After Dark: Trader Joe's Experiences, Kindness Club, The Brutalist's Use of AI
Added 2025-01-24 18:22:11 +0000 UTCUPDATE: In the time since this podcast was recorded, the director of The Brutalist has weighed in with more details about how AI was used in the film.
The Filmcast: After Dark is the bonus show where we talk about a variety of random topics that didn't make it into the main podcast - including your questions and what's going on in our lives.
In this episode, David, Devindra and Jeff discuss some interesting Trader Joe's experiences, reflect on the first days of the Kindness Club. Then, it's time for a spirited debate about The Brutalist's use of AI.
PATRONS: You can get this audio in your podcast app by going to patreon.com/filmpodcast, going to the "My Membership" section, and copying and pasting the RSS link to your podcast app.
Comments
It’s surely true (enough) that the bigger the movie production gets, the bigger a name it will need, but I don’t generally buy into that thinking just because it leaves no hope for something else. We’ve always come across breakout stars who were at some point unknown, so there’s always opportunity to search for that if it’s what the artist/director/team is after. That convo can also go down an icky path quickly, like when Ridley Scott gave a tasteless quote about why no main talent in Exodus: Gods & Kings were Brits vs any attempt at talent looking like they were from the region the movie takes place. It’s an easy out for bigger directors who are the ones who have more ability to make a difference. And to alpha54’s point about AI disqualifying the art entirely: being as generally cold on it as I am, I do submit like the filmcasters were saying, that it’s more or less here to stay. It’s being used so much in the smaller, background details of things that we’ll never fully see, so I don’t think it can “disqualify” artistry full out. But repeating the earlier sentiment, that I do think we can collectively push for ways in which its use is acceptable, making its bigger uses more public and part of the debate.
Mac
2025-02-03 22:08:48 +0000 UTCAgain, absolutely true. I think in the end the right answer (insofar as there is one) can really only be determined by everyone themselves, and in my mind that has kind of distilled down to two questions really: (1) Is your position on the use of whatever falls under "AI" these days absolutist or not (in either direction - if you couldn't care less whether they used it or if it disqualifies the entire artistic endeavour for you, that's kind of the end of the train of thought for you) and (2) do you trust the artists when they tell you why the outcome it helped them achieve was important and that this was the most realistic way for them to make it happen (i.e. as you said, if financing depends on getting a known A-list actor, that takes other options off the table automatically). I don't know if that's a cop out, because it doesn't necessarily result in a hard and fast rule, but for me personally it's probably what's most workable for my value system at this point in time. There is already way too much quote unquote fake stuff in movies for me to have a blanket opposition, and I try to be aware of the realities of art being a commercial endeavour that often restricts your choices.
alpha54
2025-02-01 09:43:39 +0000 UTCBut then the counter counter (counter?) point is that movies still often require a “name” actor to secure funding and be marketable. This point always comes up whenever question of authenticity arises - when Scarlett Johannson was (badly) cast as a trans person, for example - and the argument is to cast a person whose life experience better reflects the character and isn’t being excluded in favor of the usual privileged people. But the unfortunate reality is that famous and established actors draw more people to the film than unknowns do. For all we know Corbet may have wanted to cast Hungarian actors but his financiers said no, so this was his compromise for authenticity.
Cameron S
2025-02-01 09:12:08 +0000 UTCYes just wanted to say I really appreciated this to expand my thinking - especially all the counter counter counter points haha. I was fairly firmly on the side of finding it fairly inoffensive in an industry where (1) entire shows/movies are shot in a single room (man my excitement about the volume has gone from "what an amazing movie making tool" to "this is ruining everything" real quick haha) and (2) the impact of the authentic regional accent I think does have genuine artistic and emotional value, especially if you happen to be from that region. Your post hasn't really changed my view on point (1) - and I don't think it's by defeatist to be OK with the use of a technology when you compare it to all the other stuff that's "artificial" in it's own way already being used. But you really did impact my view on point (2) because you are absolutely right that there is a clear alternative to using genAI to achieve the desired authenticity. If that authenticity was THAT important to the artist, they could have hired a Hungarian actor. They might not have Hollywood there but they still have a film industry, they have local casting agencies, and I'm sure they could have found an actor with the level of skill they were after. For sure that's more effort than opening your "Hollywood rolodex", but I take your point - does the authenticity matter that much, or not?
