Hacker News Reader

While in theory you're right - AI tools can "democratize" filmmaking - what will make them unique? There was another anecdote, someone saying "this AI can generate 30.000 screenplays in a day!". Which is cool but... who is going to read them?

In theory (idk it probably exists already) you can generate a script and feed it into an AI that generates a film. Novelty aside, who is going to watch it? And what if you generate a hundred films a day? A thousand?

This probably isn't a hypothetical scenario, as low-effort / generated content is already a thing, both writing, video and music. It's an enormous long tail on e.g. youtube, amazon, etc, relying on people passively consuming content without paying too much attention to it. The background muzak of everything.

As someone smarter than me summarized, AI generated stuff is content, not art. AI generated films will be content, not art. There may be something compelling in there, but ultimately, it'll flood the market, become ubiquitous, and disappear into the background as AI generated background noise that only few people will seek out or watch intentionally.

Hollywood is nepo land.

That's not fair. Do you know how many dreamers and artists and great ideas wither away on the vine? It's tragic.

Movies are going to be like books today. And that's not a bad thing.

Distribution is always the hard part. Indie games, indie music. You've still got to market yourself and find your audience.

But the difference is that now it's possible. And you don't have to obey some large capital distributor and mind their oversight and meddling.

Hollywood is nepo land.

Says who?

Do you know how many dreamers and artists and great ideas wither away on the vine?

How many?

Movies are going to be like books today.

People are already creating movies with $1k cameras that look good enough to distribute. A lot of them are horror movies because of the budget and most of them are terrible with huge glaring mistakes in editing, pacing, framing, etc. but they can still make money.

And you don't have to obey some large capital distributor and mind their oversight and meddling.

How many movies have you worked on?

Most experienced executives can help guide priorities and make sure there aren't any big overlooked problems.

> How many movies have you worked on?

Over a dozen.

> People are already creating movies with $1k cameras

Nobody wants to make an iPhone movie. They want $200k glass optics and a VFX budget like Nolan's or Villeneuve's.

I'm tired of people from outside the profession telling us we should be happy with quaint little things. That's not how the ideal world works. In the ideal world, everyone can tell the exact story in their minds and not be beset by budget.

My imagination is my ideal world. I won't listen to naysayers, because you're so far behind my dreams.

If this wasn't about to be practical, I'd relent. But the technology works. It's tangible, usable, and practical.

I've been saying that on HN since Deep Dream. My friends in IATSE also called this crazy. It's not. It's not just coming, it's here.

> A lot of them are horror movies because of the budget

Tell me about it. Been there, done that. It sucks to be so creatively stifled when what I wanted to make as a youth were fantasy movies like Lord of the Rings.

I got creative. I did mocap and VFX. It still wasn't what I dreamed of.

> How many?

Film school attendance is over 100,000 students annually. Most of them were never able to land a high autonomy role or be able to follow though on their dreams. I know hundreds of people with this story.

> A lot of them are horror movies because of the budget and most of them are terrible with huge glaring mistakes in editing, pacing, framing, etc

Sound. Sound is the biggest thing people fuck up. But the rest are real failure cases too.

> Most experienced executives can help guide priorities and make sure there aren't any big overlooked problems.

They're not as important as you think. They're just there to mind the investment.

When the cost of production drops to $30k, this entire model falls apart.

Studios were only needed for two things: (1) distribution, (2) capital. The first one is already solved.

People want $200k optics, but will settle for an AI, where they wouldn't settle for an iPhone?

What?

You don't need photons to paint with pixels.

But if you're using photons, good gear is very costly.

You can emulate optics in software without using AI

Sounds like you're on a moral crusade against a particular technology rather than trying to do the job of telling a story.

Why would emulating optics be a 'moral crusade against AI' ? Optics are straight math, not probabilities, are you sure this is projection?

Premiere plugins are cheaper than open AI subscriptions. You can make an iPhone look however you want in post.

> customers that are bidding $30k for pharmaceutical ad spots they used to bid $300k for

How does this work? If the quality ads are easier to produce, wouldn't there be more competition for the same spot with more leftover money for bidding? Why would this situation reduce the cost of a spot?

Can you point to a film that has used this technology? Can you point to anything that substantiates those numbers? Genuinely asking, my mind is open to the possibility but I don't want to take it on faith. (I watched that Kalshi ad to be clear.)

Not those numbers, but you might be interested in Netflix using generative AI:

> Using AI-powered tools, they were able to achieve an amazing result with remarkable speed and, in fact, that VFX sequence was completed 10 times faster than it could have been completed with traditional VFX tools and workflows

> The cost of [the special effects without AI] just wouldn’t have been feasible for a show in that budget

— https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/jul/18/netflix-uses-g...

Discussed on Hacker News here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44602779

The best example I've seen so far is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx8rMzlG29Q

Personally, I'm not particularly impressed. Yes, I'm impressed by the technology and the fact that we've reached a point where something like this is even possible, but in my opinion, it's soulless and suffers from the same problems as other AI videos. More emphasis was placed on length than quality, and I've seen shorter, traditionally produced videos that had more heart. That's probably because these videos were created by amateurs who thought the AI would fill in all the gaps, but that only underscores the need for human artists with a keen eye.

I agree the impact on generative media is huge. But I also do not think anyone is making a $100m-equivalent film for $20k anytime soon. Disprove me by doing it!

Don't hold your breath

there is a very strong implicit claim in what you're saying: that AI video output is usefully comparable to human output

>a $100M Disney film will be matched by small studios on budgets of $20,000

I do not believe this is true.

Why would I prefer a film that was generated by you pressing a button over a film that was generated by me pressing the same button?

Gen AI tools are being used by teams of writers, directors, editors, and VFX artists.

These aren't prompted end-to-end. There's a tremendous amount of work being done.

For end-to-end, go to Show Runner AI. Or look up SpongeBob AI on YouTube.

$20,000 is a budget for what, one animator for three months? What does "a small studio with a budget of $20,000" even look like?

5000x is hilarious (as is 5x and 100x). When you make outlandish claims, at least provide a reference or analysis.

5000x if you ignore the electricity bill ;)

This person predicted two years ago that by now teenagers would be creating star wars quality movies in their bedrooms with AI.