Christopher Nolan believes Gen Z will push back against generative AI and its growing influence

[GeoffreyA]

You're comparing the very best of '80s special effects with the worst of today's films. But let's be fair: most of those old movies had laughably bad effects. We only notice it today if we go back and watch them ... and we rarely watch the bad ones.

Exactly... I love how people tell me how incredible the effects from Terminator 2 were compared to today's CGI... but Terminator 2 was arguably the best of its time... try watching Masters of the Universe (the old one) and keep thinking that... or The Last Starfighter....

If we compare the best of then to the best of today, it is clear that when something is done in camera as a practical effect, whether then or now, the result is usually superior than if added during post production. Take Dune: Part Two as a proxy for the best of today, having won Best Visual Effects at the 97th Oscars. Most of the time, it looks startlingly real because of Villeneuve's extensive practical shooting in the desert, even the iconic collapse of the sand dune when Paul first rides the worm, but long-distance shots of armies tend to look fake owing to CGI multiplying, judging from my eyes.

The Hayvenhurst chase in Terminator 2 looks real because much of it was: the truck; the landing of the Harley-Davidson; stunt doubles; Arnold even trained in the use of reloading the custom shotgun. When something is caught in camera, like that, it is very hard to rival with CGI. Independence Day used a scale model of the White House to explosive effect. Much of Titanic looks real because of how much of the ship was re-built to 90% scale; the vertical sequence was done vertically; the sets were flooded; the underwater footage was of the actual wreck and aged scale models. Modern instances are the Los Alamos test in Oppenheimer. (When CGI must be used, use restraint or verisimilitude, such as Gargantua's being rendered using Einstein's equations but touched up artistically.)

 

[Endymio]

Take Dune: Part Two as a proxy for the best of today, having won Best Visual Effects at the 97th Oscars. Most of the time, it looks startlingly real because of Villeneuve's extensive practical shooting in the desert

Respectfully, you're a bit confused as to what constitutes a "special effect". Walking in the desert is real -- you're not tricking the eye into believing something happened that didn't. Quite obviously reality always looks more real than any substitute -- whether that substitute is performed with animatronics, clay models, or digital CGI.

the result is usually superior than if added during post production...even the iconic collapse of the sand dune when Paul first rides the worm

That scene had CGI effects added post-production.

The Hayvenhurst chase in Terminator 2 looks real because much of it was: the truck; the landing of the Harley-Davidson;

The landing of the Harley *wasn't& real -- the bike was on a crane supported by several steel cables when it landed: items that were digitally removed post-production. And that aside, you can still clearly see it's not Arnold on the bike, but a stunt double.

.... Much of Titanic looks real....

Again: you're making my point for me. Titanic and Terminator 2 were both created by James Cameron, acknowledges as one of the best effects creators in history, and both films won Academy Awards for best special effects of all time. Do what @Squid Surprise suggests, and look at bad or even *average* special effects from that era, then tell us "CGI looks worse".

 

[Endymio]

People using AI doesn't mean they have to like using AI

You're confused on basic economics. It's not a matter of liking or disliking AI per se. It's a matter of liking the results obtainable from AI. A friend's daughter is a graphic designer: she personally prefers the old-fashioned manner of drawing everything by hand. She doesn't like AI, but she absolutely loves being able to produce ten times the output and undercut her competition.

Similarly, you may not like a company's use of AI ... but you continue to use their products, because their use of AI allows them to offer better products at a lower price.

 

[wiyosaya]

I don't necessarily think age has anything to do with it. I'm a boomer, and I avoid AI as much as humanly possible. It is being shoved down our throats, IMO, and there are cases where it simply doesn't work for me. I recognize there are valid use cases for it, but it seems to have become a solution in search of a problem so much so that its instantly provided even though it does not always have the best answers. For instance, customer support.

In the customer support case, I typically have tried everything it suggests and always end up having to talk to a human because the AI support is a waste of my time.

As far a special effects go, I'll pro-offer Star Trek: TOS vs Star Trek Discovery or Strange New Worlds regardless of what people think if the newest serials.

I think Nolan has a point, and I don't see a benefit in AI in that, IMO, there are cases where AI is enabling humanity to be even lazier than Humanity already is.

 

[GeoffreyA]

Respectfully, you're a bit confused as to what constitutes a "special effect". Walking in the desert is real -- you're not tricking the eye into believing something happened that didn't. Quite obviously reality always looks more real than any substitute -- whether that substitute is performed with animatronics, clay models, or digital CGI.

Granted, I should have been stricter in my use of language, but my point is, that something caught on camera, be it a special effect such as a blood fountain or reality such as a desert, will almost always beat the CGI version. (Or, in the mixed cases of today, the more caught on camera, the more realistic the result.) Yes, walking in the desert isn't a special effect, but many films have a large amount of visibly-fake settings.

That scene had CGI effects added post-production.

