Hollywood's AI Bet Isn't Paying Off (wired.com)
- Reference: 0180748918
- News link: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/26/02/06/1930222/hollywoods-ai-bet-isnt-paying-off
- Source link: https://www.wired.com/story/hollywood-is-losing-audiences-to-ai-fatigue/
The latest casualty is Mercy, a January 2026 crime thriller in which Chris Pratt faces an AI judge bot played by Rebecca Ferguson; one reviewer has already called it "the worst movie of 2026," and its ticket sales have been mediocre. AI-generated content hasn't fared any better. Darren Aronofsky executive-produced On This Day...1776, a YouTube web series that uses Google DeepMind video generation alongside real voice actors to dramatize the American Revolution. Viewer response has been brutal -- commenters mocked the uncanny faces and the fact that DeepMind rendered "America" as "Aamereedd."
A Taika Waititi-directed Xfinity commercial set to air during this weekend's Super Bowl, which de-ages Jurassic Park stars Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum, has already been mocked for producing what one viewer called "melting wax figures."
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/hollywood-is-losing-audiences-to-ai-fatigue/
The old AI movie called, WarGames, did well. (Score:1)
If AI themed movie is to do well, it has to have a well thought out storyline, preferred meaning to life.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh I forgot to mention.
WarGames was shown in 1983.
It's not AI (Score:2)
AI can help with animation and image or video generation. It's a tool. The problem is, Hollywood uses it wrong. Before all this Hollywood was already computer-generating cartoony, offputting versions of actors. It already sucked and the reason is lack of quality control. That lack of quality control persists to the present day. Use AI to generate what it can, and where it can't use practical effects even though that costs more. Hollywood accounting can cover for a lot of things, but making a bad movie isn't
Re:It's not AI (Score:5, Informative)
I know reading TFA is hard, but at least read the summary before commenting. The article is about people not wanting to watch films about AI. It is not at all about using AI to write or animate films.
They will do it like microtransactions (Score:2)
They'll keep cramming it down people's throats until the young people are just fucking used to it and don't know any better. That's how they have done every single shitty thing to us over the last 50 years. They just keep at it until we either get used to it or the people who don't get used to it die off.
This is why you need better education in schools. You need people who are smart enough that AI swap doesn't cut it for entertainment.
Re: They will do it like microtransactions (Score:1)
> That's how they have done every single shitty thing to us over the last 50 years.
I only know otherwise from learning history as I haven't been alive that long, but given you have, I think there's a better explanation in your case:
[1]https://quoteinvestigator.com/... [quoteinvestigator.com]
> This is why you need better education in schools.
What the fuck? Of all the non-sequitors...
[2]https://youtu.be/d-5hpn2FGnk&t... [youtu.be]
[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/07/remember-1960s/
[2] https://youtu.be/d-5hpn2FGnk&t=55
AI is just not interesting (Score:2)
Average people understand that and for LLM-type AI, experts understand that. Just the layer in between is still clueless and thinks it is the second coming.
Just another pin helping the AI bubble to burst (Score:2)
In the not too distant past all the articles I saw were positive for AI. So far this year the trend all seems to be not positive for AI and this article is just adding to it. I'm rather hoping that the more this sentiment builds, the less appetite there will be to cram AI into everything and we can start getting back to a world that isn't increasingly filled with AI slop.
"the worst movie of 2026" (Score:2)
C'mon, "Melania" is offering some VERY stiff competition in that race.
I'd rather watch claymation (Score:2)
These people are so dumb. Hollywood didn't go all in on computer graphics when they were shitty back in 1980, they waited until they got gud and made avatar in 2009. Maybe someday "AI" will get there but all these people betting the house on "AI" being perfect right out of the box are just stupid people. I wish there were consequences for their failures but that's not the way capitalism in this country seems to work anymore.
And yes, "AI" has been a thing since before computer graphics, but I'm talking about
Re: I'd rather watch claymation (Score:2)
Remember the evolution of computer graphics. Wrath of Kahn's genesis proposal video was state of the art at the time. You could literally see Lightwave improving through the 5 seasons of Babylon 5. DS9's Way of the Warrior was the last hurrah for physical models, Star Trek went all CGI after that. These things take time to figure out. They don't emerge fully formed.
Re: (Score:2)
The consequences for the failures are real. The issue is that those consequences are too small for well financed and highly capitalized investors.
Suppose you make a movie and put all your savings into the production. Let's say it's $1m just as an arbitrary amount. Suppose the bet fails and you've lost your savings. Real consequence, and it hurts you. Now suppose the movie producer is Elon. Same outcome, same consequences. But he doesn't hurt, and will do another one right away.
Having too many rich play