What gets me is their choice to desperately follow trends and misapply an off brand David Attenborough narration for an animated story rather than the usual inspirational narrator trope these stories usually use. Is this a documentary about the brutal beauty of nature to them?
@@sticklyboimy man most of the time the scenes look as if they were still frames while only the "characters"slowly shift into new positions while the Yt Ai Narrator slowly kills your braincells lol
@@Nasrul260 nah, i feel like those sora videos (you probably mean them) were also partially "faked" same as Gemini AI showcase (which was fully faked lol). I think this is still the state of AI "animation" and it's so slowly improving it's surprising really.
What’s funny is ai is starting to get worse now that so many ai’s are being unknowingly trained off of even more ai, which just enhances all the previous flaws, as well as more artists using anti-ai filters on their art
This is the most literal interpretation of “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” The only tool at this company’s disposal is AI, so they’re using it for every part of the creative process. I’m confident that not only the imagery but the entire script and plot were also created by AI and uncritically incorporated into the product. No creativity here. No taste, no intent, no soul. This isn’t even close to art.
Truth be told, they probably don't care about AI either. They're too deeply uncurious for that. I wouldn't be surprised if whoever is behind this "project" tried to sell NFT before this.
@@shytendeakatamanoir9740 True if they were passionate it would be better there's tons of examples of ai being amazing, i mean chat gpt got a major intelligence upgrade because the coders there actually care, this company is just trying to make money with the least amount of effort...
@@shytendeakatamanoir9740True that, they're probably only use AI to make literally everything so they can make money out of it, no matter how crappy they look, basically throwing things at the wall and see what sticks, but while one thing is sticking on the wall, they keep throwing things, they don't have any plan :"D
@@shytendeakatamanoir9740FINALLY SOMEONE POINTS THIS OUT I am an AI lover, not an AI bro, I adore AI but I'm not the kind of person looking to make money off of it, to scam with it, to exploit it. I just want to see what I can do, play around with the limits of computation and get some interesting stuff out of these AI toys. Because I love AI so much, I'm the biggest supporter of regulating these things for companies because I know its limitations, which are basically everything. AI is shit at everything companies are trying to say it can do, it is good for two things, being a fun toy to mess around with, and giving actual humans something to work with and turn into something of value. AI can only give you a rough draft at best, I want people to stop trying to sell its work as a finished product.
All the AI movies have plots about unremarkable workers with unfulfilled dreams that turn out the be super important. Almost like all the corporate AI dudes aren't happy with their jobs.
Seems more like wishful thinking that they’re projecting, believing that this is their chance to finally be the next big thing without actually having to go through hard work, sweat, blood and tears like actual legends in the industry have gone through
TBF, that's the plot of a lot of animated movies. Although it's usually it's, 'this seemingly unremarkable person does something awesome in this movie". It's one of the laziest movie tropes, so it's fitting it'd make the transition to AI scripting.
You can already see how they have absolutely no dynamic camera shots. The characters are always in the center of the screen, staring at the camera, looking into your soul. I don't understand why people are impressed. A child could make a more visually interesting trailer. AI isn't able to make a movie, that's like expecting your microwave to do your taxes.
Listen, we've already sold our attention for short form content, we're going to sell our creativity for garbage content, usher in a new dark age, and no one will ever know how to do anything ever again because the AI will do it for them while burning vast amounts of energy.
it's so fucking confusing, honestly, the same oxymoronic thing as pixar telling directors not to use personal stories anymore in order to be **more** relatable. because such experiences as [checks notes] being in an immigrant family, struggling with parent expectations, and... being italian are not relatble to dozens of millions of people, but buzz lightyear in HD is??? what do they THINK people consume media for? to engage with others and appreciate creativity, whether or not they can articulate the combination of fine art, performance, musical score, narrative, sound design, cinematography, etc (all of which hundreds of real living people put months/years of love into) that makes the thing so enjoyable? or to look at colors and shapes move around for a few hours?
