Filmmaking / Directing : Amazon Builds Out AI Studios by Willem Elzenga 2

Does no one here notice that all the generative AI products are aimed at hobbyists and retail consumers? Professionals already use it better or not at all, and will continue to use it better or not at all, and won't be paying Amazon alongside hobbyists and dreamers. Those of you who think AI is about to put you on the map as a creator, think again. If you're not doing films now, you won't be when AI is available to you, either.

The launch of Obsidian... an artist-led creative studio and R&D company pioneering new methods of storytelling across AI, CGI, and live action.

In partnership with Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, and Imagine Entertainment, Obsidian is developing proprietary systems that merge technology and artistry, building the creative infrastructure for the next era of film, television, and advertising, where technology amplifies emotion and artistry leads the way.

Willem Elzenga 2 Correct: "On Tuesday, November 4, Obsidian Studio announced its launch with a goal of blending live-action film projects with AI-powered digital production. And it will be kicking things off with a big name behind it, care of a creative partnership with Brian Grazer and Ron Howard’s Imagine Entertainment" As I have pointed out, this is the kind of thing that will happen. Hobbyists and the retail market will be left in the production-value dust as the professional studios move forward (which has been happening for a while already). AI is not going to help independent filmmakers get farther.

I am just interested in making a shortfilm with AI. And if it works out we have a feature script based upon the short script. Timing for getting it financed is a big mystery, maybe it will never happen.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg You always have interesting insight. Are you saying it's a myth that AI will help independent filmmakers enter the game because the big studios are already ahead of the game?

Martin Reese AI help independent filmmakers enter the game? No, I doubt it very much, but that depends on what you define as "the game." Let's sit back for a moment. Cell phone cameras are a greater sea change than generative AI. Every person on the planet now has a camera that shoots HD, or 4K or even raw - just on their cell phone. Yet it has stimulated no flood of new professional filmmakers. Today, the VFX and CGI which contributed to the $500m budget of Lord Of The Rings can be done on a couple home computers, with free software - for real. Yet this has had no impact on independent film. The reduction in costs of UHD digital camera gear from the low and mid 6 figures down to less than 10K has not led to independent filmmakers penetrating the industy. So do I think that AI - or any other tech pertinent to filmmaking - will be used orders of magnitude better by people with hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked just for that purpose? When those people control distribution and what audiences get exposed to anyway? Yup. I expect the trajectory will be the same: the 99.999% playing and failing at being a filmmaker because they have little talent and less commitment, and the .001% doing better work than ever.

I'm sure many A. I. hit screenplays have already been sold and produced!-- For the first time ever, a song generated by artificial intelligence has climbed to the top of the charts.

This week, a country artist named Breaking Rust landed the No. 1 spot on Billboard’s Country Digital Song Sales chart for the second week in a row with the hit single “Walk My Walk.” But it almost immediately became clear that the singer behind the raspy voice and vague lyrics telling haters to “kick rocks” because “I was born this way, been loud too long,” was never born at all.

With over two million monthly listeners on Spotify, Breaking Rust has eight songs available to stream that are all credited to Aubierre Rivaldo Taylor, a mysterious figure who has shown no real sign that he’s human, the San Francisco Chronicle first reported. Taylor’s only digital footprint is connected to Breaking Rust and another AI music project called Defbeatsai that blasts out vulgar AI-generated songs and videos across social media. I have 3 questions--1. Who gets the fortune in royalties for trhis song? 2, How can we ever believe again that anything is nor A/ I. generated? 3. How many people will try this to make a bundle? What do they have to loose? --"Yippee Ki Yay!"

Jed Power First, while I know for a fact that AI screenplays have been produced (I think the first feature was ~2 years ago - those new to the idea being far behind the tech), I am also certain none of them are "hits" and I know the ones that have been produced tanked. However my opinion on your questions:

(one thing no one seems to note is that all those hobbyists playing with generative AI are actually paying for the privilege of training the AI systems they are working with...)

