From preachy posts on LinkedIn to mass uploads on Reels, the proponents of AI-generated video are determined to spread the message that AI-generated video in marketing and advertising is a game-changer. Either you get in on it, or you perish. But I am convinced that the passionate adopters who think they can not only survive but thrive by becoming the world’s greatest teleprompter are actually the ones narrowing their opportunities and relevance the fastest, and that those of us who are actively non-cooperative with this narrative will ultimately reap the greatest rewards.
The commercial world has always been a place to test exciting new ideas, technologies, and collaborators, and I remember when this tied us to the idea of creative labs versus machines of production and distribution. From Ridley Scott’s “1984” Apple commercial (which demonstrated the potential of a 60-second spot to dominate the zeitgeist) to the early use of motion control rigs and high-speed cameras (introduced in commercials before they were common in film and television) to David Fincher’s discovery of cinematographer Darius Khondji in his Nike commercials (and later co-starring with him in the iconic film Se7en), you’ve chosen uncharted paths, tools, and partnerships. Commercials were a space where you were allowed to do that and get paid to do it.
However, over the past decade, the way we interact with and utilize media has changed, particularly in the area of video production technology. As brands and the brands they represent become more prescriptive, budgets tightened and risk tolerances reduced, it is becoming increasingly important for commercial production not to serve as a laboratory for innovation, but to discover approaches that optimize output in a quick, affordable and predictable manner. I think a lot of that is what we do ourselves. In order to survive, we have failed to rise up enough in the many moments when our ideas and desire to take risks have been culled. But as it stands, I can’t think of a better tool than AI-generated video to ensure more negligible or irrelevant work.
Even casual observers of AI-generated video are generally familiar with the basics of how it works. That’s why I find it strange that anyone can really be convinced that AI will take us out of our current situation. These systems collect existing images, films, designs, and texts and combine them into huge datasets that are synthesized using complex averaging methods. Its mechanics are essentially recombination rather than originality, binding us to ground already trodden rather than moving toward something in new territory. This is why AI-generated videos always have a sense of familiarity. If you feel like you’ve seen something like this before, well, it’s because… you have. Imitation is literally its entire framework, never consistently cutting through the original noise from which it was created.
This is not to say that AI has no role in creative work at all. At Washington Square Films, we also use AI selectively throughout our workflow. Particularly in post-production, we use original material to train and, with performers’ consent, perfect or adapt various aspects of the production. But what we do is more like Photoshop for video, and we don’t believe in taking ourselves or the talent we work with off the helm. If anything, the onslaught of AI content that perpetuates sameness is pushing artists even further to stand out and be challenged. We need to lean more into the world of what machines still struggle to reproduce: the cacophony of tones, the contingency of the irrational, and the inherent imperfections of humanity. After all, it is what brought out the best in our discipline and attracted our attention and wonder.
So instead of starting our creative conversations with “It should look like,” we may need to go back to the not-yet-quantifiable starting point of “it feels like.” Perhaps we need to be even more radical, collectively rolling back our expectations of treatment and pre-visualization and returning to good old-fashioned conversation and text, where our imaginations are intentionally used to fill in the blanks, rather than high-fidelity AI renderings like baking clay. After that, there is little malleability, which affects the minds of stakeholders.
After all, if there is a battlefield in filmmaking, the enemy is not technology. As always, this is a battle with ourselves until film celluloid turns to digital and homemade pie turns to Sara Lee. Who will choose the trends formed by new technologies due to cost, convenience, or laziness? Where will it lead them in the long run? And who would choose the harder path, never changing course even in moments of technological disruption? Great creativity requires a complete effort of mind, body, and spirit. There are no easy prompts. There are no shortcuts.
Personally, I think I’m trying to follow the latter path.
Han West is a partner and executive producer at Washington Square Films.
