This is the correct opinion. AI will never be able to create real art, but neither will modern Hollywood, so let those talentless nepotists starve for all I care.
>making it so any frickwit is now a creative genius and will take your job with far less qualification or training >this is a good thing
this guy isn't very smart
If you take two applicants, one is an artist who uses AI as a tool, the other can't draw for shit and relies 100% on AI, who will you hire? Let's say you hired the non-artist because he's cheaper. Now ask him to give you a concept art of a woman with pink striped socks and an orange coat. The guy comes back with something basic, but you want her to have a specific pose. The guy returns with a similar-looking image, but it's not the pose you asked for. So you keep going back and forth, but the AI isn't giving him what you want. What now?
>with far less qualification or training
if the training you had got you to this point, then what good was the training. your israeli grift is over. capitalism is over.
Ron Perlman was a lion in some gay 80s show, hellboy, a Russian in blade 2, and posts on twitter about shitting in his water heater. Has he even been in anything else?
>make 3000 AI images in an hour >cherry pick the best ones >edit them manually to get the final product
this is exactly how I use stablediffusion to make fetish porn
The plot of the new Hellboy movie featuring Cinemaphile goes like this. A group of anonymous people on Cinemaphile decided that their own lives sucked, so they wanted to watch a bad movie. A bunch of people got together and paid for a bad Hellboy movie.
To make the movie even more terrible, they added their own personal touches. They added their favorite quotes from the book. They also added a random plot involving the death of his grandfather.
As a result, this movie is as terrible as it sounds. So what are the odds that the sequel will be better? The odds aren’t that great, but it is still possible. But if you want to go see a movie with the original cast, you’ll have to wait until September to do so.
So, while the original Hellboy movie was a great movie, this new Hellboy movie is a terrible movie. The plot has no focus and the characters are pretty boring. But the movie does have a few good things going for it.
The movie ends with Rasputin and Hellboy having a long conversation, Hellboy then tries to fight Rasputin but is unsuccessful in killing him. The last 10 minutes of the movie Hellboy dies as Rasputin stabs him in the heart. Rasputin returns to Hell and says to Hellboy, “It has been a pleasure to do business with you, Mr. Hellboy.”
The next scene in the movie, however, is a shot of Hellboy in bed. We then see Hellboy telling a young child a story about Rasputin’s death. The movie then ends. This is probably a good place to mention that there was a scene in the original movie where Rasputin tells Hellboy that he has to kill him in order to bring about the birth of the devil child.
Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 were also amazing for how little CGI they had in them, and how the biggest effects shots were done in elaborate but very old fashioned ways
It's really a shame that this was a rubber foam piece of shit that rotted into nothing almost before filming was done because it'd be amazing if the prop were preserved and functional permanently
wow man can you believe tony diterlizzi like frickin
DREW
artwork for Planescape/D&D stuff
like holy shit, drawing. i really care about tony diterlizzi as a person. if he needed an organ, i'd give him one. not like those soulless machines - producing drawings.
of course this is unique to artists. the people who built my house can remain anonymous and frick off, i simply want nothing to do with them. they've contributed NOTHING to my life.
>of course this is unique to artists. the people who built my house can remain anonymous and frick off, i simply want nothing to do with them. they've contributed NOTHING to my life.
no, this is genuinely a significant part of the debate. copyright was created by the Berne convention because people were, effectively, pirating books. the printing press made it easy. now you can copy-paste in seconds. the whole point of technology is to automate jobs. when was the last time you had ice delivered to your door? or do you simply have a freezer.
if AI is blatantly copying artists' work and remixing it and they aren't getting credit, so what? could you tell me the name of the bricklayer who built your home? or did they just do a job, following some instructions. creatives and artisans are just upset because it turns out they weren't immune to technology after all. i'm sure a lot of people were upset when industrialization happened. oh well.
There's plenty of things wrong your argument but the main one is, why are you arguing about copyright? The Del Toro poster was talking about quality/creativity.
because i think you should be completely free to copy someone else's work. Creative Commons shouldn't be a choice it should be the norm. or better, public domain, but maybe that's reaching. so i am 100% in support of a computer program taking someone's art without permission to produce new art.
and i really hope this isn't a shocking opinion on the internet. i've been saving/posting images online for years. i didn't track down the author of an image macro or feel any guilt reposting it.