Right? And it's so sad how many people blindly respect, adore and nodel/look up to these people. I never realized so many people were disconnect from reality. It blows my mind. I will say, we are all products of perception though, and some have no way to know, so it's not totally their fault. @@TokyoTaifun
Can the ai only make a static minimal movement single scene? If these didn't have the narrator, it would literally be just swapping between very simple gifs.
You can see it act like it WANTS to put motion in, but then just gives up like halfway through. 14:07 is a good example, he's in a mid-walking pose, making you think it's meant to be a still-frame (or an extremely slow motion, since his leg is slightly moving), except that's a really weird single-frame walking pose. And then his arm wobbles at a normal speed and completely breaks it.
The biggest factor separating Ai vs human made stuff, is that every frame of a film/every piece of artwork was deliberately crafted by someone with at least some intent behind it. With Ai, you just type in a prompt and hope the result is at least similar to what you wanted.
That's not literally true, since there is tweening in pretty much all digital animation - an artist creates key frames and the computer interpolates how the model moves in between, which is both faster and usually more natural looking than if a person tries to do it by hand - but for sure every single frame is studied in detail by a human clean-up artist. Just like in actual film, where the cinematographer doesn't take a separate picture for every single frame, but every single frame still has to match the director and cinematographer's vision. It's theoretically possible for a human to clean up every frame of AI animation (you could, for example, fix the text issues on the signs with a relatively simple planar-tracked overlay) but actually fixing all of the problems would be more work for a worse result than just animating it would be.
@@somusai I mean, generative AI is shit when it comes to a lot of things, but as far as making an entire movie it's irredeemably shit, and it will remain essentially impossible for it to be anything other than shit with any conceivable evolution of the current technology.
@@blockalismthats why AI is better as tool to enhance artist’s work, instead of making art on its own AI interpolates the art, and the artist polishes up the animation to make it look good. still funny to me how Noodle’s video on interpolation is still relevant- if not more relevant today
If you ever try to train yourself to lucid dream, one of the 'signs' you're dreaming is that you can't discern actual written words or numbers in a dream (like clocks or books will look like gibberish), and I think that's why these AI gen videos leave me with that offputting uncanny feeling, like I'm not quite sure it's not a dream I'm having after eating too many tacos.
@@KalinTheZolayeah personnaly its more the lack of consistency that tends to be an indicator. Like I'll look over several times and the words/pictures will change or I'll straigh up end up with a book in my hands when I was originally looking at my phone lol
I think I saw the same one too. It was like an ad for a lawyer or something that would get you compensation for asbestos poisoning. The “animation” on it though made the whole thing come off as a joke.
i remember seeing a bunch of deepfake advertisements of what i assume to be influential rich guys for finance shit 😭 it sucks that youtube doesn't let you report advertisements like that
I'm a newbie animator (just graduated with an advanced degree) and in my opinion, Monster's Inc. still holds up against modern animation. They worked so hard to animate Sully's fur and you can see the care in every shot. AND THE SOUND DESIGN OMG
I honestly love Monsters Inc because it legit just reminds me of my dad going to work I do not like ow why. It just has that nostalgic feeling of going to work and I just remember going to his workplace a lot and it felt soooo, like relatable? The monsters inc workplace is exactly like a normal workplace but with monsters and I love it. And it is just jazzy with its chill moments as well. Also one of my favorite openings to a movie.
"The quality of their movies has been declining" >Last entry shows a 88% critic score and 95% audience score There are movie directors who would make a blood sacrifice for a score like that
I can’t believe I’m wistful for Video Brinquedo’s unique brand of Pixar rip offs. At least humans were involved in the making of Ratatoing, What’s Up and The Little Panda Fighter.
The fact that the main character’s design literally changes in every shot he’s in should speak volumes about the minimal amount of effort put into this.
