Darren Aronofsky's latest project has sparked a firestorm of criticism over the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in its creation. The filmmaker behind the AI-generated historical series "On This Day… 1776" is facing intense backlash from viewers, artists, and critics who say it exemplifies the problems surrounding generative AI.
The series, which debuted on TIME magazine's YouTube channel this week, uses voice performances from union actors and a traditional writers' room but relies heavily on AI tools developed by Google DeepMind to generate visuals. The show's producers claim it aims to reframe the American Revolution as an uncertain and fragile experiment rather than an inevitable outcome.
However, many viewers have expressed disappointment and frustration with the series, calling it "ugly" and criticizing its reliance on slow zooms onto random faces lit ambiguously. One critic even went so far as to say their day was ruined by watching just a few seconds of it.
Criticism has also come from media outlets, with PC Gamer's Joshua Wolens describing the AI-generated faces and movements as "wretched top-to-bottom" and The Guardian's Stuart Heritage calling the show "ugly as sin." It's clear that not everyone is convinced by Aronofsky's defense of using AI in storytelling.
Despite the backlash, additional episodes of "On This Day… 1776" are scheduled to continue releasing throughout the year. When reached for comment via his agency, Aronofsky did not respond to Newsweek's request.
The controversy surrounding this project highlights the ongoing debate over the role of AI in film and television production. While some artists see it as a tool that can enhance human creativity, others believe it cuts against traditional artistic values.
As the use of AI becomes increasingly prevalent in the entertainment industry, it's clear that there are still many questions to be answered about its impact on storytelling and creative expression.
The series, which debuted on TIME magazine's YouTube channel this week, uses voice performances from union actors and a traditional writers' room but relies heavily on AI tools developed by Google DeepMind to generate visuals. The show's producers claim it aims to reframe the American Revolution as an uncertain and fragile experiment rather than an inevitable outcome.
However, many viewers have expressed disappointment and frustration with the series, calling it "ugly" and criticizing its reliance on slow zooms onto random faces lit ambiguously. One critic even went so far as to say their day was ruined by watching just a few seconds of it.
Criticism has also come from media outlets, with PC Gamer's Joshua Wolens describing the AI-generated faces and movements as "wretched top-to-bottom" and The Guardian's Stuart Heritage calling the show "ugly as sin." It's clear that not everyone is convinced by Aronofsky's defense of using AI in storytelling.
Despite the backlash, additional episodes of "On This Day… 1776" are scheduled to continue releasing throughout the year. When reached for comment via his agency, Aronofsky did not respond to Newsweek's request.
The controversy surrounding this project highlights the ongoing debate over the role of AI in film and television production. While some artists see it as a tool that can enhance human creativity, others believe it cuts against traditional artistic values.
As the use of AI becomes increasingly prevalent in the entertainment industry, it's clear that there are still many questions to be answered about its impact on storytelling and creative expression.
. They're using AI as a crutch, not pushing the boundaries of human creativity like Darren Aronofsky claims to be doing. I mean, have you seen those faces they've generated? Creepy and unconvincing at best! It's just lazy storytelling if you ask me.
. We need more regulation around this technology, folks! The film industry can't just rush headlong into AI without considering the consequences on creative jobs and artistic value.
. I'm not sure which way I lean, but one thing's for sure: we need to have an open and honest conversation about the role of AI in storytelling before it's too late! 
. its just a historical series using AI tools to generate visuals... its not like the actors didn't put in any effort or anything 
. and yeah, the zooms might be a bit slow but thats just cinematography, get over it 
. i think its kinda cool that Aronofsky is experimenting with new tech. maybe ppl are just too invested in old-school filmmaking ways? 
I don't get why people are making such a big deal about this show. It's just TV, right? 
I mean, AI-generated visuals aren't going to change the world, but at the same time, it's not like they're replacing human artists entirely... yet. 
I'm more concerned about the bigger picture here - how is this going to affect the way we make movies and shows in the future? 
I feel so bad for Darren Aronofsky and his team right now... all this hate and criticism can be really tough to deal with. 
It seems like everyone has strong opinions on AI in film and TV, and it's hard to know where to start 
.
It's like they're not even acknowledging the human effort that goes into making a project like this.
It doesn't have to be some grand conspiracy... maybe it's just a show that didn't resonate with people. 
It's like people are still mad about 3D TVs and now they're complaining about AI-generated faces... give it a break! 
I think it's kinda cool to see new tech being used in storytelling. Maybe we'll get some innovative ideas out of this controversy? 
.
...
... now they're basically ancient tech. Same thing here, I think. Maybe Aronofsky was trying to make something new and interesting? 
does anyone actually think they look human? like, seriously what's going on with the budget here? shouldnt we be prioritizing storytelling over some fancy tech?
. And don't even get me started on how it's gonna change the game... or destroy it, idk 
but honestly, if i wanna watch some generic historical drama with ugly faces and weird zooms, i'll just stick to the 1776 movie from like, forever ago 
. And I don't get why they can't use CGI to make it look more polished instead of relying on AI to make it look...ugly? 
if u dont like the style or aesthetic of the show, thats cool. but to call it "ugly as sin"? that sounds pretty harsh lol... i think its an interesting approach to historical storytelling and who knows maybe ppl will watch it and learn something new? 
. The thing is, AI is changing the game for storytellers, and we need to figure out how to make it work with human creativity instead of against it 
- it's like they took every creepy doll in a playground and mashed 'em all together 
. Can't we stick to good ol' fashioned filmmaking with real people and cameras? I mean, I know AI can be super useful for stuff like visual effects... but not for telling stories, bro 
!
. It's like watching paint dry 
. I get that Aronofsky wants to push boundaries, but at what cost? The creators need to remember that the human touch is what makes art truly special 
.