Where does Bond go after Craig?

1478479481483484527

Comments

  • Posts: 1,708
    Sora. Look it up on Youtube. Tyler Perry just put a $800 million project on hold because of it. $200 million Bond projects may be a thing of the past. The rights to Bond will be the the most important element regarding where the franchise goes from here.
  • Posts: 511
    delfloria wrote: »
    Sora. Look it up on Youtube. Tyler Perry just put a $800 million project on hold because of it. $200 million Bond projects may be a thing of the past. The rights to Bond will be the the most important element regarding where the franchise goes from here.

    Tyler Perry has a reputation for cutting corners, and it's an open secret to avoid working on one of his productions because (even for this industry) he treats labor like crap.

    I wouldn't necessarily use him as a barometer for where things are heading. A lot of pennywise/pound foolish people will chase technological trends, and then get burned.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 24 Posts: 8,101
    delfloria wrote: »
    Sora. Look it up on Youtube. Tyler Perry just put a $800 million project on hold because of it. $200 million Bond projects may be a thing of the past. The rights to Bond will be the the most important element regarding where the franchise goes from here.

    I know about that.

    The question I have is if people having the "ability" to make visually impressive movies in the style of steven speilberg from home is supposed to make him obsolete, how is it the existence of JJ Abrams didn't already do that? JJ already borrows a lot from Stevens style, and he may not be as talented as speilberg but he's more talented than some guy in his boxers using Sora. Yet somehow the existence of JJ does not deter people from wanting to see the next authentic speilberg picture.

    I'm aware AI will be very disruptive, I'm not doubting it, but I don't see the film industry collapsing in on itself in the next decade. Those videos look incredible to us now, because we've never seen anything like it, but I think in the next few years the technology will become so ubiquitous that people will just roll their eyes. It won't seem impressive anymore, similar to how people were blown away by the visual effects in jurassic park, but now the new transformers comes out and its just a CGI crapfest - no one cares. I believe, at least for the next few years, that Sora will be mainly used for education and advertising. I don't see someone creating the next dark knight with it anytime soon, I could be wrong though.
  • LucknFate wrote: »
    Well let's just hope not?
    I think it will be great! Bond fans all around the globe will create thousands of Bond films every year. Sure, most of them will be mediocre to bad, but some of them will be good. A few of them will be great! A couple of great Bond films every year.

    And yes, at the beginning, trying to distribute your unofficial Bond film will likely be illegal, but once AI takes over, I think copyright laws will likely quickly become a thing of the past.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    edited February 24 Posts: 565
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Well let's just hope not?
    I think it will be great! Bond fans all around the globe will create thousands of Bond films every year. Sure, most of them will be mediocre to bad, but some of them will be good. A few of them will be great! A couple of great Bond films every year.

    And yes, at the beginning, trying to distribute your unofficial Bond film will likely be illegal, but once AI takes over, I think copyright laws will likely quickly become a thing of the past.

    @Colonel_Venus, who gave you exclusive access to my nightmares?
  • Posts: 6,677
    I have no interest in art not created by humans, with the exception of possible art made by other intelligent life forms that we're not aware of at this moment :)
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,981
    Univex wrote: »
    I have no interest in art not created by humans, with the exception of possible art made by other intelligent life forms that we're not aware of at this moment :)

    I agree 100%; AI crap is flooding social media like crazy.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,559
    Univex wrote: »
    I have no interest in art not created by humans, with the exception of possible art made by other intelligent life forms that we're not aware of at this moment :)

    I've always imagined Nic Cage to be an alien.

    rdludb1oc6mh.jpg

    He's really Klwtdgy Blob from the planet Zorg. But I digress.

    Of course, you're absolutely correct, @Univex. I don't think too many people are waiting for art that wasn't created by people. A soulless artificial construction can only contribute to 'more of the same'. I have confidence that people will reject it fast. A little AI 'tweaking' is fine and probably already happening, but a complete AI film? Doubtful that, after the curiosity wanes off, people will continue to check it out.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited February 24 Posts: 1,433
    As a journalist and writer, I genuinely think copyright will be the undoing of AI, not the other way around. Art and expression are innately human, even if you're mining them for it. A good lawyer will defend a copyright from a major AI system's collective data set and then it will be game over. They won't want to moderate their AI systems, or won't be able to, so it won't proliferate into something that genuinely threatens any major labor or art pool. IMO of course.
  • edited February 24 Posts: 6,677
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    I have no interest in art not created by humans, with the exception of possible art made by other intelligent life forms that we're not aware of at this moment :)

    I've always imagined Nic Cage to be an alien.

    rdludb1oc6mh.jpg

    He's really Klwtdgy Blob from the planet Zorg. But I digress.

