Can We Please Still Have Nice Things That AI Hasn’t Touched?
“The Wizard of Oz” — yes, that Wizard of Oz — is getting a full-blown AI makeover. Google Cloud and DeepMind, in collaboration with the Sphere in Las Vegas, have used something they’re calling “performance generation” and “outpainting” to enhance the film’s resolution and extend the background beyond what was ever shot.
According to Ravi Rajamani, managing director of generative AI engineering at Google Cloud, AI has “touched over 90% of the movie.”
Ninety. Percent.
Everyone is fawning over it, which, yeah, I get. We can all agree that technology is amazing. We’ve all marveled at what AI can do: generate realistic images, compose music, write essays, predict weather patterns, help doctors detect diseases, and so on.
But when Thomas Kurian, CEO of Google Cloud, says this isn’t really a cinematic experience, but an “experiential” one, I can’t help but sigh and think: Do we really need AI to touch everything?
Because some things — some beautiful, classic and already timeless things — are better left untouched. “The Wizard of Oz” is not just a movie. It is, for tens of millions of people, a memory, a mood and a moment. It’s that sepia-toned Kansas that bursts into technicolor magic. It’s Judy Garland’s voice trembling with hope as she sings “Over the Rainbow.” It’s the Tin Man rusting mid-sentence and the Cowardly Lion bawling like a baby. It’s the sound of ruby slippers clicking down a yellow brick road, and it is — crucially — enough as it is.
And now AI wants to “outpaint” it? Extend the background? Fill in scenery that never existed? It’s like someone taking a classic oil painting and saying, “You know what this Monet really needs? A few extra lily pads generated by machine learning.”
Pay no attention to the AI behind the curtain
I’m thrilled when AI helps people solve complex problems, enables creativity in new ways, or makes life easier for those who need it.
But there’s a difference between innovation and intrusion. There’s a line between enhancement and overreach. Somewhere along the way, tech giants like Google seem to have forgotten that not everything needs to be optimized, upscaled or AI-enhanced.
Some things are sacred. “The Wizard of Oz” is one of them.
I understand the argument: this is a new kind of experience. The Sphere isn’t just a theater, it’s a dome of digital immersion. You’re not just watching a movie, you’re “experiencing” it with full surround visuals, sensory stimulation and a production pipeline that would probably confuse even the Scarecrow with a brain.
But does that mean we have to rewrite and reskin every classic to fit into this new paradigm? What’s wrong with screening the original film as-is?
Let it breathe. Let it play, untouched, for new generations to experience the same magic that’s captivated audiences for nearly a century. Imagine watching Dorothy step into Oz in that original 1939 technicolor glory, in a dome that simply celebrates the original rather than trying to reinvent it.
Instead, it feels like the industry is treating classic art as raw material for whatever the latest tech buzzword is. This time it’s “performance generation.” Next time, it’ll be something else.
We’re already seeing AI-generated actors in ads, AI-written scripts and deepfakes in entertainment. Are we heading toward a future where no piece of media is ever considered finished? Where even the most iconic stories are endlessly retooled, reprocessed and reimagined by machines until the original is a ghost of itself?
There’s something particularly ironic about “The Wizard of Oz” being the test subject here. A story that’s about the power of imagination, about finding your way home, about the heart, brains and courage inside us — not inside a data center in Silicon Valley. It’s a deeply human film. It’s messy and charming and grounded in emotion and theatricality and, yes, the limits of 1939 production technology.
But those limits are part of the charm. The painted backdrops, the practical effects and the costumes don’t detract from the story. They enhance it, because they remind us that real people made this.
I’m not saying we should freeze art in time and never touch it. There’s value in restoration, remastering and making things accessible to new formats and audiences. But there’s a difference between polishing a gem and melting it down to make a whole new piece of jewelry.
This version of Oz feels like the latter.
Where does the yellow brick road of AI lead us?
I also worry about the precedent this sets. Today it’s “The Wizard of Oz,” tomorrow “Casablanca” with AI-generated colorization and new dialogue, next week, “The Godfather” with new story arcs and actors reverse-aged by AI. Eventually, are we going to let algorithms rewrite “Citizen Kane” because some machine learning model predicts a different ending would have more “emotional engagement per second?”
Let me be clear: it’s not that this AI remake of Oz won’t be cool. It probably will be. I’m sure it’ll be wild to see flying monkeys in 360 degrees. But cool doesn’t always mean necessary, and it definitely doesn’t mean better.
There’s a certain arrogance in thinking everything needs to be remade through today’s tech, as if the original isn’t enough unless it’s been algorithmically enhanced. But some stories are powerful because of their limitations, their imagination and the memories they hold. We don’t need AI to re-thread what already connects generations.
So go ahead, Google — build your wonderland. But remember: Sometimes the magic is already there — no need to outpaint it.
Aron Solomon is the chief strategy officer for Amplify. He holds a law degree and has taught entrepreneurship at McGill University and the University of Pennsylvania, and was elected to Fastcase 50, recognizing the top 50 legal innovators in the world. His writing has been featured in Newsweek, The Hill, Fast Company, Fortune, Forbes, CBS News, CNBC, USA Today and many other publications. He was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for his op-ed in The Independent exposing the NFL’s “race-norming” policies.
Related reading:
- Stealing Ghibli: How AI Has Crossed The Line Into Creative Theft
- Who Owns Your Face? The Legal Fight for Identity In The Age of AI
- When Legal Tech Fails: The California Bar Exam Disaster And The Risks Of Blind Innovation
Illustration: Dom Guzman
Read More
What I Learned Building An AI ‘Buddy’ For My Kids (And Millions More Worldwide)
Cybersecurity Funding Ticks Up Despite Slow Deal Flow
Can We Please Still Have Nice Things That AI Hasn’t Touched?
