A single box office bomb can lose studios tens, if not hundreds, of millions. Disney’s Strange World reportedly lost $200M, and The Flash set DC back by over $150M. Those are among the worst cases, but failing to turn a profit is a common occurrence in the filmmaking industry, with even conservative estimates suggesting 10% of major productions flop.
Given the high risk, the temptation to use generative AI in filmmaking is entirely understandable. It can bring entire projects to life in a fraction of the time and on a much smaller budget. But at what cost?
Egor Dubrovsky is the co-founder and CEO of Filmustage. Drawing on prior experience in film production and tech, he has helped over 30,000 filmmakers to save 3.5 million hours and $119 million by replacing inefficient, manual workflows with streamlined, automated processes. The platform was used on titles including Masters of the Air (Apple TV) and The Gentlemen (Netflix).
The risk of casting AI
AI is capable of throwing together a semi-coherent script and generating visuals that pass the eye test without much scrutiny. Yet, we’re nowhere close to the point where AI can write scenes, organize productions, act naturally, and shoot movies without any human assistance.
The industry will continue to rely heavily on the creativity and vision of its writers, performers, directors, designers, and wider production teams for the foreseeable future, and they’ve already made it abundantly clear that they’re unwilling to share a set with AI if it’s given a starring role. Preventing AI from taking creative jobs in the field was one of the primary causes of the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike, which caused losses in excess of $5 billion.
Audiences share that sentiment, regularly panning the use of generative AI for creative purposes. And not just heavily AI-generated projects, such as Misaligned, starring AI actress Tilly Norwood, but movies that used it sparingly, such as Young Washington.
While the technology is constantly improving, algorithms are infamous for producing inconsistent narratives, repetitive tropes, and uncanny imagery. With that in mind, something as simple as using generative AI in a promotional poster can, and has, caused backlash. The actual film might be perfectly watchable, but like a poor critic score, that label alone is bound to put plenty of people off buying a ticket.
AI’s role in Hollywood
There’s an important distinction, however. Netflix’s The Gentleman received positive reviews from critics and audiences – despite the use of AI.
The difference is, the technology was used exclusively behind the scenes to break down the series’ action-packed script, inform shooting decisions, and help the production run smoothly. Viewers weren’t presented with AI-generated visuals or a storyline shaped by algorithms. Many productions now use AI in this way, assigning it menial, repetitive pre-production tasks such as script breakdowns, shooting schedules, and budget planning that do not influence what ends up on the screen in any way.
That isn’t a change that’s going to result in another costly strike. I worked as a director’s assistant in Hollywood, and I can confidently say the vast majority of the industry’s workforce would be happy handing over these tasks. Film production is a gruelling, high-stress environment, where 12-hour days are the norm and 16-hour days aren’t uncommon. Nobody suffers through that because they love combing through call sheets for clashes or calculating expenses item by item. These tasks are all vitally important to a successful production, yet creatives would much rather spend their time on the creative side of the process.
The benefits of boring automation
AI, on the other hand, is perfectly happy taking on tedious pre-production processes. And, unlike the creative process, it’s far better at it than humans. It can process far greater amounts of information at far greater speeds, and it doesn’t make mistakes due to fatigue or boredom like humans often do.
Pre-production on a Hollywood film typically takes anywhere from three to seven months. A simple scene breakdown would take days. However, using AI, you can produce the same document in minutes, and the industry has already saved over 5.2M hours of manual work by automating these processes.
Automating ‘boring’ pre-production tasks might not save as much as replacing A-listers with AI stars or generating VFX instead of creating it. However, pre-production still accounts for 10-15% of the total budget on average. That alone would have shaved $80M off of Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ $537M production cost. It’s a huge saving for studios, without the risk of losing your audience.
For AI to pay off, however, the aim shouldn’t be to reduce budgets. Studios should view it as an opportunity to focus more money, time, and attention on the things that actually matter to audiences: refining scripts, improving special effects, perfecting performances. Essentially, creating better films. After all, the real issue with AI in Hollywood isn’t the technology itself – automation has been streamlining creative processes for decades, without complaint. The concern is what happens when all those cost cuts and shrinking teams ultimately compromise the quality of the final cut.
