Horror Movies Thread

[Wesker69]

Horrorhound Film Festival has nominated the Ice Nine Kills movie for 11 awards!!



Could you imagine this getting a big-screen release!? ...and ending up at HHN! *wishful thinking*

 

[Stonecoldfreak1]

I hear you, but this kind of cynicism is what allows it to be the norm. I too am looking forward to large multinational corporations squeezing us and the planet dry before I die, but I’m still going to tell them where to shove it at every available opportunity.

I can't get too angry at a microbudget movie like this that uses AI art for a total of like 5 seconds. If it was Disney or Warner, I'd be all for boycotting a movie. They have tons of money to pay people and there's no excuse. Marvel using it for the entire opening credits of Secret Invasion was completely wrong.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

I can't get too angry at a microbudget movie like this that uses AI art for a total of like 5 seconds. If it was Disney or Warner, I'd be all for boycotting a movie. They have tons of money to pay people and there's no excuse. Marvel using it for the entire opening credits of Secret Invasion was completely wrong.

I don't find the financial argument particularly convincing when this film clearly had the budget for a name star and presumably an art department that designed many of the period-element costumes and sets. However, I also I don't think any of us can truly speak to the financial conditions under which this film was made.

However, I think that irrespective of budget level, using A.I art speaks to a level of cynicism and avarice that I just can't abide by. If you can't adequately compensate your artists or your crew, either find an alternate means of making your movie (removing the intertitles, less crowd shots, whatever), or don't make it at all.

 

[Jake S]

However, I think that irrespective of budget level, using A.I art speaks to a level of cynicism and avarice that I just can't abide by. If you can't adequately compensate your artists or your crew, either find an alternate means of making your movie (removing the intertitles, less crowd shots, whatever), or don't make it at all.

This is how I feel as well. If you can’t afford to pay someone to do the work, you either change what you need or you don’t do the work at all.

 

[jseal777]

This movie has been done for like 2 years. Really before the AI debate got to this point for the most part. I am willing to cut them a little slack, but I really don't want this to be the norm moving forward.

 

[belloq87]

I feel like there has to be more to this LATE NIGHT WITH THE DEVIL situation. The movie clearly had a design department staffed with actual people, and the images in question apparently only appear a few times, and briefly. That leads me to believe it was not a budgetary consideration, but something else that has yet to be fully illuminated. I don't particularly like it, and I don't begrudge anyone if it's a bridge too far, but I intend to see the movie.

The stuff Peter Jackson has been doing in terms of using A.I. to "restore" older film is more troubling to me. His Beatles documentary, GET BACK, probably doesn't contain a singe frame that wasn't touched by A.I. in some way, and he's letting other filmmakers like James Cameron use the technology to "restore" their library (the recent 4K releases of ALIENS, THE ABYSS, and TRUE LIES went through this process). Do the results look "good" in most of these cases? I think so, yes. But we're not really seeing the image as it was actually captured by the camera. It's revisionism, with the program literally inventing new "detail" in the frame that wasn't captured, and while most people might not notice it, it's there.

 

[Tobias]

A thing to mention with A.I. which I think some folks are missing, and why theorizing it's being done for budget reasons holds no water...

...studios are still paying someone to input the words into the generator. Remember how Secret Invasion credited the people who "worked" on the opening credits? They obviously weren't inputting those words for free, so they're still getting paid like an artist would.

This is not a budget issue, this is because whoever wanted this wanted it done quickly. And time and time again studios have shown they want something done quicker than things should be done.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

the recent 4K releases of ALIENS, THE ABYSS, and TRUE LIES went through this process)

The 4K of Aliens isn't even a new scan, it's just the 2010 SDR HD release augmented (allegedly, with scarequotes and bunny ears) with A.I. It's not even revisionism, it's just laziness (5:10):

 

[belloq87]

The 4K of Aliens isn't even a new scan, it's just the 2010 SDR HD release augmented (allegedly, with scarequotes and bunny ears) with A.I. It's not even revisionism, it's just laziness (5:10):

I'm confident I made the right choice sticking with the older Blu-ray release.

Given that THE ABYSS and TRUE LIES were stuck on non-Anamorphic DVD (with Laserdisc-era masters), I did buy those. I think THE ABYSS looks very good. TRUE LIES... well, it looks better than non-Anamorphic DVD quality, but there's weird stuff going on in the master (a result, I'm sure, of the A.I. tech applied to it).

I'm concerned about what THE TERMINATOR is going to look like (as it's rumored to be getting a 40th Anniversary 4K sometime later this year).