1. Who gets the fortune in royalties for this song? Ostensibly, the publisher, and of course Spotify keeps as much as possible. However, note (a) that if it is AI generated, it doesn't enjoy copyright protections. So go ahead and copy it, adapt it, republish it etc. but (b) Spotify and YouTube and Amazon don't care about copyright, unless they can use the concept to make more money. AI in music has been a fact for quite a while, and the tracks are often imprinted with inaudible watermarks. These watermarks are detectible by YouTube et al, and if you use them, they demonetize you. Which means they still run ads, they just keep the money and/or split it with their corporate partners. That's a contractual matter, not a copyright matter, unless you have the money to sue them.

2, How can we ever believe again that anything is nor A/ I. generated? You can't, not in audio. It will be quite some time before video is as good, if it ever gets as good. Generative AI can emulate a look, but it cannot actually do what 3D processes do, which is calculate real world things like ambient occlusion, subsurface scattering etc. on an accurately modeled environment. It's not possible. And humans are hard-wired to recognize faces, even one we've seen only once in our lives. So generative AI for narrative storytelling is unlikely to hide well.

3. How many people will try this to make a bundle? What do they have to loose? Anyone who has discovered generative AI in the last 24 months is already a decade behind the times. It's here and its controlled by the larger corporations already. You cannot compete for the same reason you cannot compete with your independent film - distribution and access to market and marketing visibility is already locked down The services you see - runway.ml et al, are marketed to hobbyists and wannabes. So anyone who is not a creative will create the crap, and they will feed the corporations their money in doing so.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg I always say that folks that are truly creative and put the time in to hone their craft will win out more times than not. Of course there will always be that outlier.

@Martin Reese It's like every tech advancement... Everyone thought 3D process on your desktop (ie. Maya. Cinema 4D, et al) was going to make them a Hollywood studio. Then digital cameras were going to make everyone a great director. Then Unreal Engine 5 was going to make them amazing storytellers.... If you're not writing your script with the standard tools of pen and paper, Final Draft isn't going to help you become a writer. If you're not directing a movie with your cell phone, the best camera and AI isn't going to turn you into a storyteller. Generative AI is different in that the dozens of AI companies actually charge people to train their platforms (that's what the retail AI service is about). Meanwhile those of us who are beginning to integrate the process within a professional work flow can tell you it's not feasible for the hobbyist or even very low budget professionals. The actual costs run minimum ~$250/finished second, not counting the human labor, design, licensing and creation of original resource materials - that's the renders alone. Which puts the cost at the lower end of standard 3D/cgi process.

AI has its place, but we screenwriters ain't goin' nowhere, If'n you don't believe me Sugar, ask it ten searching questions. It's a comparison engine FULL of eighty percent bullshit on a million subjects. On images, it is pretty impressive but cannot judge reality.

PS - AI also lies like a 'motherfucker'. Excuse my colloquialism but you get the point.

Neural networks were invented in 1943, and even now at the end of 2025, it is not much more useful than a broken toy. But businesses need some way to attract money, so why not dig up this old technology that never took off, and promote it as a "god like" technology that can solve all your problems, and do all your work. It does sound enticing, doesn't it?

AI is genius at image comparison and relating that to pre-determined criteria or questions, like the Cancer Specialist who asked it to compare forty thousand mammograms, and it identified patterns for how breast cancer could be identified far earlier. Like the Chemist who asked it for a few new toxins, and it identified tens of thousands of new ones we had never heard of.

Put AI in the hands of a non-scholar and see what happens. Either they get harmed -- for example self-harm by teenagers -- or crowds of them believe fake bullshit that then seriously harms other people.

AI is amazing - as a comparison engine. Many people are stupid - Rich people make a fortune from stupid people.

Sorry

You make some interesting points David Taylor. AI is a tool. In the right hands it can be useful. In the wrong hands it can be harmful.