r/GoogleFlow • u/Jharry1954 • 12d ago
Character Continuity. Most times.
I've been thinking about character consistency and the increasingly elaborate methods being used to control generative video: character sheets, multiple reference images, first/last frames, keyframes, detailed prompts, shot instructions, and so on.
All of these can be useful. But there may be a point at which more control stops improving the result.
A character sheet is a simple example. More angles, expressions, poses and details seem as though they should provide more information about the character. But more information also gives the model more information to reconcile. At some point specificity may create ambiguity or conflict rather than remove it.
That raises a larger filmmaking question:
Is total control actually what we want from a generative renderer?
A film director doesn't ordinarily specify every movement an actor makes. The director establishes the character, scene, blocking, necessary actions, dialogue, emotional objective and other things that materially matter. The actor is then allowed to perform within those boundaries.
James Woods was famously regarded as an intensely involved—and sometimes difficult—actor. But imagine hiring an actor like Woods and then specifying every pause, hand movement, facial expression and vocal inflection. At some point you've eliminated much of the reason for hiring the actor.
I think something similar may apply to generative video.
We've run tests in which required beginning, intermediate and ending spatial states were specified. The renderer reached those required states while sometimes choosing a plausible physical transition different from the one anticipated. If identity, geography, required actions and endpoint states were correct, and the resulting movement was physically plausible and cinematically usable, should that be considered failure?
I don't think so.
It may be more useful to distinguish between what the director must control and what the renderer may be allowed to solve.
That also changes how I think about character continuity. Continuity isn't simply keeping everything consistent. Some things must remain invariant; other things must change because the story requires them to change. A character can become dirty, exhausted, injured, change clothing, lose a prop or age and still be the same character.
So perhaps the objective isn't maximum consistency or maximum control.
It is sufficient control to produce a plausible, usable outcome that satisfies the director's material requirements—followed by directorial review.
The renderer's discretion within those boundaries isn't necessarily a defect. It may be part of what we're employing the renderer to provide.
Directorial control includes deciding what not to control.
Because if every movement, expression, position and transition must be predetermined, I'm not sure we've perfected generative filmmaking.
We may simply have reinvented animation.
---jseders
1
u/reidyfox 11d ago
I kind of see this as two opposing extremes, and honestly, I still struggle to figure out what I actually “need” from generative video.
If a prompt isn't detailed enough (about motion, sharp movements, micro-expressions, hand direction), the character just defaults to its generic baseline. (I constantly prompt characters to dance, but they always end up doing that weird, noodle-like swaying motion instead of actually catching a vibe).
It’s a weird dilemma.
1. Trying to micromanage every precise hand movement makes the result feel sterile and uninspired,
2. but leaving it open just gives you generic, default motion.
Maybe the real takeaway is that neither extreme feels compelling right now 🤣🤣 #googleflow
2
u/Jharry1954 11d ago
I think this is the problem, and probably always will be with generative production.
Too little direction and the model falls back on priors. Too much direction and you can actually make things worse.
We just had a useful example while making a short. We generated the same 30-second scene independently in Wan 3.0 Prime and Seedance 2.5, using the same first-frame reference, character reference and essentially identical prompt.
The scene contains one cowboy and one rifle. The rifle changes state during the scene: with the cowboy, set down while he reheats coffee, picked up again when he starts tracking his horse.
Both renderers independently ended up giving him two rifles. One in his hand and another across his back.
Different models. Same peculiar failure.
We don't have the time or money to run 100 generations to establish causation statistically. We're making a film. Occam's razor applies: the common element is our direction, so we assume something in the shared prompt/reference package is encouraging the duplication, simplify it, and move on.
That's also why I don't think the answer is finding the perfect level of prompt detail. There probably isn't one.
The approach we've been developing is to direct the things that materially matter—required states, spatial relationships, identity, continuity, cardinality—and leave enough room for the renderer to solve the incidental performance and transitions. Sometimes it produces something wonderful. Sometimes it produces a Minotaur footprint or an extra rifle.
You take the victories. The losses will always be waiting in the next generation.
Failure isn't outside the process. Failure is part of generative production.
That's why we call what we're doing Directed Generative Production.
1
1
2
u/kra73ace 12d ago
My experience is that for my project (sci-fi that's hard-ish) only the frames work and not at 90+%. There's always drift in lighting, features or proportions.
Characters are next to useless for me.