Producing : The Real Reason AI Movies Won't Be A Big Thing by Shadow Dragu-Mihai

Hi, Shadow Dragu-Mihai, thank you for bringing this to the table with such clarity. It’s a big moment, yes, but I don’t read it as an ending. If anything, it feels like a reminder of something essential: the heart of creation is still human. The ruling doesn’t kill possibility; it simply draws a line between tool and authorship. And honestly, that’s where the magic has always lived. AI can accelerate, inspire, and expand, but it cannot replace the lived experience, intention, and transformation that turn raw material into art. Distribution and monetization will adapt; they always do. The industry is cautious now because the legal ground is shifting, not because the creative potential isn’t real. Once frameworks stabilize, the conversation will evolve from fear to integration.

For me, this moment reinforces something hopeful: Our stories, our hands, and our choices still matter more than the machine.

And that’s not a loss; that’s an anchor.

Sandra Correia Generative AI is essentially a rendering tool, that paints a picture trained on a gazillion others. Professional industry uses it by providing original source material, and a lot of it, so that the creation is actually original and not purely AI generated. That means though that it's nowhere near the cost saving that the retail consumer thinks it is. More like 50%+ traditional animation instead of <1% that people are asserting. And no matter how you cut it, it's still animation, not live action, and that dictates some important things for marketing.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, I really appreciate the clarity you’re bringing to this, especially around the gap between what people think AI filmmaking is and what it actually requires in a professional context.

And if I’m honest, this whole conversation touches something personal for me right now. My short film is currently in a Lift-Off competition, and when I looked at the lineup, I saw that one of the films competing alongside mine is 100% AI-generated. I had this moment of… disappointment. Not because AI shouldn’t exist, but because I invested a real budget, a real team, real locations, real direction, real production — all the human layers you’re talking about. And suddenly my live-action work is standing next to something that didn’t require any of that.

It felt, for a moment, like two different worlds being judged by the same metric, and that isn’t entirely fair. But it is what it is, and I’m not afraid of the evolution; I just want the context to be honest.

Your point about AI being essentially a rendering tool resonates deeply. If the industry starts treating AI films as animation, with their own category, their own marketing logic, and their own expectations, then maybe we can all breathe a little easier. Because right now, the lines are blurry, and those of us working with real crews and real stories feel that tension.

At the end of the day, I believe the human craft still carries a weight that can’t be automated. But I also believe we need clearer frameworks so creators aren’t competing across completely different realities.

I just read about an AI film getting pulled from AMC: https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-film-pulled-from-amc-the...

"That is a very insightful perspective, Shadow, but I’d like to offer a different angle.

The real 'fear' surrounding AI isn’t just about copyright; it’s about the end of the traditional monopoly. For decades, creators had to wait in endless lines, making creative compromises just to get five pages read. The current system often prioritizes 'theoretical gatekeeping' over raw, hands-on talent.

I believe AI is the bridge to a new generation of filmmaking. If I were an investor or a studio head, I wouldn’t see AI as a threat, but as an accelerator. It allows us to build entire worlds with higher quality, less cost, and—most importantly—creative independence.

Real growth happens on the battlefield of production, not in lecture halls. When you take a creator’s hand and build with them in real-time, you create mutual success. Soon, creators will stop waiting for permission and start building their own universes. The industry is facing a massive gap, and AI isn’t just a tool; it’s the solution to fill that void. The future belongs to those who embrace the speed of thought over the bureaucracy of the past."

Best,

Ibrahim

Babalola Victor, welcome! Thanks for sharing what you do—IMDb optimization and film marketing are valuable skills for many creatives here. I am Sandra, Stage 32 lounges moderator. Just a quick note: we actually have a dedicated lounge on Stage 32 called “Anything Goes” where members can promote their services, offers, and freelance work. It keeps the Screenwriting Lounge focused on craft and conversations about writing/producing. I appreciate you moving your post over to the Anything Goes lounge so it reaches the right audience and you can promote your work freely there. Glad to have you in the community.

Thank you.

