Fake is Fake And I Hate Fake In All Forms

Five_Inch_Heels

Unexpected
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Posts
1,923
Not another 'AI' story thread.

We've seen too many threads here about fake stories, or accusations there of.

Someone here is using a fake face as an avatar. It's so fake, it's creepy, though if that face were real it might be outstanding. I've gotten so I can pick many of them out even without the mangled fingers showing.

One another thread I mentioned that CGI stopped me from watching new films. I could understand it in limited use for complicated stunts where the use of actors got them injured in many cases and caused insurance companies to clamp down. But they've taken it to the point of nearly making full films with it costing actors jobs.

Fakery goes back a lot further though. I'm not talking about animations and miniatures or models to replicate spaceships and monsters, but rather prerecorded images and sound effects used in later productions to 'cut costs'. In The Addams Family', they only blew the train up once. Every later episode used the same footage. SciFi was good for it, the same monsters and sequences were used over and over again. Sometimes they were altered a bit, but not always.

In multiple TV shows, we saw the same background footage, chase scenes and heard the same audio/sound effects. Rarely were new action sequences and scenes filmed in a way that made them seem real and even more rarely were new sounds recorded.

One notable example was the film 'The Driver'. Anyone that says the ultimate chase scene was in Bullitt has never seen this film. When I first saw it, one thing that struck me was the sound of the sirens that I recognized immediately as Federal Interceptors. I've been in vehicles with those and have rotated the selector switch to make those sounds. It's incredibly unique and the deep resonance created by transistorized amplifiers cannot be reproduced by computer simulation.

How long have we heard it in music? I'm not talking about synthesizers and electronica. Listen to a track on vinyl played on a 1970s turntable with associated components and you can almost 'feel' the music. That's far less likely with digital recordings played on all electronic equipment at least at the average consumer level. High end systems are somewhat better.

Machine generated content, whether stories, images, sound effects or music is not the same as original human created content, no matter how much effort goes into the programming and prompts.

I have no idea why I'm posting this, some damn bunny got up my nose I guess.
 
One another thread I mentioned that CGI stopped me from watching new films. I could understand it in limited use for complicated stunts where the use of actors got them injured in many cases and caused insurance companies to clamp down. But they've taken it to the point of nearly making full films with it costing actors jobs.
Can you provide some examples of nearly-full CGI films wherein actors were denied work opportunities? I'm not arguing the point, I'm genuinely curious if there have been films made that have cost actors their jobs because of CGI use.

In multiple TV shows, we saw the same background footage, chase scenes and heard the same audio/sound effects. Rarely were new action sequences and scenes filmed in a way that made them seem real and even more rarely were new sounds recorded.
This is a common TV production method that has been used since film came into existence. For a show that has to produce multiple episodes over a set period of time, it makes more sense to recycle footage that is only meant to provide ambiance, continuity or a sense of transition rather than spend probably thousands of dollars in not just actor salaries, but production costs. If every show had to shoot new footage every time, the price tag would be astronomical.

In the streaming era, many shows are now only 6-12 episodes a season that all come out at the same time, which means production is usually of higher quality since the episodes are filmed usually over the course of several consecutive months. In this instance there is less need for the recycled footage since every moment of time is usually needed to further the story.
Machine generated content, whether stories, images, sound effects or music is not the same as original human created content, no matter how much effort goes into the programming and prompts.
I generally agree with this. One of my favorite genres of music is synthwave and while a lot of it is technically "machine"-generated, there is a human being creating those sounds through direct and controlled manipulation of electronic instruments, which is a form of artistry unto itself.
 
Taken to its logical conclusion all performance is fake.

I went to a performance of La Traviata the other day and immediately after dying Violetta stood back up and took a bow before the audience. Tuberculosis my arse.

Although I did watch Jurassic Park again recently and I have to admit, the effects were so good it was almost impossible to tell the fake dinosaurs from the real ones.

I kind of agree, but also, special effects have come on mightily since even those films which we think of as birthing the new generation of SFX (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park etc) and I'm not sure I want to go back, even if the average Jackie Chan fight scene still bloodies anything filmed by Marvel.

Music I kind of agree with as well, but I also have long accepted that I've heard all the original music I need to and don't need to keep up with the new stuff when I barely have time to listen to my old favourites. I also regret learning what the Millenial Whoop was because now I'm hearing it everywhere.
 
Go Go Godzilla, There goes Tokyo!

But each shot was painstakingly staged and filmed, whether live actors or miniatures. Not just someone sitting at a keyboard entering prompts.
I love old films. But CGI is not done with prompts. It is done with detailed crafting. It may be writing C++ rather than building miniatures, but it is a craft. Major motion pictures are not using the AI tools you and I have access to.
 