alpha54
2025-02-01 06:32:56 +0000 UTCStrongly agreed Roman, it strikes me as completely consistent. There are lots of potential positives to religion and the power it has to build community, but its invariably the "organised" layer that results in misappropriation of funds, industrial scale rape of kids, opposition to separation between church and state, immoral control over people's beliefs and freedoms, etc. that make the whole thing kinda a non-starter for me. IMHO any attempt to capture the potential positives without the horrific negatives that are a foundational part of the institutional aspects (not like this is a new or rare phenomenon - crusades, anyone?) should be commended.
alpha54
2025-02-01 06:10:59 +0000 UTCYeah, all other aspects of the discussion aside and without even mentioning/throwing my opinion into the ring in terms of "which side" as presented by the co-hosts I agree with most, this was the part that bothered me the most. As an "argument" or retort it's so superficial, anglocentric, and as you mentioned so completely out of line with the value system long-time listeners are familiar with from Devindra, that it really impacted my ability to take some of his other points seriously. I don't believe for a second that Devindra genuinely believes getting a specific regional accent right, and the effect that might have on the recognition someone from that region might feel watching the film, has no value and is irrelevant. And imho knowing or at least very strongly suspecting that this sudden change in beliefs was just due to "winning" the argument in the moment (for lack of a better term - winning is probs not right but my ESL is failing me) has a pretty deleterious effect on the rest of his arguments because they are all now coloured by this uncharacteristic dismissiveness of something that clearly can have real value to some viewers.
alpha54
2025-02-01 06:01:32 +0000 UTCKeep your A Eye open!
J Hay
2025-01-31 02:42:27 +0000 UTCThat's why productions usually have a budget and timetable that helps guide the process. I understand that sometimes things don't go as planned and shortcuts and compromises need to be made, but that doesn't mean one should use every tool at their disposal in every situation. I just fundamentally disagree with the use of "AI" in this situation. If the drawings were only seen so fleetingly and not important to the film, then why bother using the tool at all? The director claims that all drawings were hand-drawn, but does that mean the human artists just copied what the "AI" spit out or did the "AI" present them with a few concepts of brutalist architecture and the human artists took it from there and created something new? If the former, I think that's not only a really insulting thing to ask of your artists but also it's just a lame thing to do in general. If the latter, then why bother with the "AI" concepts at all in lieu of studying some real brutalist architecture? A few books or an internet search surely must be cheaper and/or quicker than licensing an "AI" tool. I'd feel the same way about a film based on a genius musician using "AI" to cobble together a supposed opus. You're just betraying a large aspect of your film, IMO.
Hahmstrung
2025-01-29 18:18:45 +0000 UTCOne of the biggest challenges to making a film is the constant struggle against time and money. From what I understand there was a limit to both and so they used a tool to assist the production designer, the way many other technological developments that might also be considered “impure” have assisted craftsmen. If the work of art being discussed here was *solely* a series of architectural drawings, I would lament and oppose the use of AI to create them. But the work is the film that contains them, the drawings are but one element in a massive construction. I do not think that anyone would have even noticed if it wasn’t brought up - the drawings are seen so fleetingly, they are not the central creation. Their inclusion is a textural detail in a larger piece.
Cameron S
2025-01-29 10:42:54 +0000 UTCIn my opinion the Brutalist AI controversy is the dark cyber future version of the casting issue Emilia Perez has. Here in Mexico one thing that ticked off a lot of people was the statement from the casting director mentioning that there were no actors in Mexico that were good enough for the roles in Emilia Perez. That's why they ended up having to change certain details of characters in the scrip so they could justify their accents. So if the director's vision is to include an actor like Adrien Brody due to his amazing acting abilities maybe a not so perfect Hungarian accent is an acceptable tradeoff. If the vision is to have a super authentic Hungarian speaking protagonist maybe, just maybe hire an Hungarian actor. I can already see that if Emilia Perez wins an Oscar they release the Director's cut with AI fixed dialogue.
