Oh we can firmly agree here, sadly this has been insanely common with Marvel adaptations and that doesn’t make me hate it less. Me upholding one approach to its production does not mean I support all of it. “Across” in general has some awful production circumstances I wouldn’t wish on any staff.

This is very very fair, it’s more so used as very well managed interpolation between movements for Spider-Verse as opposed to very intense generation we see nowadays but it is still self taught generation between keyframes to make a certain model aspect flow better 🙂‍↕️

So I personally don’t see it as generative in the same way our generative AI works now, especially in its origins and intent. Not that we have to agree, to each their own, but I just wanted to add my perspective as Spider-Verse’s case is very interesting to analyze. Apologies for the thread LOL.

Our current Gen AI has already learned from so many sources, and while that said technique did learn from the model’s positioning, it was only made specifically for that circumstance and wasn’t expanded any further to replace potential texture or character movement that could be done by an animator.

Spider-Verse’s technique was created from the ground up by artists specifically to make that one detail consistent in a film already full of personality and style in its direction. I have no idea how that could apply to claymation at all, but I personally wouldn’t mind if it was along those lines.

I feel there’s a difference between creating a machine to learn linework for a very specific model, saving artists numerous repetitive hours and can’t easily be reused for another project that isn’t like it, versus using very basic gen AI tools for a feature production.

We moved on too fast from the Joe Danger series, he never truly got to show his best stunts

it’s really funny seeing this gameplay and realizing that this is the same exact dev team that made No Man’s Sky

Del Toro’s sentiment of “Animation Is Cinema” while delivering a story this bold for a PG rating was entirely deserved. This being also Mark Gustafson’s final work makes this a beautiful send off to one of our greatest stop motion artists who ever lived. What happens happens, and then, we’re gone.

I also really want to believe that the tools they will use won’t harm the environment but I’m starting to see that most AI tools crafted nowadays do lead to a lot of energy usage, which is awful. I’m hoping that won’t be the case but hey, I won’t know until way later.

let me make it clear, I will retract all of this if they end up doing Gen AI, this at the moment just seems like normal AI assisting tools that have existed for years. I’d prefer if they didn’t use it but I can at least very clearly tell they’re not going all the way with it so far.

THOUGH I will say, I really hope the tools they are talking about are in no way related to the admittedly AI Upscaled and off looking 4K remasters of the original shorts from last year. I hope they use the tools to help them in making production smoother, not to make the final product look worse.

Studios can do interviews with websites and do not have control in how the article is released or presented.

I am willing to retract my statements if Aardman does end up doing Gen AI work, but as of this writing, this is just an article about them adapting to new advancements with a harmful title.

Generative AI is awful, it has no soul and replaces the work of talented people in favor of mockery and imitation cheese.

Unless stated otherwise down the line, it is so clearly mentioned that they don’t want to get rid of their classic ways and just want to see how it could aid in production.

you could deadass make a modern article with the headline of “How Spider-Verse used AI” and people are going to think they generated all the backgrounds and went the easy route instead of just using AI to help the line work line up with the poses of the CG models