I think this particular shot is a bit of a non-story, honestly. From what I read in the guardians article, they composited in a falling building. The footage of the building collapsing was itself generated by ai (I'm guessing veo3).

The generation of these kind of short, repetitive assets via ai is probably the ideal use case, aside from compositing.

It's low cost, low on energy resources, and frees up the VFX team to work in other areas.

I get that the stupid end goal is to replace actors, cameras, sets, and the like, consolidating all of the creative output into one industrialized pipeline, but that's capitalism at work, not technology. The movie industry has been eating artist alive for decades. A creative team using tools at their disposal in a reasonable, grounded way are not the enemy. Subscription services might be.

[–] rowrowrowyourboat@sh.itjust.works 12 points 20 hours ago

"It's low cost, low on energy resources, and frees up the VFX team to work in other areas."

From the article:

and rather than contract a studio of visual effects artists to create the footage, Netflix used generative AI to create it.

Yeah, it sure freed that VFX team from getting paying jobs.

[–] wizblizz@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Unintentionally posted, but essentially if the tool deployed by the corporation diminishes the artists value in any way, the tool shouldn't be deployed, regardless of root cause.

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago

Damn, I was sure it was on the scripts, but it's the effects.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

Gross