Yeah he went from having big bushy eyebrows in the first shot when he's in school, to not having them when he gets back home and he also grows a big nose, then he completely changes to a purple and blue monster with teeth and slightly bigger eyes without a nose, and he goes back to just being very fluffy and having no eyebrows like he used to and also having no claws and a smaller nose, and then when he's standing in front of the entrance to the candyland place, he literally has a spike tip head and still does not have those eyebrows he used to have and also a slightly smaller nose and mouth and is also relatively shorter. I know it's just small details but this isn't following his original design.
love how 1. every ai background character looks like a melted spongebob popsicle 2. the ai could not decide whether that "movie" wanted to be about monster camp or "candy crest"
I don't think AI will get much better, at least not good enough to do a full animated movie off of just a prompt. Because the level of control you'd need to fix things like continuity errors would just wrap it back around to being CGI, except instead of having a traditional rendering engine you're just running your scene through AI to render it.
@@snoopysnackssame here. I hate AI but with the amount of improvements it has Gona through I truly believe it can replace anything unless its got a limit of some sort
@@torna2508it does have the obvious limit - consistency AI can never be consistent in its job with art or especially video And like OP said, if one wants to correct these inconsistent areas, they’d have to manually work on it, essentially making the person who generated the AI, to actually work for once lol
Yeah, like incorporating ai in their own process and lobbying to change laws in a way that makes both ai images and art styles copyrightable. Like, I'm sure the big companies will do something, but I doubt it will be something that can benefit small independent creators ar protect them in any way. Sorry for my pessimism.
The biggest regulation that should be put on AI generated content is that any work created in majority by artificial intelligence cannot be used or sold commercially. This solves pretty much every issue with it if properly enforced.
@@evanestewart7665 If it can't be sold without being a transformative standalone work, that no longer matters. That's always seemed like a red herring to me anyway. As if the ai-generated oversaturation and domination of all art markets leading to the death of culture would somehow be okay as long as their training data was ethically sourced. I don't think so.
@@Hmm_Ace_Attorney_Channel AI bros would just work to hide the fact that their content is generated, and if it can't be proven in court, it'll continue to thrive honestly i think the only recourse is to ban generative AI entirely
@DavidJCobb I'm not as concerned with small fish as with big corporate entities forgoing the human element in favour of AI. While they have dubious moral/legal records, they tend to try finding loopholes rather than breaking the law. Of course, a full ban would be preferable, but I don't see it being practical now that the genie's out of the bottle.
@@DavidJCobb I'd be incredibly concerned about how a ban would be handled though, high chance of not fixing anything with the big companies just setting up shop somewhere else, and the possibility of the legal definition being poor and catching other neural network stuff in the crossfire while also being worked around by the big companies anyway. It's sadly just one of those things that doesn't have an easy fix as far as I can see.
AI will always thrive on the awkwardly placed blurs to get rid of areas it doesn't know what to do and it will always give me a headache. Like I've seen realistic AI but it had a faint blur on it and I immediately got a headache
And for AI writing, there’s always something that immediately tells me a human didn’t create this. I can’t even describe what it is, maybe the insincere tone? I don’t know
@@youre764 the lack of substance, flair, intent, the distinct personal experiences of an author in relation to an author's upbringing that affects how they phrase and describe things, etc... most ai 'stories' read like articles, sentences that lack further interpretation. etc, etc, you get the point lol
I don't think it'll ever be able to write good stories and the animation will look better over time but idk if it'll ever be like a flawless industry standard because the thing about animation is that it's iterative. My boss asks me to animate a monster jumping and I animate it and they say "that's good, we need him more stretched at the top so we can really feel the drag as he comes down" and then I do that and they say "Okay now he's not in the air for long enough" and then I do that and sometimes I have to break it and remake it and tweak and tweak 100 times depending on the shot before it looks and feels really good. Can AI do that? Can I go in and say "there's foot sliding from frame 1246-1310, clean it up" or "make that punch feel crunchier"? Idk maybe it can but it just seems like something that requires a human to make something really really good and not just passable at best
literally, people thinks animation is just "thing move" and don't understand the amount of attention and love (sometimes hate) dedicated to every frame to make the thing look as good and effective as it does. this is why "EXISTING THING BUT IN 60 FPS!!!!" interpolation shit is fucking stupid. no, it doesn't look smoother now, it looks sloppy.
