When The Phoenix Rises

At Google I/O, Google DeepMind recently unveiled Google Veo 3, an advanced generative video model capable of creating high-quality, realistic video clips based solely on text or image prompts. It even features synchronized audio now. At its core, Google Veo 3 is an AI generation model that can produce up to 8-second-long videos with native audio, including spoken dialogue, ambient sounds, and music—all aligned with the visuals. According to usage reports, Veo 3 excels in replicating intricate physical phenomena such as reflections, motion blur, depth of field, and realistic facial expressions. Quite amazing, isn’t it?

Veo 3 promises to democratize filmmaking by removing traditional barriers for aspiring filmmakers. But beneath this utopian vision lies a set of core challenges and questions that could undermine filmmaking as an art form—eroding the nuances of human creativity and authorship.

Various questions arise—the biggest among them being the potential replacement of human resources on a film set. If multimodal language models (MLLMs) can effectively create anything under the sun with just a few words, what need remains for human labor? Filmmaking, in its truest form, is a collaborative human endeavor. Veo 3, with its instantaneous yet mechanized output, risks reducing filmmaking to mere “prompt engineering.”

However, as the world begins to fondle the art vs AI debate, we must ask ourselves: is this the first time such a question has arisen?

The Arrival of Cinema Itself:

When moving pictures were introduced in the 1890s, they were little more than a novelty. At best, those early movies were short clips showing trains or street scenes. Yet almost immediately, panic rippled through the established community of artists and cultural practitioners. Playwrights, novelists, and actors feared they stood at a crossroads—where the machine called the camera and the devil called film would trivialize the depth of literary narratives and theatrical performances.

The concern was not unfounded. Early films couldn’t compete with the live presence, immediacy, introspection, or psychological depth that existing art forms offered.

However, cinema did not destroy a single form of art. Instead, it borrowed from all of them and rose to become the supreme form of human expression. In doing so, it became the grandest platform for the same people who once doubted its intentions.

When Sound Shattered Silence:

Perhaps the most transformative transition in cinema came with the advent of synchronized sound in the late 1920s. The shift was abrupt—and indeed disruptive—for its time. Silent cinema had developed its own rich language using expressionist lighting and visual metaphors. Many saw the addition of sound as a betrayal of cinema’s visual purity.

Critics feared that reliance on dialogue would eclipse visual composition and poetic imagery—the very identity of films. Directors like Charlie Chaplin initially resisted sound, famously giving it only “three years, that’s all.”

But the same Chaplin went on to create masterpieces like Modern Times and The Great Dictator, incorporating synchronized sound into his cinematic lens. Far from diminishing the art form, sound expanded cinema’s expressive potential. Blending with existing cinematic techniques, sound enhanced cinema’s emotional resonance through score and sound effects.

These are not the only examples. Even in the years that followed, technological advancements continued to threaten the existing status quo. But isn’t that the essence of human progress—to evolve, to question, to challenge, and to carve new paths?

(To be continued)

Author contact line

Barnil Medhi
Email: barnilmedhi@gmail.com 
Phone No: 8812867945

Also Read: The Global Repercussions of Harvard vs. Trump