Marcos HR
2025-01-28 18:41:20 +0000 UTCWhy? As someone who is also not too fond of organized religion, a kindness club is exactly what I would want - one of the best parts of organized religion without actual religion in it
Roman Schweikert
2025-01-28 17:08:18 +0000 UTCI feel like people keep dancing around the real issue with using "AI" in this film. It's not inherently bad to use "AI" as a tool to streamline the menial tasks, but I personally find it baffling to use "AI" to circumvent human artistry in a film about human artistry. Would it really have been that much more expensive to hire an actual architect/drafter to draw up some concepts rather than paying an entire "AI" studio to hobble together some Frankenstein renderings? That's how they used to make concept art in films, with people dreaming up ideas with their brains and putting them to paper. I find it pretty sad that some seem to think that the actual production crew was so artistically lacking they had to turn to a lifeless robot for creative inspiration.
Hahmstrung
2025-01-28 15:07:41 +0000 UTCThese are all really good points, thanks for this
Cameron S
2025-01-28 13:41:30 +0000 UTCI remember a few years ago Jeff was giving his thoughts on the new Cowboy Bebop on Netflix and i think I counted Devindra interrupting 9 times. I commented somewhere at the time about it. Lord give me Jeff’s strength not to crack the shits with him
Mark P
2025-01-28 08:52:01 +0000 UTCAs someone who is generally really opposed to generative AI, having now seen the film I think it’s a whole lot of flap about nothing. I don’t think that it betrays the film at all and to say that it does I think belittles the monumental craft of the film. It wasn’t used to cut humans out of the process, and the final sequence showing the architectural sketches were apparently still rendered by a human. This is one of the problems when telling a story about someone who is meant to be an artist of towering genius - it then falls on the production crew to create a work that is of that magnitude. And I’m guessing that, talented as the crew of the Brutalist may be, they did not have a generational genius architect on staff to make those drawings. So they used AI to come up with some ideas. It’s fine. No one is harmed here. It is also WILD to me that Devindra, who has often spoken about the importance of diversity and authenticity, uses the argument that no one knows what a Hungarian accent sounds like so who cares. Unbelievable.
Cameron S
2025-01-27 22:40:00 +0000 UTCA little clarity on the AI conversation. It sounds like no AI images were used in the film but they did use AI for some inspiration for the ending memorial scene where a number of his supposed architectural works were shown. The images in the final film were all done by human artists. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/the-brutalist-ai-backlash-adrien-brody-1236113015/
Robin Hill
2025-01-27 20:11:42 +0000 UTCInteresting to hear support for a kindness club and engaging with your local community while also espousing religious intolerance. Maybe I'm missing something but that seems inconsistent if not completely contradictory.
Bobby Simpson
2025-01-27 14:25:25 +0000 UTCThis begs the question then: which is worse? Emilia Perez has been getting flak for the Spanish being spoke not being authentic enough, and now The Brutalist is getting flak for having used AI to make the Hungarian being spoken more authentic. People have been cast in movies to sometimes speak words in a language they do not speak for decades, so this is not a new dilemma. Seems to me like the question is which solution is better? Just let them speak the language in a way that's unconvincing to native speaking audiences, or use AI to improve it? Because simply insisting on casting actors who speak those languages instead of major stars who can help sell the movie isn't a realistic solution either.
Stranger2Reality
2025-01-27 10:43:36 +0000 UTCThanks! Yeah, it's all much more layered and nuanced than public conversations often allow for. The main way "gen AI" has impacted my workflow is paint out, cleaning up textures, extending fx elements like smoke. IE: stuff I do anyway but better and faster and easier. The places where a studio on the ai hype train push an ai forward job have all been disasters, because AI is amazing for doing first drafts, but then you end up with a low rez AI result you can only kind of control and you end up treating that like the plate you work on top of, and it all still ends up looking ai mushy, and people hate it. Haha. I've had ONE job for ads for a gallery opening by a fine artist who wanted to use AI tools to animate camera moves through his paintings. Pretty defensible use case, to me. And it worked great, for low res first drafts! By the end we had re-created 9 out of 12 shots completely manually to have the level of control he wanted. It's just not there yet. And this was for Instagram ads, not a feature film. In retrospect we should spend that time and budget doing 6 really well by hand the whole time instead of doing a ton of pretty good first drafts we then had to figure out why we couldn't fix and throw away and redo later. I'm not saying it's not coming, but it's not there yet, and the AI hype train is way out ahead of what's actually feasible IMHO. And I don't know that the widely advertised exponential growth is actually possible given the data and power consumption it takes to improve these models.
