The Show Has Been Cancelled

[Maximillion]

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Let me put it this way.

 

Photoshop has a tool to remove objects from the background.

That tool, is actually AI in disguise.

In the 3d world, there's AI Tools in disguise to help streamline processes.

In the programming world, there's AI tools in disguise. 

 

A lot of "processes" we take for granted, like all of those "AR Filters" people use and abuse on TikTok or Instagram reels? That's all AI.

 

Yet, when it comes to something like "movies", I don't believe we're going to take a "backseat" and just let "AI" do the work for us. You still need and want people to curate that art, or you get a hot pile of garbage.

 

I also have a massive distrust for these corporations that are pining over AI, literally stealing Art, and other copyrighted Material by the boat load and getting away with it. Meanwhile, what's the penalty if Metallica catches you on Limewire?

 

You are missing the point of AI film making.

There is still a massively creative element to it.

Prompting an Ai engine is a skill.  The difference between a terrible AI scene and a great one is all in the prompting methodology.

Prompts can be images, text or other videos - or a combination of all 3. Plus sound prompts are also coming.

 

The point of AI in film making is that no actors, sets, costumes, props, locations, crew, designers , VFX specialists etc are required.

The cost of an AI scene is c1000 times cheaper to produce than the cost of a show like WoT today. AI will be concept artists, script writers and prompt specialists, plus compute power. 

 

The best AI film makers will prompt for dialogue (which new AI engines can now integrate into the scene), emotions, feelings, character look and feel, context, locations etc..

Like all AI applications, the world is shifting from expensive and labour intensive tasks to fully automated AI replacement - media is one of the best places for this.  AI can now create video and sound effects all in one too.

It's also writing music for film scores tightly aligned to the scene/theme.

 

We're at the very start and it's already mighty impressive.

This was done with last week with text prompts to tell the AI what to create - just imagine where we will be in 10 years, 20 years.

The only thing not AI in this is the music - but even that will soon be done by AI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJCMVQqN0Z0&t=1s

 

Actors, special effects experts, set designers etc are going to be a very rare thing in years to come.

 

The premium will be for story tellers and prompt experts.

Even artists will be a rarity because AI will catch up and surpass talent that create the concept art for movies and characters.

 

WoT is perfect for AI - because all the story is there and detailed descriptions of characters, emotions, and locations from the writer.

 

A complete telling in animated format - and even eventually in the style of the TV series - will be possible and likely for just 3-5 million dollars for the entire 14 books - assuming compute power remains as expensive as it is.. might be a lot cheaper to do.

 

 

 

Edited May 29 by Maximillion

[Guire]

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

Do you find that to be a good thing?

It doesn't matter if it's a good thing or my opinion it is reality.   So in order to keep my job and support my family I refrain from saying what I would like to say most of the time.  I especially do not have opinions or joke in public about work matters.

[SinisterDeath]

18 minutes ago, Maximillion said:

You are missing the point of AI film making.

There is still a massively creative element to it.

Prompting an Ai engine is a skill.  The difference between a terrible AI scene and a great one is all in the prompting methodology.

Prompts can be images, text or other videos - or a combination of all 3. Plus sound prompts are also coming.

"It's a skill"... Mmmhmm. 

So, what you've basically described is just a shift in how movies are made, and replacing actors and writers with AI, but you're effectively "keeping" Directors and CGI people behind closed doors.

 

You know the problem with "AI Prompters" being a skill, is that they have a very narrow focus on what "words" they know.

 

Take costuming for example.

I guarantee you, that your "average" "AI Prompter" isn't going to be able to tell the difference between the various types of wardrobe used in the books, how they look, how they're supposed to look, what they're used for, what they're designed out of, what type of fabric, the cut, stitching, or any of that stuff. Details, that may well matter.

Those AI prompters are also not likely to know about various details about horses that RJ absolutely got wrong.

[Elder_Haman]

Just now, Guire said:

It doesn't matter if it's a good thing or my opinion it is reality.   So in order to keep my job and support my family I refrain from saying what I would like to say most of the time.  I especially do not have opinions or joke in public about work matters.

This conversation has drifted from the original point. 
 

While some may disagree, I am not of the opinion that Rafe’s politics weren’t a part of the show. They were. 
 

I am of the opinion that the show itself wasn’t political. Whether they were wise or not, trolling or not, Rafe’s comments do not move the needle in any direction on that issu for me. Other than a couple of awkward moments in S1, the show did not feel preachy or political to me at all. 