@@firelordoregano5632 Exactly and so much of it is just what feels good. Sometimes you break the laws of physics and cheat things because that makes it feel better even if it doesn't necessarily make sense. Sometimes to make everything in camera look perfect you have to break the parts of the rig that are off camera. Encanto released a great example of this where for the sake of framing the shot in the most effective way they had to mangle Maribel's arms but all of it is off camera. Is AI gonna make calls like that? Can I tell AI how to make something feel? Idk
@@ramboturkey1926 I'm curious if whatever internal workflow of the AI is good for the tiny fixes because why aren't they doing that now? Like why aren't they taking the videos they have and saying "fix frames x-x because this is happening and it shouldn't be" They can generate the entire movie but they aren't saying "the background characters here have weird eyes can we redesign" or "the lip sync shouldn't be here because its narration so remove that in this section and hold his facial expression", "the tv changes from this scene to the next so fix that" etc. If this is what it excels at shouldn't it be happening?
The narraration for the shoe factory one has the same cadence of Jerma reading "let me tell you a sad story" and that makes me laugh. The only laugh ive ever had looking at an ai product
These people don't understand what makes stories, animation and other forms of art so compelling. It's not the generation of the product, it's not its "resell value", it's the act of telling a story and expressing an idea through one's skills. It doesn't even have to be "professional" looking, a stick figure drawn by a 3 year old has more unf and personality to it than anything AI-generated. Because AI just does not understand physical space. Until it does, this sort of shit is a downgrade. AI does not have intelligence of organic life. Organic life experiences and thinks for itself, AI only looks for patterns surficially and tries to find connections between inputted words and the imagery that is tied to said words. It has no actual thought behind it. Some AI DOES understand some concepts and tries to come up with its own solutions, but it is used by scientists, not some greedy, appropriating goobers online. The backgrounds are horrible. The designs are inconsistent. The shadows and lighting make no sense. The anatomy is horrendous. What the fuck
Even children with no idea what AI is wouldn't enjoy these. The characters looking different in every shot would confuse them. Not to mention that one terrifying monster with the candy dripping out its jaws
3:47 I see you playing "Death by Glamour" while talking about the passion levels of a robot. you may have fooled the rest of these people, thinking it was a random song choice, but *I* know
You know what it is actually dream-like. A fever dream to be precise. Incomprehensible and terrifying. The kind you'll weak up from sweating, out of breath, unable to get back to sleep
honestly, if they could be trusted to use ai to start a concept and then have real artists refine it, it’d be a powerful tool, but they’ve now proven they can’t
It would be harder to clean this up properly than it would be to just animate it. Just fixing the continuity issues with the characters changing wildly between shots would essentially require redoing most of the project. And it would still be worse, because you'd be limited by the awful shot composition - to say nothing of the plot! Even with an unlimited budget, there's no salvaging this. There are definitely machine learning tools that make art easier (and there have been for years, they just weren't branded as “AI” before this hype cycle), but _generative_ AI will never be much more than a spam machine. Maybe there will be some limited applications, like mass generating 3D models and animations for background characters in crowd scenes, but barring a transformative change in how the technology works, that's about it.
I have a friend who heavily inspires me in my art creation. Once she told me that whenever I feel upset about how my drawings are turning out, think to myself, “At least it isn’t AI”, and that has actually helped me a lot. I’d take cringe deviantart mspaint fanart over whatever this garbage is any day
Luma AI is seemingly incapable to make much happen in a shot. The Monster Camp had more going on. Eli and the Shoe Factory had shots in which Eli didn't even finish a step.
They both suffer from that though. That candy monster doesn't move at all - he just gets transported a bit sideways across the background while holding completely still...
What's great is that us animators can technically take this entire trailer and make the movie without credit. They're already stealing work from other creators, why cant we take it back?
Taking it back would be using it to learn how to compose different things and how a story is crafted, not taking the entire trailer and then adding new shots to make it a movie.