I'm aware of that. The foundation, the sand dune collapsing that I cited, was done practically. In Dune, whenever a bigger amount was captured during filming, the result is better. The more CGI was relied on, the more visible it is to the careful eye.

The landing of the Harley *wasn't& real -- the bike was on a crane supported by several steel cables when it landed: items that were digitally removed post-production. And that aside, you can still clearly see it's not Arnold on the bike, but a stunt double.

I thought the stuntman had done the scene without safety harnesses. Fair enough. Still, it doesn't detract from my point that much of the Hayvenhurst chase was done in camera and "for real," and that is why it leaves today's CGI-heavy affairs in the dust.

Again: you're making my point for me. Titanic and Terminator 2 were both created by James Cameron, acknowledges as one of the best effects creators in history, and both films won Academy Awards for best special effects of all time. Do what @Squid Surprise suggests, and look at bad or even *average* special effects from that era, then tell us "CGI looks worse".

Sure, poorly-done films of the era look awful, but when done right, practical effects either with the real objects or miniatures are the gold standard. Filming an explosion of a real car or Boeing 747 (as in Tenet) is going to be ten steps ahead than doing it on the computer. That is the gist of my position.

 

[GeoffreyA]

As far a special effects go, I'll pro-offer Star Trek: TOS vs Star Trek Discovery or Strange New Worlds regardless of what people think if the newest serials.

I tried to give Discovery a shot, but it didn't feel like Star Trek: it was the lack of Starfleet decorum in many of the characters, though Burnham at least was reserved. That, the shiny bridge, shaky camera, and angled shots put me off.

 

[Endymio]

Granted, I should have been stricter in my use of language, but my point is, that something caught on camera, be it a special effect such as a blood fountain or reality such as a desert, will almost always beat the CGI version.

Again: let's define terms. If you're capturing an actual event on camera exactly as it happens, that's reality, not an effect. But for events which are either impossible (e.g. alien creatures) or too dangerous (blowing up entire cities), modern CGI beats models and traditional effects. Even in the film you yourself cite as the pinnacle of "traditional" special effects -- Terminator 2 -- used CGI for the metal-morphing scenes of the T-1000 robot.

I'll leave you with some shining examples of "traditional" effects:

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7461262141732031790

Fast-forward to the end of this one: the infamous shuttle crash landing:

Or the infamously bad Saturn 3 -- atrocious throughout, but fast-forward 8 minutes for a particularly horrendous example:

 

[GeoffreyA]

Again: let's define terms. If you're capturing an actual event on camera exactly as it happens, that's reality, not an effect. But for events which are either impossible (e.g. alien creatures) or too dangerous (blowing up entire cities), modern CGI beats models and traditional effects. Even in the film you yourself cite as the pinnacle of "traditional" special effects -- Terminator 2 -- used CGI for the metal-morphing scenes of the T-1000 robot.

I'll leave you with some shining examples of "traditional" effects:

I did not cite T2 as the pinnacle but an outstanding example, in the Hayvenhurst sequence, of practical effects.

Here are some stellar examples of CGI:

 

[Endymio]

Here are some stellar examples of CGI:

You make my point for me. All the first films in that clip date from the early 1990s, the earliest, crudest days of CGI. As for the last, I defy anyone to believably turn Will Smith into an overweight, floating blue, half-torso - half-smoke genie without the use of CGI. These are the sorts of effects no one would have even attempted in the days before computer graphics.

 

[GeoffreyA]

You make my point for me. All the first films in that clip date from the early 1990s, the earliest, crudest days of CGI. As for the last, I defy anyone to believably turn Will Smith into an overweight, floating, blue, half-torso - half-smoke genie without the use of CGI.

It's a choice, one which I believe yields a better result when possible. Directors such as Nolan espouse this view. For many things, CGI will be necessary, but these days, it is overused, whereas classic directors went out of their way to pull the wool over viewers' eyes. As for Will Smith the genie, I wouldn't bet against an old-school director doing it with practical trickery. Constraints drive ingenuity.

 

[Endymio]

For many things, CGI will be necessary, but these days, it is overused

It's not CGI that's overused, but the effects themselves. Because CGI allows directors to so easily and cheaply create wild special effects, they tend to replace plot and characterization with those shots. Your statement is like blaming high corn yields for the cheap corn syrup that leads to obesity.

 

[GeoffreyA]

It's not CGI that's overused, but the effects themselves. Because CGI allows directors to so easily and cheaply create wild special effects, they tend to replace plot and characterization with those shots. Your statement is like blaming high corn yields for the cheap corn syrup that leads to obesity.

I agree that special effects are overused, and plot and characterisation come first. But here, we were discussing not that, but VFX quality: practical vs. CGI.

 

[Endymio]

I agree that special effects are overused ... But here, we were discussing not that, but VFX quality: practical vs. CGI.

