Last week, I was scrolling through a local queer community Facebook group when I came across a post from a barber advertising his services to my city’s queer community. The accompanying graphics had all the obvious signs of AI generation, from some wonky text placement to that disgusting yellowish-sepia tone and rounded graphics that seem to be ubiquitous in many AI graphics.
This post had only 1 comment. A comment from another well-meaning user advised the barber that using generative AI for promotions could discourage people from using her services. When I went back to look at it 10 minutes later, the post had disappeared. Apparently, a little public shaming was enough to make this user reconsider using technology in such a way (at least publicly).
I’ve been thinking about this exchange as discussions continue to revolve around the new film. Stop! that! train! AI-generated background images are clearly used. Many appearances drag race Alumnus alongside RuPaul himself, the film is being pitched as a quirky and fun take on the disaster movie, starring various drag queens as runaway train stewardesses. However, shortly after the film premiered at NewFest in New York last month, fan speculation surfaced that some of the film’s effects may have been created using generative AI. One Letterboxd review by visual effects artist Gloria Cooke went viral, where she claimed it was one of the most “remarkable uses of AI” she’d ever seen. This spurred a wave of fan backlash. Many pointed to the film’s credits as evidence. Even though Acme AI is the most expensive source of visual effects for this film, there is a lack of credit for other visual effects artists.
The film’s director, Adam Shankman, issued a tongue-in-cheek statement on social media last week, initially denying that generative AI was used to “think the shots.”
“Every shot Stop! that! train! It was made by human hands! I noticed that there is some speculation on the internet. Stop! that! train! ” is full of fully generated AI shots, but the point I’m trying to make here is that this is clearly not true. “There are a total of zero AI-conceived shots in the movie,” Shankman wrote.
But to paraphrase Dakota Johnson: Ellen“…That’s not true, Adam,” in an interview with Russ Martin published here extra Today (prior to Shankman’s statement on social media), Shankman apparently contradicted himself and admitted that there is indeed a significant amount of AI present in the film.
“Some of the windows were AI. There’s only one or two AI shots of the trains, and the rest is CG. Most of the CG is the trains, and outside the windows is mostly AI. But things like the train station in Florida are all CG. And then it’s another licensed image.”
This is consistent with evidence that various detectives on Reddit have compiled over the past few weeks, particularly around the titular train window, which changes from shot to shot. Cook pointed out in a subsequent social media thread that this wouldn’t happen if an actual computer-generated model was used instead of generative AI.
A close reading of Shankman’s contradictory comments reveals that there is some semantics at play regarding what constitutes AI. In his initial denial, Shankman talks about the shots being “thought by the AI” (possibly alluding to some of his work as a director), and seems likely to be telling the truth that he never inspired the AI to make any of the shots in the film. But fans are furious about AI-generated visuals in general, and that’s clearly a problem. Stop! that! train! According to Shankman’s interview, extra.
This isn’t the first time a work has come under fire over its use of generative AI. Back in 2021, movies Roadrunner: A movie about Anthony Bourdainused AI to read some of Bourdain’s emails after his death. Netflix faced backlash for allegedly using AI-generated images in a documentary in 2024 what jennifer didHowever, the film’s director issued a similarly vague denial as Shankman, saying that while no AI was used in the film, he did use “various tools” to alter the images shown on screen. This isn’t the first time RuPaul’s work has been controversial over generative AI visuals. drag race We featured images of the final four games of the season that appear to have been generated by AI.
This poses a moral dilemma for those who feel opposed to generative AI but still want to support a hellish gay movie released in theaters during Pride Month. Should I accept that I don’t have to like it and still watch the movie and move on? Should it be boycotted due to moral or ethical concerns, as Cook and other fans on social media have suggested?
These days, everyone draws their own personal lines when it comes to AI. For me, when I know something contains images, text, or music created by AI, I don’t want to interact with it. That goes for the Barber Facebook group, and it goes for all the nonsense swirling around “AI actress” Tilly Norwood and AI “music.” And that applies to movies like Stop! that! train!now I see that it plays a role.
There are many reasons why I personally oppose generative AI. It causes great damage to the environment, prevents some from paying and supporting real creative people, and generally degrades the truth and reality of our society. On top of that, everything it brings is straight up worse. And while perhaps that’s too high of a moral standpoint to stand on, it makes me lose respect for people who use generative AI to create creative works. Because it’s clear they don’t respect the labor that goes into making art. That includes a visual effects artist who creates the visuals for a gay runaway train in a tasteless parody film.
Although I have control over my life on a small scale, I have no interest in using ChatGPT on a daily basis and only use programs with built-in generative AI tools, such as Canva or Google, when there are no other alternatives. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid generated AI in the media. Sure, you can avoid going to a barber shop with posts advertising AI, or avoid your local restaurant with horribly creepy images of AI food. However, I find it difficult to fully adopt a strong personal stance. Because it really exists everywhere, especially in subtle ways that I might not notice. Stop! that! train! It just happens to be relatively obvious.
Proponents of generative AI technologies in the media, or even seemingly pragmatic late adopters, often speak with an air of inevitability. They argue that technology skeptics simply don’t see the light, or that we’re just not interested in innovation. For them, generative AI is as inevitable as the internet and social media once were. Great film director Martin Scorsese is also on board, investing money in an AI image generation company. new york times Last week, he said, “Remember that film is a young medium, only 125 years old, so we have to be open to how it evolves.”
At the same time, artists from all walks of life (just look at the recent Hollywood writers’ and actors’ strike) are making it clear that the proliferation of generative AI use poses an existential threat to human creation. A few wonky car windows may seem harmless at the moment, but there’s a slippery slope that can lead us to other types of AI content very quickly. Just ask the thousands of journalists who were laid off as the news media industry churned out AI-generated texts, or the animators who lost money to make their work in favor of Amazon’s creation of the AI Creators Fund.
At the end of the day, I can’t tell you to boycott this movie. Even if I feel like saying that. That would be hypocritical because these days, whether we like it or not, we’re all going to have to encounter generative AI out there. But what I can do is encourage you to do it. Stop! that! train! Otherwise, it’s also about finding real artists who make real things. While boycotts and public shaming can be effective and emotionally cathartic, so can supporting creators who make deliberate efforts to avoid including AI in their work. Credit where credit is due: When tasked with including a meme that appears to have been generated by an AI in recent news. the devil wears prada 2the filmmakers actually hired real artists to create paintings that look like AI. And Kane Parsons, a genius director who created a blockbuster horror film. back roomstated that the film does not use any, and said that AI would lead to “cultural and economic corruption.”
in the case of Stop! that! train!you can also go to your local drag show and tip the queen. Put your appreciation for human-made art into action. Give a dollar (preferably $20 or $50!) to a real queer person making real queer art. If we want to survive the runaway train of AI in media, the best way to survive is to come together and stand up for what we believe in.