[Guire]

2 hours ago, Kaleb said:

I honestly would like to know more about this assumption. My impression from everything I've seen about the show is that Rafe pitched the show and Sony/Amazon agreed to it, with iWOT/REE signing off. I can't recall hearing anything about the studios wanting to make the show and then choosing Rafe as the showrunner. Simplistically, the WOT TV show was driven by Rafe, and there would not be a show if he hadn't worked to make it happen, because nobody else was trying to do it. Is that inaccurate?

I think you are correct.  If I remember Amazon was looking for fantasy.  Rafe made a pitch that coincided well with Amazons desire for public show of anti me too and misogyny.  By time show actually became reality a large portion of potential audience had more formed opinions that were not universally positive about political lean of Rafe and the adaptation.  Rafazon needed a really well crafted show to break through culture war noise.  Problems arose.  Show became a cult following show not a GoT.  I would have prefe=Ed a delayed show that might have had a chance to finish.

[Elder_Haman]

1 minute ago, Guire said:

I think you are correct.  If I remember Amazon was looking for fantasy.  Rafe made a pitch that coincided well with Amazons desire for public show of anti me too and misogyny.  By time show actually became reality a large portion of potential audience had more formed opinions that were not universally positive about political lean of Rafe and the adaptation.  Rafazon needed a really well crafted show to break through culture war noise.  Problems arose.  Show became a cult following show not a GoT.  I would have prefe=Ed a delayed show that might have had a chance to finish.

I’m going to vastly oversimplify and say this: Who Is The Dragon killed the show. I firmly believe that the core problems all stem from this choice. 

[Guire]

2 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

This conversation has drifted from the original point. 
 

While some may disagree, I am not of the opinion that Rafe’s politics weren’t a part of the show. They were. 
 

I am of the opinion that the show itself wasn’t political. Whether they were wise or not, trolling or not, Rafe’s comments do not move the needle in any direction on that issu for me. Other than a couple of awkward moments in S1, the show did not feel preachy or political to me at all. 

Season 1 was important.  Many fantasy and gamer type fans who will ride or die with certain shows found Rafes version preachy and demeaning to characters they loved.  So many potential fans either left or became enemies of show and folded it into the war on much of current media and gaming.  Damage was done.  Show improved but still stuck with many elements of progressive idealogy overshadowing the story.  It was not sole reason but always in background for people to mock.  Amazon didn't market effectively.  Not enough progressive audience filled the void.  Not hard to understand.  you are a self examined nuanced person.  Most viewers are not.  Left leaning audiences scream on the internet but don't support IPs through purchase or views that are needed to support massive projects.  It's Streaming services fault foe not understanding market.

[Guire]

4 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

I’m going to vastly oversimplify and say this: Who Is The Dragon killed the show. I firmly believe that the core problems all stem from this choice. 

I 100 percent agree with that.  Not enough time to build up main characters outside of that paradigm.  Probably not all Rafes fault.  Lots of seemingly good decisions at time played in to difficulties when covid started spanking production around.  Writers strike.  That's why I said a more GoT type adaptation would have weathered storm better because this adaptation had a tight window for success.  I needed everything to go well and lots of things didnt.

[SinisterDeath]

2 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

This conversation has drifted from the original point. 
 

While some may disagree, I am not of the opinion that Rafe’s politics weren’t a part of the show. They were. 
 

I am of the opinion that the show itself wasn’t political. Whether they were wise or not, trolling or not, Rafe’s comments do not move the needle in any direction on that issu for me. Other than a couple of awkward moments in S1, the show did not feel preachy or political to me at all. 

Art is inherently political... theoretically if you dive deep enough there's political stuff in WoT if you want to look for it. I'm not entirely sure what RJ was saying politically, cause I'm not sure even he knew. lol.

 

But I agree on this. If anything, I feel that if there's any residual "politics" in the show, that comes from the "Design by Committee" via Amazon, rather than Rafe himself. I think people put way to much focus on the "show runner" being the "show runner" as if that means everything in the show is his responsibility. People literally don't understand that when it comes to Streaming networks...

 

If Amazon says... Change Perrin to a Bear Brother.. Rafe would have had to have done that. And they almost did do that! But Rafe and Sara stood their ground!  (Timeline wise, I can only hope that they hadn't already cast Marcus when they had suggested that! Cause holy crap, the optics of that were really bad!)

[Guire]

3 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Art is inherently political... theoretically if you dive deep enough there's political stuff in WoT if you want to look for it. I'm not entirely sure what RJ was saying politically, cause I'm not sure even he knew. lol.