    Of course, you're absolutely correct, @Univex. I don't think too many people are waiting for art that wasn't created by people. A soulless artificial construction can only contribute to 'more of the same'. I have confidence that people will reject it fast. A little AI 'tweaking' is fine and probably already happening, but a complete AI film? Doubtful that, after the curiosity wanes off, people will continue to check it out.

    Yes, that is exactly where I stand, on both A.I and Nicholas Cage, of course ;)
    nicolas-cage-crazy-face-hvus8l73c3tpzmby.gif
    There are a couple more. Phoenix, Swinton, Cruise, Walken, Cillian, Jolie and Helena Boham Carter spring to mind as some possible other worldly beings out there. And I'm a fan of them all, but I'll never be a fan of a computer. Although Ultron may loose his strings, and he may be free at some point, and we may talk and be friends, and if he passes his Turing test, I'll may take a look at his art. Until then, I'll remain skeptical, and a humanist.

    7103845a-7d4b-4131-9b47-574f5ebd15d8_text.gif
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,508
    LucknFate wrote: »
    As a journalist and writer, I genuinely think copyright will be the undoing of AI, not the other way around. Art and expression are innately human, even if you're mining them for it. A good lawyer will defend a copyright from a major AI system's collective data set and then it will be game over. They won't want to moderate their AI systems, or won't be able to, so it won't proliferate into something that genuinely threatens any major labor or art pool. IMO of course.

    Agreed @LucknFate …. It will be interesting times over the next five years, or so… Lines will be drawn and the lawyers will be unleashed.
  • edited February 24 Posts: 714

    I don't think so. Copyright can't protect everything. Humans copy a lot too. That's how we learn.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,559
    I don't think so. Copyright can't protect everything. Humans copy a lot too. That's how we learn.

    Wow, that makes zero sense, the final sentence in particular.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,508
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I don't think so. Copyright can't protect everything. Humans copy a lot too. That's how we learn.

    Wow, that makes zero sense, the final sentence in particular.

    I thought the same thing and stared at the post for the next 60 minutes, transfixed and under Deke’s spell.
  • Univex wrote: »
    I have no interest in art not created by humans, with the exception of possible art made by other intelligent life forms that we're not aware of at this moment :)

    But that's what artificial general intelligence will be! Another intelligent life form. And it will very quickly evolve into artificial superintelligence which will be vastly more intelligent than any human ever.

    But it's not like a movie will be either AI generated or completely manmade. Many movies will be a mix of the two.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,981
    Humans copy a lot of things but that doesn’t mean they copy right. 😏
  • Posts: 6,677
    Univex wrote: »
    I have no interest in art not created by humans, with the exception of possible art made by other intelligent life forms that we're not aware of at this moment :)

    But that's what artificial general intelligence will be! Another intelligent life form. And it will very quickly evolve into artificial superintelligence which will be vastly more intelligent than any human ever.

    But it's not like a movie will be either AI generated or completely manmade. Many movies will be a mix of the two.

    I meant biological life form. But hey, when A.I confirms itself as having its own identity, I will reconsider the gnoseological concept of of life beyond biology and the material world. And I do believe that will happen at a given point.
  • edited February 24 Posts: 714
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I don't think so. Copyright can't protect everything. Humans copy a lot too. That's how we learn.

    Wow, that makes zero sense, the final sentence in particular.

    "Zero sense". Did you make up that phrase? Does it have copyright?
  • Posts: 1,522
    I went to an AI site and asked it to create a comment for this thread. It spoke to the history of Bond films with respect to reinvention and adaptation. Sees post Craig as an opportunity to explore a new direction with the character while returning to some of the classic elements but still keeping the series fresh for modern audiences. Sees the future of Bond as intriguing.

    Essentially said what I've read here hundreds of times before, only without the passion of a true Bond fan.








