Comment by bshipp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bshipp | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I have no dog in this fight, but perhaps I can offer a contrarian position. I hope people are able to look past how this technology will disrupt the status quo into the future of how such technology will enable much better cinematic story-telling by those without large studio budgets. Artists of the future will have opportunities to use lower-cost talent to enable their visions that will open up the floodgates of creativity, no different than what was seen when YouTube took off.

Both actors and producers can benefit when access to talent is not held behind the gates of a few powerful entities. We've seen the damage such gatekeepers can wield with the Weinstein case and numerous subsequent claims, where vulnerable actors have their careers held hostage to avoid upsetting predators who wield all the power. If an actor can pay the bills by doing many short-term mocap jobs for independent producers armed with sophisticated software, everyone can benefit.

In addition, motion capture opens up opportunities for very talented but otherwise less conventionally attractive actors who traditionally are relegated to type-cast bit roles.

I consider the advent of this technology as whole, with the current state of Hollywood, to be concerning. It will ultimately lead to a world where actors will have their autonomy stripped away from them, even more so than they do now. Consider the status quo, whereby an actor's autonomy is somewhat determined by their start power. If you're trying to break into the industry then you have to put up and shut up with what you're given.

With the advent of motion-capture like this, actors will be reduced to a marionette of flesh to be puppeted around as the producers see fit. Perhaps Hollywood will be going towards a future where actors no longer act in movies, instead their likeness is simply licensed to a studio for a certain number of movies. Anyway, I'm a cynic when it comes to this, the industry itself is already plenty abusive and exploitive, and this could further that.

Is that what happened to musicians after music production gear became cheaper and democratized?

Arguably this is the golden age for musicians. Lowest barriers to entry ever, if you have talent. You don't need anyone's permission to be a star ... just talent.

Why would it be different for actors?

I feel like you are not thinking about the full implications of this kind of democratizing tech.

As a self-admitted lousy musician and marginal-at-best amateur filmmaker, the last two decades of technological progress have unleashed a veritable Disneyland of capability I can access anytime 24/7. As amazing as the tools are, the ability to collaborate with other amateurs around the world and to instantly publish content to a global audience with no gatekeepers is equally transformative.

Perhaps I appreciate just how much we live in "the golden age" of personal creativity because I'm >50 yrs old and lived through saving from each paycheck to afford renting a high-quality camera for a day or an edit suite for a few hours (only between 12a-6a for the reduced rate). I'll just come out and say it, "Kids these days have no idea how amazing their world is." Now, excuse me while I go outside to yell at some clouds...

Perhaps like music there will be a split between money from 'recorded' performances and money from 'live'.

Theatre wasn't killed by films and TV, live music is still going despite recording.

Yes I think there is definitely a positive angle. Hollywood's influence has been protected in large part by union influences controlling access to bankable actors, among other reasons. The possibilities for a surge of truly independent decentralized productions is promising.

Hopefully breaking away from the continuously lazy loop of people in capes that now dominate Hollywood productions.

That's not how the Hollywood talent unions work...

They don't control access; any production can hire any actor they want. The unions just negotiate a minimum wage for actors working on productions at major studios.

Your suggestion is horrific: you're suggesting that indie films should be allowed to profit off of someone's image without paying for them.

I don't read it that way at all. You would no more be able to steal someone's image and pretend it was them than you could use a famous bands music in your soundtrack without paying for it.

As I see it, a budding filmmaker could use two or three actors to fill 20 different roles in a film without needing expensive prop and makeup artists to place them in detailed fantasy/sci-fi scenes.

Artists... don't you mean AI?

The next 10 years are going to be interesting. I wouldn't want to be a 16 year old trying to decide upon a career path.

Me eldest is 10. In the past few weeks I've gone from "I'm pretty sure all my kids are gonna be OK" to "... well, better count on about two of three living with us until they're in their 30s".

I was down on the future in general, but fairly optimistic about my kids' mid-term prospects. Not so much, now. Feels like being on the Titanic just as the deck's starting to noticeably tilt.

I'm telling my kids to get their tractor-trailer license. It'll be 30 years before trucks will be allowed to travel completely autonomously along the road, and in the meantime they'll have autopilot that removes most of the manual burden and allows them to get paid while they sit in the cab to write books, compose music or program applications.

I say it half in jest, but it'll be a long time before politicians allow 80,000lb trucks to wander our highways without a human responsible for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com