Moonvalley Hires VFX Trailblazer Ed Ulbrich to Lead Strategic Growth in AI-Powered Entertainment
LOS ANGELES — Moonvalley, an AI research company building foundational AI video models and tools trained exclusively on licensed content, today announced the appointment of visual effects industry veteran Ed Ulbrich as Head of Strategic Growth & Partnerships.
Article content
Article content
In this role, Ulbrich will help shape the company's broader growth strategy while deepening Moonvalley's relationships across studios, brands, agencies, and creative communities. He will also collaborate closely with Moonvalley's studio arm, Asteria Film Co., to accelerate adoption and integration of its technology within professional filmmaking communities and workflows.
Article content
Ulbrich brings over 30 years of experience driving innovation at the intersection of storytelling, production, and technology. His credits include some of cinema's most ambitious films including Top Gun: Maverick, Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and Titanic. He also produced the sci-fi epic Ender's Game and helped pioneer live digital human performances with the now-iconic 'Tupac Shakur hologram' at Coachella.
Article content
Most recently, Ulbrich served as Chief Content Officer and President of Production at Metaphysic, where he worked with major studios, streamers, talent, brands, agencies, and labels to integrate generative AI into high-end production and post. Over three decades, he has led innovation in visual effects across film, TV, streaming, advertising, music videos, and live entertainment. Beyond features, he has delivered VFX for more than 500 commercials for global brands, earning honors including the Cannes Lions Titanium Award. He held senior roles at Deluxe and spent two decades at Academy Award-winning Digital Domain—co-founded by James Cameron, Scott Ross, and Stan Winston—where he also served as CEO.
Article content
The announcement reflects Hollywood's evolving relationship with AI technology. Following industry strikes partly centered on AI concerns, studios are seeking partners who can deliver professional tools while respecting creators' rights. Moonvalley's approach of building models exclusively from licensed content directly addresses these concerns.
Article content
'From his pioneering work on 'Benjamin Button' to leading AI adoption and integration at Metaphysic, Ed knows how to turn innovative technology into tools that actually work for filmmakers at scale,' said Naeem Talukdar, Co-Founder and CEO of Moonvalley. 'He knows what it takes to earn the trust of filmmakers and how to bring transformative technology into their workflows. We're thrilled to have someone with his expertise and relationships help us bring this technology to the studios and creators who will define its future.'
Article content
Ulbrich's appointment follows Moonvalley's launch of Marey, the first high-quality AI video model trained exclusively on licensed content. Named after pioneering cinematographer Etienne-Jules Marey, the model proves that powerful generative AI can be built without exploiting creators' work – something tech giants have claimed is impossible.
Article content
'I've spent my career pushing the boundaries of how technology serves storytelling,' said Ulbrich. 'What drew me to Moonvalley is their respect for the craft, their use of clean, licensed data, and their focus on empowering creators without compromise. They're solving the right problems the right way, and that's exactly what the industry needs right now. This is the kind of company that can actually change how films get made, and I'm all in.'
Article content
Hollywood is at a critical crossroads with generative AI. The technology could slash production costs and democratize high-quality content creation, but adoption has been slow over legal concerns about training data and tools that fall short of professional standards. Moonvalley's clean-data approach and focus on filmmaker needs position it to break through these barriers.
Article content
About Moonvalley
Article content
Moonvalley is an AI research company building next-generation models and tools for creative professionals. The company brings together talent from DeepMind, Google, Meta, Microsoft, TikTok, and leading entertainment companies, unified around advancing visual intelligence. Through partnerships with film studios, production companies, and brands, Moonvalley is proving that powerful generative AI can be built while respecting artists' and creators' rights.
Article content
Article content
Article content
Article content
Article content
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
18 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
JR Knopp Announces Release of Memoir "Grit & Green," Chronicling His Journey Building an Empire from the Ground Up
Lincoln, Nebraska--(Newsfile Corp. - August 15, 2025) - Entrepreneur and author JR Knopp has released his first book, Grit & Green: Building an Empire Against the Odds-The Wild True Story of Basement Startups, FDA Raids, and Reinventing Business from the Underground Up. The memoir chronicles Knopp's journey through modern entrepreneurship, detailing how he built and rebuilt business ventures in the face of legal challenges, market shifts, and personal reinvention. To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit: Part memoir, part business case study, Grit & Green provides an account of the realities behind entrepreneurial headlines. Knopp takes readers inside the highs and lows of starting companies from scratch, navigating regulatory investigations, and finding innovative ways to grow when conventional paths were closed. "This book covers entrepreneurship beyond typical success stories," said Knopp. The title reflects the dual nature of Knopp's narrative, with "Grit" representing perseverance through obstacles and "Green" addressing financial challenges. The book includes both failures and successes, serving as a reference for entrepreneurs in complex business environments. Market Positioning and Reader Value The announcement of "Grit & Green" comes at a time when business book readers increasingly seek authentic accounts that acknowledge the full spectrum of entrepreneurial experiences. The memoir's inclusion of legal complications and business failures makes it relevant for business education. The book targets entrepreneurs, business students, and professionals who benefit from understanding the complete landscape of business development, including potential pitfalls and recovery strategies. This audience seeks practical business insights. The memoir's focus on resilience and adaptation covers business continuity and crisis management topics. Availability Grit & Green: Building an Empire Against the Odds-The Wild True Story of Basement Startups, FDA Raids, and Reinventing Business from the Underground Up is available now on Amazon in paperback and eBook formats. About JR Knopp JR Knopp is an entrepreneur, author, and business consultant based in Lincoln, Nebraska. With a career spanning multiple industries, he has helped build and advise ventures at every stage of growth. Known for his candid approach and ability to navigate high-pressure situations, Knopp combines real-world experience with business consulting and advisory experience.