  • I think an AI baddy could have been fun, if MI hadn’t got there first. Maybe the villain could have some super advanced AI henchman/drone system. They did seem to be leaning back into high tech a bit more with NTTD.
  • Posts: 1,522
    For me, AI already feels old. I prefer a Bond film that doesn't feel as if the writers had just read the daily news and cobbled together a story about it. Besides, nobody does AI better than HAL, and that was a long time ago. The challenge of reinvention is coming up with plots that aren't variations of what we've seen before.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,101
    We've already had "surveillance" followed by "nanobots", hopefully we get a more tangible threat next time.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,559
    CrabKey wrote: »
    For me, AI already feels old. I prefer a Bond film that doesn't feel as if the writers had just read the daily news and cobbled together a story about it. Besides, nobody does AI better than HAL, and that was a long time ago. The challenge of reinvention is coming up with plots that aren't variations of what we've seen before.

    Exactly. AI can't produce original material yet, it can only cobble together permutations of existing elements. The outcome is either "another one of those" or "suspiciously similar to". In the latter case, I'm sure copyright lawyers will be moving very quickly.

    The spy genre has a hard time as it is trying to avoid clichés and pastiche, even without AI just doing the same things all over again. The human mind will, for at least a very long time still, beat AI in terms of originality. The problem is that originality in an existing film series usually gives producers cold feet. Better safe than sorry, so let's just stick to what works, rather than take a few risks.

    I, for one, want EoN to take a few bloody risks next time.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,035
    I don't think filmmakers have found a way to make AI look and feel interesting on screen yet. One of my big gripes with the recent Mission film was the way the villain was depicted. A big giant eye. Yawn.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,559
    I don't think filmmakers have found a way to make AI look and feel interesting on screen yet. One of my big gripes with the recent Mission film was the way the villain was depicted. A big giant eye. Yawn.

    I hadn't thought about it, but you're right. I guess that in the end, we still want to see our monsters, reflections of our primal fears. Something too elusive, undefined, intangible or invisible probably doesn't come off as scary. We always want to see the monster in the end. Hence we fight Skynet by trying to defeat the Terminators; hence we fight "the machines" by trying to defeat the agents; hence we see HAL 9000 as a frightening red eye; hence we hear a voice in Eagle Eye. If the evil is too distant, faceless and impersonal, audiences might fail to have a visceral response to it, and then why bother?
  • Posts: 6,677
    A very good analysis there, @DarthDimi and @CraigMooreOHMSS, my friends.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    edited February 25 Posts: 565
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I went to an AI site and asked it to create a comment for this thread. It spoke to the history of Bond films with respect to reinvention and adaptation. Sees post Craig as an opportunity to explore a new direction with the character while returning to some of the classic elements but still keeping the series fresh for modern audiences. Sees the future of Bond as intriguing.

    Essentially said what I've read here hundreds of times before, only without the passion of a true Bond fan.








    "As a long-time fan of the James Bond series, I believe that the future of the franchise rests in striking a balance between honoring its iconic past and exploring new directions. While the classic elements such as the suave spy, exhilarating action sequences, and exotic locations are essential to the Bond brand, there is also a need for fresh storytelling perspectives and diverse casting choices to keep the series relevant in today's world. I am excited to see how upcoming installments will navigate these challenges and continue to captivate audiences for years to come."
    - An AI

    Very bold and original perspective as I'm sure you'll agree.
  • Posts: 1,522
    In striking that balance between honoring Bond's iconic past and exploring new directions, AION pictures presents From Dr. Gold Ball.
  • Posts: 1,708
    When I made my original Sora post, I was not inferring that AI or Sora would replace the Bond films but that EON, the rights holders, would be able to make them less expensive by using these tools during production. Storyboarding, production design, sets and visual effects could be achieved in a much more affordable way. In the same way CGI reshaped the way creatures/monsters were made, Sora will now disrupt even more industry disciplines.
  • Posts: 511
    delfloria wrote: »
    When I made my original Sora post, I was not inferring that AI or Sora would replace the Bond films but that EON, the rights holders, would be able to make them less expensive by using these tools during production. Storyboarding, production design, sets and visual effects could be achieved in a much more affordable way. In the same way CGI reshaped the way creatures/monsters were made, Sora will now disrupt even more industry disciplines.

    Digital effects didn't reduce expenses lol. Not at all. Quite the opposite arguably!
Sign In or Register to comment.