Ibrahim AlBalushi Of course, that's the call by everyone who thinks that AI suddenly will make them a successful filmmaker. But "monopoly" in film, as in any other industry, is about access to market and ease of delivery, not about ease of creation or tools of production. However, this "fear" is promoted by people who aren't in the professional industry and don't understand how it works, and it isn't an attitude shared by any professionals I am aware of. In fact, we are trying to adapt generative AI to ethical and professional workflows, and it is very problematic, copyright issues being the least of the problems. It is in fact a simple rendering tool, or set of rendering tools. Tools don't permit hobbyists and dabblers to become filmmakers. 8mm/super-8mm film didn't. VHS didn't. Betamax didn't. SD digital and HD digital and UHD diigtal didn't, Unreal Engine didn't, Blender isn't... All were revolutionary and "democratizing" technology, and some are FREE (unlike GenAI). None affected the industry apart from allowing the 1-3% who have the talent and mindset to succeed to learn technical skills. GenAI doesn't even reduce the number of skills needed to create a compelling film. Anyone who really imagines that a single person can create a compelling wasn't around for Jeff Lew's Killer Bean feature film. Jeff being a very accomplished VFX artist and animator who worked on The Matrix, got huge and well deserved accolades for his short Killer Bean 2, crashed and burned with the feature which was essentially unwatchable - he couldn't pull off the myriad production design details even in an animation that he controlled. A cautionary tale. Unfortunately, one which so many are unfamiliar with.

Hi Shadow Dragu-Mihai

Thank you for sharing this.

As a writer, I’m neither directly harmed nor personally benefited by this decision. Still, I find myself somewhat relieved by it. If fully AI-generated works were widely accepted and protected, the industry could quickly drift toward creative chaos.

What concerns me even more is the human side of filmmaking. Thousands of people dedicate years of their lives studying acting, directing, cinematography, editing, and storytelling. Those crafts are built through experience, discipline, and collaboration.

If technology were allowed to replace that overnight, it wouldn’t just change the industry — it would undermine the value of the people who built it.

Of course, this is simply my personal perspective.

Thanks to all for these intriguing comments and perspectives. I'm equal parts amazed and terrified of AI but over the last six months have taken to learning all I can about it (including via an excellent Stage 32 course...). When everyone from Coca-Cola to Disney to Ben Affleck (& hundreds of others at every level) are exploring/investing in the technology it seems "head in sand" to simply ignore it.

I'm only a screenwriter nowadays with the view that AI is nothing more than another crayon in the box. Nothing more, nothing less.

"I hear you, Shadow, and I agree with much of what you said. But if we look outside the box and face the bitter reality, history shows us that many ancient, noble crafts vanished when factories arrived. Generations change, and so do their tastes.

I remember watching movies as a kid; the black-and-white classics of the 70s didn't resonate with me as much as the vibrant 90s cinema of my generation. Today, we are facing a new generation that might not appreciate our traditional methods. They are an 'AI Generation.'

Corporations are providing these tools for quick profit and market monopoly, often without regard for the 'soul' of the craft or the feelings of the creators. This puts us—the storytellers and dreamers—at risk of losing our last refuge for expression. My goal isn't to replace the craft, but to survive and compete in a world that is shifting under our feet. We aren't just fighting for tools; we are fighting to keep our worlds alive in a rapidly changing market."

Ibrahim AlBalushi Well yes but major studios are NOT using the tools in the ways the hobbyists are using them, and its because they know what they are and what they are not. The dream of instant fame and stardom is for the public and aspiring filmmakers. And if you hear anything positive about generative AI from the studios, it's aimed at keeping that illusion alive. I do have to disagree. Storytellers and other creatives who actually have talent are not in any danger. They will always find an audience if they get seen, which is another discussion entirely. The rest, frankly, are wasting everyone's time and we don't need to hear from them.

I think your point about copyright and distribution is important. There’s also a cultural layer to this that gets overlooked in the news. We’ve already seen plenty of realistic AI videos of unknown people doing dramatic things, including fight scenes, and most barely make a ripple. But the moment it’s Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt fighting each other on a rooftop, people react strongly, because we already know them, we’ve watched their films, seen their interviews, and built a connection to them over decades. That’s part of why AI movies still face such a ceiling: they can imitate visuals, but they can’t replicate the real audience relationship that stars, filmmakers, and human-made culture have spent years creating.

Joshua Young Good points. One of the bizarre aspects of all this is the idea that "AI film" is a thing. It's not a thing yet and won't ever be. Not least of all because even the best of it cannot match more than a few seconds of required shots, characters, production design etc among the HUNDREDS of other aspects of filmmaking that AI doesn't do at all...