There are few creatives I admire more than George Lucas. He’s heard it all before, but I’m not sure I could put into words just how much Star Wars and Indiana Jones have meant to me over the years. Heck, I even crack out American Graffiti every now and then and have always been a strong proponent of the Prequel Trilogy (I just don't get the Jar Jar hate...). That said, I will always stand up for what I believe in, and I’m not keen on the legendary filmmaker’s latest take on AI.
In a very interesting long-form interview with film, art and culture magazine A Rabbit’s Foot, Lucas discusses the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, which he co-founded with his wife Mellody Hobson and is set to open in September, why he thinks so many older Star Wars fans didn’t resonate with the Prequel Trilogy, and his stance on artificial intelligence.
It’s the latter that really piqued my interest, given that I’ve written an awful lot about AI and its impact on both film and photography. His first point is that AI makes filmmaking easier, and I can’t argue with that. He then likens opposing AI to opposing the invention of the car “they break down, they need gas (...) pretty soon they’ll be making them into tanks,” going on to say “There’s nothing you can do about it (...) That’s progress, it’s the future.”
For me, that’s the kicker. This notion that you can’t do anything about AI, or on the other side of the coin, that AI is inherently bad and it shouldn’t exist at all. Both arguments are extremes, but what about the middle ground? What about a world where AI exists, but we do indeed do something about it?
I don’t have a hatred of AI. I have a hatred of unethical, generative AI. The kind of artificial intelligence that scrapes existing works, regardless of copyright and MacGyvers them into AI slop. My problem with generative AI is that it removes the human element and to me, it’s the human element that makes art, art.
I'd go so far as to suggest that George skewers his own argument, because he mentions several times during the interview that movies are about emotion. “You go to the movies because the stories move you emotionally,” he says. The article finishes with him stating: “Steven and I always agreed on that: what you’re selling, in the end, is emotion.” I couldn’t agree more!
But the whole problem with generative AI, in my mind, is that it strips out the emotion and leaves behind little more than a creative husk. I get that Lucas’ whole deal when it comes to moviemaking is pushing the envelope. The Original Trilogy wouldn’t have been made if it wasn’t for the filmmaker’s faith in both technology and indeed his own ability.
Lucas famously founded Industrial Light & Magic during the production of Star Wars: A New Hope, going so far as to actually build custom tech to deliver the film’s ground-breaking special effects. Love it or loathe it, the Star Wars Trilogy Special Edition was a bold, groundbreaking move. And Star Wars: Attack of the Clones was famously the first Hollywood blockbuster to be shot digitally in its entirety, with the film also landing an Academy Award nomination for its visual effects.
It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that George is a proponent of AI when it comes to filmmaking. I just wish the medium’s supporters would take a more proactive approach to AI’s involvement in a bid to preserve the emotion that George Lucas himself covets so much. It’s worth noting that I’m adding my two cents to a few words provided in an interview. I’m sure Lucas would have much more to say on the matter in an open discussion. Maybe our views are more aligned than I think… If you’d like to weigh in yourself, leave a comment below.
You might also like...
George Lucas' $625,000 Panavision camera: the second most expensive Star Wars item in the galaxy! Shoot Star Wars-themed toy photography and create a mini cinematic scene. I had no idea Luke Skywalker's Lightsaber was made from a vintage camera flash.