 

But I agree on this. If anything, I feel that if there's any residual "politics" in the show, that comes from the "Design by Committee" via Amazon, rather than Rafe himself. I think people put way to much focus on the "show runner" being the "show runner" as if that means everything in the show is his responsibility. People literally don't understand that when it comes to Streaming networks...

 

If Amazon says... Change Perrin to a Bear Brother.. Rafe would have had to have done that. And they almost did do that! But Rafe and Sara stood their ground!  (Timeline wise, I can only hope that they hadn't already cast Marcus when they had suggested that! Cause holy crap, the optics of that were really bad!)

Rafe forwarded Napier as a main character because they didn't secure Tam actor.  We got Maksim and Alanna having baker boy conversation and goofy death fake outs instead of Perrin development.  Rafe had a hand in perception.

 

Also Both Wolfbrothers have African ancestry.  We got little wolf stuff that wasn't goofy or overly sappy.  They literally made Perrin and Elyas more "Brothers" than wolves.  And by casting  diverse actors ( many of which are my favorite characters and actors) the show became a target for " kill the minorities" trope. 

 

Just make a violence filled horror leaning war story about cool heroes and awesome world building and most of this shows troubles disappear.  When I want fried chicken I don't choose based on restaurants organic vegan desert options.  Just give the sucker's what we want and count your profits.

[Elder_Haman]

10 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Art is inherently political... theoretically if you dive deep enough there's political stuff in WoT if you want to look for it.

Absolutely!! I don’t even think you have to look that hard. I think RJ had a sort of “live and let live” attitude towards the world. That cultures were unique and diverse and that each had its own inherent strengths and weaknesses; goods and evils; etc. 

 

[Guire]

2 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Absolutely!! I don’t even think you have to look that hard. I think RJ had a sort of “live and let live” attitude towards the world. That cultures were unique and diverse and that each had its own inherent strengths and weaknesses; goods and evils; etc. 

 

Jordan had a very weary soldier outlook and worldview.  Most just can't identify with it.  

[Elder_Haman]

1 minute ago, Guire said:

Just make a violence filled horror leaning war story about cool heroes and awesome world building and most of this shows troubles disappear.

I think this is wrong for a number of reasons. First, it unnecessarily limits the story - that’s not what WoT is at its core. Second, it cedes what makes WoT unique (the saidin/saidar dichotomy) and the gender dynamics. Third - it would demand massive amounts of CGI. 
 

They started to get the tone right in S2 and nailed it in S3. Do away with “Who is the Dragon” and stick to the original story beats (I’m ok skipping Camelyn and/or changing the Eye) focusing on the horror aspects with the theme being that nowhere is safe. Psychological thriller/horror. 
 

Then run a B plot with the Tower going after Logain. Use the B plot to do all the magical world building and exposition. 
 

That’s really all it would have taken. But it would eliminate the excuse to give Nyn and Egwene big plot moments to make people think one of them could be the dragon - goodbye Mary Sue complaints; you give Rand his time with Lan; Mo her time with Eggy; set up Perrin vs. the Whitecloaks; Mat with the dagger. 
 

[Maximillion]

2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

"It's a skill"... Mmmhmm. 

So, what you've basically described is just a shift in how movies are made, and replacing actors and writers with AI, but you're effectively "keeping" Directors and CGI people behind closed doors.

 

You know the problem with "AI Prompters" being a skill, is that they have a very narrow focus on what "words" they know.

 

Take costuming for example.

I guarantee you, that your "average" "AI Prompter" isn't going to be able to tell the difference between the various types of wardrobe used in the books, how they look, how they're supposed to look, what they're used for, what they're designed out of, what type of fabric, the cut, stitching, or any of that stuff. Details, that may well matter.

Those AI prompters are also not likely to know about various details about horses that RJ absolutely got wrong.

 

You can supplement text prompts with images (for example a predesigned image to get a 'a circle half white and half black, the colors separated by a sinuous line' as described in the prologue of EOTW) to get the look you want.  You can also run many iterations of the AI and choose the best.,, much like many takes in a movie.  

Initially - and probably for 10 years or so - AI will be integrated into the workflow of movie making and eventually it will take over completely, even writing the scripts.

But yes, for the next decade - or maybe two - it will be a symbiotic creative process.

I don;t think writing scripts will be replaced so soon.

You can feed in the exact script you want and tell the AI what accent you want and it will provide it, fully lip synced to the character.