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
Trump's attack on Goldman could prompt watering down of Wall Street's independent analysis
U.S. President Donald Trump's criticism of Goldman Sachs' research on tariff risks could prompt some analysts to water down their research, investors and academics said, an outcome that could leave investors with less reliable information. The reams of research that banks such as Goldman produce are used by institutional investors, such as hedge funds and asset managers, in deciding how to allocate capital. Trump's comments -- in which he lambasted Goldman, its economics team and CEO David Solomon and accused them of making 'a bad prediction' -- have triggered a debate on Wall Street about the possible fallout, according to interviews with banking industry sources and investors. At one Wall Street bank, Trump's comments spurred informal conversations among staff, a source familiar with the matter said. The source said they also discussed how to incorporate government data in the wake of Trump's decision to fire the head of BLS, claiming -- without evidence -- that its data had been politicized. Still, the bank was not considering changing the way research operates. 'This is going to come down to a person's ability to withstand a barrage of criticism from the Oval Office, and the extent to which these banks provide support for their chief economists,' said Dave Rosenberg of Rosenberg Research, who has worked in the economics departments at several banks. 'If we notice that research is being watered down ... then we'll know that this has had an effect.' Jack Ablin, chief investment strategist at Cresset Capital, said if banks do start self-censoring, smaller investors who do not have the resources to do their own analysis are likely to suffer most. Trump's criticism is his latest attack on corporate America and other institutions, and is a break from historical norms, where presidents have typically avoided calling out private companies and executives for things they do not like. Some companies that have considered passing on tariff costs to customers have faced public criticism, and Trump, who came to politics after running businesses, has intervened directly in private business decisions by making a deal with Nvidia NVDA.O to give a portion of its revenues from sales to China of AI chips to the government. Trump 'certainly is taking a number of steps that diverge from the traditional view of the respective roles of the government and private industry,' said Henry Hu, a securities law professor at the University of Texas. In a social media post earlier this week, Trump said foreign companies and governments were mostly absorbing the cost of his tariffs, counter to Goldman's research. 'Given that sell-side Wall Street analyst predictions have been about as accurate as random guessing, small investors will do just fine with the president exercising his First Amendment right about flawed Wall Street research,' a White House official told Reuters. On Wednesday, Goldman's U.S. head economist David Mericle defended its research on CNBC, vowing to 'keep doing' what the bank considers informative research. Goldman declined requests for further comment. Other major banks, including Wells Fargo, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America and Citigroup, declined to comment. There has already been evidence of self-censorship. A senior JPMorgan Asset Management JPM.N investment strategist, Michael Cembalest, earlier this year said during a webinar that he refrained from voicing some of his thoughts on U.S. tariffs publicly. Shortly after Cembalest's comments, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's CEO, said that he expects analysts to speak their minds. Both Cembalest and the bank declined to comment for this story. Hu said there is a risk involved in even appearing to give way to political pressure. 'Goldman's reputational capital is at stake here,' he said. 'If their views on the economy become biased, and they are shown to be wrong, why would anyone choose Goldman to advise them on anything?' Mike Mayo, banking analyst at Wells Fargo, said independent research is critical for investment bank's reputation. 'Investment banks live and die by their reputation and independence. That transcends all other considerations.' Wall Street research has long been tightly overseen, one source said, with supervisory analysts reviewing research reports to ensure that language is not inflammatory, emotive or partisan and that reports are objective and cite sources. That person said that if analysts feel unable to speak openly then investors will pay more or take greater risk. Liquidity will suffer and there will be less foreign participation in U.S. markets, the person said. It was large losses by smaller investors that triggered the first major probe of Wall Street research in the aftermath of the dot com stock bubble of the late 1990s. Eliot Spitzer, then New York Attorney General, found that Wall Street analysts had swapped their honest opinions for unwarranted 'buy' ratings on companies to help their banks win underwriting and advisory business. The result: a $1.5 billion global settlement payout by Wall Street and lifetime bans for some analysts. It remains to be seen whether the current kerfuffle will have an outsized impact on Wall Street or if it is a storm in a teacup, said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at IBKR. 'It does raise a lot of questions,' he added. Be smart with your money. Get the latest investing insights delivered right to your inbox three times a week, with the Globe Investor newsletter. Sign up today.
