Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Thursday, September 04, 2025
Sphere’s ‘Wizard of Oz’: Hollywood’s Dazzling Future or Dark Warning?
theankler.com: Tonight, Dorothy Gale is getting a makeover. Not a reboot, not a sequel, not a Wicked-style spin-off — but a high-resolution, AI-assisted re-rendering of The Wizard of Oz inside the $2.3 billion Las Vegas Sphere, the world’s most extravagant immersive entertainment venue.
12 comments:
Ana Schroeder
said...
I have seen so many videos about the Wizard of Oz Sphere experience. Despite the fact that I have seen a lot of videos I did not know much about it. Specifically that it was so highly assisted by AI. Despite the advocacy for artists to remain at the forefront of the industry, which I agree with, I thought that the comparison the article made to the technological advances that the original movie made was also fascinating. The Wizard of Oz has always been at the forefront of entertainment technology and in a sense, this is an extension of it, in our current day and age. Despite the AI debate I think this production did immersive theatre extraordinarily well. During the tornado actual debris flies across the sphere and I have heard all of the scents really do come across to the audience. I also found it remarkable that each seat individually targeted by speakers.
This really has generated a lot of mixed feelings within me as I have thought over the contents of this article and what it could mean for creatives in the future. On one hand, I feel that this is bringing art to the people, and making it more accessible, but is it really? I get it, this is a big title in the first place, and especially with the hit that is ‘Wicked’, this is absolutely perfect timing. It all makes perfect sense, and it is something familiar that people want to see, but still I ask why? From the price tag alone, we know that a lot of money has gone into this endeavor, but it is only to replicate a classic movie from years ago when the money could be put towards introducing and producing new words and immersive experiences. Not only is it something new, but it would be something created by human artists and entertainers of all kinds! There is a time and a place to revisit classics, but utilizing AI to sloppily replicate such an iconic classic is inherently soulless and absolutely disappointing. There is a difference between adapting with new technologies and just outright giving into them.
I’m so done with hearing about how AI was used in artwork and this giant debate around whether or not it’s real art. Maybe I’m just ignorant to the way AI was specifically used for this project, but it feels really unnecessary to me. If this project was in depth enough to keep someone employed for eight months, what did they spend that eight months doing? Talking to a computer? Taking orders from a computer? It, to me, just feels like either a waste of time or a waste or a waste of creative energy. We’ve seen the Wizard of Oz, okay awesome it’s on a new surface and it’s round. Are people, HUMAN PEOPLE, not smart enough to do that on their own? Do we need a robot mind to do this? Most of my opinions on AI are around the environmental impacts as well as the intellectual, but just to put this into perspective AI uses a crazy amount of energy (duh we’re making computers think) which is contributing to the destruction of our planet that’s already on fire and all for what? To put a movie we’ve already all seen on a massive sphere? Seems like a crazy waste of energy to me.
I find it extremely frustrating that people are describing AI as a medium. A medium is the in between the artist and their art. AI is not an artist, AI cannot make art, AI is not a medium. As an artist I find it disturbing that executives have decided that profit margins are more important than funding art and artists. I am not surprised but I am very concerned about where this will take us not only as artists but also for other workers who will be replaced. Even if “This project kept me busy and well paid for the last 8 months” according to a worker on the project that simply will not last. There are already people being replaced with AI. The choice of the words "extravagant" and “flashy” seem almost an understatement based on what the experience is described as.
I think AI is a great tool for both feedback and possibly creative technology uses, but this kind of use it such a smack in the face for aspiring artists. Especially those that are pursing theatre. These are people that have worked hard to get where they are, and it's such a disappointment that they are being replaced by AI. It's especially disappointing for those that worked hard on the movie originally, and had made it to their specifications. I saw something about people, "Upscaling" older animation to make it better by raising the frame rate. But that was not the artists intention. Not only does it typically produce strange artifacts, less so now of course. But it was against the original intention of that person(s) work. I mean many films were made in 24 frames per second on purpose, to create a much more cinematic look and feel. It's slower, more digestible. So upscaling it, or changing it, isn't want the original creators would even want you to do. So disappointing.
A quote that really stood out to me in the article is when the author asks “whether future work will be treated as finished art, or endlessly “remixable” raw data” because I think it really encompasses the current ethical questions that come up when we discuss artificial intelligence and art. Something that stands out to me in this particular situation, one where artificial intelligence is used to expand an image, is how it affects the initial intent of the artists. When we look at film as a medium, the use of cinematography, specifically where in frame subjects appear can bring a lot of meaning and nuance to film and by expanding the image, it takes away from the artist's original intent. I also think changing the run time takes away even more from the artist's original intent. I do like the idea of making movie screenings more immersive through multisensory tools such as using wind and scents.