Luke Shea
2025-01-26 21:18:35 +0000 UTCAutotune the way Cher or T-Pain used it was fun and obviously an effect. The real problem with autotune and pitch correction software in general is that it is now being used to “fix” every single vocal performance in nearly *every* song - recorded AND live - in a way that is almost unnoticeable to the common ear but strips character from the natural voice. It is a WAY bigger problem now than it has ever been. I recommend the YouTube channel Wings of Pegasus if you’d like to dive into just how fake most vocal performances are now.
Brad Arnold
2025-01-26 20:49:50 +0000 UTCThis might not have been the best week to post this, seeing that they were having such a spirited debate, and I do agree with you to a point. I was so ticked off while listening to an episode a couple of months ago that I listened from the beginning and tracked how many times he cut someone off or interrupted them when they were in the middle of describing something. 27 interruptions! And not only that, three of those interruptions were made for Devindra to say something that Jeff either disagreed with or was not the point that he was trying to make. All in all, it’s frustrating hearing people cut each other off in conversation on podcasts or on TV (see: Presidential debates). It’s infuriating, especially when we are listening to a medium of storytelling. Yes, they are friends and that banter is acceptable amongst them, but not when you are recording the audio for others to hear, and some even pay for!
Daniel
2025-01-26 19:59:53 +0000 UTCAwesome points and a +1 from someone working in commercial animation. The adobe tools and proprietary company-made learning models are out there and only getting used more.
Mac
2025-01-26 19:54:57 +0000 UTCIn this case there was a continued situation of Dave taking the last word so it all felt just.
Mac
2025-01-26 19:52:26 +0000 UTCSorry for the long one but I think Dave will like a few additive thoughts on the Brutalist AI— Was inspired by your discussion about AI as used in the Brutalist and had one thought to add on the subject of an “artist’s vision”. Dave was pretty adamant that the Hungarian accent accuracy in the film was validated by the artist’s vision (director we hope but who fully knows) and my point is this: Human artistic expression has always been a story of limitations. Viewers of art are moved by the stuff that does more with the mediums of the time than people expect or touches some emotional truth hadn’t been displayed. I support artists having a vision (this coming from an artist in a commercial field working in animation and advertising so prepare for contradictions) but having a “vision” isn’t a free pass to enact that vision fully because you wanted to—and of course none of it matters if it’s not resonant or effective. Stunning classical paintings of landscapes or the Sistine Chapel aren’t highly regarded for their accuracy, but the *human* dedication to the work and the result. Eg. If we wanted more “accuracy” then we’d see photos replacing the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Counter point to that one though: most if not all of “the masters” worked with many other artists and artisans so who’s to say that they should get the credit? Surely some but there’s a lot to get into there. But even in that case, the result is all by hand or craft. Counter counter point on that is that humans did make the AI systems so as you’ve all said, it is legitimately a “new tool” everyone can use. But still, when it comes to movies, I believe we’re still looking for the real human touch just like in those classical paintings. So in the case of the Brutalist, I agree with Devindra that pushing that accent some 5 or 10% closer to perfection does not change the art’s impact to me, but there is something interesting to be said for a work of art that speaks more directly to the immigrants it portrays — BUT — and a BIG BUT at that — should that kind of thing be done by hiring native Hungarian actors and making a different kind of film? Etc. etc. I’m not seeing the connection between Corbet and the need for the AI push so it doesn’t strike as authentic and definitely not necessary. Thanks to you guys for the great, spirited discussion—I do think keeping the discussion going the point of all this and we can sway how AI is applied with incremental change over time. (80s hairdos didn’t stick around right?) —mac in Pasadena
Mac
2025-01-26 19:51:29 +0000 UTCPerformances enhanced by AI should be required to be disclosed so they can be treated the way motion capture performances are. We can celebrate the performance, even nominate it for awards, but accept the fact that the enhancements may hurt your chances of winning.
