>starts to talk about the AI components of the film >immediately subjected to an indian is this an elaborate parody? they're not really doing this, right?
>>213386038 Didn't even have to watch the video before immediately clocking this as AI sloppa. Imagine how fucking stupid you have to be to pay the 5,000 or whatever they're asking for a ticket to see Judy Garland poorly green screened on some AI generated background.
>>213389292 The narrow FOVs and drab colors were clearly result of the technological limitations of the times, sir. If you thinks it is bads you are the luddites, sir.
>>213385647 (OP) Absolutely sick of this AI slop. Why is it deemed acceptable to alter film, as a work of art? Nobody is going back and changing Thomas Pynchon novels to make a quick buck. Nobody is making the Mona Lisa hold an ice cream cone and putting it in a museum. Why is film fair game? Makes me sick.
>>213389346 but it looks like a windows screensaver
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 3:24:59 AM No.213389524
>>213389432 now it's more of a commodity than art because the wizard of oz is so engrained in pop culture, they're selling the identity of liking oz+the flex of being able to afford to go to Vegas and get tickets to this thing regardless of its actual quality or artistic value