I feel a little mixed on this one. I do not like AI, what it does, how it works, and what it’s doing to industries and creatives. With that said, I think if there’s any reason to use AI it would be this kind of thing. Taking an old movie developed for a flat, two dimensional screen and putting it on a spherical, 3d-esc display is something that just couldn’t be done as well with traditional tools and media, in the same way some video-game companies have started using AI as a tool to improve graphic fidelity. This use of AI as a tool to enhance already existing media and to put it in new contexts is what I think the technology is meant for. But the article here makes a lot of reference to AI being “a new medium” and I couldn’t disagree with that more. I am ok with limited use of AI as a tool to accent other media but “ai as a medium” is frankly stupid and short sighted. I think time will eventually show us the error in the ways of this kind of thinking as AI develops and our practices around it do as well. AI is not going anywhere whether we like it or not and we need to get to a place culturally and economically where people and companies see it for what it is: a specific tool, not a medium in its own right.
This is a very interesting use of the sphere. I’ve really only seen concerts here, which are fun, but those are just using the screens for background images. I couldn't imagine what it would be like to watch a full movie on it. I understand they used AI to create this in certain scenes, which is interesting to me to hear, as that kinda destroys the point of making movies. I don't think it should be acceptable to sell tickets to see an AI made adaptation of wizard of oz. The original movie was a classic and one of the most well known movies, why not just project that onto the screen to celebrate that work that humans did with little technology at their disposal. AI is not art, its what a computer thinks something should be and is never perfect. With there budget, I don’t understand why they couldn't just pay someone to do what AI did, instead they took the easy way out which without a doubt showed.
I have been seeing so many videos of people going to see these showings of the Wizard of Ozz and it seems so cool, I had no idea that it was mostly AI work. The concept seems like the mix of a 4D movie and live theater, using the physical effects like the wind of the hurricane, talked about in the article seems like a very cool experience especially growing up watching the movie. After reading about how much it cost to put this experience together I wonder if by the end the sales will be enough to have made profit and if they will continue this style experience with other movies. This article talks about the use of AI and that it was a “love letter to the film” which is interesting to me because me personally if i were to be dedicating something to something I love I would want it to feel humane, but I guess it may come together really well and be a great tribute.
I hate AI. It makes my stomach physically turn itself inside out when I hear it is being used to do some new useless project. Combined with my absolute HATRED and I mean H A T R E D for the Las Vegas Sphere, I had to read this article to get my blood pressure raised to start the morning off strong. Using AI to enhance the Wizard of Oz is like replacing a museum of textiles with the fabric aisle of Hobby Lobby. One of the biggest joys of watching the original Wizard of Oz films is it’s charm of choices based on the time it was made. From the technicolor palette to the old film techniques, the movie is entertaining (well… argument for another time) and a hallmark in cinema THAT DOES NOT NEED TO BE REVAMPED. I don’t know why Warner Bros has decided to tear a page from Disney’s hand book on terrible revivals of classics but they need to be stopped. Using AI in the Vegas Sphere might wipe out a forest with each viewing.
On one hand, this looks really cool, with the integration of the film, the lighting, the sound, and the other enhanced effects in one cohesive experience. On the other hand, it was created with the heavy use of AI, an incredibly powerful and incredibly dangerous tool. If it's used creatively and in unique applications that only it can achieve, it’s wondrous. However, the use of it to rehash classic media seems quite pointless to me. It wouldn’t make sense to change a classic painting with AI, so why does it make sense to “enhance” The Wizard of Oz, as opposed to making a new version specifically for the Sphere. I imagine things like this will continue, but I do have some hope that we will see more new works rather than rehashed older media.
I love the Wizard of Oz! I will always love the Wizard of Oz! However, this article was very disappointing to read. I knew that the Wizard of Oz was having a residency at the sphere, but I really didn’t quite understand what that meant until reading this article. Sure, I am sure it is super cool to see the Wizard of Oz in 8K on the gigantic Sphere screen surrounding you on all sides, BUT what are the ethics? In my opinion, not good! The fact that AI was used to enhance this classic film is shameful and upsetting at its core. I am so disappointed in Warner Brothers. I saw the installation they did on the outside of the Sphere with the Wicked Witch of the East’s legs sticking out from under the Sphere, and I thought this would be a fun trip down memory lane, but instead, it has been a sad reality check of the use of AI in our industry.