Omar Jacobs
2025-01-26 15:27:10 +0000 UTCDevindra: some constructive feedback. Please, for the love of all that is good, stop interrupting and stepping on Jeff and David when they are speaking. AI discussion aside (I viewed that as a very good debate), you do this way too frequently.
Daniel
2025-01-26 14:54:37 +0000 UTC“Eighty percent of all animal species experience metamorphosis — from frogs to flatfish to butterflies to jellyfish.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/science/metamorphosis-evolution-animals.html
NR
2025-01-26 14:16:15 +0000 UTC👏🏼
Mark P
2025-01-26 04:51:59 +0000 UTCthis after dark is wild because I went to my first trader joe's yesterday & walked away with a bag of "kettle cooked ghost pepper chips" & after that first bite, I thought "I need 12 more bags."
Jonah Hill
2025-01-26 03:17:17 +0000 UTCI’m glad Devindra gave some push back on the AI discussion cause I felt very similar. This use specifically wasn’t so bad, but it is only going to keep getting worse as time goes on. I wonder if eventually they will just have the actors emote while giving fake dialogue and they will just add all dialogue with AI later. May it will be a better viewing experience, but when it is award time, do we give it to the most authentic ai enhanced performance? Or do we give it to the guy that actually spoke words in front of a camera? Also, like all other AI technologies, the main effect of this will be lost jobs. AI is going to fix problems that we used to use people to fix in the past. And unfortunately, it will probably be better than what we had with a human.
Danny Champlin
2025-01-26 02:31:11 +0000 UTCI'm not sure if it's because I've been listening for so long, or if it's time to change this podcast to the Entertainment/comedy category but this episode had me cracking up constantly. Which honestly, probably caused my wife some concern as I was listening to it with earbuds while vacuuming.
James Atkinson
2025-01-26 01:31:47 +0000 UTCLoved the spirited debate of AI and associated weirdness in this one. These conversations need to be had and all viewpoints represented here are important. I work in post production, doing animation and compositing. The AI stuff has been creeping in at the edges for years, and a lot of things that were just seen as positive technological advancement before everyone was talking about AI as apocalyptic are now tainted with the panic about this stuff. Photoshop's Content Aware Fill, for example, has been used on basically every digital image you've ever seen for like a decade at this point. It's basically a last-gen version of generative AI. It's completely non controversial and used by everyone in digital media constantly. But the new version uses Adobe firefly to pull from it's vast model rather than just the image you're working on, so it has entered the debate. Am I I destroyed a valuable historical record by altering it with "AI" when I use this year's model to paint dust and scratches out of a photo for a documentary as opposed to last year's? In that context, the debate feels preposterous to me. But it also feels like every designer on earth is suddenly treating a regular part of their toolbox like a dirty little secret, even though we're using it to like... Paint in some grass behind a talking head or remove a smidge from a lense or whatever. Normal post production stuff. I also STRONGLY feel there is an aspect that goes undiscussed in these models re: art theft. Using AI to churn up and regurgitate art by artists that doesn't reflect physical reality is inarguably morally wrong to me. But teaching a computer how reality works via photography feels completely fine to me. I would be upset if my hand painted or animated work were consumed and reconstituted by one of these models, but I'm fine with every photo I've ever taken contributing to body of knowledge that allows vfx artists to seamlessly get a little patch of whatever they need to cover up a wire or paint out a logo or stick down trees in somewhere. Same for physics simulations like fluid, particles, and smoke. That just feels like another tool in approximating reality, to me. There's nuance there around stock photography and physics simulation experts in vfx, too. But it's MUCH less morally stark in my view. Many more thoughts on this hit thanks for having a lovely discussion with a lot of viewpoints. Much needed
Luke Shea
2025-01-25 19:53:34 +0000 UTCI just must say that this was PRIME After Dark!! For a long time I have been so bewildered by the droves of people that can listen to the long episodes of the Joe Rogan Exertion— but this right here; I could listen for days!! Inject this (along with all the great chats about movies on the main show) in to my ear holes forever and always!! Thank you kindly.