A bricklayer isn't the person who designed the house, though? There are famous architects. This is a terrible analogy.
i would care MORE about the person who did the manual labour. but i don't. artisans don't have superiority over manual labourers there. this is why i brought up copyright as an example: we could suddenly replicate entire books, like bootlegs, an entire industry panicked. now we can do that at the push of a button. if you are an author and your book is an EPUB, Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V. if you are an artist and your drawing is a JPEG, into the AI hivemind it goes.
ultimately if i come across a piece of writing or an image and it was created by a human, i don't care who that human is, i care about the work. if i come across a piece of writing or an image and it was created by an AI, i don't care about the AI, i care about the work. there's some creepy cult of personality going on with artists, and AI has made it explicit.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I'm sorry, do you not understand the difference between writing a book, with characters, and narrative, and... printing a book? Your analogy makes me think so, cause you think physically building a house, following the instructions for how to put it together, is the same as being the person who designed it. I have nothing against physical laborers, but those are entirely different things.
When you write a story, you're thinking of characters, and motivation, and arcs, and messages. When you are printing a book, as a service, you are putting ink to paper. Important, but that is a different job.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
i don't think we should segregate 'creative' jobs from other jobs. Karl fricking Marx said that about 'the artisans' because surely they can't be replaced the same way industrialization replaced some physical labourers and led to overproduction. can't overproduce art.
well now you can. artists aren't a special class who are immune from technology. 'intellectual property' is a ridiculous idea and again, the historical basis is so forced and no longer relevant. even using your design examples: i could both design and build furniture as an interior decorator for a family's home. then i never see them again. they've chopped up my hand-carved coffee table and turned it into a dart board. that's 100% completely fine.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I think you have some horrible misunderstanding of the creative process at a base level. Have you ever made anything? Ever? The printing press concept you brought up would allow someone to copy a story, yes, but to make alterations to it would be an entirely different thing. That would be writing, or rewriting. This whole conversation is built off of a dumbass analogy.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
i have created stuff and it's been shared online without any credit. i am absolutely fine with that.
you can copy these exact posts i've written (high quality stuff, i know). don't even add commentary under fair use. >Comments are owned by the Poster.
i relinquish that. you can print my posts on a T-shirt and make a fortune. same way i can write a Robin Hood story or use artwork from Victorian books. except instead of being 105 years, that should be exactly 0 years.
[...]
Also if you designed and sold that furniture, that means someone paid for it. AI is taking art and creative content from others without asking. So no, that analogy doesn't work either.
why is asking important? i'm not saying the ownership transfers to me, i'm saying nobody owns it. you've still CREATED it, so as an artist you will still get paid. if you can't find work as an artist because people can just use AI instead: congratulations, another job has been made redundant by technology. i would really like a robot maid even if it puts cleaners out of work. i haven't had a coal delivery since i was a child.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Again. You seem to think copying is the same as creating. I am kind of baffled by this post. If I download an image off the internet, I did not create it. I have it, and can use it for things outside the original creator's control, but I did not make the original image.
Asking is important, because it copyright does exist, and even if you don't want it to, that's not the world we live in. We are seeing massive corporations take from individuals without their consent, and are using it to replace jobs that they could instead be paying them for. It is not "the little guy" taking art into his own hands. We are literally seeing a director of a major motion picture using it.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
yeah i'm proposing abolishing copyright entirely if that isn't clear. next: patents and similar. it's like how open source nerds talk about code (you can't 'own' a mathematical algorithm).
i am talking about creating and i've given examples of physically creating something involving the creative/mental/design process, i don't know what else to tell you anon. i 100% think AI should be able to take the work of others and 'learn' to make something new. humans use reference images. stock elements. that's not even plagiarism in the art world.
i agree about taking the power away from the major corporations because they can use this stuff and already do. as a 'consumer' who enjoys art, music, and so on, i simply don't care about the person behind the art. i would hope a good artist doesn't, preferring their artwork to be seen. if they're a narcissist or if fans care about their personal lives, that's on them. remember when actors, for example, didn't WANT the paparazzi or tabloids prying into their private lives? just to do their jobs as actors?