12 comments:
I have seen so many videos about the Wizard of Oz Sphere experience. Despite the fact that I have seen a lot of videos I did not know much about it. Specifically that it was so highly assisted by AI. Despite the advocacy for artists to remain at the forefront of the industry, which I agree with, I thought that the comparison the article made to the technological advances that the original movie made was also fascinating. The Wizard of Oz has always been at the forefront of entertainment technology and in a sense, this is an extension of it, in our current day and age. Despite the AI debate I think this production did immersive theatre extraordinarily well. During the tornado actual debris flies across the sphere and I have heard all of the scents really do come across to the audience. I also found it remarkable that each seat individually targeted by speakers.
This really has generated a lot of mixed feelings within me as I have thought over the contents of this article and what it could mean for creatives in the future. On one hand, I feel that this is bringing art to the people, and making it more accessible, but is it really? I get it, this is a big title in the first place, and especially with the hit that is ‘Wicked’, this is absolutely perfect timing. It all makes perfect sense, and it is something familiar that people want to see, but still I ask why? From the price tag alone, we know that a lot of money has gone into this endeavor, but it is only to replicate a classic movie from years ago when the money could be put towards introducing and producing new words and immersive experiences. Not only is it something new, but it would be something created by human artists and entertainers of all kinds! There is a time and a place to revisit classics, but utilizing AI to sloppily replicate such an iconic classic is inherently soulless and absolutely disappointing. There is a difference between adapting with new technologies and just outright giving into them.
I’m so done with hearing about how AI was used in artwork and this giant debate around whether or not it’s real art. Maybe I’m just ignorant to the way AI was specifically used for this project, but it feels really unnecessary to me. If this project was in depth enough to keep someone employed for eight months, what did they spend that eight months doing? Talking to a computer? Taking orders from a computer? It, to me, just feels like either a waste of time or a waste or a waste of creative energy. We’ve seen the Wizard of Oz, okay awesome it’s on a new surface and it’s round. Are people, HUMAN PEOPLE, not smart enough to do that on their own? Do we need a robot mind to do this?
Most of my opinions on AI are around the environmental impacts as well as the intellectual, but just to put this into perspective AI uses a crazy amount of energy (duh we’re making computers think) which is contributing to the destruction of our planet that’s already on fire and all for what? To put a movie we’ve already all seen on a massive sphere? Seems like a crazy waste of energy to me.
I find it extremely frustrating that people are describing AI as a medium. A medium is the in between the artist and their art. AI is not an artist, AI cannot make art, AI is not a medium. As an artist I find it disturbing that executives have decided that profit margins are more important than funding art and artists. I am not surprised but I am very concerned about where this will take us not only as artists but also for other workers who will be replaced. Even if “This project kept me busy and well paid for the last 8 months” according to a worker on the project that simply will not last. There are already people being replaced with AI. The choice of the words "extravagant" and “flashy” seem almost an understatement based on what the experience is described as.
I think AI is a great tool for both feedback and possibly creative technology uses, but this kind of use it such a smack in the face for aspiring artists. Especially those that are pursing theatre. These are people that have worked hard to get where they are, and it's such a disappointment that they are being replaced by AI. It's especially disappointing for those that worked hard on the movie originally, and had made it to their specifications. I saw something about people, "Upscaling" older animation to make it better by raising the frame rate. But that was not the artists intention. Not only does it typically produce strange artifacts, less so now of course. But it was against the original intention of that person(s) work. I mean many films were made in 24 frames per second on purpose, to create a much more cinematic look and feel. It's slower, more digestible. So upscaling it, or changing it, isn't want the original creators would even want you to do. So disappointing.
A quote that really stood out to me in the article is when the author asks “whether future work will be treated as finished art, or endlessly “remixable” raw data” because I think it really encompasses the current ethical questions that come up when we discuss artificial intelligence and art. Something that stands out to me in this particular situation, one where artificial intelligence is used to expand an image, is how it affects the initial intent of the artists. When we look at film as a medium, the use of cinematography, specifically where in frame subjects appear can bring a lot of meaning and nuance to film and by expanding the image, it takes away from the artist's original intent. I also think changing the run time takes away even more from the artist's original intent. I do like the idea of making movie screenings more immersive through multisensory tools such as using wind and scents.
