For fucks sake Disney? Too tight to pay a respectable artist?

  • ch00f@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I’m not convinced this is AI. If it was straight AI, there would be a lot more issues. Zoom in on any AI crowd and things go to hell quickly.

    My guess is that this is a highly composited image with a handful of old fashioned human Photoshop errors.

    • burgersc12@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      The fact that its even debatable if this is AI or not is concerning. What is generated and what is real anymore? Is this the Matrix? Can I take the blue pill and forget?!

      • ch00f@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        The fact that its even debatable if this is AI or not is concerning.

        I find this argument a little disingenuous. Debatable is subjective. Someone might just have a really, really poor argument. Not much of a debate. Like depending on who you ask, the authenticity of the Moon landing is debatable.

    • UKFilmNerd@feddit.ukOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      There’s too many issues with the image. For example, why does the brown coat have buttons when it looks like a poncho?

      • ch00f@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Most of these “issues” are terrible arguments:

        1. AI doesn’t duplicate heads. That’s kind of the whole point of AI. You know what does duplicate features? Lazy compositing.

        6 and 9) Extras don’t know how to use 70 year old props? This is surprising?

        1. We’re going to call out grammar errors, but ignore the flawless pencil drawing of the logo on the other poster?
        • ekZepp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          This is a good argument. But they could simply have fixed the grammar errors in edit. That would also explain the cloned heads used to cover something else. Also, there are a couple of suspicious hands. Still, i’m not 100% sure.

          Fantastic-Four-Poster

          • ch00f@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            It’s also possible that “We 4 You!” is the intended message. Like if it’s that obvious, do you think the guy who had to add “prepare 4 launch” wouldn’t have noticed it and fixed it? Clearly some post-processing happened here.

  • HawtTism@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Who cares??? “Marcel didn’t pay someone $20k to make this poster.” It’s fucking AI - everybody uses it. We’re mad because a company, who makes movies for children, not adults, used AI for a poster? Oh no, the let down. Grow up, for fucks sake. You want your fiction more lifelike? ITS FUCKING FICTION you dunces.

    • Microw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      They definitely paid someone to do this poster. A company like Marvel will not have some executive use an off-the-shelf AI to generate a poster himself. Someone got paid to create a poster, and that person did a bad job - no matter if it was a compositing error or an AI error.

      • HawtTism@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I thought the general consensus was; “They own their business, they can do whatever they want” - If they let this slide through, it’s their decision, and they can make whatever decisions they choose.

        • UKFilmNerd@feddit.ukOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I was trying to be funny. There was no need for your language. Why can’t we have a decent conversation?

    • ekZepp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      [Movies are a form of human art] + [Comics are a form of human art]

      = Using AI to make the poster of a Movie based on a famous Comic is nothing less that a dick move.

      (Ps. This is NOT the cheap poster of a local event or some advertising on a magazine. “Marcel” have fucking millions of budget to pay an artist. The simple fact that “Marcel” do that, is itself a very worrying trend)

      • HawtTism@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        4 hours ago

        AI = wrong for creating fiction. CGI = Totally fine for creating fiction.

        These movies are meant for children, and I guarantee children are not mad Marvel used AI to create a movie poster.

        This has zero affect on me, because I’m an adult with responsibilities. Maybe shift your focus in life away from thuperheroeths.

        • ekZepp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          4 hours ago

          We are concerned about the misuse of AI to cheaply replace artists in very high-budget movies. Whether they be War and Peace or My Little Pony, the issue lies elsewhere. CG artists are already forced into very poor and abusive working conditions, and the last thing we need is for the audience to get used to cheap, last-minute AI work in million-dollar budget movies.