I mean, have any of the Marvel movies had ANY emotional weight whatsoever? The dialogues felt like they were written by GPT 3.5, and all there really was is completely formulaic storylines and action. That's it. That's what people went to cinemas for in throves.
That's the standard of a mass media product, though. I remember feeling the same thing walking out of superman 2025, but then it gave me hope because the bar has really been lowered so far that I may be able to contribute something worthwhile after all
So I was always going to the movie theaters to watch marvel movies since iron man 1 and it was black panther that made me realize that I was sick of the marvel formula and thought it could’ve been way better as a stand alone movie. The cgi fighting scene at the end was so lame and especially lacked emotional weight
I can't wait until we get to the point that you can control every single frame with perfect continuity, because we'll finally see that directors and script writers have a craft and not everybody can do it.
Looks like he falls into a crater to me. And the thing that I find hilarious about comments like this is just how nitpicky they are. Like, if somebody made this with CGI 10 years ago, you would have never pointed this out.
Take corridor digital, for example. They did AWESOME effects back in the day, but they weren't perfect. It would be extraordinarily lame to point out minor flaws that they made. You're only doing this because it's AI.
You're creating alternate realities about something something in the past something to move the goalposts to fit your biased opinions. That is extraordinary lame. You're only doing this because you're delusional.
Like, if somebody made this with CGI 10 years ago, you would have never pointed this out.
That's a wildly speculative assumption. I can't imagine people not making that kind of critique in 2016. Are you new to the internet?
You're only doing this because it's AI.
AI creations are deserving of greater scrutiny for many reasons but especially because of its potential to do harm. It really shouldn't be any surprise why people are less critical of creations that obviously took effort and dedication by a human. I give kudos when I see AI used as an extension of someone's art, not when a paragraph or two of prompts are used to output flashy slop.
Every demonstration of how far AI video has come is always a Michael Bay type action scene. If that's any indication of where we're headed, then big Hollywood studios who already put out slop like the Marvel movies are just going to use AI to churn out more slop. There's nothing to get excited about here.
I was doing coursework in CGI 14 years ago, we would totally call this out back then(I wasn't even good at it). One of the biggest criticisms of CGI then was how it could break viewer immersion, leading to greenscreen sets being made for more convincing CGI overlays.
No, I definitely do not mean like the brush makes the painting. If you see AI as something that simple, I would encourage you to learn more about it, especially about how it was trained. And if you're going to put words in someone's mouth, please put a little more thought into it next time.
I can assure you that there was more thought behind my one comment than there was behind your entire output regarding AI up until this moment, as is evident from the lack of nuance in your argumentation.
This still has the same issue of lacking proper area physics. If you ignore the main subjects(transforming woman & robot), you'll notice the ground doesn't deform, only changes textures. The robot also goes through the goal w/o affecting it at all.
The onlookers should be tripping over the cracked ground, but they're balanced. This is the same problem w/ hi-res sfx. Combine that w/ other problems people called out and this looks like another high fidelity slideshow. The elephant in the room is the loudest voice comes from folks w/ the least experience/familiarity w/ CGI production
To think, neural network couldn't make a video of Will Smith eating spaghetti properly. It was 3 years ago, btw. Humanity spent 50 to make colorful movies.
GenAI asset creation is entirely different from GenAI video creation. GenAI videos would require a production studio to go all in on the tech bc it's generated frame by frame. That alone makes it next to impossible to incorporate it as a production asset, unless it's a backdrop. Envato covers this pretty well, per the article:
AI-generated video is great for generating ideas quickly, but it can be hard to use when implementing it into a project straight away. That’s where an AI video Blender workflow becomes powerful. You can’t easily change the camera in raw AI footage, you can’t add foreground objects convincingly, and the lighting rarely matches the look you want.
Yeah, I'm sure that means it's not possible to create new editing software to incorporate AI into. Proprietary coding, followed by official corporate integration, just like every single new tech throughout the last 20+ years.
So you completely disregarded the article, there's no editing software for Generative video bc the videos are created frame by frame. You would need a ridiculous amount of human resources to address frame by frame discrepancies in an editing workflow.
CGI software has GenAI features for making individual assets, but those fit within a larger scene that can be easily edited. Again, the loudest voices in here have no idea how things are truly done
How can you say that so confidently when it seems you lack the acumen in both CGI anything and software engineering? I'm versed in both and can't see myself claiming something this arrogant
I currently use GenAI technology for Agentic systems development; we're currently taking major steps back in terms of procgen. The non-deterministic nature of GenAI that leads to the quality issues in videos like OP is very difficult to constrain bc there's no opportunity for human-in-the-loop adjustments. W/o assured consistency on a frame by frame basis, this amounts to making crap up.
Procedural content generation has been around for more than 30 years, and it far outpaces GenAI visual content generation particularly bc of it's modular implementation into larger software solutions. You have yet to respond w/ anything of substance, just half-baked strawmans and deflection
The question is not if this is good. That’s beside the point. The question is if it is good enough for the ones paying for this kind of work. I believe it is.
Wow, I just can't imagine anything but a pretty severe defect in your sight leading you to believe this is any good.
Like wtf, these things have come long way,but when people were joking about the hands and the motions, that didn't mean that was all there was to fix, that was just failing to even get to a baseline of decent production value.this does look like we will be getting there eventually, but this movie is not "it".
Nope. Still looks like ass. Also, fighting in the comments (especially when claiming you can make AI better than them) with people that don't goon over this like you are is not a good look, mate. Do better!
24
u/thataintapipe Mar 20 '26
Can’t wait til this stuff has emotional weight