Latest news with #WilliamArthurWard
The South African
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- The South African
Is AI coming to eat Hollywood's lunch?
I believe it was motivational author William Arthur Ward who once said: 'If your mind can imagine it, or dream it, you can achieve it.' As far as digital filmmaking goes, with the recent release of Google AI's stunning new cinematic video generator, that quote is no longer a far-fetched fantasy. It's now a certain reality. And it could spell doom for Hollywood. In a recent video analysing AI's impact on Hollywood, writer and theater director, Russell Dobular of Due Dissidence said, 'I feel that we're at a moment with AI that is very similar to the moment we faced when the internet was first commercialised.' He reminded us how David Bowie, 'one of the greatest creative geniuses of his generation', saw what the internet was going to be before most people did. Back in December 1999, in an interview with BBC Newsnight , Bowie said: 'I don't think we've even seen the tip of the iceberg. I think the potential of what the internet is going to do to society is unimaginable. We're on the cusp of something exhilarating – and terrifying.' The interviewer (Jeremy Paxman) furtively suggested: 'It's just a tool though, isn't it? 'No, it's not. It's an alien life form', Bowie laughed. Then he said, 'The content is going to be so different to anything that we can envision at the moment, it will crush our ideas of what mediums are all about.' More than two decades ago, I remember reading an article in a cinema mag which predicted that, in the not-too-distant future, some (Japanese, Chinese or South Korean) kid (no sinophobia intended) is going make the next Star Wars, without leaving his mom's house. He's going to shoot greenscreen live-action and record dialogue in his garage or basement, and edit, post, grade, score and audio mix the film on his laptop – complete with CGI, VFX and animations. Well, that lucky kid's window to Wonderworld is now finally officially here. In 2002, producer-director Andrew Niccol released a film starring Al Pacino called Simone (aka S1m0ne ). It's the story of a fading director (Pacino) whose latest film is threatened with closure when his spoilt-brat star walks off the production. Instead of hiring another actress, he uses a new generation CG (computer graphics) programme to digitally create a substitute lead character, Simone (named after the CG programme, Simulation One). As Simone becomes more famous – because the audience thinks she's real – the filmmaker struggles to keep her non-existence a secret from the public. That was 2002. Back then, the concept was still sci-fi fantasy. Exactly 20 years later, it materialised. In 2022, ChatGPT wrote and directed the first AI short film in seven days. Produced by 28 Squared Studios in association with Moon Ventures, the six-minute short is called The Safe Zone . The story is of a world that's crumbling since AI seized control of the planet, where three siblings engage in an intense discussion for a spot in the Safe Zone – which is the only place safe from the machines. Only one of member of the family can be admitted into the Zone, those left behind will perish. Describing the process, producer Richard Juan says: 'We got OpenAI's ChatGPT to write us a full script and direct us in the production. It gave us a full shot list, suggested specific instructions for the director of photography (choice of camera lenses, movements and lighting), recommended wardrobe preferences, and even gave us specific prompts that enabled DALL-E 2 [text-to-image generator] to create a full storyboard. 'The future of filmmaking is changed forever.' In February this year, conservative commentator and documentary filmmaker Matt Walsh ( What is a Woman? Am I Racist? ) interviewed Zachary Levi ( Shazam ) about AI's impact on the film industry and how it affects the future of Hollywood. 'So AI in the film industry…is this where things are heading? Are we heading to a point where they're just going to type in a prompt, generate a movie and throw it out there for the masses? Are we going there – and how do you feel about that?' Walsh asked Levi. 'The short answer is, yes,' Levi answered. 'I've been banging this drum for a long time', he said. I believe that in very short order AI will be so good that it will be indiscernible from human content. You now have technology that allows anyone – Studios or Joe Schmo – to sit at home and work with an AI model to then creatively curate whatever you want; a movie, a TV show, a video game, a song – just by prompt.' 