plus it was the megacorps that have pushed for these 'protections' in the first place, not the little guy. Disney's copyright extension being the obvious one. i hope the little guy paints because he wants to, regardless of what happens to his art. if it's your job, and technology has replaced your job, that sucks but again that's how technology works. i hope you can enjoy art as a hobby or find another job that fits you. the salt mining industry isn't doing too well these days, the art industry could be next.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I would hope you also are a proponent of some kind of UBI, or socialism, if this is your mindset, because in our current state of society, all it ultimately would do would give unregulated power to the rich to take from others freely, without any restraint. Write a cool story? Well they'll take it, print it, adapt it, and do whatever they will with it, and you won't have any control over it. They could twist your words, and your meaning into the exact opposite, and humiliate you. And because they have power, that's the version of the story that would solidify into the cultural zeitgeist. Being bothered by that wouldn't be narcissism, that's just the weak being downtrodden even further.
If you have even the most basic good intentions with this mindset, you should probably be arguing it not in a thread about corporate Hollywood slop.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
i am, yeah. frankly i don't think artists will stop just because it's no longer a gig for the money. i consider it work, but it could cease to be a job entirely. people play instruments recreationally. i've written and drawn for fun, not to sell anything. programming, freeware games, learning languages, exercising, driving, BUILDING FURNITURE.
barring UBI or similar then Patreon (maybe not the company itself, but a similar model) could work. i've read fiction people posted online for free, i've enjoyed art people have uploaded for free. i have given them money. i didn't even have to pay first, just thought i'd throw them some disposable income, hope they keep at it.
even if selling a fan/derivative work is illegal at the moment (which i disagree with), you can work around that. donations, Patreon or similar like i said, just having banner ads on your blog. Harlan Ellison was a c**t for being so litigious if someone used AN IDEA from his stories. Terminator had to credit him.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I think you have some horrible misunderstanding of the creative process at a base level. Have you ever made anything? Ever? The printing press concept you brought up would allow someone to copy a story, yes, but to make alterations to it would be an entirely different thing. That would be writing, or rewriting. This whole conversation is built off of a dumbass analogy.
Also if you designed and sold that furniture, that means someone paid for it. AI is taking art and creative content from others without asking. So no, that analogy doesn't work either.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
you know...I usually don't give a shit about any of these garbage "debates"...
but you only pay the bricklayer once to do the house. You only pay the architect once to plan it out (and you can easily plan it out yourself).
When I sue someone...I only pay the judge and jury once. When the cop pulls you over and tickets you...you pay once for that ticket.
When I go to the grocery store, I only pay for coconuts once. I do not pay for the idea of the coconut for eternity in royalties.
The difference is, just like the mob, or Microsoft, they eternally rub their greasy palms together and demand I keep paying them over and over for that one thing.
If you put something into the public for money, at some point, you gotta know people won't pay for it after a certain amount of time. Others will borrow it, use it, modify it, and cash out on it, just like you did when you borrowed from others to "create your unique consumer product to get rich from".
Quentis Tarantula loves to borrow the work of others, and do his version on it. People borrow the work of Tarantula, redo it, and hand it out. He then borrows it...and modifies it, then resells it.
Everyone is happy. Quentis is rich. It's as about as fair a system as I can imagine. But an actor has a right to their image & use.
You will notice they always get paid upfront, before they complain about the rest being borrowed. Yet they borrow from us, and pay nothing at all.
Be glad the system is as it is, peeps.
It could be way worse. Support who you like, for free, or for pay. They will make a living regardless. When they borrow from you, appreciate it, because they liked you enough to do it.
The director said this article was misquoted. Ai was used for The Offering after the practical effects in the 2019 Hellboy reboot were so difficult to work with. They confirmed the 2023 Hellboy movie did not use Ai at all.
>on a platform he built himself
In other words, he got a Midjourney subscription?
I hate AI shit and sincerely hope AI destroys Hollywood
I hold both of those feeling simultaneously
This is the correct opinion. AI will never be able to create real art, but neither will modern Hollywood, so let those talentless nepotists starve for all I care.
Mass produced "give me an idea" concept art is exactly what AI should be used for.
AI is just a tool. It depends on how it's used.
>making it so any frickwit is now a creative genius and will take your job with far less qualification or training
>this is a good thing
this guy isn't very smart
If you take two applicants, one is an artist who uses AI as a tool, the other can't draw for shit and relies 100% on AI, who will you hire? Let's say you hired the non-artist because he's cheaper. Now ask him to give you a concept art of a woman with pink striped socks and an orange coat. The guy comes back with something basic, but you want her to have a specific pose. The guy returns with a similar-looking image, but it's not the pose you asked for. So you keep going back and forth, but the AI isn't giving him what you want. What now?
you realize AI is just going to get better and better and people who rely on AI will get better and better at prompting it right?