 

As for details RJ got wrong - you can even prompt that.  Tell the AI that Jordan described something incorrectly and to correct it.  There are millions of images, videos, descriptions of horses that the AI has to use in it's interpretation.  It's going to be better than ANY animator could ever come up with because it has orders of magnitude more reference material.

 

To be clear - it is NOT there yet.. but the leap made with Google's VEO-3 is pretty stunning and that is over a short time period.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 29 by Maximillion

[SinisterDeath]

1 minute ago, Maximillion said:

As for details RJ got wrong - you can even prompt that.

Here's the thing. Those details RJ got wrong about certain stuff regarding horses.

Your average "director" or "AI Prompter" isn't going to know jack about that. So how would they know to fix that? 

We're talking about a level of pedantry that you'll only see in "horse circles", just like you'll see a certain level of "pedantry" from historians and certain reenactors regarding battle scenes in GOT, or LOTR. Same goes for your ultra LOTR nerds who get real big mad about things that were wrong about the movies. 😉 

[Maximillion]

11 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Here's the thing. Those details RJ got wrong about certain stuff regarding horses.

Your average "director" or "AI Prompter" isn't going to know jack about that. So how would they know to fix that? 

We're talking about a level of pedantry that you'll only see in "horse circles", just like you'll see a certain level of "pedantry" from historians and certain reenactors regarding battle scenes in GOT, or LOTR. Same goes for your ultra LOTR nerds who get real big mad about things that were wrong about the movies. 😉 

 

Then it depends on who is making the movie - much like anyone else making an animated movie today.

If a horse expert is making it, he'll have it corrected... or if the director wants to bring in a horse expert then he would.

 

What AI will never know is what it FEELS like to ride a horse.  Unless it's described in beautiful writing by someone who does... but then again that has probably been written about thousands of times already.

 

We're still in the realms of ANI, but we've started the journey into AGI. That will develop for the next decade or two and then we'll hit the dawning of ASI , where humans are no longer needed for anything other than manual , physical tasks/pursuits by the time it matures.

 

We're truly screwed if ASI melds with advanced robotics.

 

 

Edited May 29 by Maximillion

[Elder_Haman]

These AI scientists are like the scientists in Jurassic Park, more interested in whether they can do something than whether they should do something. AI will end humanity.

[Maximillion]

1 minute ago, Elder_Haman said:

These AI scientists are like the scientists in Jurassic Park, more interested in whether they can do something than whether they should do something. AI will end humanity.

 

I agree on the risks.

There are many, however in the realm of film making the benefits are going to outweigh the downsides.

 

[divica]

3 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

I think this is wrong for a number of reasons. First, it unnecessarily limits the story - that’s not what WoT is at its core. Second, it cedes what makes WoT unique (the saidin/saidar dichotomy) and the gender dynamics. Third - it would demand massive amounts of CGI. 
 

They started to get the tone right in S2 and nailed it in S3. Do away with “Who is the Dragon” and stick to the original story beats (I’m ok skipping Camelyn and/or changing the Eye) focusing on the horror aspects with the theme being that nowhere is safe. Psychological thriller/horror. 
 

Then run a B plot with the Tower going after Logain. Use the B plot to do all the magical world building and exposition. 
 

That’s really all it would have taken. But it would eliminate the excuse to give Nyn and Egwene big plot moments to make people think one of them could be the dragon - goodbye Mary Sue complaints; you give Rand his time with Lan; Mo her time with Eggy; set up Perrin vs. the Whitecloaks; Mat with the dagger. 
 

you adressed almost everything I think is wrong with the show's first season and that I also think doomed the show. But I also think that casting rosamund pike was a huge mistake in the long run because it makes rafe rewrite too much of the book story to give more action time to moiraine. And this problem propagates to several seasons while moiraine is alive.

 

I also think that the "who is the dragon" could have worked, but they needed to eliminate the possible candidates during the season". for ex, first have moiraine give a short history lesson to the kids to explain that the dragon is a man (eliminating egg but showing she can be a powerfull aes sedai), then use an ep about the dagger and another ep about wolves to eliminate the boys while making it visible during the season that rand can use a bit of saidin.

Edited May 29 by divica

[Elder_Haman]

2 minutes ago, divica said:

I also think that the "who is the dragon could have worked

They should have left that mystery exactly the way it was in the books, with Mo knowing it was one of the boys and pretty quickly zeroing in on Rand.

[Guire]

6 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

You know what's also a great cultural cue? 

Clothes. 😛 

Something RJ talked about ad nauseum. 