Alexander Sanchez
2025-01-25 19:33:39 +0000 UTCTotally agree, if I'm looking at a painting I want to see all the "imperfections" that give it character.
Hahmstrung
2025-01-25 18:28:32 +0000 UTCI bet, if you did the math, there are more species of animals that go through a metamorphasis than there are species which don't. Primarily since the majority of insects (which I believe is the animal group with the most number of species?) and amphibians go through metamorphasis.
Matthew Poonamallee
2025-01-25 18:26:07 +0000 UTCMy opinion on The Brutalist: I think it's incredibly lame to alter the actors' voices in this way, whether by hand or "AI." To me, this is vastly different than de-essing or other similar "cleanup" processes. You are fundamentally changing the performance in a vain attempt at perfectionism. I think it's equally lame for a sound editor to adjust each slightly off-pitch note in a musical performance. You might be "perfecting" it but you're removing much of the personality or just covering up a bad performance. It's different than using a vocal filter or effect for some creative end. It's just not the performance anymore.
Hahmstrung
2025-01-25 18:23:10 +0000 UTC"blade 2, french crop, fringe up". I felt the same about a hair cut, Jeff, once, and asked, specifically, what it was - and I made sure I remembered exactly what to ask for the next time. Now it is burned into my brain and I don't recall ever saying to a barber "blade 2, french crop, fringe up"
Simon Columb
2025-01-25 17:58:14 +0000 UTCCate Blanchett in TÁR. Really good German. No surprise with her.
Mountain of Conflict
2025-01-25 16:11:35 +0000 UTCThe tan jacket is an expression of Dave’s vision for his wardrobe, but what would’ve been even better is if Dave would’ve grown cotton and raised sheep and carded the cotton and the wool and twisted to twine, wove it into cloth, and then sewn the jacket using the needle of the local Hawthorne Bush.
Mark Griffith
2025-01-25 15:07:41 +0000 UTCAlan Rickman, wonderful actor, great in Die Hard, his German in the movie: Complete garbage. And german film fans love that! We love it when they nail it, because there was a real effort made by either hiring native speakers or training the actor a lot. We are amused when they utterly fail, because that doesn’t make the movie worse. When de-aged Indiana Jones punches de-garbled Nazi henchmen, it won’t be the de-aging I have the trouble with.
Emma Müller
2025-01-25 11:12:29 +0000 UTCDave: “maybe the Trader Joe’s cashier won’t think anything about you buying a pallet of marshmallow peppermint candy” Spoken like a true Costco shopper
TheGHeebs
2025-01-25 04:15:27 +0000 UTCThat’s exactly why we didn’t tell you about club ;)
Don Wood
2025-01-25 03:41:58 +0000 UTCAudio in general is already extremely manipulated in myriad ways, to be upset over this particular example just because it’s AI is to cherry pick and show a misunderstanding of the process. An actor’s dialogue might sometimes be too loud or too sibilant on certain syllables — it’s possible to edit every occurrence of this manually. OR you could use a compressor and de-esser, studio tools that have existed for many decades and are used on virtually all pro audio productions of any kind. These are machines or digital equivalents that function like “whenever X occurs, process Y is applied.” Really no different than the accent cleanup in principle. Does using a compressor make the actor’s performance inauthentic? Was something “lost” by using a form of automation to clean up the audio? Should the filmmakers tell us up front they are using these incredibly ubiquitous tools? I could go on with numerous other examples. But Devindra’s righteous outrage over essentially a different application of this technology that’s existed for many decades is misplaced and very selectively applied here.
