Video summary
The video discusses Eli Roth's film *Ice Cream Man* and its controversial use of artificial intelligence in certain animated sequences, sparking a debate about the ethics and practicality of AI in filmmaking. While some critics have harshly judged the movie solely based on this decision, the speaker argues that such criticism is hypocritical because many creators themselves rely heavily on AI tools without admitting it. The narrator admits to having mixed feelings toward AI; while he personally finds fully automated content generation distasteful and potentially exploitative of human labor, he recognizes its immense value as a productivity tool for legitimate asset creation tasks like filling empty spaces in graphic design or populating large crowds in fantasy scenes.
To illustrate the practical benefits, the speaker shares his experience as both a movie reviewer and a web developer who uses AI features within Photoshop to instantly generate background elements that would otherwise take hours of manual labor to create manually. He compares this modern convenience to how artists once used clip art or stock libraries from CDs in the past, arguing that technology should be embraced to make an artist's job easier rather than feared as theft. In his view, using AI for asset population does not inherently replace human creativity but instead streamlines repetitive tasks, allowing professionals like himself and potentially Eli Roth to focus on higher-level creative decisions while saving significant time and resources.
However, the speaker draws a sharp distinction between efficient tool use and what he perceives as an abuse of technology when entire scenes or assets are generated without proper oversight or regard for original creators' work. He criticizes those who claim AI is "trash" yet simultaneously generate their own thumbnails using similar tools, calling this behavior hypocritical since the underlying fonts and graphical treatments still originate from existing works rather than being created ex nihilo by the machine itself. The current lack of regulation in this space creates a chaotic environment where companies can pull resources indiscriminately to assemble content quickly, which raises ethical concerns about intellectual property and the displacement of human artists who might otherwise be hired for these tasks.
Ultimately, the speaker concludes that while he does not defend Eli Roth's specific execution or quality of work, anyone with the financial means should hire skilled professionals rather than relying on unregulated AI generation to ensure a better final product. He acknowledges deeper systemic issues such as the environmental cost and energy consumption required to run massive data centers for these models but suggests those are complex topics best addressed separately. His stance is one of balanced pragmatism: he will call out obvious abuses when they occur while also pushing back against overly vicious criticism that ignores the many variables involved in modern production, inviting viewers to share their own perspectives on where the line between helpful tool and unethical replacement should be drawn.
Read the full video transcript
I don't know if it's a blessing or a
curse for Eli Roth that he's in the uh
ether right now being talked about. Not
because Ice Cream Man is this great
triumphant tour day force of a film, not
based on the original or the comic. It's
just its own shitty thing, but because
of the utilization of AI in a couple of
scenes of the flick. What scenes are
using it? Unclear kind of because he's
been very uh cy about the whole thing.
Nicholas KG, you could say. I don't I
don't know why you would say that,
though. In a recent interview, he
bragged about how he had some animated
sections of the film, old tiny callbacks
that he did, and he freehanded some of
the sketches for them. He then gave them
to an animation company to do the rest
of the work. Well, in a follow-up
conversation, he admitted that he
actually utilized AI to do some of the
animation to make it as silky, buttery,
smooth as it could possibly be.
Naturally, the internet has reacted
exactly how one would expect by
scorching Earth. Movie critics have been
giving the film ones out of 10 based
solely on the concept of using AI. I
hate to break it to some of those
critics, but it's being utilized a lot
more than people think. How do I know
this? Because it would be stupid for
them not to. Now, before you throw a
[ __ ] fit and cancel me and say this
is a stupid opinion, HOW DARE YOU? HOW
DARE you embrace AI? I I kind of hate
it. Okay, I'm not I'm not a fan of AI in
a lot of ways. There are practical
implications to use it, though. Now,
believe it or not, this is not my
full-time job. I mean, it's it's one of
two. I I do uh movie reviews. I'm a I'm
a certified critic, yes, but I also am a
web developer and front-end designer.
I've been doing that for far longer
even. And that's the thing that actually
really pays the bills. In that
profession, I'm often tasked to make
banners for some major companies. And
what they will give me are 4x3 images
that do not scale properly to fit those
dimensions. So what did Adam have to do
years earlier? Well, he had to take out
the clone brush and he had to kind of
fake the graphic going out further,
extending the road, extending the cacti
or the mountain range or whatever it
might be. Or he would go on Google, find
another photo that was similar, plop
that one in, and blend the two together,
making a full banner that would
inevitably be darkened and then some
text would be on top. So, it's just kind
of window dressing. I bring this up
because Adam today harnessing the power
of AI built directly into Photoshop can
now put that banner dimension out there,
lay the photo in, select the dead space,
and just hit generate and watch as it
populates not one but tray options for
me to choose from. Filling in the canvas
in a matter of seconds. Something that
normally would have taken me an hour to
populate properly is done in the snap of
a finger. That's incredible technology.