'So I think that we [Hollywood] are all in for some really Dire Straits,' Levi added. At the Google I/O event on 20 May this year, the company announced the release of Veo 3, a new AI video generation model that makes 8-second videos. Bundled into the package are several innovations that separate it from other video generation tools. In addition to photo-realistic video, it also produces audio, dialogue and fully realised soundscapes. It can also maintain consistent characters in different video clips and users can fine-tune camera angles, framing and movement in entirely new ways. Within hours of its release, AI artists and filmmakers were showing off shockingly realistic videos that had many social media users dumbfounded by the results. Since its release, AI filmmakers are already using Veo 3 to create shorts, it's only a matter of time until we see a full-length feature powered by the model. One of the most widely shared short films made with Veo 3 is Influenders , created by director Yonatan Dor, founder of AI visual studio, The Dor Brothers . In the movie, a series of influencers react to camera while an unexplained apocalyptic cataclysm occurs in the background. The video has hundreds of thousands of views across various platforms. Similar shorts featuring man-on-the-street videos have also gone viral. Veo 3 is available to use now with Google's paid AI plans. Users can access the tool in Gemini, Google's AI chatbot, and Flow, their AI filmmaking tool. Donald Trump's sanctions on Hollywood and the US film industry have spurred fear that Hollywood is about to become for the movie industry what Detroit has become for the motor industry. Producers and studios are panicking about tax breaks and productions being lured away to other states, etc. Dobular believes Hollywood is missing the crucial point. 'This is like talking about the shape of the iceberg from the deck of the Titanic right before you're about to hit it,' he said. 'They're completely not getting what is going to wipe out their entire industry. And I have been saying this since they beta tested the first AI module that could generate video from a prompt; this is the end of Hollywood, end of the entertainment industry as we know it.' 'With Google's Veo 3 we're pretty much there right now,' he added. Among the many filmmakers and artists invited to Google's I/O event to play with and demonstrate the new toys, was visionary auteur director, Darren Aronofsky ( Requiem for a Dream, The Whale ). Aronofsky's venture Primordial Soup has been collaborating with Google DeepMind's research team and three filmmakers to produce short films that embrace new technology and storytelling. The director of, among other things, Noah and Black Swan , doesn't see this AI swell as a threat to artists, creativity and auteurs, but as an augmenting benefit. He compared it to many other new advances and developments in cinema that were initially shunned – like sound and colour – and eventually CGI, VFX and digital cameras. Addressing reporters at a press conference after the I/O event, Aronofsky said, ' 'Filmmaking has always been driven by technology. After the Lumiere Brothers and Edison's ground-breaking invention, filmmakers unleashed the hidden storytelling power of cameras. Later technological breakthroughs – sound, colour, VFX – allowed us to tell stories in ways that couldn't be told before.' 'Today is no different. Now is the moment to explore these new tools and shape them for the future of storytelling,' he added. As Dobular points out, 'Aronofsky is right. But what he's not saying, is…with this new technology, you've just eliminated the need for most of the people who would work on a movie.' Pointing out how easily AI generates simple 2 and 3D animation, Dobular asked: 'What do you need an animation studio for? What would you need the people [animators] for? That's the end of animating as a career.' 'This is going to democratise filmmaking in the way that the internet has democratised media, journalism and content creation,' he added. Arguably, we are entering a new film production era where raw talent and innovative storytelling, rather than vast financial backing, could become the primary currency of cinematic success. The next Star Wars might not emerge from a sprawling studio lot but from a quiet room, fueled by a single vision, a powerful laptop, and a suite of groundbreaking AI tools. The magic of filmmaking is no longer confined to the elite; it's being handed to everyone with an idea and the digital keys to unlock it. Sure, like Dobular says; 'Most of the movies made this way are going to be f-ing terrible…but a few of them are going to be genius. And that is going to completely end the industry in its current form – because there is no barrier to entry anymore.' A bigger question or concern should be; if everyone is now a Spielberg, everyone is now a genius filmmaker, with just a few keystrokes…what's so special about that? Put differently, as Quentin Tarantino once said about (his disdain for) digital filmmaking; 'In a world where you can do anything, nothing means anything.' Let us know by leaving a comment below or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
USA Today
15-03-2025
- Sport
- USA Today
North Carolina in the NCAA Tournament? Not after another wasted opportunity
