On the content front, studios have benefited massively by selling sure bets in a sea of noise: of the top 10 box office films of 2024, there isn't a single original IP, every single film is either an adaptation or sequel to prior work made long ago. [1]. I view this as part of a broader "flight towards quality" pattern in the internet age - even if there's tons of great content online (orders of magnitude more), the viewing public still ultimately values both studio curation and IP familiarity. This goes beyond the films themselves: the studio IP rights moat includes the access to famous big-name actors that fill seats, the IP rights to use their likeness, and access to their personal platforms to push the film, all of which these studios control. Even if indies can generate "a person" or "a movie", the inability to legally generate "specific people that the public knows and likes without their permission" or "specific movies set in universes they know and care about" represents moat that isn't leaving studio's hands in a world of widespread AI.
Separate from IP rights, it also assumes a hyper-specific model of how AI specialization and use will look if it's widely available. For example, even assuming AI that can generate anything you ask for, it's likely that people will continue valuing significant sound, music, and visual post-processing to augment end-state AI generations to better match and personalize a final vision differentiated from the models themselves. This means labor costs, which indies at scale would continue to lack access to. This also assumes a model of the world where AI becomes a reducer of specialization, which isn't guaranteed: even assuming superhuman production capabilities by AI, such that there is no longer any individual human input on some aspect of the film, someone has to point the superhuman AI in productive directions that map to somewhere good in the quality spectrum, and it's likely that there will be significant differentiation in human skill at this task across different domains, as one can think of the superhuman AI as a tool being consumed by a skilled collaborator, even if the AI is doing most of the work. In the event that this is the case, studios can and will continue having much bigger labor budgets to continue to differentiate themselves on quality compared to indies trying to DIY this process.
And lastly, marketing is still king. About half of a modern big-budget picture's budget gets spent on the marketing today, only the other half goes towards making the actual film. Even if state-of-the-art Hollywood grade AI means anyone can produce a shot-for-shot reproduction of any current Hollywood film, ultimately, people need to find the content in order to watch it, and even in a world with widely available AI, it's the indie's marketing budget of ~$0 dollars, versus the major studio's marketing budget of $50,000,000-$200,000,000. I would happily continue betting against indies winning this fight, especially when the low end of this market, which is already oversaturated and hard to meaningfully stand out in, is drowned out in an order of magnitude more noise from low-end AI creators flooding the space with slop.