It's impressive. It has saved me
countless hours of mindn numbing
[ __ ] work. And that way, I'm freed
up to do other things. I would be an
idiot not to utilize this technology,
much like my peers years ago would be
fools not to utilize a thing we called
clip art back in the day. Clip art were
these crappy graphics and images and
whatnot that would be stored on CDs.
later they would be out on uh servers
and you could just pull them down. They
might be icon libraries that you could
edit, recolor, you know, change a little
bit to theme to your your uh specific
client's needs. They might just be a
photo library of stock imagery that you
can use. How there's stock image
libraries all over the place. My point
is technology is constantly advancing
and growing and it should be utilized as
a nice tool for the artist to pull from.
In my example, I am the artist. I have
not taken work away from someone else. I
have just made my job easier. So when I
say that AI can be used and should be in
movie terms, what I'm looking at mainly
is asset creation, asset population.
Take a movie like Lord of the Rings for
instance, where you might have armies of
thousands of trolls in different uh
walks of life. In the past, they would
just copy and paste that [ __ ] They
would take real humans, select the first
couple rows, they would freaking command
V that [ __ ] copy paste it, bloop,
spread them around, or they would have
real people in the front, then CGI them
in the back, add costumes and whatnot.
In either case, there's always going to
be tools used to speed up the process
and ease the pain that the animators
have to deal with. Now, in Eli Roth's
case, what it sounds like he did is he
just had AI build out the entire
animation sequence, which is later in
the film, and it looks like ass, and
it's terrible, but the movie is terrible
regardless. One can argue that he did
take work away from a real animator in
this instance. Not only that, he had the
computer just straight up rip off assets
from wherever it deemed fit. So, I do
believe this is different and it is an
abuse of what AI could do and should do.
Like the people that are now making
fullyfledged AI movies, they're just
telling the computer where they want the
camera, who they want in the film, how
the movie should look, and what the
computer does is it pulls assets and
resources from different things, blends
them together into this [ __ ] sandwich. I
hate it. I don't champion it. I don't
like it. I think it's gross. I also
think it's incredibly hypocritical when
I do see some of my peers out there
complaining about AI and and saying it's
trash and it shouldn't be used, but then
I look at their thumbnails and they
clearly generated them using AI AI text,
AI versions of themselves of posters. I
do find it to be a tad hypocritical.
Now, you could push back and say, well,
if they were going to make the thumbnail
themselves anyways and they were never
going to hire an artist to do this
stuff, then what what's the issue? Well,
the issue is I guess again it's pulling
at the the AI is not creating it itself.
It is pulling from other works. The
fonts, the the graphical treatments,
it's coming from somewhere or it's being
repurposed in a different way to make it
somewhat unique, but not really. We are
in the wild west with this stuff. There
seems to be very little regulation, if
any at all. And I don't see this getting
better anytime soon. For me, it's just
kind of a common sense approach. I will
call out the [ __ ] when I see it, as
I see it, which doesn't necessarily mean
it's right or wrong. And I will push
back when I think people are being way
too over-the-top, way too vicious,
because it's easy to do so from afar to
point the finger and say, "How dare you
take away work? How dare you take away
food off the table?" Like, there's just
a lot of variables that are involved.
And this is not me defending Eli Roth. I
don't I don't give a [ __ ] I don't know
what he actually did as far as the AI
goes. If he took work away, that is
crappy. And I do think you should hire
that stuff out if you're a person in his
position. You have the money, you have
the vision, so just get someone to do it
properly. It's going to lead to a better
product anyways. So, we all win. I kind
of only scratched the surface as far as
this conversation goes. You can get into
the ethics of it all as far as the
servers that are required to run all
this slop and the fact that cities are
having to pay for it. We're having to
pay for these farms. I think people
would gladly say [ __ ] no and just shut
the whole experiment down for the most
part. But we don't get a say. We don't
get that option. But that's maybe a
deeper conversation for another time.
Maybe one I'm not even fully equipped to
deal with. These are just my thoughts
though. not necessarily the right ones,
but it's it's kind of how I'm uh I'm
dealing with things right now. Let me
know yours though in the comments below.
Please think of liking and subbing to
the show, Adam does Movies. I'm on
YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcast.
Wherever you watch or listen, you'll
probably find me. And hopefully I find
you in the next video. All right, take
care.
Thanks again for watching the video. If
you didn't know, I'm a oneman operation
here at Adam Does Movies. I also have a
full-time job. I got a family to take
care of. And I would absolutely love if
you supported me on
patreon.com/adamdosmov
like these beautiful people did here.
These are the silver and gold members.
There's also a bronze membership
starting at $1, plus access to over 300
videos from the Atom vault at any
support level. I would really appreciate
it. It's the best way to support the
show. Hope to see you there.