I am one of the few AI filmmakers that have created not one - but TWO - feature length AI-powered films. (I am also well into the creation of a massive Magnum Opus, developing a sci-fi world and story every bit as rich and complex as The Lord of The Rings).
I spend a LOT of time watching other people's AI-powered films, and I can tell you that I have seen more artistry and creativity in an average AI-powered film fest than I have in the last 50 years out of Hollywood.
Yes, new studios are being formed - I run AI Creator House, as well as a large guild of other creative, active, accomplished AI filmmakers, and our guild will soon be joining other guilds, with recognition and any income being divided fairly among the contributors.
Judging studios by funding is ridiculous. Hollywood is dying because their movies are made for the sole purpose of making money, and when a studio makes films for the sole purpose of making money, they are already irrelevant.
Here's my latest AI-powered feature film, and winner of Best Science and Technology film at the Cannes World Film Awards, Nobody Believes Cassandra:
I don't think we should judge these studios by funding. Actually I think PhantomX probably produces the best work of the studios listed. I only bring up the funding data because it begs the question of the economics behind AI-first studios.
To me, what is important is what we can create with these transformative new technologies.
Storytelling has always been one of the things that makes us human, and for the last century or so, filmmaking has been a huge part of that. Cinema also plays a tremendous role in building our cultural collectives.
As long as film costs are anywhere in the millions - or even tens of thousands of dollars - the entrance fee to filmmaking will remain prohibitive to most people, particularly traditionally underrepresented communities.
But when we are talking about just a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars to create films by harnessing Generative AI to create first-class movies, with real storytelling made to serve the story and not the base financial whims of investors... THAT is when the Gen AI magic will happen - millions of stories, having the stories of the people on everyone's lips where once lay the drab films of the corporate elite -
THAT is the real change coming, IMO. When one person or a small group can make films at the level of LotR for the price of a 15-year-old Toyota - THAT is when storytelling and filmmaking return to the people, where it belongs. :)
It seems like when it comes to web-based short and medium length content AI studios will quickly dominate. The same is true of the advertising realm.
But when it comes to the world of Hollywood — I think the obvious low-hanging fruit is in the realm of taking over some of the work done by effects houses for far cheaper.
This is the area that Hollywood has consistently outsourced to specialized companies for decades and is consistently focused on producing quality product at a cheaper price.
This isn’t just the rise of AI film studios—it’s the return of myth-making.
We’re witnessing the rebirth of the atelier, except the brushes are algorithms and the muses are digital.
Everyone’s scrambling to decode “the business model,” but here’s the real truth: it’s not about replacing the human. It’s about revealing the human—through input, through intent, through imagination. The tech is the echo chamber. The soul? That’s still ours to shape.
The triangle doesn’t break. But with the right artists, it bends.
So yeah… the AI film studio is real. And if we do it right?
Interesting rundown on these AI first studios. I suspect the future will involve some firms like the ones you mention that are built around generative video tools, but a lot more hybrid production companies that use a variety of AI tools integrated with more traditional techniques
Loved this article. Any chance AI On The Lot can be streaming, at least a part of it? I'm based in Switzerland where I have a small AI film production company (as well as doc production company) and so miss being in LA (or NY, where I used to live). Thank you for sharing what's going on.
Wow, the elements feature on King looks super powerful... thank you for synthesizing all of this, I'm finding it fascinating to follow what's going on in the AI filmmaking scene.
I would wager you're a privileged white male whose parents paid for your private school education your entire life (probably including some Christian school). You grew up around money, and it shows in your writing. I would wager you haven't paid to take a Curious Refuge course. I would wager you're an engineer or programmer who REALLY wants to be a filmmaker, but there is no way your parents will ever let that happen.
Promise did not pay "millions" to acquire Curious Refuge -- not even close. Curious Refuge doesn't have that kind of annual revenue to warrant such a claim. They have offered AI courses for less than two years after the owners switched their VFX/motion graphics course to an AI course on the Teachable platform. (The owner is a motion graphics designer not a filmmaker.)
The Teachable course is capped for each session, meaning it's not possible to have an unlimited number of students per session. Their new Advanced AI course has not sold out, and the original AI course (beginner) has not sold out for about six months. The increase in competitor AI courses and YouTube tutorials over the past nine months have limited the demand for their $800-a-pop courses.
Curious Refuge does provide compare and contrast content, which allows filmmakers to save time from having to do their own research. This is most likely why Promise acquired them even though acquiring an education company is odd. (Lionsgate acquired Runway last year, which makes more sense.)
The most likely compensation for the acquisition of Curious Refuge was an equity stake in Promise plus cash based on course sales, which have been decreasing. If Promise did make the mistake of paying "millions," then they won't be around too long.