I feel a little mixed on this one. I do not like AI, what it does, how it works, and what it’s doing to industries and creatives. With that said, I think if there’s any reason to use AI it would be this kind of thing. Taking an old movie developed for a flat, two dimensional screen and putting it on a spherical, 3d-esc display is something that just couldn’t be done as well with traditional tools and media, in the same way some video-game companies have started using AI as a tool to improve graphic fidelity. This use of AI as a tool to enhance already existing media and to put it in new contexts is what I think the technology is meant for. But the article here makes a lot of reference to AI being “a new medium” and I couldn’t disagree with that more. I am ok with limited use of AI as a tool to accent other media but “ai as a medium” is frankly stupid and short sighted. I think time will eventually show us the error in the ways of this kind of thinking as AI develops and our practices around it do as well. AI is not going anywhere whether we like it or not and we need to get to a place culturally and economically where people and companies see it for what it is: a specific tool, not a medium in its own right.
This is a very interesting use of the sphere. I’ve really only seen concerts here, which are fun, but those are just using the screens for background images. I couldn't imagine what it would be like to watch a full movie on it. I understand they used AI to create this in certain scenes, which is interesting to me to hear, as that kinda destroys the point of making movies. I don't think it should be acceptable to sell tickets to see an AI made adaptation of wizard of oz. The original movie was a classic and one of the most well known movies, why not just project that onto the screen to celebrate that work that humans did with little technology at their disposal. AI is not art, its what a computer thinks something should be and is never perfect. With there budget, I don’t understand why they couldn't just pay someone to do what AI did, instead they took the easy way out which without a doubt showed.
I have been seeing so many videos of people going to see these showings of the Wizard of Ozz and it seems so cool, I had no idea that it was mostly AI work. The concept seems like the mix of a 4D movie and live theater, using the physical effects like the wind of the hurricane, talked about in the article seems like a very cool experience especially growing up watching the movie. After reading about how much it cost to put this experience together I wonder if by the end the sales will be enough to have made profit and if they will continue this style experience with other movies. This article talks about the use of AI and that it was a “love letter to the film” which is interesting to me because me personally if i were to be dedicating something to something I love I would want it to feel humane, but I guess it may come together really well and be a great tribute.
I hate AI. It makes my stomach physically turn itself inside out when I hear it is being used to do some new useless project. Combined with my absolute HATRED and I mean H A T R E D for the Las Vegas Sphere, I had to read this article to get my blood pressure raised to start the morning off strong. Using AI to enhance the Wizard of Oz is like replacing a museum of textiles with the fabric aisle of Hobby Lobby. One of the biggest joys of watching the original Wizard of Oz films is it’s charm of choices based on the time it was made. From the technicolor palette to the old film techniques, the movie is entertaining (well… argument for another time) and a hallmark in cinema THAT DOES NOT NEED TO BE REVAMPED. I don’t know why Warner Bros has decided to tear a page from Disney’s hand book on terrible revivals of classics but they need to be stopped. Using AI in the Vegas Sphere might wipe out a forest with each viewing.
On one hand, this looks really cool, with the integration of the film, the lighting, the sound, and the other enhanced effects in one cohesive experience. On the other hand, it was created with the heavy use of AI, an incredibly powerful and incredibly dangerous tool. If it's used creatively and in unique applications that only it can achieve, it’s wondrous. However, the use of it to rehash classic media seems quite pointless to me. It wouldn’t make sense to change a classic painting with AI, so why does it make sense to “enhance” The Wizard of Oz, as opposed to making a new version specifically for the Sphere. I imagine things like this will continue, but I do have some hope that we will see more new works rather than rehashed older media.
I love the Wizard of Oz! I will always love the Wizard of Oz! However, this article was very disappointing to read. I knew that the Wizard of Oz was having a residency at the sphere, but I really didn’t quite understand what that meant until reading this article. Sure, I am sure it is super cool to see the Wizard of Oz in 8K on the gigantic Sphere screen surrounding you on all sides, BUT what are the ethics? In my opinion, not good! The fact that AI was used to enhance this classic film is shameful and upsetting at its core. I am so disappointed in Warner Brothers. I saw the installation they did on the outside of the Sphere with the Wicked Witch of the East’s legs sticking out from under the Sphere, and I thought this would be a fun trip down memory lane, but instead, it has been a sad reality check of the use of AI in our industry.
Post a Comment