DarmineDoggyDoor
2025-01-25 03:26:26 +0000 UTCI disagree with Devindra about that no one would have noticed or cared about the Hungarian language in the movie . An example of this is Selena Gomez beginner level Spanish with the scripts complete proper sentences has been a big deal with Spanish speakers all over the world . It sounds unnatural because people with that level of Spanish don’t speak that way. Yet people who don’t know Spanish just don’t care about how she sounds and it’s not An issue .
Nick Esqu
2025-01-25 03:20:38 +0000 UTCBut they were transparent about it , the editor of the movie is the one that brought this up . I don’t think they were hiding this , it’s the media that blew this up because AI is a touchy subject . There aren’t that many scenes with the Hungarian language.
Nick Esqu
2025-01-25 03:14:59 +0000 UTCHonestly at this point I feel like discussing whether AI is bad or good is almost moot, as its prevalence will only continue to grow, whether we like it or not. It's like complaining about social media or the Internet or whatever: there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Stranger2Reality
2025-01-25 01:56:19 +0000 UTCIn the week since I posted the question, I have sat on the fence for this particular issue. On one hand I despise the AI slippery slope and the chase for perfection. A few Hungarian words not perfectly articulated won’t make or break the performance, I wish they kept it as it was. However, in saying that, is this not some form of ADR? We constantly change dialogue, sentences, inflections in post, and while it is still their voice (more so then some syllable sounds in AI), are we not changing the actual performance at the time through ADR? It’s odd actually to break down. I hate the idea of AI doing other people’s jobs, and I also see that this issue isn’t an insane use of it. Like I said, I’m in the middle now
Jay Wood
2025-01-25 01:23:42 +0000 UTCI think others have been very eloquent on this, so I won't go into it, but definitely Team Dave on this AI thing. Devindra has quite the extreme reaction on this stuff and despite him saying he's just asking questions, he is very obviously so anti-AI to ridiculous levels and his questioning is reminiscent of anti-vaxxers who are just "asking questions." Devindra is making it clear that no answers to his questions will suffice, it's just "AI all bad." Dave, on the other hand, seems to be interested in legitimate discourse and open to AI being useful.
Papool Chaudhari
2025-01-25 00:55:57 +0000 UTCI totally get how Jeff feels about looking weird in public. I’m even worse. I don’t like going to the same restaurant multiple times in a short period of time cause I feel like a maniac. Like I’m obsessed. I wish I was like Dave and didn’t care. By the way Trader Joes has mochi which is amazing and there was this yogurt kinda thing I liked but I forget what it was called.
David Esposito
2025-01-24 23:39:59 +0000 UTCJeff, you could have said you celebrate Orthodox Christmas to the Trader Joe's cashier.
Mesfin Mebrate
2025-01-24 23:23:36 +0000 UTCI really don’t get this outrage about how they tweaked the dialogue using AI in the brutalist. Devindra said we can have the conversation about how this is different from replacing a dead actor but not right now whereas in fact, this is the perfect time to have that conversation. For me, what it boils down to is, is the way AI is used on something taking away an actual job from somebody else or does it steal someone’s existing work. In this dialogue instance, it is clear that many, many people worked on the dialogue for the brutalist and this is a tool that they used to get it how they wanted it. If there is no human person who can do this, then what’s the issue? It’s such a childish reaction. There’s no nuance anymore. I look forward to Devindra ripping Lucas for Darth Vader’s voice because that’s not the actors real voice dude
Garry L
2025-01-24 22:44:51 +0000 UTCSorry for rambling. I was nervous while typing.
Ryan
2025-01-24 22:17:14 +0000 UTCIt's great to hear the kindness club seems to be going well, and there's a sense of community. Though I wonder whether or not the pushback were partly due to their knee jerk defensive reaction to the name. I can see people being put off because they may see it as "if you are/ want to be kind, than you should be in this club." In a way, the name makes them question themselves, for not being in the club. For instance, I imagine if there's a club called "Cool People's Club" folks would have similar reactions.
