Screenwriting : AI images in pitch decks? by Liron Vardi

Hey, Liron Vardi. Using AI in pitch decks, treatments, etc. is really frowned on in the industry. I mainly use stock photos. Try https://canva.com, www.pexels.com, https://unsplash.com, and https://shotdeck.com. All of them are free, but Canva Pro is $15.00 a month, and ShotDeck is $12.95 a month.

I've read some shocking scripts that are blatantly using AI. I hadn't put much thought into using it in pitch decks until I saw one that had used it and I thought to myself, if the creative is using AI in pitch decks, are they using it in their writing as well? Personally, I'd steer clear of it.

Hey everyone,

I actually design pitch decks professionally and I totally get both sides of this debate.

Sometimes I do use AI visuals, but only when there’s no other way to capture the specific tone, atmosphere, or world I’m trying to show... especially for concepts that don’t exist yet, like futuristic or stylized environments.

That said, I never just drop the raw AI image in. I treat it like concept material, and with some Photoshop retouching and color work, it can become something that really feels crafted and cinematic, not cheap or artificial.

For me, it’s always about what best communicates the vision, not about replacing creativity.

It's perfectly fine to use AI images. It's becoming more common and accepted.

I recently saw a Lookbook here made with all AI images and it was absolutely stunning. These images are highly specific to the story and not available as stock. (The associated script is pure human.)

There's a nearby post about AI posters. No one batted an eye about the source.

Maurice Vaughan that's actually a good idea to use Canva photos, I already pay for Pro anyway.

Ewan Dunbar were those scripts you read shocking good or shocking bad? That's an interesting point about "creative using AI in both" - hadn't thought of that.

Canva has a huge photo gallery, Liron Vardi!

Danijela Lazic AI images do communicate the visual concept best, because you can create imaginary visuals... but if it's frowned upon like Maurice and Ewan said, and you have just one shot at first impression... I don't know if I'd risk it. E Langley where was this post? Here in this lounge?

Maurice Vaughan yeah, I know, but when it comes to future world-building (like in my case) - AI photos would do a much better job and you'd easily "see" the concept. But, again, I don't wanna lose my one shot just because a contest judge hates AI. A dilemma!

I understand that, Liron Vardi, but a lot of producers, directors, etc. won't look at pitch decks that have AI images. ShotDeck has a huge photo gallery too, and the photos might be closer to what you're looking for than Canva's photo gallery.

Maurice Vaughan cool, I'll check it out!

I’d say go with what your gut tells you; that way, you’ll be at peace.

And if it helps, you can send me the references for the critical ones...Maybe I can find something among my tools.

@danijela thank you! Go with my gut, that's the best advice :)

Just recently an Executive Producer made some great points about not using AI. I won't try to list them, but I'm sure if you search the blogs, you find it. Perhaps you can think of things from a different perspective, such as you are your brand. Which means your script, your pitch deck or series- Bible are all a representation of you, your talent and skill set. These producers and judges are meeting our work before they meet us. What message do you want to send to them concerning your work ethic? That you don't take your talent and work serious enough to put in the work, to learn your craft and instead take shortcuts? I'm not an expert on AI, but so much of it looks almost identical, even the formatting and some of it is being sold repeatedly. Which means many people may already have purchased the same pitch-deck already. Now if we as screenwriters can spot AI a mile away, imagine seasoned producers and judges. I can honestly say that this platform has been instrumental and has available just about every aspect of screenwriting services. Think about investing in some of their services, it really helps you to level up your screenwriting.

I believe ai art, in posters, are okay to use, primarily to spark interest, The Screenplay itself is the GOLD product, go for it, I use the ai art, and Canva to create art, to stop viewers and reel them in for my loglines which are my own work and then bring them in further for my scripts which i write original All good in my opinion, I raised a debate about Dictation Feature awhile back in regard to MS word dictating writers work, is that ai generated. I understand if your second guessing using for artwork alone, but don't be, as long as your script is from your heart and head, I say use the tools and create the artwork. It will help marketing your script.

It’s true that how you present yourself and your work matters.

But for me, AI imagery isn’t a “shortcut.” The shortcut is copying someone else’s frames from Pinterest.

Creating through AI something that doesn’t exist in nature — and still capturing the tone, light, and emotional energy of the story — actually requires precise artistic vision.

I don’t use AI as a replacement, but as a tool — a moodboard that helps the team feel the world’s scale and rhythm.

It’s a conscious creative process, like a director testing different lenses to see the depth of the frame.