 

[Clive]

I feel like there has to be more to this LATE NIGHT WITH THE DEVIL situation. The movie clearly had a design department staffed with actual people, and the images in question apparently only appear a few times, and briefly. That leads me to believe it was not a budgetary consideration, but something else that has yet to be fully illuminated. I don't particularly like it, and I don't begrudge anyone if it's a bridge too far, but I intend to see the movie.

The stuff Peter Jackson has been doing in terms of using A.I. to "restore" older film is more troubling to me. His Beatles documentary, GET BACK, probably doesn't contain a singe frame that wasn't touched by A.I. in some way, and he's letting other filmmakers like James Cameron use the technology to "restore" their library (the recent 4K releases of ALIENS, THE ABYSS, and TRUE LIES went through this process). Do the results look "good" in most of these cases? I think so, yes. But we're not really seeing the image as it was actually captured by the camera. It's revisionism, with the program literally inventing new "detail" in the frame that wasn't captured, and while most people might not notice it, it's there.

I read more about this today. Regarding LATE NIGHT WITH THE DEVIL, it was something they experimented when they made the film over two years ago -- when the AI discourse/threat/temperature was very different. It was still a mistake, I'd argue, and something that could have been (and still could be!) easily rectified before release. It's probably good for the industry that the response has been this hostile.

As for the Peter Jackson stuff, I think the technology he uses to restore old and damaged documentary/unscripted footage is pretty remarkable, and I don't mind it in that context (when it's clear and upfront about reinterpreting the original filmed image). For remastering/"restoring" older scripted films, however, I'm with you. I'm not against using emerging computer technologies to make film preservation and restoration easier and less resource intensive -- and there's always going to be a degree of subjectivity in determining the author's original intent depending on the state of the source materials, i.e. the controvery surrounding the restoration of Hitchcock's Psycho -- but this is a case where they are radically altering what the film looked like when released and are no doubt fully aware of what they are doing. Maybe these guys see it as an improvement - I'm not sure any of them have gone on the record in interviews about it, but I like my film grain, and the computer-scrubbed visuals just don't quite have the same shine.

 

[Cwoolboy]

Seriously disappointed at the outrage over such a minimal use of AI. Completely disregarding a truly great film for what amounts to maybe 5 seconds of screen-time is downright idiotic. It’s akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don’t like AI myself, but this over-reaction is just ridiculous.

 

[TheCodeMan95]

Seriously disappointed at the outrage over such a minimal use of AI. Completely disregarding a truly great film for what amounts to maybe 5 seconds of screen-time is downright idiotic. It’s akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don’t like AI myself, but this over-reaction is just ridiculous.

Yeah, I'd be more bothered if it was made recently after the AI craze took over. But it was made 2 years ago, well before AI really became a widespread thing. If it was experimental for a fairly indie movie, it's alright with me.

If it continues to happen, then.. ehh.

 

[Legacy]

Seriously disappointed at the outrage over such a minimal use of AI. Completely disregarding a truly great film for what amounts to maybe 5 seconds of screen-time is downright idiotic. It’s akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don’t like AI myself, but this over-reaction is just ridiculous.

I just have an irrepressibly hard line with generative AI. I cannot, will not, support something created by it or anything that uses it. And I won’t allow it to be minimized for myself.

 

[rageofthegods]

Seriously disappointed at the outrage over such a minimal use of AI. Completely disregarding a truly great film for what amounts to maybe 5 seconds of screen-time is downright idiotic. It’s akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don’t like AI myself, but this over-reaction is just ridiculous.

"Damn why do you guys care so much about people's jobs and artists having their work stolen by silicon valley freeloaders??"

 

[jseal777]

"Damn why do you guys care so much about people's jobs and artists having their work stolen by silicon valley freeloaders??"

Very nuanced. Very thoughtful. Great job.

 

[viking_wizard_eyes]

Yeah, I'd be more bothered if it was made recently after the AI craze took over. But it was made 2 years ago, well before AI really became a widespread thing.

This is a fair point. Relatively speaking, it’s not quite the same case as the more egregious examples we’ve seen. That said, the filmmakers also had plenty of time to rectify this misstep as the AI issue grew, but they didn’t, which (as the kids say) is pretty sus.

The filmmakers have an opportunity to make good here if they replace the AI bits with real work before the film hits streaming/physical. I’ll happily see it then.

 

[rageofthegods]

Very nuanced. Very thoughtful. Great job.

I'd argue calling people idiotic for caring about this when he personally didn't is even less nuanced but sure.

 

[jseal777]

I'd argue calling people idiotic for caring about this when he personally didn't is even less nuanced but sure.

I'd argue with a wall

 

[Jake S]

Alright, let's all take a breath and get this thread (Horror Movies) back on topic.

 

[saint.piss]

Lmao