“The Wizard of Oz” — yes, that Wizard of Oz — is getting a full-blown AI makeover. Google Cloud and DeepMind, in collaboration with the Sphere in Las Vegas, have used something they’re calling “performance generation” and “outpainting” to enhance the film’s resolution and extend the background beyond what was ever shot.
According to Ravi Rajamani, managing director of generative AI engineering at Google Cloud, AI has “touched over 90% of the movie.”
Ninety. Percent.
Everyone is fawning over it, which, yeah, I get. We can all agree that technology is amazing. We’ve all marveled at what AI can do: generate realistic images, compose music, write essays, predict weather patterns, help doctors detect diseases, and so on.
But when Thomas Kurian, CEO of Google Cloud, says this isn’t really a cinematic experience, but an “experiential” one, I can’t help but sigh and think: Do we really need AI to touch everything?
Because some things — some beautiful, classic and already timeless things — are better left untouched. “The Wizard of Oz” is not just a movie. It is, for tens of millions of people, a memory, a mood and a moment. It’s that sepia-toned Kansas that bursts into technicolor magic. It’s Judy Garland’s voice trembling with hope as she sings “Over the Rainbow.” It’s the Tin Man rusting mid-sentence and the Cowardly Lion bawling like a baby. It’s the sound of ruby slippers clicking down a yellow brick road, and it is — crucially — enough as it is.
And now AI wants to “outpaint” it? Extend the background? Fill in scenery that never existed? It’s like someone taking a classic oil painting and saying, “You know what this Monet really needs? A few extra lily pads generated by machine learning.”
Pay no attention to the AI behind the curtain
I’m thrilled when AI helps people solve complex problems, enables creativity in new ways, or makes life easier for those who need it.
But there’s a difference between innovation and intrusion. There’s a line between enhancement and overreach. Somewhere along the way, tech giants like Google seem to have forgotten that not everything needs to be optimized, upscaled or AI-enhanced.
Some things are sacred. “The Wizard of Oz” is one of them.
I understand the argument: this is a new kind of experience. The Sphere isn’t just a theater, it’s a dome of digital immersion. You’re not just watching a movie, you’re “experiencing” it with full surround visuals, sensory stimulation and a production pipeline that would probably confuse even the Scarecrow with a brain.
But does that mean we have to rewrite and reskin every classic to fit into this new paradigm? What’s wrong with screening the original film as-is?
Let it breathe. Let it play, untouched, for new generations to experience the same magic that’s captivated audiences for nearly a century. Imagine watching Dorothy step into Oz in that original 1939 technicolor glory, in a dome that simply celebrates the original rather than trying to reinvent it.
Instead, it feels like the industry is treating classic art as raw material for whatever the latest tech buzzword is. This time it’s “performance generation.” Next time, it’ll be something else.
We’re already seeing AI-generated actors in ads, AI-written scripts and deepfakes in entertainment. Are we heading toward a future where no piece of media is ever considered finished? Where even the most iconic stories are endlessly retooled, reprocessed and reimagined by machines until the original is a ghost of itself?
There’s something particularly ironic about “The Wizard of Oz” being the test subject here. A story that’s about the power of imagination, about finding your way home, about the heart, brains and courage inside us — not inside a data center in Silicon Valley. It’s a deeply human film. It’s messy and charming and grounded in emotion and theatricality and, yes, the limits of 1939 production technology.
But those limits are part of the charm. The painted backdrops, the practical effects and the costumes don’t detract from the story. They enhance it, because they remind us that real people made this.
I’m not saying we should freeze art in time and never touch it. There’s value in restoration, remastering and making things accessible to new formats and audiences. But there’s a difference between polishing a gem and melting it down to make a whole new piece of jewelry.
This version of Oz feels like the latter.
Where does the yellow brick road of AI lead us?
I also worry about the precedent this sets. Today it’s “The Wizard of Oz,” tomorrow “Casablanca” with AI-generated colorization and new dialogue, next week, “The Godfather” with new story arcs and actors reverse-aged by AI. Eventually, are we going to let algorithms rewrite “Citizen Kane” because some machine learning model predicts a different ending would have more “emotional engagement per second?”
Let me be clear: it’s not that this AI remake of Oz won’t be cool. It probably will be. I’m sure it’ll be wild to see flying monkeys in 360 degrees. But cool doesn’t always mean necessary, and it definitely doesn’t mean better.
There’s a certain arrogance in thinking everything needs to be remade through today’s tech, as if the original isn’t enough unless it’s been algorithmically enhanced. But some stories are powerful because of their limitations, their imagination and the memories they hold. We don’t need AI to re-thread what already connects generations.
So go ahead, Google — build your wonderland. But remember: Sometimes the magic is already there — no need to outpaint it.
Aron Solomon is the chief strategy officer for Amplify. He holds a law degree and has taught entrepreneurship at McGill University and the University of Pennsylvania, and was elected to Fastcase 50, recognizing the top 50 legal innovators in the world. His writing has been featured in Newsweek, The Hill, Fast Company, Fortune, Forbes, CBS News, CNBC, USA Today and many other publications. He was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for his op-ed in The Independent exposing the NFL’s “race-norming” policies.
Related reading:
- Stealing Ghibli: How AI Has Crossed The Line Into Creative Theft
- Who Owns Your Face? The Legal Fight for Identity In The Age of AI
- When Legal Tech Fails: The California Bar Exam Disaster And The Risks Of Blind Innovation
Illustration: Dom Guzman
Read More
What I Learned Building An AI ‘Buddy’ For My Kids (And Millions More Worldwide)