Steven Soderbergh Defends AI Use in His New Documentary about John Lennon (apnews.com)
- Reference: 0183265537
- News link: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/26/05/18/0215200/steven-soderbergh-defends-ai-use-in-his-new-documentary-about-john-lennon
- Source link: https://apnews.com/article/john-lennon-steven-soderbergh-ai-cannes-documentary-7794a4344ed455cae4c5780fa6610860
In a [1]new interview with the Associated Press , Soderbergh defends the film's limited use of AI to visualize concepts from that two-hour interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono:
> Soderbergh was resolved to let the audio play. He could finds ways to visualize much of the film, but that still left a large gap where the conversation grows more philosophical. "I worked on everything that could be solved except that for as long as I could," Soderbergh says. "Then there was the inevitable moment of: OK, but really what are we going to do? We just started playing and ran out of time and money. That's where the Meta piece came in." Soderbergh accepted an offer to use Meta's artificial intelligence software to conjure surreal imagery for those sections, which make up about 10% of the film.
>
> When Soderbergh let the news out earlier this year, it prompted an uproar. One of America's leading filmmakers was using AI? In a film about a Beatle, no less? The AI parts (overwhelmingly slammed by critics in Cannes) are fairly banal and don't differ greatly from special effects — there are no deepfakes of Lennon. But they put Soderberg at the forefront of an industrywide debate about the uses of AI in moviemaking. It's a conversation the director, who has made movies on iPhones, is eager to have.
While the film follows John and Yoko's conversation, "I needed a way to follow them in flight visually," Soderbergh says, "or I'm not doing my job." Though when asked about the strong negative reaction, Soderbergh acknowleges that "I knew what was coming. I take it very seriously, and I understand why people have an emotional response to this subject. As I've said before, I feel like I owe people the best version of whatever art I'm trying to make and total transparency about how I'm doing it."
AP: Some fear generative AI will tear apart the film industry. You don't see it as a bogeyman, though.
SODERBERGH: I think most jobs that matter when you're making a movie cannot be performed by this tech and never will be performed by this tech. As it becomes possible for anybody to create something that meets a certain standard of technical perfection, then imperfection becomes more valuable and more interesting. We haven't seen yet someone with a certain amount of creative credibility go full-metal AI on something, and see how people react. I think it's necessary. How do you know where the line is until somebody crosses it?
"I don't think what I'm doing crosses it. Some people may disagree. I don't know where my line is yet. I'm waiting to see...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/john-lennon-steven-soderbergh-ai-cannes-documentary-7794a4344ed455cae4c5780fa6610860
What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see any issue.
He's free to use as much AI in his movie as he wants.
I'm free to not go and see it.
It's win-win all around!
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. I've never heard of this person or this film. If you don't like it, don't watch it. IDK why everything has to be a "controversy" now.
Re: (Score:2)
> Exactly. I've never heard of this person or this film. If you don't like it, don't watch it. IDK why everything has to be a "controversy" now.
Everything that is divisive has to be a controversy. It's kind of the definition.
What you're really asking is, "why is this divisive?" It's divisive because some people want AI everywhere in art (the corporations that bankroll and profit from art) and some people do not want AI everywhere in art (most artists, many consumers of art). Nearly nobody is demanding AI to be nowhere in art, just that its use is constrained to where it makes sense. But different people have different tolerances and that make
Re: (Score:2)
> Exactly. I've never heard of this person or this film.
Have you heard of Ocean's Eleven? He directed Ocean's Eleven. And a few dozen other films, one of which you're probably seen, unless you don't like going to movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Ocean's Eleven? Didn't that come out in 1960? Dude must be really old.
Eleven (Score:2)
You're thinking of Ocean's 11. Different film.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean's_11
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean's_Eleven
Re: (Score:2)
It was a joke, you silly goose.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that he is an artist and needs to keep making money to get opportunities like this, so when critics pan his work and audiences react negatively, he feels the need to defend his decisions.
It sounds like he ripped off those people who take a podcast, add AI slop images, and upload a video to YouTube.
