Last month, Google struck a $75M research partnership with independent movie studio A24 to develop new AI tools for filmmakers.
On hearing the news, my first thought was, “A24 might’ve fucked their reputation.” Many social media users seemed to agree, with users writing:
It’s quite disappointing that a company that just enjoyed the triumphant box office returns of staunchly anti-AI Kane Parsons’ BACKROOMS would make such a deal.
incredible how Backrooms marketing and so much of the director’s stuff involves talking about how cool Blender is and how anyone can use it for production. To see that from A24 and then decide ‘yeah we need to push for ai’ is just insane. We really are in the worst timeline.
I say this with all the love in the world for A24. Please do not do this, People love the studio for giving a platform to passionate independent filmmakers. Gen Ai goes directly against what independent art stands for.
For those unaware, a trio of film industry veterans frustrated with risk-averse Hollywood studios founded A24 in 2012 with the goal of returning creative control to movie directors.
It worked.
Over the last 10 years, the studio’s laissez-faire approach to filmmaking has resulted in commercial and critical hits like Moonlight (2016), Ex Machina (2014), The Witch (2015), Hereditary (2018), Midsommar (2019), and Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022). Their most recent release, Backrooms, has become the studio’s highest-grossing movie of all time, raking in over $300M at the box office since its May release.
Driving the studio’s success are its young directors: Robert Eggers was 30 years old when he directed The Witch, Ari Aster 31 when Hereditary first premiered, and Kane Parsons 20 when Backrooms hit theaters. As young directors, it should come as no surprise that they are often some of the loudest creative voices against AI.
Parsons has called AI “genuinely harmful,” and said, “If I could snap my fingers and make generative AI disappear forever, I probably would. Creatively, I get no enjoyment from using those tools. It defeats the purpose entirely for me.”
Aster struck a similar tone, saying that he has “a lot of fear” over the growing use of AI and warning, “It’s obviously already too late.. Is this technology an extension of us, are we extensions of this technology, or are we here to usher it into being?”
For A24 – a young studio that built its fame on bucking Hollywood to focus on independent, original projects – an AI deal with one of the largest tech companies in the world seems antithetical to what it stands for.
Still, A24 insists the deal is different.
While details are still emerging, the studio’s internal research and development division, A24 Labs, is already working on an application to create AI-generated storyboards – the visual outlines of a film that break down the narrative into single frames.
While seemingly unimportant to the viewer, storyboarding is a crucial component of the filmmaking process, allowing directors to visualize scenes, highlight potential lighting flaws, identify continuity errors or framing problems, and prevent reshoots.
A24’s tool could simplify and speed up that process significantly.
The head of A24 Labs, Scott Belsky, told The Wall Street Journal, “We think there are better uses that preserve creative control and support risk-taking.” He added that the tools “won’t look anything like the prompted generation type of AI that people feel uncomfortable with.” Belsky argues that the storyboard AI tool will allow directors to instantly visualize complex scenes in the pre-production process. In other words, tools that help behind the scenes but play no role in the actual filming process.
Legendary director Martin Scorsese recently announced a similar deal: Earlier this month, Scorsese revealed that he’ll serve as an advisor with the research lab of AI startup Black Forest Labs and use their tool for storyboarding.
Scorsese said:
For 70 years, I’ve been creating my own storyboards. There’s always been this problem of how do you communicate what you see in your head to your cast and crew. There are some things you have to see and feel. I’m interested in the intersection of technology and storytelling, and seeing how that can push the bounds of creativity to create deeper and richer experiences for audiences. Remember, cinema is a young medium, only around 125 years old, so we have to be open to how it can evolve.
I utilized 3D with Hugo and de-aging technology for The Irishman. Now, with this tool, I can share what I’m visualizing more clearly and efficiently to my creative team – the production designer, art designer, and cinematographer – for them to build on to enrich cinematic intelligence.
Scorsese’s announcement, much like A24’s, drew immediate backlash.
If you find this article interesting and you want a full deep-dive like this in your inbox each morning, please consider upgrading your subscription to become a paid Roca Member. Our paid subscribers enable us to report on a breadth of topics like this one. Without our paid subscribers, there is no Roca. Thanks for your support!
Concept artists accused the director of destroying their livelihoods and throwing salt on the wounds, highlighting that AI storyboarding tools were likely trained on their (human-made) work. Though the audience may never see a storyboard themselves, many of them are, in their own right, works of art.
Scorsese, A24, and proponents of the AI tools argue that filmmaking is still a young art form and that it may only be a matter of time before it becomes a full part of the filmmaking process. An A24 spokeswoman spoke about the controversy of the studio’s Google deal, saying:
Our relationship with our audience is something we don't take for granted. This partnership exists because we want to dictate what tools get built for artists, and so they have a voice in shaping them rather than having tools handed to them. We'd rather have a seat at the table than on the sidelines.
Notably, the deal primarily favors A24. Google doesn’t have access to the studio’s content library of TV shows or films to train future AI tools; A24 can work with other AI firms in the future; directors retain full creative control; and Google forks up $75M for artistic feedback on its AI tools.
But there are many who still feel that AI should have no role whatsoever in the creative process. When asked his thoughts on AI generation in film, director Guillermo del Toro said, “It would be like spitting on God.”
Editor’s Note
What do you think: Is the Google-A24 deal a smart move? Does it compromise the industry’s creativity and originality? Let us know your thoughts here or in the comments below.
We hope you had a great weekend. If you’re catching up, find our latest articles here:
See you tomorrow.
—Max and Max
Like most new technology, we aren't really sure all of the goods/bad and ins/outs with it. I think it should be used cautiously, and I think it's very fair to have artists who will be directly impacted by this to react negatively. If they have to adapt and utilize these same AI tools that stole their original work to make it easier for less talented people, that's rough, especially if it means you don't have a job, or get as much work in the meantime. AI will unquestionably change filmmaking, but if you look at something like CGI, you can see that there are directors who use it constantly, and some, very famously (Christopher Nolan), not at all. I think there's room for everyone, but it is important to not let AI force out creatives/talent in the short term.
A24's initial objective is just what Hollywood needed. I think AI, used properly, can be a positive tool - A24's example I believe clearly shows that.
In the hands of others, it can and will create slop. As a writer, I use AI ONLY for research, and especially when the information comes with attributions, is an incredible time saver and helps assure accuracy.
AI is like any other tool - it is being used incredibly irresponsibly. But it's also very useful.