GPT-4o

Way back, when CGI was still new, there was this whole segment of "movie lovers" who were vehemently opposed to it. Now, by new CGI, I mean Spielberg dinosaurs new.

I eventually decided the anti-CGI folks were basically in favor of randomness. They called it “organic.” They wanted the “organic nature” of how the light would only be just right for that brief window of time where the Earth and Sun were aligned just so. Never mind that the whole film crew (from director on down) would race to set up a shot to take advantage of that “organic” moment while praying for good weather; that was still better apparently. To have to roll the dice to get what you want on film. To have to sometimes give up and try again the next day, after the universe rotated back into that "organic" position they liked so much.

It turns out, CGI's main advantage was it gave directors more control over the frame. Allowing the director to decide just what she wants the light to be, to use this take even though there was some issue in the background (which they can erase with CGI and thus save for use), and so on. Sure CGI lets empty-headed directors say crap like “big explosion, right here” or “three eyed alien waving its arms while running after the car” or whatever, but it also enables all those things Youtubers desperate for content will mine from DVD behind-the-scenes discs and throw up as a revelation. Stuff where you see “oh, Wolf of Wall Street had CGI in basically every frame we were given.

Control is a big thing mature creative AI technology will give creators. CGI gave that control only by sitting dozens upon dozens of humans in front of bank after bank of computers to twiddle and coax it out of the aether. AI is going to open up control in a way that changes everything about storytelling presentation.

The tech is continuing to mature. At some point, you’ll be able to shape an AI voice the way a director can shape a human actor’s performance. “More passion, more fire, let’s go again.” Having a conversation with the (human) actor, while hoping they understand you and do what you ask, only to find what you thought was clear was different from what they took from it, and you all have to keep trying until you get there. Versus tapping in some commands and letting run again to see how that works.

There’s a semi-famous story from Wrath of Kahn. Nicholas Meyer was the director, and he wanted William Shatner to stop doing Shatner-Kirk stuff with the performance. He wanted some acting, not the Shatner shtick. But he felt having that conversation with Shatner wouldn’t work, would backfire. And then he noticed that if Shatner got bored or tired with the scene, the shtick wore off and some actual acting came out.

So Meyer had to “wear” Shatner down.

Take after take after take, Meyer knowing full well they were all bullshit wasted takes. Whole cast and crew, everyone on the film set, just spinning through the motions while Meyer had to play this little unspoken game with Shatner to eventually get the performance he wanted.

Meyer also talked about Ricardo Montalban too, who he was even more intimidated by since Meyer was a very new director and Montalban had a huge filmography of acting credits. Meyer was afraid to try to direct Montalban, and when he decided he had no choice but to try and broach the subject, go into how exactly he wanted Montalban to perform, he was happily surprised to find Montalban was a creative professional quite willing to work with the director to find a performance Meyer wanted.

Not every Montalban is going to be kind and generous and approachable. How many "big stars" are above taking any comments from anyone, least of all a director? Ego is a thing, and ego fucks shit up all the time.

So much of storytelling when you move past writing is collaborative. And that’s fine. Not only is nothing wrong with it, but it can even produce magic when the right people get together and collaborate on a project. However, just because multiple folks are involved doesn’t automatically make it better than a solo project; cinema is rife with tales of meddling that screwed stories up quite badly.

Kind of how “organic” by not using CGI to just dictate whatever elements you decided were important isn’t automatically better. What matters is what ends up on screen. Sometimes organic gives a better result, sometimes control does.

Many of the key “storytelling skills” once you get past writing don’t actually involve storytelling. They involve people manipulation. Charm, charisma. Being able to interact with folks. Being able to give orders when you’re in charge and have them followed, rather than dismissed as the cast and crew ignore you because they hate you or think you’re (insert any number of things people think about each other) and so on.

James Cameron famously went over to England to shoot Aliens and had a hell of a time dealing with the English crew. They didn’t know who this American kid was. Cameron was young at the time, and Terminator hadn’t hit England yet, so as far as they were concerned he was a clueless nobody. Worse, a filthy American. -Edit- Even though he's Canadian, people forget since he lives and works in America.

Never mind that he was the director, they just weren’t very interested in working with him. So they were difficult and there were problems and delays and all that simply because they weren’t willing to work collaboratively out of personal reasons. He finally had to enlist others to help him convince the local cast and crew he did know what he was doing and cooperate with him.

Cameron isn’t a fuzzy-feelings people person it turns out. That part’s quite famous too. Loads of people who’ve worked with Cameron have decided he’s not a people person. But you can’t argue he’s a bad storyteller or bad filmmaker; the man’s proven he’s a cinematic genius.

