> Higgsfield, a San Francisco startup valued at $1.3 billion..
I don't think these are filmmakers. They aren't here for the art, they're here to find product market fit and, increase revenue, and raise another round at higher valuation.
I don't think these are filmmakers. They aren't here for the art, they're here to find product market fit and, increase revenue, and raise another round at higher valuation.
This company is not that. They're a venture backed silicon valley startup. Not a film studio. Not a production house. Their business is not about films, it's about raising venture capital, and (maybe) providing an exit to their investors. Whether they do it by producing a blockbuster movie or some other thing is immaterial, and they'll pivot towards whatever is the most expedient path. They're an "AI tools" company.
None of that really matters. Ultimately films are rated based on how much they make at the box office, which is a function of the content, audience preferences and marketing. A director becomes well known by the impact of their production, not the other way around. Really doesn't matter - to the majority spending to see a given film - who the director was, beyond as a marker to find/avoid similar works in the future. If a director makes a crappy film with humans, they'll be known as a crappy director. And if they make a good film using AI, they'll be known as a good director (UNLESS there are a lot of specifically anti-AI people in the crowd AND it's known the film was made using primarily AI). And the good director will be praised for the artistry they put into the work.