider perspective, such as from many foreigners in town for the World Cup, many may wonder about the lack of American interest in their country. that will soon be celebrating 250 years of independence. Our flag was founded during what looked like a losing battle to show our courage and willingness to persevere. At the very least, out of respect to our Founders and the vision they created, we need to show our respect and willingness to advocate on behalf of We The People by displaying our flag.
No offense meant, Jim, but writing in all capital letters is considered shouting online. I personally won’t read anything in all caps. We have to have persuasive arguments, not shouting.