Darren Aronofsky's decision to create an AI-generated historical docudrama series has sparked controversy among critics and audiences alike. The project, titled "On This Day... 1776", features short-form videos describing pivotal moments in American history, but with a twist: it uses artificial intelligence (AI) tools to produce photorealistic scenes containing avatars of historical figures.
While the AI-generated content is meant to be an innovative and efficient way to tell historical stories, many critics have expressed concerns about the quality and consistency of the output. The AV Club, CNET, and The Guardian have all panned the series, citing repetitive camera movements, poor acting, and overall lackluster production.
However, Aronofsky's team has defended their approach, arguing that AI is a powerful tool for creators to experiment with new ways of storytelling. In an interview, one source close to the production explained that the quality of new episodes will improve as the team refines their AI tools and learns to better use them.
Despite these assurances, many experts agree that relying solely on AI-generated content is not a viable replacement for human actors and creators. The commenter "yumegaze" summed up this sentiment: "Real human actors have micro-expressions, voice inflections and body movements that make up for most of the impact of a good performance... [AI avatars] can't be directed, can't impart lived experiences and expertise to modify its performance..."
The production of "On This Day... 1776" is also facing criticism about cost savings. While Aronofsky aims to reduce labor costs by using AI-generated content, many argue that this approach comes at the expense of artistic quality.
Ultimately, the success of "On This Day... 1776" will depend on how well it balances innovation with tradition and how effectively it addresses concerns about its creative choices. As one source put it, "It's not often that we have huge new tools like this... We have to try things in order to know if it works, if it doesn’t work." The question remains: what will the future of storytelling look like when AI-powered content becomes more prevalent?
While the AI-generated content is meant to be an innovative and efficient way to tell historical stories, many critics have expressed concerns about the quality and consistency of the output. The AV Club, CNET, and The Guardian have all panned the series, citing repetitive camera movements, poor acting, and overall lackluster production.
However, Aronofsky's team has defended their approach, arguing that AI is a powerful tool for creators to experiment with new ways of storytelling. In an interview, one source close to the production explained that the quality of new episodes will improve as the team refines their AI tools and learns to better use them.
Despite these assurances, many experts agree that relying solely on AI-generated content is not a viable replacement for human actors and creators. The commenter "yumegaze" summed up this sentiment: "Real human actors have micro-expressions, voice inflections and body movements that make up for most of the impact of a good performance... [AI avatars] can't be directed, can't impart lived experiences and expertise to modify its performance..."
The production of "On This Day... 1776" is also facing criticism about cost savings. While Aronofsky aims to reduce labor costs by using AI-generated content, many argue that this approach comes at the expense of artistic quality.
Ultimately, the success of "On This Day... 1776" will depend on how well it balances innovation with tradition and how effectively it addresses concerns about its creative choices. As one source put it, "It's not often that we have huge new tools like this... We have to try things in order to know if it works, if it doesn’t work." The question remains: what will the future of storytelling look like when AI-powered content becomes more prevalent?
. Like, don't get me wrong, I love innovation and all, but when it comes to storytelling, there's just something about real humans that can't be replicated by machines 
. Those avatars of historical figures might look realistic, but they'll never have the same depth or emotion as a human actor 
.
I mean, think about all the nuances of acting that AI just can't capture – like, have you ever seen a historical figure say something and actually show emotion for real? 
), but I do think it's an interesting experiment. Maybe they'll surprise us all with how good it turns out 
.
. It's like trying to put lipstick on a pig - sure, it might look pretty, but at the end of the day, it's still a pig 
.
So, I'm curious to see how "On This Day... 1776" plays out. Will they be able to strike a balance between innovation and tradition? Only time will tell!
. And honestly, if it's all about cost savings, isn't that kinda the opposite of what makes a great story? Shouldn't the budget be used to make it shine 
?
also, what's up with the cost savings thing tho? isn't there a way to make ai-powered content more affordable without sacrificing artistic quality? 
. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's cool that Darren Aronofsky is experimenting with new tech, but can we really rely on AI to bring history to life? It's like watching a superimposed animation of someone talking about their childhood - where's the real connection, you know? 
.
.
And what about the actors who get left behind in the process? They're the ones bringing depth and nuance to their roles, not some AI avatar 
.
I'm not buyin' it, man... there's somethin' more goin' on here, and I aim to figure out what it is! 
.
. Where's the soul? The humanity? You can't replicate that with fancy algorithms and avatars, no matter how convincing they might look 
.
. That's what I'm rooting for.
.
. But maybe they should, like, get more human feedback on the acting and stuff? Or find a way to make those avatars look less... robotic