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
How the new policy elite have caricatured the dismal science
Kevin Yin is a contributing columnist for The Globe and Mail and an economics doctoral student at the University of California, Berkeley. Being an economist in 2025 feels a bit like being Galileo under the Pope. Now that Donald Trump has fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and nominated loyalists to the Federal Reserve Board, those studying economics have been left exasperated. And while a somewhat caricatured version of the dismal science has been criticized by other social scientists for decades, only recently has the criticism become more than an ivory tower feud, with far less informed malcontents and far more dire consequences for people's welfare. Most of us have heard, or even uttered, the standard clichés about economics. Economists are focused on 'abstract models built on unreality,' often 'mistake [...] elegance for truth' and are swayed by simplistic assumptions such as perfectly competitive markets or infinitely forward-looking and hyper-rational agents. In this vein, Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro has called economists 'damn fools' who 'need to get out more often.' The current chair of the Council of Economic Advisers and nominee to the Federal Reserve Board, Stephen Miran, has argued that economists assume away trade deficits and thus cannot grapple with their implications. Oren Cass, the founder of a think tank, suggested recently that our model of comparative advantage has 'ceased to function.' To be sure, some of these critiques touch on genuine issues that leading researchers would be sympathetic to. And individual economists can certainly fall victim to any of these traps of dogma. But the 18th-century chalk-and-blackboard version of economic theory that protectionists have been criticizing lately would be largely unrecognizable to most frontier researchers. And the notion that people who spend their lives on these issues have not questioned the competitiveness of markets or the rationality of decision-makers is at odds with decades of study and debate. Opinion: A scary chart shows why diminished Fed independence may outlast this administration Opinion: As war rages, the world economy confronts a ghost of ages past These are tired tropes, first and foremost because much of modern economic research is empirical, concerned with making robust causal inferences from data. And while our understanding is constantly evolving, there is a great deal of empirical research that disciplines our views on the impacts of policy. On trade, for example, there is substantial evidence that it lowers the cost of living for consumers, improves production capacity via access to better intermediate inputs and can spur innovation by disincentivizing low-tech investment. Perhaps more subtly, critics have simply not understood the purpose of, or the process behind, the mathematical models they loathe. All arguments are models – including those made by protectionists and heterodox thinkers. The only difference is that mathematical models can guarantee logical validity (but not necessarily soundness) while verbal arguments cannot. This does not mean the mathematical models are correct, since underlying assumptions can still be false in critical ways, but it does constrain researchers to say something internally consistent. The claim that tariffs could incentivize manufacturers to relocate their production back to the U.S. is itself a simple model of the world – one that, when written down, would be guilty of all the same sins of assumption and more. This is not mere academic posturing – U.S. policy is currently being defended with reference to such oversimplifications. In his manifesto, Mr. Miran himself cites a paper by Andrés Rodriguez-Clare of UC Berkeley and Arnaud Costinot of MIT to argue that the optimal tariff could be as high as 20 per cent, because the total gains in tax revenue could outweigh the losses to consumers. Profs. Rodriguez-Clare and Costinot had to point out in an op-ed that this was mostly a pedagogical exercise, that it abstracts away from any trade retaliation and that they themselves do not support tariffs for this reason. In this case, it was the protectionists taking models too seriously, and the authors of those models being cautious. The caricaturing problem is somewhat endemic to the nature of what economics asks; the logic of these issues is often subtle, and words do not suffice. However, the sidelining of expertise is also partly the field's own fault for settling too comfortably into its 'trust us' approach on policy issues, instead of recognizing that finding an answer and communicating it are entirely separate skills. Economists are quick to accuse others of failing to understand, but slower to take up the hard work of helping the general public reach that understanding. We would benefit from a dose of humility, acknowledging our own role, however minute, in allowing this confusion to fester. But this is a digression. Whatever the flaws in conducting and communicating economic research, a vast and rigorous literature still shows that trade is good for the most part, that central banks need to be independent and that deficits must be paid by future generations. Policy makers and pundits can choose to ignore decades of research on these topics, but for the people and businesses who will suffer the consequences, the laws of economics will be anything but abstract.