I love old films. But CGI is not done with prompts. It is done with detailed crafting. It may be writing C++ rather than building miniatures, but it is a craft. Major motion pictures are not using the AI tools you and I have access to.
Absolutely 100% this. One should not conflate cinema-quality CGI with the AI slop machines everyone has access to. There are thousands of skilled programmers and artists who create amazing virtual imagery for film and their work is fantastic. Just because it wasn't done on a practical set with real tangible items doesn't detract from the artistry and talent needed to create such things. Both things can co-exist in the medium and have intrinsic value.
 
Absolutely 100% this. One should not conflate cinema-quality CGI with the AI slop machines everyone has access to. There are thousands of skilled programmers and artists who create amazing virtual imagery for film and their work is fantastic. Just because it wasn't done on a practical set with real tangible items doesn't detract from the artistry and talent needed to create such things. Both things can co-exist in the medium and have intrinsic value.
There is also the factor that good CGI takes time and money to do well.

The fake looking CGI looks bad because it was rushed or the money wasn't spent to make it look good.

There are myriad examples of cheap practical effects that look like garbage. It's not the type of effect, it's how much care you put into making it look good.
 
Hey!

(But I agree with pretty much everything else you say.)
Wait. Your avatar isn't your real face? Well, shit. Now I need to rethink my entire life. :p

On topic: I mean, if it's done well it can be okay. I agree that you want things to seem realistic, definitely. And seeing something obviously fake can definitely ruin the experience. I have not seen "The Driver" but I'll put it on my list!
 
I don't know if I can fully agree here. Are you also disappointed when all the actors are still alive at the end of ‘Nothing New in the West’ and no one has been blown to bits by grenades?
I believe that AI is a tool. A tool that offers amazing possibilities, but only a tool. Just like digital cameras. Or electric light. Over time, you will realise when to use this tool and when another tool is more suitable.
If you now say that people can do everything better, then think carefully about the term ‘human resources’.
 
John Carpenter's The Thing is one of the best examples of practical effects ever.

But even more impressive in some ways are the effects for the Exorcist done in the early seventies, an actual freezer of a room to get the breath shots, the guy had to make three different beds, the mouth slingshot for the vomit scene, the spinning head doll. Those people actually did work, not sit behind a keyboard.
 
John Carpenter's The Thing is one of the best examples of practical effects ever.

But even more impressive in some ways are the effects for the Exorcist done in the early seventies, an actual freezer of a room to get the breath shots, the guy had to make three different beds, the mouth slingshot for the vomit scene, the spinning head doll. Those people actually did work, not sit behind a keyboard.


I’ve been doing a lot of research on movie history for my WIP, and one thing that has struck me is how the medium has trained the audience’s eye over the years. When the original King Kong premiered in 1933, the reviews raved about how realistic Kong was, but to a modern obvious, the artifice is unmistakeable. Much of early CGI already looks fake to later generations of viewers. Getting them to accept practical effects has become a nearly impossible task.
 
John Carpenter's The Thing is one of the best examples of practical effects ever.

But even more impressive in some ways are the effects for the Exorcist done in the early seventies, an actual freezer of a room to get the breath shots, the guy had to make three different beds, the mouth slingshot for the vomit scene, the spinning head doll. Those people actually did work, not sit behind a keyboard.
And then this was almost made.
 
I’ve been doing a lot of research on movie history for my WIP, and one thing that has struck me is how the medium has trained the audience’s eye over the years. When the original King Kong premiered in 1933, the reviews raved about how realistic Kong was, but to a modern obvious, the artifice is unmistakeable. Much of early CGI already looks fake to later generations of viewers. Getting them to accept practical effects has become a nearly impossible task.
For a lot of people, they prefer the effects that fit the scene/world.

This was an issue in the new Beetlejuice. Husband and I were watching it and when the sandworms showed up, we looked at each other then almost simultaneously said, "How do they look worse?!"

Horror and action is where practical effects really shine. CGI can work in small doses, best used for cleaning up practical effects, but it's rare for CGI in horror to standout in a good way as it looks out of place in worlds that are meant to be reality based.

sci-fi/fantasy type flicks, CGI can work much better than practical effects, which can look too gritty or out of place in fantastical settings, even when the settings are gritty.

The opposite can work as well, but it's definitely more rare to find practical effects that don't look cheap and dated in sci-fi or CGI effects in horror that don't ruin the fear factor of "real".

But that's just my opinion from what I've seen of both.
 
I dislike bad cgi, but not cgi generally. Its a tool, like everything else. Cgi enables the making of movies that could not have been made before, and that's a good thing.

All movies are made with fakery. It's part of the craft. It can be done well and done badly.

For example, cgi enabled spielberg to make a dinosaur movie with more realism than ever achieved before.
 
Technology happens. You might as well rail against the Spinning Jenny or Jethro Tull's seed drill.

FWIW Jethro Tull's 'Heavy Horses' is a wonderful album.
 
Back
Top