I think you'd be crazy not to. Bit like asking if it's okay to use a spellchecker.

There's just a couple of things to consider:

1) AI generated stuff, especially out of ChatGPT, has a look that's getting more and more familiar. It can look lazy if you don't push the applications behind it. Someone who sees a pitch deck and spots what's blatantly AI artwork might assume the whole thing, including the script, is AI and check out there and then.

2) It's highly hypocritical to use AI to help bolster your overall product and then criticise others for using AI to generate writing. It's amazing how many people are furious AI might take their job while willingly using it to replace the jobs of others. Just don't be one of those people who wants to have their cake and eat it.

I’ve worked with and purchased tools like Hiluo, Krea, Leonardo, Kling AI, and several others — each with its own nuances and demands on focus.

AI today isn’t just hype; it’s a tool of our time. It requires knowledge, precision, and concentration — an understanding of how to turn prompts into something visually fantastic.

It’s a language of this era, allowing us to build visual worlds that can’t exist in nature.

For teasers or moodboards, especially in mythological or sci-fi projects — it’s the perfect choice. Why not?

Everyone uses AI, they just don’t talk about it loudly.

Stage32 itself also uses algorithms — the system studies us, our entries, exits, and preferences.

When it comes to visuals, as a kind of “training” before a teaser, I’m completely fine with that.

To criticize or complain is not my style.

Liron Vardi, I have the luxury of advice that has no agenda. I don't have a side business creating pitch decks from online stock images.

BTW, screenwriting contest judges don't see decks.

Mone't Weeks great point about first impression, and I agree - as a pro who takes the job very seriously, and puts in a lot of work and creative thinking into my writing, I care deeply about how other people see it (especially if they don't know me yet), and that's why it had me thinking about the optics of it.

That said, I also value the benefits of using AI like Malcolm Kewa CJ Walley Asl Seil suggested, as far as unnatural/imaginary/visionary world-building is concerned - those can probably be best achieved with AI. I also agree it does take skill and learning to get amazing results (not the generic 6-finger ones). Also, I believe using AI images that are very specific to your world works much better than using generic (and usually cliche) stock images (which let's be honest, can be AI generated too).

That contradiction is exactly what sparked this debate for me and that's why I wanted to hear your opinion to make a calculated decision.

E Langley I'm prepping the pitch deck for a pitch contest, so yeah, they'll see it :)

Mazeltov! I'm certain your work for "a contest judge" will be ... unique. :)

Didn’t even make it to the store — you guys wrote War and Peace here.

Лирон Варди — у тебя в профиле настоящий горящий самолет???

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

или вы действительно заплатили за его «уничтожение»?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Пустота — вот где живут ваши сомнения и страхи.

Разница между «Я сделаю» и «Пусть будет так, как решит Голливуд».

I can respect a person's choice to do what they believe is best for them on their screenwriting journey.

This question didn't seem that controversial to me AT ALL, until, I read the comments. Interesting, as a former graphic artist I know how hard it can be to create and generate original graphics, and how expensive it can be to purchase them, if you're lucky enough to find someone reliable to work with. Reading Ewan Dunbar's comment, it goes to an interesting place, where does the A.I. end and where does your originality began. I think if it's clear that it's strictly graphics and images I think you're okay, but at the end of the day (per my experience), it they dig the idea and see opportunities to reach a broad audience you'll be okay.

Liron Vardi To answer your earlier question, the Ai written scripts/heavily AI written scripts were shockingly bad.

The Café That Doesn’t Exist

PART 1. “How Far Progress Has Come” (extended absurd version)

The coffee’s gone cold,

but steam still rises—from nowhere.

In the corner, the radio hisses softly—

it seems to be trying to sing a 1950s hymn,

but slips into an ad for AI insurance.

FIRST WOMAN (sighing, theatrical):

— Oh, how far progress has come! Terrifying! Unseen wonders!

(pause)

What if… what if Hollywood finds out I used AI…

and that could have…

(searches for the word, swallows air)

…a reverse effect.

MAN:

— A reverse effect of what?

FIRST WOMAN:

— For example, a judge… or a producer… might say that I…

(waves her hand, accidentally spills coffee)

…and then they’ll all get distracted by ethical questions,

flip the picture upside down,

lose sight of the idea—

such a beautiful one…

(aside)

… Anyway, chaos.

(At this moment the radio coughs and whispers: “The Moral Committee is on the line…”)

SECOND WOMAN: — Don’t worry, everything will be fine.

