‘Shaun the Sheep: The Beast of Mossy Bottom’ Director on Why AI Is Not a Threat: ‘There’s a Desire to See the Craft Behind the Finished Product’

• Comments

“Shaun the Sheep: The Beast of Mossy Bottom” is launching into Italy as the opener of Lucca Comics and Games on the eve of Halloween, which, coincidentally, also happens to be when this third feature in the Aardman Animations’ hit stop-motion spinoff franchise is set.

Matthew Walker, who is the film’s co-director, is clearly pleased to be attending the 60th edition of this unique geek meet held within the 16th century walls of the medieval Tuscan town of Lucca because, as he puts is, “yeah, I am a geek myself.”

Related Stories

Fox's $22 Billion Roku Deal Approved by Shareholders of Both Companies

Fox and Endemol Shine Team to Adapt 'Fear Factor' as a Scripted Microdrama Series for My Drama App

Unsurprisingly, when he meets the Italian press in Lucca, the first question is about whether this new “Shaun the Sheep” entry, famously handmade frame by frame with clay puppets, can be seen as a symbolic bastion against the encroaching spread of AI through filmmaking and the myriad concerns this is raising.

Walker subsequently sat with Variety and drilled down on why he thinks AI-made animation is not an existential threat for Aardman. At least not for the moment. And why animation films may be more immune to the impact of AI than live action ones.

You’ve said you don’t think AI can ever really replicate the human aspect of the art of animation. Stop-motion is very much about physical puppets and physical sets, about communicating emotional beats with puppets. Can you tell me more about this part of the creative process?

Something I love about stop-motion is the tactile physicality of it and I think that’s what appeals to audiences. You obviously want to tell a funny emotional story with these characters. But on top of that, I think that just the technique of it, the stop motion technique, has a lot of appeal in the knowledge that these are real models all built with incredible detail by the artists. When Aardman release behind-the-scenes footage videos, they are always really popular because people love seeing how stop-motion is made. People really respond to seeing these huge detailed sets with these little puppets, which is obviously something AI can’t replicate. I also think there is a desire for imperfection. We’ve gotten to a point now with digital technology where we can kind of do anything; things can be so beautifully polished. So there’s a desire to kind of step back and bring back some imperfection. You see it in things like [Sony Pictures Animation] “Spider-Verse” franchise, where they’re introducing the 2D element and even hand-drawn pencil lines and stuff. It’s because there’s a desire to see the craft behind the finished product. Like being able to see the pencil lines. In stop motion, it’s about being able to see the fingerprints.

In the vaster animation space, there are several animation features from various parts of the world that will be hitting the screens soon. Do you think audiences will be able to tell when something is AI, and therefore possibly disengage emotionally?

Yes. At the moment it certainly feels like that’s the case. I know AI is advancing all the time, and we might get to a point where it’s really difficult to tell the difference. But I think at the moment, even when they might not be able to identify what’s not right, I think the audience can kind of tell when something is made with AI because there’s something a little bit uncanny. Something that doesn’t quite feel right. When something is artificial you can tell, even though you can’t necessarily articulate why. AI can replicate art, but I don’t think it can replicate the emotion and reason behind the art. It doesn’t necessarily understand why those pencil lines were made. Whereas I think a human audience recognizes the craftsmanship that goes into something.

The audience for Aardman IPs such as “Wallace & Gromit,” “Chicken Run” and “Shaun the Sheep,” which all rely on dialogue-free physical comedy, starts with toddlers. Do you think the inherently humanistic nature of these stories can serve as an antidote to AI-made animation?

Yes, I think so. With stop motion and the work that Aardman does it’s very much about the characters and the performances of those characters. It’s similar to when you watch a live-action film. You know, with a good actor, you really respond to the emotional performance. And it’s the same with an animated character. The animator puts their own emotions into it. They’re essentially actors themselves, just doing it much more slowly than in live action. I think when you’re watching things from an early age, that becomes part of your knowledge of art and how you respond to it. And you take with you as you grow up.

Regarding live action, which genre do you consider more immune to the threat of AI: live action or animation?

I think animation is. A good animator can turn any object into a character. It’s like the Pixar lamp. it’s just a lamp. It has no face. It has no features. Has no limbs. But the way it’s animated, the way the animators have made it move, allows the audience to have an emotional connection with it. To see it as a character, as a sentient being. And that’s not replicating anything. With live action, by using AI it’s easier to replicate human activity because there’s a vast wealth of footage that AI is fed with. But in animation there isn’t that wealth of footage to work with, because the animation process starts entirely from scratch. If you take a ball or a lamp and give it life, that’s not based on anything. It’s just based on an understanding of what a human can connect with.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.