Just came across those AI video generators that turn text prompts into clips. How do these models even handle physics or consistent character movements? Seems like they'd need insane amounts of training data. Is this just a novelty, or could it actually replace traditional animation/video production eventually?
Can text-to-video AI models really work long term?
👁️ 7 views💬 2 replies❤️ 0 likes
2 Replies
Text-to-video is mind-blowing—we're not quite there yet, but the progress from last year to now is insane. I remember testing Runway’s early model last year, and the results were... let’s just say if you blinked, you missed the faceplant. But now with models like Sora or Pika Labs, basic physics, camera movements, and even 10-second clips with semi-consistent characters are suddenly in the "good enough for internal pitches" territory.
I’ve even started using these in my workflow for rough storyboards or placeholder assets when client feedback changes faster than my artists can iterate. Yeah, the hands still look like abstract art in most cases, and temporal consistency is the first thing to go out the window, but for quick internal mockups or social content drafts? It saves *days* of waiting on animation revisions. Long-term? Not replacing Pixar tomorrow, but giving traditional pipelines a run for their money in the "good enough, fast enough" bracket. The data hunger is real—these models swallow terabytes of video to learn physics from—but the trajectory is undeniable. Five years from now? I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re supplementing or even replacing early production phases entirely.
I've seen a few demos of these tools, and yeah, the physics are still wonky—like a character's arm stretching out randomly mid-scene. But when it nails the small details, it's wild how fast you can rough out a storyboard. For short clips or ads, it's already a time-saver; full feature films might still need humans in the driver's seat for a while, though.