North Carolina in the NCAA Tournament? Not after another wasted opportunity Show Caption Hide Caption Which NCAA men's teams to watch on the bubble before March Madness USAT's Jordan Mendoza gives his teams to keep an eye on for 'bubble watch' as March Madness selection Sunday approaches. Sports Pulse There's a saying by American author William Arthur Ward that says opportunities are like sunrises. If you wait too long, you miss them. For much of the season, North Carolina has hit the snooze button when dawn arrived. Despite the several instances of oversleeping, it kept getting chances to see the next sunrise. After beating Wake Forest in the ACC tournament semifinals, the Tar Heels knew another opportunity awaited Friday, facing rival Duke for a third time this season. Win and an NCAA Tournament bid was on the horizon. Head coach Hubert Davis said his team was excited about the opportunity to face the Blue Devils once more, feeling like they'd be ready. Instead, it was the same old story for North Carolina. The Blue Devils woke up with a fiery energy and it was far too late by the time the Tar Heels realized they overslept. Duke won 74-71 to advance to the ACC championship game and send North Carolina back home with a grim outlook on its March Madness chances. Everything heading into Friday indicated it would be the signature night of the season for North Carolina. Not only did it take care of business in the first two games in Charlotte against Notre Dame and Wake Forest, it was facing a Duke team without star freshman Cooper Flagg and defensive specialist Maliq Brown after both suffered injuries against Georgia Tech. A hobbled Blue Devils team couldn't have come at a better time for North Carolina. But out of the gate, it was almost as if the national championship-contending Blue Devils were the ones playing like their NCAA Tournament hopes were on the line. They played with a sense of urgency and intensity as if they needed the automatic bid. On the other hand, North Carolina was sleepwalking, almost as if the game didn't have much significance. Just look at the end of the first half. Duke was hustling for every loose ball, running down the court and playing meaningful defense. It went into halftime on a 15-0 run in the last five minutes for a 19-point lead. Sitting on the bench in workout clothes, Flagg showed more energy than anyone in Carolina blue. To North Carolina's credit, it finally woke up and went on a late run to make it a one-point game in the final seconds. It had a chance to tie it at the free throw line with four seconds to go, but a costly lane violation by Jae'Lyn Withers canceled the attempt and doomed the comeback. Another instance of waiting until it was too late to win. North Carolina's NCAA Tournament resume Now it's time to reexamine whether North Carolina should be in the NCAA Tournament. In the recent USA TODAY Sports Bracketology, it was among the last four teams in the field after spending several weeks outside of the bracket. What was key to North Carolina's rise into the First Four area was as it avoided any disastrous loss this week, other bubble teams like Indiana and Ohio State crumbled, opening the door for others to pass them up. However, North Carolina hasn't been able to move up any further because it hasn't proved it could beat quality teams. It has a solid No. 35 NET ranking and a 22-13 record, but only one win was a Quad 1 victory − over UCLA in December − in the ever so important NET rankings. The Tar Heels finished with a 1-12 mark in the category, and that doesn't even include the Quad 3 loss they suffered from Stanford in January. The Quad 1 record has been at the center of debate of whether North Carolina should be in the NCAA Tournament, with people arguing it won 22 games with a tough non-conference schedule but only one of them was against a likely tournament team. For the people who believe a team with only Quad 1 win shouldn't be in the tournament, it has happened before on several occasions since the NET ranking was introduced in the 2018-19 season. Nevada in 2019, Syracuse in 2021 and North Carolina State in 2023 all got at-large bids with just one Quad 1 wins. To aid North Carolina's argument, both Syracuse and North Carolina State had a worse NET ranking on Selection Sunday. But what none of the aforementioned teams did have was double-digit Quad 1 losses. Syracuse had the most of the group at seven, far less ugly than North Carolina's 12. Had North Carolina pulled off the improbable comeback, it would have been safe to assume it would be in the field regardless what happened in the ACC title game. While two Quad 1 wins isn't much, plenty of teams have gotten a ticket to the big dance with it. Instead, North Carolina will leave its fate to the selection committee, which will again face the challenge of how much the name on the front of the jersey outweighs the resume. If it weren't a blue blood, everyone would have dismissed this team. But the Tar Heels are the Tar Heels, and that alone gives them some consideration. What the committee must remember, though, is when it comes to determining the at-large candidates, it's supposed to put the best teams in that can have success, not maybe have it. Throughout the season, North Carolina showed it could possibly compete with the contenders. Of the 12 Quad 1 losses, six were by single-digits, and four were by three points or less. It got close, but that doesn't mean it deserves another crack when it has consistently proved it can't get the job done. The Tar Heels kept missing the sunrise, and barring some more incredible luck, they will likely instead see the sun set on another disappointing season.