True, but that's not the case right at this moment
>but it's not the pose you asked for.
50 IQ post. you can get any pose you want on a.i.
I'd hire the chick with the bigger breasts
The AI can generate any pose. In the time it takes an artist to draw your photo once, I can generate hundreds and cherry pick the best ones.
>with far less qualification or training
if the training you had got you to this point, then what good was the training. your israeli grift is over. capitalism is over.
Someone who is good at writing prompts will have way better results than someone who can’t.
>the emotion of a human being will never be replaced
Wishful thinking. It's not a matter of if, but when
Ron Perlman was a lion in some gay 80s show, hellboy, a Russian in blade 2, and posts on twitter about shitting in his water heater. Has he even been in anything else?
narrated Fallout
He raped Rae Dawn Chong then discovered fire.
The Quest for Fire is a good caveman movie. I might watch that right now.
He was in that movie about the Russian sniper in WWII.
>make 3000 AI images in an hour
>cherry pick the best ones
>edit them manually to get the final product
this is exactly how I use stablediffusion to make fetish porn
The plot of the new Hellboy movie featuring Cinemaphile goes like this. A group of anonymous people on Cinemaphile decided that their own lives sucked, so they wanted to watch a bad movie. A bunch of people got together and paid for a bad Hellboy movie.
To make the movie even more terrible, they added their own personal touches. They added their favorite quotes from the book. They also added a random plot involving the death of his grandfather.
As a result, this movie is as terrible as it sounds. So what are the odds that the sequel will be better? The odds aren’t that great, but it is still possible. But if you want to go see a movie with the original cast, you’ll have to wait until September to do so.
So, while the original Hellboy movie was a great movie, this new Hellboy movie is a terrible movie. The plot has no focus and the characters are pretty boring. But the movie does have a few good things going for it.
The movie ends with Rasputin and Hellboy having a long conversation, Hellboy then tries to fight Rasputin but is unsuccessful in killing him. The last 10 minutes of the movie Hellboy dies as Rasputin stabs him in the heart. Rasputin returns to Hell and says to Hellboy, “It has been a pleasure to do business with you, Mr. Hellboy.”
The next scene in the movie, however, is a shot of Hellboy in bed. We then see Hellboy telling a young child a story about Rasputin’s death. The movie then ends. This is probably a good place to mention that there was a scene in the original movie where Rasputin tells Hellboy that he has to kill him in order to bring about the birth of the devil child.
This is the only thing I can find on this
It's gonna be dogshit like the last one, AI or no. I don't know why they need this, they already have designs from the comic.
*checks Google*
Uhhhh???? There isn't a new Hellboy movie coming out. Is you trolling?
>Uhhhh???? There isn't a new Hellboy movie coming out. Is you trolling?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellboy:_The_Crooked_Man
Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 were amazing for their revolutionary CGI. Not like today where everything uses CGI.
Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 were also amazing for how little CGI they had in them, and how the biggest effects shots were done in elaborate but very old fashioned ways
It's really a shame that this was a rubber foam piece of shit that rotted into nothing almost before filming was done because it'd be amazing if the prop were preserved and functional permanently
>THE CHAD GUILLERMO DESIGNING COSTUMES IN A NOTEBOOK
>THE VIRGIN PROMPTER MAKING THE COMPUTER DRAW FOR HIM
wow man can you believe tony diterlizzi like frickin
DREW
artwork for Planescape/D&D stuff
like holy shit, drawing. i really care about tony diterlizzi as a person. if he needed an organ, i'd give him one. not like those soulless machines - producing drawings.
of course this is unique to artists. the people who built my house can remain anonymous and frick off, i simply want nothing to do with them. they've contributed NOTHING to my life.
>of course this is unique to artists. the people who built my house can remain anonymous and frick off, i simply want nothing to do with them. they've contributed NOTHING to my life.
Who's saying this?