Right-- then you inexplicably veered from that into the over-use of CGI. ;p

 

[about30ninjas]

It’s 5 people… and they work for an established polling firm…

And there are plenty of similar studies you can look up if you truly believe your misguided intuition is superior to actual facts…

Ok ...boomer
I think you lost track of who you are responding to. I never asked for studies, I am already fully aware that AI slop is utter trash.

It's almost like...this is a boomer bot.
Reporting the boomer bot.

 

[wiyosaya]

I tried to give Discovery a shot, but it didn't feel like Star Trek: it was the lack of Starfleet decorum in many of the characters, though Burnham at least was reserved. That, the shiny bridge, shaky camera, and angled shots put me off.

To each their own. However, I don't think we can expect that sets constructed in contemporary times would utilize only that which was available in 1967. I know of someone else who does not like the modern version of the Gorn. I don't think that it would have made sense to have the Gorn characterized like the Gorn from TOS.

As far as Starfleet Decorum, Discovery was effectively a prequel series and in a time-line earlier than TOS, I think it makes perfect sense to depict a looser version of Starfleet which would not have had as much time for policies/decorum to develop.

Personally, I am open to everything they did in Discovery and Strange New Worlds especially the "modernized" sets and the use of CGI for creatures like the Gorn. I think both series would have looked particularly stupid if antiquated sets and special effects had been used.

I'm a long-time Doctor Who fan as well. I've seen nearly every episode of Doctor Who that it is possible to see. What draws me to Doctor Who is what drew me to Discovery and Strange New Worlds - the storytelling.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Ok ...boomer
I think you lost track of who you are responding to. I never asked for studies, I am already fully aware that AI slop is utter trash.

It's almost like...this is a boomer bot.
Reporting the boomer bot.

Ok… I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you weren’t making a personal attack against me… I’m not a boomer… I’m 48… and I’m a teacher who works with plenty of young adults and children… I gave you evidence… you’ve supplied nothing but slander…

 

[Win7user]

Too many Gen Z's, haven't figured out what Critical Thinking Skills are yet. LOL

 

[GeoffreyA]

To each their own. However, I don't think we can expect that sets constructed in contemporary times would utilize only that which was available in 1967. I know of someone else who does not like the modern version of the Gorn. I don't think that it would have made sense to have the Gorn characterized like the Gorn from TOS.

As far as Starfleet Decorum, Discovery was effectively a prequel series and in a time-line earlier than TOS, I think it makes perfect sense to depict a looser version of Starfleet which would not have had as much time for policies/decorum to develop.

Personally, I am open to everything they did in Discovery and Strange New Worlds especially the "modernized" sets and the use of CGI for creatures like the Gorn. I think both series would have looked particularly stupid if antiquated sets and special effects had been used.

I'm a long-time Doctor Who fan as well. I've seen nearly every episode of Doctor Who that it is possible to see. What draws me to Doctor Who is what drew me to Discovery and Strange New Worlds - the storytelling.

That's fair. I was thinking more along the lines of VOY/TNG set design. TOS is very primitive in that regard, carrying the pre-Alien style of space sci-fi. I can't judge Discovery, having watched only an episode or two. Story-wise, I believe they have some interesting concepts, the time travel into the far future, etc. If more of the characters had a greater sense of reserve (judging from one episode), I could enjoy it, but that part let me down. I haven't seen any of SNW either.

 

[Tantor]

Nothing is being forced… they like it - as do most people… we have just been trained to say we hate new things… then we use them for a few years and wonder how we survived without them…

I remember when cell phones came out… then smartphones… so many said they hated them… yet… almost everyone has one… a few years from now, everyone will use AI and won’t even think twice about it.

AI is not the problem. The real problem is the utter lack of privacy and accountability of the big corporations and government.

It used to be that opening somebody's mail was a FELONY. Tapping somebody's phone was also a FELONY. That right to privacy changed with the advent of email and cellphones.

 

[Win7user]

That's fair. I was thinking more along the lines of VOY/TNG set design. TOS is very primitive in that regard, carrying the pre-Alien style of space sci-fi. I can't judge Discovery, having watched only an episode or two. Story-wise, I believe they have some interesting concepts, the time travel into the far future, etc. If more of the characters had a greater sense of reserve (judging from one episode), I could enjoy it, but that part let me down. I haven't seen any of SNW either.

Nice novel.

 

[about30ninjas]

Ok… I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you weren’t making a personal attack against me… I’m not a boomer… I’m 48… and I’m a teacher who works with plenty of young adults and children… I gave you evidence… you’ve supplied nothing but slander…

Openclaw and the like is not a teacher and AI does not have feelings, so I think I am safe.

Fun fact - accuse an online troll of being an AI chatbot, it infuriates the trolls! They can't seem to stand being called not human. Either way - you piss off the troll or waste resources of the chatbot. Win win.

Ghost In The Machine (2026) trailer:

 

[Squid Surprise]

So you admit to trolling… go away…