Artificial intelligence is becoming part of everyday life in the film industry.
Some professionals use it for research, brainstorming, translations, organizing ideas, creating pitch decks, or streamlining administrative tasks. Others have started incorporating it into script development and other creative workflows.
What I find most interesting isn't whether AI exists we all know it does.
The real question is:
Has AI become something many film professionals use, but rarely admit to?
Is it now quietly accepted as long as it remains a tool rather than the creator, or do you think there's still a stigma attached to using AI in filmmaking?
Where do you personally draw the line?
I'm genuinely interested in hearing perspectives from writers, producers, directors, composers, editors, investors, and everyone involved in bringing stories to life.
Let's have an open and respectful discussion.
2 people like this
I think the stigma sometimes hides a more useful production question: what expectations does the tool create for the people who must turn the reference into a real film? A generated frame can help communicate mood or composition, but it may also ignore lenses, locations, lighting, schedule, budget, and even performance. For me, transparency matters, but so does labeling the function of the image: exploration, storyboard, technical reference, or intended final material. When AI-generated references are shared with a crew, what information would you add so they remain a starting point rather than an impossible promise?
1 person likes this
That's an excellent point. I think the most valuable AI references are the ones that start a conversation, not the ones that try to replace it. Used that way, they can help align creative expectations much earlier in the process.
1 person likes this
Machine learning which is the original term, has been in parts of the film industry for a very long time. The current public whining is because of the huge advances in LLMs/SLMs, as well as so-called generative AI for images and audio, both of which have very difficult implications for copyright, and which the professional industry avoids for good reason, by and large. As far as use - all major effects houses have already moved to integrate generative AI into their premium tools, where it can be useful. Like has been observed about the economy in general, if you don't use it, you will be left behind. The sad fact is that most independent filmmakers will be left behind, because it's already almost too late. On the other hand, while it can and should be used for certain things, creative writing is not one of those things. AI by mathematical fiat is guaranteed to produce mediocre level writing at best and no, you are *not a writer* if you prompt it to write something.
Well, not long ago, a friend of mine, with whom I'm working on a project, said he uses AI to package information, and to make it easier to view. But honestly, his scripts are very AI-driven. I was outraged, of course, because he suggested using AI for storyboards, which, as a creator, is unacceptable to me. We debated this for a long time and came to the conclusion that AI isn't bad when it comes to packing information, but it's completely unacceptable in screenwriting and anything related to art, because it really feels like it wasn't done by a human. (Sorry if the translation may be clumsy, I don’t know the language well and use a translator)
Shadow Dragu-Mihai I think that's a very balanced perspective. The distinction between using AI as a production tool and using it as a substitute for human creativity is an important one. The discussion isn't really about whether AI exists anymore, but about where professionals choose to draw that line.
@Роман Thanks for sharing your experience. I think many filmmakers make a similar distinction. AI can be very useful for organizing information or handling repetitive tasks, while the emotional core of storytelling still comes from people. That's exactly the kind of conversation I was hoping this discussion would encourage.