The strawman in his mind.
no, this is genuinely a significant part of the debate. copyright was created by the Berne convention because people were, effectively, pirating books. the printing press made it easy. now you can copy-paste in seconds. the whole point of technology is to automate jobs. when was the last time you had ice delivered to your door? or do you simply have a freezer.
if AI is blatantly copying artists' work and remixing it and they aren't getting credit, so what? could you tell me the name of the bricklayer who built your home? or did they just do a job, following some instructions. creatives and artisans are just upset because it turns out they weren't immune to technology after all. i'm sure a lot of people were upset when industrialization happened. oh well.
There's plenty of things wrong your argument but the main one is, why are you arguing about copyright? The Del Toro poster was talking about quality/creativity.
because i think you should be completely free to copy someone else's work. Creative Commons shouldn't be a choice it should be the norm. or better, public domain, but maybe that's reaching. so i am 100% in support of a computer program taking someone's art without permission to produce new art.
and i really hope this isn't a shocking opinion on the internet. i've been saving/posting images online for years. i didn't track down the author of an image macro or feel any guilt reposting it.
i would care MORE about the person who did the manual labour. but i don't. artisans don't have superiority over manual labourers there. this is why i brought up copyright as an example: we could suddenly replicate entire books, like bootlegs, an entire industry panicked. now we can do that at the push of a button. if you are an author and your book is an EPUB, Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V. if you are an artist and your drawing is a JPEG, into the AI hivemind it goes.
ultimately if i come across a piece of writing or an image and it was created by a human, i don't care who that human is, i care about the work. if i come across a piece of writing or an image and it was created by an AI, i don't care about the AI, i care about the work. there's some creepy cult of personality going on with artists, and AI has made it explicit.
I'm sorry, do you not understand the difference between writing a book, with characters, and narrative, and... printing a book? Your analogy makes me think so, cause you think physically building a house, following the instructions for how to put it together, is the same as being the person who designed it. I have nothing against physical laborers, but those are entirely different things.
When you write a story, you're thinking of characters, and motivation, and arcs, and messages. When you are printing a book, as a service, you are putting ink to paper. Important, but that is a different job.
i don't think we should segregate 'creative' jobs from other jobs. Karl fricking Marx said that about 'the artisans' because surely they can't be replaced the same way industrialization replaced some physical labourers and led to overproduction. can't overproduce art.
well now you can. artists aren't a special class who are immune from technology. 'intellectual property' is a ridiculous idea and again, the historical basis is so forced and no longer relevant. even using your design examples: i could both design and build furniture as an interior decorator for a family's home. then i never see them again. they've chopped up my hand-carved coffee table and turned it into a dart board. that's 100% completely fine.
I think you have some horrible misunderstanding of the creative process at a base level. Have you ever made anything? Ever? The printing press concept you brought up would allow someone to copy a story, yes, but to make alterations to it would be an entirely different thing. That would be writing, or rewriting. This whole conversation is built off of a dumbass analogy.
i have created stuff and it's been shared online without any credit. i am absolutely fine with that.
you can copy these exact posts i've written (high quality stuff, i know). don't even add commentary under fair use.
>Comments are owned by the Poster.
i relinquish that. you can print my posts on a T-shirt and make a fortune. same way i can write a Robin Hood story or use artwork from Victorian books. except instead of being 105 years, that should be exactly 0 years.
why is asking important? i'm not saying the ownership transfers to me, i'm saying nobody owns it. you've still CREATED it, so as an artist you will still get paid. if you can't find work as an artist because people can just use AI instead: congratulations, another job has been made redundant by technology. i would really like a robot maid even if it puts cleaners out of work. i haven't had a coal delivery since i was a child.
Again. You seem to think copying is the same as creating. I am kind of baffled by this post. If I download an image off the internet, I did not create it. I have it, and can use it for things outside the original creator's control, but I did not make the original image.