I agree except I hated clothes in this show and there was no consistent approach outside of Aiel and Seafolk.  The world felt small and odd.  Show felt like a stage play frequently. Sorry edit for Tanchico.  So maybe you win but I was meh watching season 3.

Edited May 29 by Guire

[Gypsum]

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Here's the thing. Those details RJ got wrong about certain stuff regarding horses.

Your average "director" or "AI Prompter" isn't going to know jack about that. So how would they know to fix that? 

We're talking about a level of pedantry that you'll only see in "horse circles", just like you'll see a certain level of "pedantry" from historians and certain reenactors regarding battle scenes in GOT, or LOTR. Same goes for your ultra LOTR nerds who get real big mad about things that were wrong about the movies. 😉 

 

LOL. I don't think RJ had ever been anywhere near a real horse in his life. I'm all about the horse pedantry.

 

Almost no TV show or movie I can think of is any better (I can name like two novels which feel like they 'get' horses, written by horse people). They all get horses wrong. They basically treat them as furry cars and not 500kg flight animals with opinions and minds of their own, and a tendency to break and become very expensive and heartbreaking. 

 

On another note, I wasn't in love with the Amazon adaptation but I am sad to see it go. 

 

 

 

 

[Mailman]

11 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

 

Corporations are risk adverse.

They will do everything in their power to avoid getting sued.

Those laws on CP? Those likely aren't going away anytime soon. So those AI will have safeguards in place to prevent something even close to that accidentally happening. (That's when you get into the rule of unintended consequences)

 

Hard disagree with this. Corporations simply factor cost of being sued into their margins. If they believe that they will come out on top financially they will simply cop the payouts.

 

This is what is happening right now with AI. Everyone knows that they are illegally using IP to train them. They are banking on the hope that enough people do it that the whole system is broken and it becomes impractical to sue or that the profits they can generate will outstrip the cost of the incoming lawsuits.

Edited May 30 by Mailman

[expat]

9 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

when it comes to art, now we are at the stage where the AI just learned to do it, but can't defeat a competent human.

when chess was at this stage, it only took 10 years before the human world champion was defeated the first time. it only took 20 years before anyone could buy for 20 bucks a program that was much stronger than a human world champion, and run it on a regular laptop.

You maybe right, but it also could be like quantum computing.  Quantum computers do exceptionally well at certain mathematical problems like public key cryptography, less well at other problems like symmetric encryption, and doesn't help against a third set of problems.  

 

Art doesn't follow mathematical principles, so how well AI will do on complex art projects like WoT is still unknown.  What about AI is going to be good at answering the following types of questions that will come up in any WoT adaptations:

 

1. The adaptation will run x hours.  What do I need to cut in order to tell the story in that time.  If you think that there will be no time limit on any AI series, I think you are fooling yourself.  There won't be a market for a 250 hour adaptation.  

2.  There are 3000 named characters, which ones are important and which ones should be cut or combined?  

3. There is a significant amount of POV.  How do I represent the content of the POV?

4. Given I have to cut material, what do I have to add to tie the remaining material into a coherent story? 

5.  Given x hours of programming, what can I expect humans to be able to remember and how much repetition do I need to add in order to remind the viewers of important material that appeared a large number of episodes before?

6. What is the proper ratio of dialogue (info dumps) and visual representation of the material? 

7.  How forceful do I need in representing important material?  Can I get away with an off-the-cuff one line of dialogue or do I need a full scene?

8. What in the material is anachronistic or out of step with the viewers.  What do I do with this material, eliminate it, put it in anyway, or rewrite it?

9. What are the main themes of the original work?  Do these need to be modified in an adaptation?  How do I prioritize the themes when they clash with each other?  How much time should I give each theme?

10.  And the only critical question is "Does this finished adaptation make good, interesting viewing".

 

I think that I agree with Elder_Haman when he said that the most likely outcome of an AI generated WoT adaptation would soulless and paint by numbers.  

[expat]

9 hours ago, Maximillion said:

In a decade you won't even be able to tell the difference between an animation created by AI or non AI methods.  Heck, you'll hardly be able to tell the difference between movies with real actors and generated ones.

No one is arguing (I think) that AI won't be able to do the art work required by an animated series.  It's the 1001 creative decisions needed before the art work that I question.  If you think a person or team is going to spend the thousands of hours needed to develop the creative part of the adaptation and then feed a massive program dump into the AI, then I agree the AI will be capable.  I don't think that is what the people talking about the AI adaptation are imagining.