But what shows up in any story about him and his body of work? “Cast and crew from his projects say he’s difficult to work with.” Just because he’s not fuzzy-feelie with people, he’s “difficult.” And further, only the fact that he is that good at filmmaking and storytelling allows him to overcome this difficulty. This handicap. Which, again, is nothing more than not being charming.

If you took everything Cameron is except the people part, and dropped him into a Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise type, people would fall all over themselves at every opportunity to herald his boundless genius. “Wow, he knows so much about film and story and how to create an amazing, breathtaking piece of cinema. He’s so easy to talk to, so wonderful on set, it just lets everything flow so well.”

That’d be the story, the line. Because he’d be charming, the only difference. He’d have that people skill thingy, instead of “only” being a cinematic genius.

One of the things a mature creative AI is going to do is remove things like that from the equation. Or, at least, from some of the equations. Some projects, some of them student or newcomer projects while others might be big time major projects, are going to come about because someone similar to Cameron won’t have to successfully pass skill checks to charm cast and crew.

That charmless director will be able to directly order his AI actors, his AI voices, his AI everything, while creating. He could do all of it on a live set with real humans, but he’d have to pass those skill checks he can’t. Because people always place supreme importance on people skills, and will hold it against you hard if you don’t have them.

How many amazing storytellers have we missed out on simply because they didn’t give good meeting, didn’t have the ability to charm and dazzle in person while sitting down with a financier or actor or crew lead? How many people were just ordinary people who didn’t have the knack of manipulating others successfully who were told off and made to get out of the whole process simply over that lack and no other? How many newcomers were scared away by veterans determined to lord it over the Johnny-come-latelys?

How many stories have we missed due to people hating on people who aren't good with people? Reference Neil Gaiman's Library of Dream as a hint.

So much is going to change with mature creative AI technology. You can coax and beg and plead and try to figure out the secret sauce in how to convince an actor, a camera operator, anyone in the project, to listen to you … or you can push buttons and get the exact performance you want, you need, to complete a project and be able to show it to others.

Right now that sounds silly because the tech isn’t mature so of course you have to have humans involved. Only a human can give a human performance.

Now.

What about next year? Next decade? At some point, the tech will mature and first with the voice, and then later with the visuals tied to the voice, you’ll have AI actors audiences are perfectly content with. Who they’ll respond to, react to.

Does that mean we don’t need human actors? No. It’s just another option, another tool in the box. We use CGI stunt people right now for stunts that are too dangerous to do live, for example. Student directors, low budget directors, socially inept directors, time pressed directors, and more, will all have a lot of use for a cinematic toolbox that lets them shape their ideas into a finished forms.

Another possibility; lots of modern audiences feel the visual is permanently tied to the character. Meaning, whichever actor was cast is who should always own that role. Actors age, actors retire, actors die. It didn't used to be a thing that you couldn't replace an actor when they moved on for whatever reason, but these days social media melts down just because a key actor dies and "it's disrespectful to replace them."

The show must go on isn't a modern sentiment apparently. So what if we endrun around it. Human actor "wearing" an AI generated mask on screen. Sure we cast a cast, but we didn't cast their likenesses, we cast their performance. We, the project, own the likeness because the project creates it. James Bond could always look like Bond, for example; and extend that example just as far across however many other franchises or characters as tickles your fancy. Sure actors would come and go, and you'd still have "well I like the Craig Bond better" and all that, but at least Bond would still look like Bond which seems to be pretty important to a lot of folks.

Plus it would let actors focus on being actors, and let productions focus on great actors. Instead of beauty. When you create the likeness for all the same cost in time and effort as you'd spend on hair and makeup, you can cast whoever the hell you feel is best. Irrespective of what they look like. That popular complaint about looks and beauty outweighing talent would be nipped right in the bud, and it'd be lovely because it's quite tiresome to put up with in my opinion.

Bottom line, anyone who puts in the time and considerably effort to learn storytelling can probably get to a point where they can write a story. Or a script. But right now, that’s where the fun stops. You have to be a people person of some form to be able to take it further. Even selling it off to someone who is a people person who’ll take the story to the next form requires people skills.

Back in the day, CGI was this scary thing that was ruining movies. AI, from images to voices to even text, is the new CGI; it’s scary and not understood and it’s “ruining everything.” But it’s going to open up the cinematic palette in new ways. Same as how CGI opened up the filmmaking palette in new ways.