Asking is important, because it copyright does exist, and even if you don't want it to, that's not the world we live in. We are seeing massive corporations take from individuals without their consent, and are using it to replace jobs that they could instead be paying them for. It is not "the little guy" taking art into his own hands. We are literally seeing a director of a major motion picture using it.
yeah i'm proposing abolishing copyright entirely if that isn't clear. next: patents and similar. it's like how open source nerds talk about code (you can't 'own' a mathematical algorithm).
i am talking about creating and i've given examples of physically creating something involving the creative/mental/design process, i don't know what else to tell you anon. i 100% think AI should be able to take the work of others and 'learn' to make something new. humans use reference images. stock elements. that's not even plagiarism in the art world.
i agree about taking the power away from the major corporations because they can use this stuff and already do. as a 'consumer' who enjoys art, music, and so on, i simply don't care about the person behind the art. i would hope a good artist doesn't, preferring their artwork to be seen. if they're a narcissist or if fans care about their personal lives, that's on them. remember when actors, for example, didn't WANT the paparazzi or tabloids prying into their private lives? just to do their jobs as actors?
plus it was the megacorps that have pushed for these 'protections' in the first place, not the little guy. Disney's copyright extension being the obvious one. i hope the little guy paints because he wants to, regardless of what happens to his art. if it's your job, and technology has replaced your job, that sucks but again that's how technology works. i hope you can enjoy art as a hobby or find another job that fits you. the salt mining industry isn't doing too well these days, the art industry could be next.
I would hope you also are a proponent of some kind of UBI, or socialism, if this is your mindset, because in our current state of society, all it ultimately would do would give unregulated power to the rich to take from others freely, without any restraint. Write a cool story? Well they'll take it, print it, adapt it, and do whatever they will with it, and you won't have any control over it. They could twist your words, and your meaning into the exact opposite, and humiliate you. And because they have power, that's the version of the story that would solidify into the cultural zeitgeist. Being bothered by that wouldn't be narcissism, that's just the weak being downtrodden even further.
If you have even the most basic good intentions with this mindset, you should probably be arguing it not in a thread about corporate Hollywood slop.
i am, yeah. frankly i don't think artists will stop just because it's no longer a gig for the money. i consider it work, but it could cease to be a job entirely. people play instruments recreationally. i've written and drawn for fun, not to sell anything. programming, freeware games, learning languages, exercising, driving, BUILDING FURNITURE.
barring UBI or similar then Patreon (maybe not the company itself, but a similar model) could work. i've read fiction people posted online for free, i've enjoyed art people have uploaded for free. i have given them money. i didn't even have to pay first, just thought i'd throw them some disposable income, hope they keep at it.
even if selling a fan/derivative work is illegal at the moment (which i disagree with), you can work around that. donations, Patreon or similar like i said, just having banner ads on your blog. Harlan Ellison was a c**t for being so litigious if someone used AN IDEA from his stories. Terminator had to credit him.
Also if you designed and sold that furniture, that means someone paid for it. AI is taking art and creative content from others without asking. So no, that analogy doesn't work either.
you know...I usually don't give a shit about any of these garbage "debates"...
but you only pay the bricklayer once to do the house. You only pay the architect once to plan it out (and you can easily plan it out yourself).
When I sue someone...I only pay the judge and jury once. When the cop pulls you over and tickets you...you pay once for that ticket.
When I go to the grocery store, I only pay for coconuts once. I do not pay for the idea of the coconut for eternity in royalties.
The difference is, just like the mob, or Microsoft, they eternally rub their greasy palms together and demand I keep paying them over and over for that one thing.
If you put something into the public for money, at some point, you gotta know people won't pay for it after a certain amount of time. Others will borrow it, use it, modify it, and cash out on it, just like you did when you borrowed from others to "create your unique consumer product to get rich from".
Quentis Tarantula loves to borrow the work of others, and do his version on it. People borrow the work of Tarantula, redo it, and hand it out. He then borrows it...and modifies it, then resells it.
Everyone is happy. Quentis is rich. It's as about as fair a system as I can imagine. But an actor has a right to their image & use.
You will notice they always get paid upfront, before they complain about the rest being borrowed. Yet they borrow from us, and pay nothing at all.
Be glad the system is as it is, peeps.
It could be way worse. Support who you like, for free, or for pay. They will make a living regardless. When they borrow from you, appreciate it, because they liked you enough to do it.
A bricklayer isn't the person who designed the house, though? There are famous architects. This is a terrible analogy.
It's just gay outrage bait to get people talking about the movie because the use of ai is a hot button topic
>New Hellboy
You mean another one after the David Harbour fiasco? Just let it die, ffs.
I'm conflicted - frick AI, but then again frick Ron Perlman
The director said this article was misquoted. Ai was used for The Offering after the practical effects in the 2019 Hellboy reboot were so difficult to work with. They confirmed the 2023 Hellboy movie did not use Ai at all.