Re: What's the problem? (Score:1)
Yoko is famous primarily for being a talented musician's cum dumpster.
Seems like a strange move. (Score:2)
He seems weirdly untroubled by the fact that he, voluntarily, turned his project into a tech demo for facebook in exchange for some imagery deemed abstract enough to accompany 'philosophical' parts of an interview.
Re: (Score:2)
The other question is why would you want abstract imagery to accompany a philosophical conversation?
I don't see how that could ever be helpful in a documentary where we are supposed to be learning about what Lennon and Yoko were thinking.
Either philosophy has some concrete premises that can be shown, and should be to help anchor the conversation or it is going to be ideas of a conceptual nature that does not have an visual representation that people would understand in a shared way.
I fail to see how some ma
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that 'philosophical' means 'vaguely trippy visuals' seems weirdly common. In fairness to the people doing the visuals sometimes it's because what is being passed of as 'philosophical' is stupid; rather than because they are; but the latter case is also pretty likely. No idea what Lennon said in this case so can't comment on the likely cause.
Re: (Score:2)
> it's because what is being passed of as 'philosophical' is stupid; rather than because they are
Which a really good documentary might, simply offer the statement or some analysis to the effect that John and Yoko where conceptual artists and not everything they record offered great insights, but we can take a listen anyway to perhaps gain some insight into their process.... During which for visuals you don't then need to try and represent the conversation, you probably just show them and what their surroundings might have been at the time.
I don't know I have heard the subject materials either but at le
Re: (Score:2)
I assume that this would have been too banal, or he's about a generation too old to remember it immediately; but it really sounds like he could have 'solved' the same problem to the same degree with milkdrop or one of the other popular music visualization options from the glory days of winamp; but thought 'AI' would make a more interesting 'making of' story.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the association of philosophy with abstract imagery is because the only time that the vast majority of people of the Baby Boom generation ever got "philosophical" was when they were high.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more horses for courses, and can also vary considerably between what different demographics, both contemporary and historical, think of as "perfection". Hollywood is largely driven by white western males, so they naturally favour your "20% silicone", although that does seem to be undergoing a gradual change of late, but that's not the case for world cinema as a whole; you'll find far fewer wannabe Barbie Dolls in African cinema, for instance.
From a people portraiture perspective, especially
Re: (Score:1)
> Also, why limit it to women implanting silicone
because they've been brain melted by nonstop redpill podcasts and outrage farming on their FYP. "hypergamy" is the dead giveaway.
he's a 58 year old incel, what a fucking mess we've made of the world
Who defines important? (Score:2)
Heâ(TM)s saying that Visual effects designers are not important. Because heâ(TM)s replacing somebodies work with AI output.
if I were someone who worked in that field, making the kind of content he used AI to create, and then dismissed my work as unimportant, Iâ(TM)d be salty as fuck.
their work is important enough that the film could not be considered complete without it, but not important enough to have a person do it. There is a clear double standard being promulgated here, that amounts
Re: (Score:3)
If you read carefully, what he technically said was, "I couldn't afford visual effects designers." From the summary it seems he would have if it hadn't run out of funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I saw that. And when combined with the quote towards the end, explains why his position is so fucking insulting.
> I think most jobs that matter when you're making a movie cannot be performed by this tech and never will be performed by this tech.
This basically means that if your part of the movie making process can be performed by this tech, now or in the future, then your job doesn't really matter. Which is a wild take considering that he felt like he could not release the video without the parts AI provided, and which would have been handed to a person to do before AI exists, or if he'd had the budget for it.
Fact is the job DOES
Re: (Score:2)
People who lie as much as he does aren't worth talking to. If you're forced to talk to them, try to focus on facts as much as possible.
Ah yes, the Beatles (Score:2)
It's nice to see that these smaller, lesser known bands are getting some coverage. Sometimes it feels all the attention goes to the famous bands, leaving small, unknown bands like the Beatles with their excellent music unheard. [1]Incidentally this is my favorite Beatles song [youtube.com].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghb6eDopW8I
Re: (Score:2)
Stomp clap hey.