6:31 Mate didn’t notice that one of the cotton candy scenes with the yellow monster, there was LITERALLY used Mike Wazowski Chilling in the background! It’s LITERALLY HIM!!..
Im pretty sure that even if i could get behind AI films, it's still frustrating because its obvious that AI can't imitate the heartwarming or silly or comforting feelings we all get from real Pixar movies.
If they wanted AI movies to be a thing they shouldn't have started it by stealing art from everyone and everything. They should have started off on a better note and obtained the art and stuff for AI to train on legally and get permissions. Because duh, when you basically steal everything your AI is using its going to piss everyone off and leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
Eli and the Shoe Factory is basically just an animanga. There was barely any animation involved. It was mostly long-ish shots of mostly static monster things.
Why does so much AI generated media use that Attenborough-esque voice? I hear it everywhere! I'm assuming it's a preset in some tool that all the AI creators are using ??
@@ibuprofen-noodles I just checked and you're right, it's from elevenlabs - ty, I didn't know that! Imagining the full AI gen movie voiced only with voices from that library makes me even more uncomfortable
I find it real creepy how the candy monster at 5:52 just is completely still and then moves towards the camera like someone was holding a picture up on a stick. The face doesnt budge in the slightest for the whole cut
AI replicates real life so flawlessly! Whenever I look at the backgrounds of AI generated films or art I can always relate to seeing trees that float and clip or melt into other objects. Life is so beautiful!
Hypothetical legal question; could an artist redesign this and own the copyright to it? As far as I know, you can only own the copyright to ai generated content if you own the copyright to the content used to train the ai. For legal reasons this is purely hypothetical
I've read that AI can't be copyrighted at all, but of course I didn't go further than what Google told me. Technically you can take this and make something new out of it since they didn't make this, a computer did.
It's funny, because AI looks kinda like how my dreams look. I can always tell I'm dreaming and become lucid if the words I'm reading are complete nonsense, or I'm talking to a dead person. Lol Same energy.
On the plus side a comic made with AI was already deamed as not being copywritable, so if you wanted to...say...steal this, post it for free, sell copys, make a horror or nsfw sequel that ruins the "IP's" reputation, you could do it. There are also a few big companies suing for use of their copy write material in the training models, so maybe it will be a non-issue
Hey! That's my hit tweet you're reading at 7:50. It's kind of fitting that my most liked tweet ever is about my utter hatred for this godawful AI short.
Btw that teaser is probably is trying trick people into paying for a fake full movie that will never release because they will never be able to keep the setting and character designs consistent enough. Also the ai voices might randomly change after a while.
Do your research before spreading misinformation. It was posted on Luma AI's social media as a showcase of how you can make uh.... passable... from a distance.... animation. Making up your own version of reality to justify your hatred is not healthy.
I suspect the reason every frame looks strange is that Imagine each frame is an artist so let's say that frame where that Gus Gustavo ass teacher walks up to that child monster, let's say that scene is 200 frames. Now each "artist" has a different idea of what the story should be so the first artist draws the teacher thinking he should go right but the next artist thinks he should go straight. That's how I suspect the AI makes each "video" (it's really not art or video production)
They had to build a new set of cgi-handling technology to make Sully's hair work right. An ai can't even approach that level of care. It will simply never be able to make anything innovative enough to excell.
Seriously, it's like that one AI movie project (I forgot what it was called but the Princess Jane thing). Why do AI Bros think that movies are just still images while a character/narrator just spews exposition and plot at you?
I find it interesting that with almost all of these ai animated films, they have to rely on a narrator throughout to explain whats going on in order to make sense of the visuals. Im not sure if the narration was the prompt given or if its added after-the-fact, but either way it shows the lack of intention and actual understanding about how movies and stories overall are made. These feel like someone giving you a synopsis of a movie they watched once a full decade ago with the visuals of a fever dream- no cohesion between, just vague representations of a movie concept.
Candy, princesses, cartoony monsters... you know, things thar are easy to sell to kids who wouldn't think twice and parents who want their kid to shut up- I mean, be happy.