THIRD WOMAN: — You just need to take an authenticity test!

FOURTH WOMAN: — Try mixing it — one third AI, one third brushstroke! The rest — paint it with words!

MAN: — Or maybe you just shouldn’t show Hollywood at all?

At that moment, at the next table, a robot barista raises its head.

A wire dangles from its ear; a tag on its chest blinks:

“CAFFEINE GPT – beta version.”

ROBOT BARISTA (flatly):

— New update: I can now experience shame.

Everyone freezes.

FIRST WOMAN: — Can I have a double?

ROBOT BARISTA: — Of what?

FIRST WOMAN: — A cocktail of courage and determination. Mix it all together, please.

(Silence. Someone laughs. Someone crosses themselves.)

For AI art, what I've seen recently is that while sure it usually does capture the tone writers are going for and can mock up some flashy images, the ubiquity of AI art right now makes most of it come off as fairly unappealing. AI art has a generally tacky quality that feels like the covers of those generic romance novels with Fabio and a damsel in distress that used to stock the shelves of bookstores. Sure, AI art can get the job done quickly, and for very complex imagery, it can likely help communicate your visuals better than one could design on their own. However, when your art is just an image of a guy staring way too seriously at the viewer, it has an unintended negative effect. AI, at it's best, should be used to enhance what you're doing. When it's used as replacement for designing something truly unique and interesting, well everyone sees right through it and thinks 'meh.' Maybe 1/10 times you'll see truly remarkable AI generated imagery, but the other 9 times it's mainly just a generic dude or chick or group of people in a generic location looking very generic from what I've seen (which is a lot). And if you're putting off that generic vibe, then many folks will view your work as generic. There is no short cut for truly doing the work to stand out and taking the time to carefully craft something distinctive and engaging. It takes more time, effort, etc. but being genuinely creative and avoiding the urge to pump out AI slop goes a long way.

coming in late but this is something ive thought about a lot. theres a difference between using AI to generate the actual creative output (replacing artists - understandably controversial) vs using it as a pre-production planning tool (storyboarding, shot planning, visual reference)

for pitch decks specifically i think AI generated storyboard frames are totally fine because the storyboard isnt the deliverable - the FILM is the deliverable. the storyboard just communicates your vision to investors and crew. as long as your final film uses real cinematography, real actors, real creative talent, the pitch deck visuals are just communication tools

its kind of like using google maps to plan a road trip - nobody says the trip is less authentic because you didnt draw the map yourself

I love AI art and use it for my pitchdecks. I write fictional horror with creatures and crazy settings which makes it very hard to use stock photos to convey the story. I created my pitchdeck to my script Blood Rig entirely with AI art and actually received positive comments from producers on it. I've attached a sample of one of my pictures from my pitch deck.

I think this pretty good...

AI can help sell tone, especially for original worlds—but I’d use it carefully. If you do, keep it subtle, mix in real references where possible, and focus on clarity over flash. The concept should still carry the pitch, not the visuals.

Liron Vardi That’s a really valid concern, especially right now.

I think AI images can definitely help communicate tone and world especially for concepts that are hard to source visually but the risk is real if it pulls attention away from the story itself.

Maybe a balanced approach could work: using AI selectively while making sure the core strength of the deck still comes from the writing, structure, and clarity of the concept.

At the end of the day, if the idea is strong, the visuals should support it not become the main talking point.

I think AI can be used for decks but never for your film. I also think you have to be careful because if you sell the idea (pitch deck) to an investor, even if you tell them it's AI, if your final product isn't anything close to that AI image, that could be a problem so my advice is, if you use AI, make sure it's not something that would be out of your budget when you're in production. I hope that makes sense.

From my experience working with producers, using AI-generated images in a pitch deck hasn’t been an issue at all. At the EFM, I saw quite a few directors presenting decks with AI visuals — it’s generally understood as a tool to communicate tone, world, and atmosphere. That’s exactly what a pitch deck is for.

That said, I think the key is how you use it. If the visuals feel cohesive and support the tone of your story, it works. If they feel generic or don’t match the project, it can actually distract.

In the end, it’s really about the overall experience — text, images, and flow should all work together and make you want to keep reading.

As a producer who's seen a fair number of pitch decks, all I can say is, "Everyone's doing it!"

I used it for myself when creating characters, settings, and scenes. Surprisingly, it has been quite useful. Also for posters for my screenplays, since they have not been shot yet.