LOL money always (Score:3)
> We just started playing and ran out of time and money. That's where the Meta piece came in.
There's nothing philosophical here, they needed money.
He is correct on this point. (Score:2)
"We haven't seen yet someone with a certain amount of creative credibility go full-metal AI on something, and see how people react. I think it's necessary. How do you know where the line is until somebody crosses it?"
The Beatles like the Vietnam war were an early boomer thing. Both were over by the time I was old enough to care.
âoeIf I donâ(TM)t do it, someone else wi (Score:1)
Is essentially what heâ(TM)s saying. This is how scumbags usually justify their terrible choices and behaviour.
"most jobs that matter" (Score:4, Insightful)
It's another way of saying "What I do is very important; what you do doesn't really matter." Gee... not piggy elitist at all, huh?
Free advertising (Score:2)
For a film nobody would otherwise give a shit about.
Exhibit 1,374,882 (Score:2)
Exhibit 1,374,882 that a large number of people are really stupid. And should be largely ignored.
meh I'll pirate it (Score:2)
.. if I can be even bothered to do that. Teacup of storm anyone?
AI's not the problem in media, it's quality and originality, even with AI we were drowning in shit content.
AI's not going to fix the quality issue either, need some young human directors and producers to produce something new that isn't a sequel, prequel, meta, video game spin off. A new Cohen brothers, Jeunet, Lynch. Powel and Presberger and maybe a Spielberg or Jackson for something epic with a cast of thousands. Ideally something hopeful a
I see no problem (Score:2)
When there is no other option, technical tricks are all that's left
In the past, it was hand drawn animation, then CGI, now it's AI
This is completely different from artless, mercenary slop made entirely with AI
Translation (Score:2)
Translates to: I - a world famous massively successful Academy Award winning director - have failed to properly budget my movie. Because I have failed at one of my primary responsibilities as a director and producer, someone has to not get paid. And that someone is not going to be me.
Re:Mccartneyist-Lennonist (Score:5, Insightful)
I’ll agree that their early pop stuff is forgettable but the later albums were groundbreaking and innovative. My favorites are Rubber Soul and Revolver. I was familiar with The Chemical Brothers song called Let Forever Be so hearing Tomorrow Never Knows for the first time was a bit of a revelation.
Tomorrow Never Knows [1]https://youtu.be/m4BuziKGMy4?s... [youtu.be]
Let Forever Be [2]https://youtu.be/s5FyfQDO5g0?s... [youtu.be]
Lots of new recording techniques went into this song [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://youtu.be/m4BuziKGMy4?si=fZ8TxWuC8GCR-ZFE
[2] https://youtu.be/s5FyfQDO5g0?si=P5uxcagXVEVM1tpU
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_Never_Knows
Re:Mccartneyist-Lennonist (Score:5, Insightful)
Context error. You weren't growing up in the '60s to know, or rather feel, how different the Beatles were at the time; not so much very early Beatles but a bit later. The only reason you feel like it is elevator music is that their music has become so pervasive, and does not rock the house down.
The Beatles could never happen now because music execs want to see immediate return, not wait for a band to come together and give the band time to really gel their song writing abilities up to snuff. And execs do not seem to want to promote bands so much as individual artists. A band involves several moving parts any one of which can destroy the band. The result is that the music produced to today is rather banal and has little soul. You have go to progressive rock and jazz-rock fusion to get the most interesting music. And that space has been steadily shrinking as youngins are rarely exposed to it.
Another issue is many musicians back then were simply better without needing a lot of pseudo effects. I do not think the Beatles were particularly good musicians but they knew how to write well once they go into their stride. If you listen to Deep Purple, or Led Zeppelin, or Black Sabbath, or Yes from back then, you can really see how they excelled at their instruments. Incidentally, Deep Purple is still doing gigs. Richie Blackmore is off on his traditional music kick and Jon Lord has passed on. But Don Airey is certainly an excellent keyboardist and their current guitarist Simon McBride is very capable, although I liked Steve Morse (the previous fellow who took over for Blackmore so that Blackmore could spend more time with his ego) better.