In the eye of the beholder

Has AI made movies better, or has it just made them bigger?  I keep coming back to this question because I haven’t found a compelling reason to visit a movie theater in the last couple years.  

There’s no denying what technology has done for film. Special effects are more detailed (still a bit excessive in my opinion), action sequences are more elaborate, and entire worlds can now be created on screen that would have been impossible a generation ago. From a production standpoint, this is impressive. AI and digital tools can save movie makers time, lower costs, and help creators build scenes that once required massive crews and budgets.

But, has something been lost in the process?

I’m older and maybe it’s just a generational thing, but some of the most memorable films to me were not powerful because they overwhelmed us visually. They stayed with us because they left room for our imagination to do the work. Psycho is a good example. It didn’t need endless effects or a digital universe to make an impression. The fear came from pacing, music, shadows, silence, and what the viewer imagined more than what the camera actually showed. That kind of storytelling required restraint. It trusted the audience.  I’ve always loved books for that reason, because they allow my imagination to create each scene.  

Here is where I think the concern with AI becomes real. If the industry starts depending too heavily on tools that can generate more, faster, and cheaper, the danger is that “more” becomes the goal. Visuals, spectacle, and content.  What about quality, though?  More doesn’t always mean better.  Sometimes it just means louder.  

Maybe, I’m a unicorn.  Maybe this is the state of storytelling now.  I mean, it appears to be profitable for movie moguls.  Maybe the real dilution is in consumer expectations of what makes a good story.  

What do you think?  



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Just your everyday Lurker..

Dennen, V.P. (2026). From lurkers to networkers:  Cultural and epistemic dimensions of developing professional learning networks in online graduate education.  Proceedings of the International Conference on Networked Learning, 15. https://doi.org/10.54337/nlc.v15.10887 To me, one of the most interesting ideas in this article was the concept that many people begin their professional learning network (PLN) journey as 'lurkers' before becoming active contributors.  As someone with more than 30 years of leadership experience in casino and hospitality operations, I found this concept completely relatable.  During my career, I often learned by observing experienced leaders, listening carefully, and studying successful practices before contributing my own ideas.  The article helped me realize that this behavior is a natural part of the learning process and not a weakness.   The article argues that developing a PLN is much more than simply joining online group...
Read more

The challenge of challenges

One of the recurring themes in my studies has been the tension between structured learning and self-directed learning. The article Optional Embedded Microlearning Challenges: Promoting Self-Directed Learning and Extension in a Higher Education Course (Dennen et al., 2024) explores that tension through a series of optional "tech-flex" challenges that were embedded within a university course. Students were given opportunities to complete short learning activities, earn digital badges, and develop skills beyond the required curriculum.  The researchers observed that although students viewed the challenges positively, participation rates remained low. What stood out to me was not the finding that participation was low, but rather why it was low. Students consistently cited time and competing priorities as barriers. As someone who spent decades leading teams in casino operations and now in my personal educational quest, I find that reality very familiar. Employees would often expr...
Read more