Post

Absolutely not.

It’s always the animated photos that make a documentary good. That’s why Ken Burns is known as a terrible documentarian — all the non-animated photos.

This might make sense if the objections were just about aesthetics or what we think of the documentary storytelling. For most of us these are side issues. It’s like telling robbery victims to wait to judge the robber until after they’ve been robbed.

No

nah

No

Ooof, someone's washed up

No. I don't care what they want. They used bullshit AI.

I wanted to see this documentary. Her using ai instead of hiring an animator is a red line for me. Oh well.

I found some old roadkill and shit all over it and then kept it in my shed for three months, I want people to smear it all over their faces before deciding how they feel about it.

Lol what? No. Hard no. Nah.

Well, we want people to create things without AI, so.

Bummer; when Max did this with Unmasking a Monster: Aileen Wuornos, the results felt wrong and dirty and creepy and I couldn’t get through most of the episodes. Too bad other creative means of doing this weren’t explored instead 🤮

Hmmmm no

No. I'm not seeing a work that prioritizes computer shortcuts over actual animation/film professionals.

If you want me to watch something, keep generative AI out of it.

No

I looked through this for signs that the term AI was just being used with too broadly, as has sometimes happens, and nope. Just straight up using the slop machine. Pay an animator or don't animate the photos.

I don't believe I'll be doing that, no

I really don't think the "media elite" have any idea how anti-AI much of the public is. And I know Ava is not "media elite" compared to people like Spielberg or Abrams or Scott, but she is compared to the rest of us.

No.

No that’s just fucked up scab shit. Even if you’re not using stolen work you’re still poisoning communities, ruining homes, and using ungodly amount of natural resources. This is the exact example of “but what if it wax ethical.” THERE IS NO ETHICAL USE

i’m not sure i like the idea of “we didn’t want to pay anyone for work”

Hell no

no u can fuck right off

I have better things to do with my time than watching AI slop.

🤮

They couldn’t hire a human being to do that work?

If the "creator" of a work doesn't care enough about the subject to write it/draw it/create it, then I surely don't care enough about it to read it/watch it/listen to it.

extremely disappointing

no

Hell no.

No, I won't be doing that.

Nope

#FraudWatch

No. How disappointing. I hope there's enough pushback so she PAYS PEOPLE TO ANIMATE THE IMAGES. Just, wow.

no.

I put a little bit of shit in the meatloaf but I want people to try it before deciding how they feel about it

Absolutely not.

This is such a damn bummer to read about her.

I'd rather light my hair on fire

I too would like people to give me money before disagreeing with me.

We all want things. 🤷‍♂️

Rather I didn't

Couldn't do a pan and scan over a static image? Not stimulating enough for the streaming audience?

Best I can do is never see one of your movies ever again

That's gonna be a hard no from me, Ava.

Deeply disappointing for a director who has positioned herself as caring about ethics and humanity.

No

Buy and eat the slop before you tell me you don't want it.

bsky.app/profile/luke...

Was the Ken Burns technique of simply zooming into / panning across photographs somehow beneath her?

No

"give me the money and the ratings first before getting mad at me"

And if I see a pro-AI headline, I have a moral obligation to not click through. The headline reaches more than the article ever could.