Aronofsky’s Revolutionary War AI Show: Bad?

The history teacher always said, “You can’t polish a turd.” He’d probably be appalled, but not surprised, to see what Darren Aronofsky is up to these days. What was once a promising directorial vision now seems… well, you’ll see.

Aronofsky, the name behind films like Black Swan and The Wrestler, is now producing a short-form series titled “On This Day… 1776” through his AI production company, Primordial Soup, according to The Hollywood Reporter. This series leverages Google DeepMind tech to create short videos about the Revolutionary War, published on Time magazine’s YouTube channel. It’s worth noting that in 2018, Marc Benioff, the Salesforce founder, acquired Time, and Salesforce is sponsoring this series.

Human voice actors from SAG are used, seemingly to preempt backlash from within Hollywood. Professionals in the movie and TV industry have voiced strong opposition to AI replacing skilled artists and actors. While some of this concern is self-preservation, many also express worry about the final quality. Regular viewers have also begun pushing back, swamped by low-quality AI content.

The initial episode, “The Flag,” attempts to depict George Washington raising the Continental Union Flag in Somerville, Massachusetts. Clocking in at three and a half minutes, it feels like a skipped cut-scene from a subpar video game.

Everything feels lifeless, and the audio of the actors barely syncs with the lip movements of the AI figures.

Remember those old Spaghetti Westerns where the dubbing never quite matched, even though everyone was speaking English? It was because sound was added later due to budget constraints. The result here is similar, but this time, it comes from saving money on actors. Is this really progress?

The second episode, “Common Sense,” attempts to tell the story of Thomas Paine writing Common Sense. Benjamin Franklin appears, looking, frankly, bizarre.

Like the first, the episode jumps around erratically. If you pause, you’ll find the telltale signs of AI: distorted hands in the background. The devil, as they say, is in the details. Or, in this case, the malformed digits. Hands seem to always give it away.

Then there are on-screen words in the trailer, like the word “America” rendered as “Λamereedd.”

The series is timed to coincide with the sestercentennial of America’s founding, with episodes released on the 250th anniversary of each event. A good concept, perhaps, if the result was watchable. Is it, though?

“This project is a glimpse at what thoughtful, creative, artist-led use of AI can be,” Time Studios president Ben Bitonti told The Hollywood Reporter. “Not replacing craft, but expanding what’s possible.”

Social media users are less convinced. “I know my expectations were low but holy **** Darren Aronofsky producing AI slop wasn’t on my bingo card,” one X user wrote. Another joked on Bluesky, “Used to be that when Darren Aronofsky wanted to feature a dead-eyed actor, he’d just employ Jared Leto.”

Others have started cataloging the oddities. One Bluesky user wrote, “Love the new Aronofsky scene where the colonist takes off his hat to cheer, revealing that underneath it was a second and somehow larger hat.”

“Nothing represents The End of America after a 250-year run quite like using AI slop to depict the creation of the Declaration of Independence,” another user quipped.

As of writing, the videos have been on Time’s YouTube channel for over seven hours, attracting little attention. The first episode has roughly 5,000 views; the second has just over 2,000. Social media posts mocking the series are doing better. A video on Bluesky has over 2,500 quote posts, mostly mocking its appearance.

Gizmodo reached out to Ken Burns for comment but didn’t receive an immediate reply.

A Cautionary Tale: When Art Meets Algorithm

I once saw a street performer paint an entire landscape in under five minutes. It wasn’t great art, but it was captivating. Aronofsky’s AI series feels like the opposite: technically impressive, but devoid of soul. It’s like a perfectly constructed clock that doesn’t tell time.

The core issue isn’t AI itself, but its application here. The series feels like a cost-cutting measure disguised as innovation. It’s a paint-by-numbers history lesson, lacking the nuance and emotion that makes history compelling.

What are the ethical considerations of using AI in historical retellings?

The ethical questions surrounding AI in art are swirling. Is it right to use AI to recreate historical events, potentially distorting or misrepresenting them? Is it right to replace actors with AI-generated characters, depriving them of work? These are complex questions with no simple answers. The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) is grappling with these concerns, trying to protect its members while acknowledging the inevitable rise of AI. The heart of the conflict is that these AI Revolutionary War shorts feel like algorithm-first content.

The use of SAG actors for voiceovers is a band-aid on a deeper wound. It attempts to appease concerns about job displacement but doesn’t address the underlying problem: the series lacks artistic merit. The final product feels like a hollow imitation of genuine storytelling.

The Revolution Will Not Be A.I.-Generated

My grandfather, a history buff, always said, “History is a story, not a list of dates.” He’d be appalled by this series, which reduces the Revolutionary War to a series of lifeless vignettes.

Perhaps the most disheartening aspect is the squandered potential. The Revolutionary War is full of dramatic stories, complex characters, and profound themes. This series reduces it all to a series of awkward visuals and stilted dialogue.

Can AI accurately portray historical figures and events?

Accuracy is a tricky thing. Can AI get the facts right? Maybe. But can it capture the essence of a historical figure or event? That’s a different question. This series struggles with both. The AI-generated figures are uncanny valley versions of historical figures, lacking the charisma and depth of the real people. The events are portrayed in a superficial way, devoid of context or meaning. You lose a sense of who these people really were, and why they mattered.

The series also raises questions about authenticity. If the visuals are AI-generated, how can we trust that they are accurate? And if the dialogue is written by AI, can it truly capture the spirit of the time? It feels like history by committee, or rather, by algorithm.

Is There a Future for AI in Filmmaking?

I once watched a documentary about the making of The Lord of the Rings. The filmmakers used CGI to create breathtaking landscapes and fantastical creatures. But they also relied on practical effects, handmade costumes, and talented actors. The result was a film that felt both epic and intimate. Is the Aronofsky series just missing that human touch?

Maybe AI can be a tool for filmmakers, but it shouldn’t be the only tool. The most successful films are those that blend technology with human creativity. This series feels like a step in the wrong direction, sacrificing artistry for efficiency.

What are the potential benefits of using AI in film production?

AI could offer benefits to film production, such as streamlining repetitive tasks like rotoscoping or generating realistic crowds. It could also help filmmakers visualize complex scenes or create special effects that would otherwise be impossible. The point would be making the impossible actually possible.

But these benefits shouldn’t come at the expense of human creativity. AI should be used to enhance the filmmaking process, not replace it. The ultimate goal should be to tell better stories, not just to save money. By that metric, is Aronofsky’s AI experiment a brave new world or a creative dead end?