Bruce Chang
2025-01-24 22:15:17 +0000 UTCI wonder if the conversation about AI accents would go if The Brutalist was an animated film. In live action the performers can still use their bodies in their performances but could the director really claim “their performances are their own” when the voice is all the audience can register? Voice actors went on strike against certain game companies for protections against AI and I have a had time thinking they would be all right with this usage. Personally, I’m completely on Devindra’s side in the discussion, maybe even harsher on AI. Yes, we live in an age of CGI characters and the volume, but an artist’s hands can be at least felt in those things. I just don’t feel that in any use of AI I have come across. In an age where we are disconnected and drifting away from being human I cannot believe that AI will help anything. We need to feel more human connection not less. I don’t care that Brody’s accent isn’t perfect. Let me hear the imperfections so I can feel the work he is putting into the role. That’s what makes a performance great, to me at least, not the perfection of anything. I love you guys, and the pod, but please don’t fall into fatalism. We can reconnect and be human together.
Ryan
2025-01-24 22:14:20 +0000 UTCI like to imagine someone listening to this thinking, "hording physical media I'm on board with... hoarding garbage junk food, I guess this is where I get off the wagon." That being said, it's going to be a tough day if the peanut butter pretzel bites ever gets discontinued.
Bruce Chang
2025-01-24 21:42:16 +0000 UTCThis tan jacket has come up a few times. We need to see it.
Nathaniel St. Clair
2025-01-24 20:34:09 +0000 UTCI disagree with Devindra. I have zero problem with auto tune in music or the application of AI as it was used in the Brutalist as long as the creators are open about it. If a singer tries to hide the use of auto tune to misrepresent their natural abilities or if the creators that worked on The Brutalist were not transparent about their use of AI and and tried to play it off purely as an incredible performance, then that is when the alterations become problematic in my opinion.
Ben Wesorick
2025-01-24 20:22:01 +0000 UTC"AI," like any tool, is not inherently good or bad. However, the way "AI" has been used thus far (at scale) is not to help an artist get the most out of their craft by using a new tool—it's replacing artists, cutting artists' work, and ultimately saving money for those in power with money already. Thanks to these new tools, artists are not seeing nor expecting a golden age of art. Quite the opposite. So, sure, like that great ID4 quote (a person can be smart, but people are stupid), individual AI tools may be "good" and helpful to artists, but "AI tools" in general are bad for artists, art, and especially filmmaking. That's why it's such an "all or nothing" attitude, right now, because it feels existential for artists and their work, and, for that matter, all work done by humans. (I've worked in AI for the last 2 years at both Google and OpenAI. Ted Chiang (mentioned by Dave) has the best take on "AI" so far.)
Brandon Lee Tenney
2025-01-24 20:17:49 +0000 UTCDave, I too spin wild tales to my overly chatty Dutch Brothers window workers and they eat it up.
Outlandish Beats
2025-01-24 19:53:10 +0000 UTCI live in Racine, Wisconsin where the Kringles are manufactured. Trader Joes only gets a variety or two, but the O&H bakeries here make dozens of different types. Let me know if y'all need a hookup.
Jacob Martinez
2025-01-24 19:31:24 +0000 UTCThank youuuuuuuuuuu! You guys are the best. 💕
Reynaldo K. Cruz
2025-01-24 19:11:19 +0000 UTC4 tan jackets- good for you devindra
Asher Maitin
2025-01-24 19:02:11 +0000 UTCIt's so prescient that you talk about Jeff taking notes because on the last Weekly Plug he couldn't even remember all the details for HIS OWN BOOK 😀 Like dude, make some marketing!
Mountain of Conflict
2025-01-24 18:54:22 +0000 UTChttps://youtu.be/oMTP4xdxfwc?si=FlN5DTj7BGVRwuhZ I randomly started watching segments from Rick Mercer Report for fun (he's like a very Canadian version of Conan when it comes to remotes ) and one was that he goes to the Covered Bridge Factory before it had burned down. it's a Canadian family owned business that people seem to really love and only found out about it burning down from the comments in that video. It was odd I had this come up twice in a week.
Jacob Chimilar
2025-01-24 18:47:57 +0000 UTCI used to work at Walgreens and I’m completely numb to people buying weird quantities for things. Make up a story Jeff! It’s for your classroom
Tyler Sexton
2025-01-24 18:43:41 +0000 UTC