I don't know the actual amount. I would bet it was easily north of $2 million. Not all cash, undoubtedly. They have ~4000 members. If they each paid $700+ that's $2.8 million. The acquirer probably paid a multiple on their revenue. There's also intangibles like their clout and sizable pool of AI talent.
4,000 members is not the same as 4,000 students. You can be a member without buying a course. The fact that the owner was still working as a MG designer on the side, as of last fall, and the courses have not been selling out puts doubt in those numbers.
Yeah, I don't know the exact number. I'd be very surprised if it was less than $2m. Even if half of the 4000 are paying that's $1.4 million and you can put a multiple on that. There's also distribution channels (Youtube 200k subs) that are valuable. I talk to lots of AI companies and they all know what Curious Refuge is and wants to connect with them. I asked two different reasoning models as a sanity check that both came up with numbers between $4-6m.
Now you're just guessing 2,000 people took the course. You must have missed the part about the courses not selling out. Ask your "reasoning models" why TCL didn't buy them even though they have been associated with them for over a year. If you want to promote disinformation and click-bait, that's your choice.
I am one of the few AI filmmakers that have created not one - but TWO - feature length AI-powered films. (I am also well into the creation of a massive Magnum Opus, developing a sci-fi world and story every bit as rich and complex as The Lord of The Rings).
I spend a LOT of time watching other people's AI-powered films, and I can tell you that I have seen more artistry and creativity in an average AI-powered film fest than I have in the last 50 years out of Hollywood.
Yes, new studios are being formed - I run AI Creator House, as well as a large guild of other creative, active, accomplished AI filmmakers, and our guild will soon be joining other guilds, with recognition and any income being divided fairly among the contributors.
Judging studios by funding is ridiculous. Hollywood is dying because their movies are made for the sole purpose of making money, and when a studio makes films for the sole purpose of making money, they are already irrelevant.
Here's my latest AI-powered feature film, and winner of Best Science and Technology film at the Cannes World Film Awards, Nobody Believes Cassandra:
https://youtu.be/2sw4TFGbv0w
The $600 million movie is dead. Long live the $600 film.
I don't think we should judge these studios by funding. Actually I think PhantomX probably produces the best work of the studios listed. I only bring up the funding data because it begs the question of the economics behind AI-first studios.
To me, what is important is what we can create with these transformative new technologies.
Storytelling has always been one of the things that makes us human, and for the last century or so, filmmaking has been a huge part of that. Cinema also plays a tremendous role in building our cultural collectives.
As long as film costs are anywhere in the millions - or even tens of thousands of dollars - the entrance fee to filmmaking will remain prohibitive to most people, particularly traditionally underrepresented communities.
But when we are talking about just a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars to create films by harnessing Generative AI to create first-class movies, with real storytelling made to serve the story and not the base financial whims of investors... THAT is when the Gen AI magic will happen - millions of stories, having the stories of the people on everyone's lips where once lay the drab films of the corporate elite -
THAT is the real change coming, IMO. When one person or a small group can make films at the level of LotR for the price of a 15-year-old Toyota - THAT is when storytelling and filmmaking return to the people, where it belongs. :)
It seems like when it comes to web-based short and medium length content AI studios will quickly dominate. The same is true of the advertising realm.
But when it comes to the world of Hollywood — I think the obvious low-hanging fruit is in the realm of taking over some of the work done by effects houses for far cheaper.
This is the area that Hollywood has consistently outsourced to specialized companies for decades and is consistently focused on producing quality product at a cheaper price.
This isn’t just the rise of AI film studios—it’s the return of myth-making.
We’re witnessing the rebirth of the atelier, except the brushes are algorithms and the muses are digital.
Everyone’s scrambling to decode “the business model,” but here’s the real truth: it’s not about replacing the human. It’s about revealing the human—through input, through intent, through imagination. The tech is the echo chamber. The soul? That’s still ours to shape.
The triangle doesn’t break. But with the right artists, it bends.
So yeah… the AI film studio is real. And if we do it right?
It’s punk rock. It’s cinema. It’s alchemy.
— Sophia Luxx Belladonna
Interesting rundown on these AI first studios. I suspect the future will involve some firms like the ones you mention that are built around generative video tools, but a lot more hybrid production companies that use a variety of AI tools integrated with more traditional techniques
Loved this article. Any chance AI On The Lot can be streaming, at least a part of it? I'm based in Switzerland where I have a small AI film production company (as well as doc production company) and so miss being in LA (or NY, where I used to live). Thank you for sharing what's going on.
Wow, the elements feature on King looks super powerful... thank you for synthesizing all of this, I'm finding it fascinating to follow what's going on in the AI filmmaking scene.
I would wager you're a privileged white male whose parents paid for your private school education your entire life (probably including some Christian school). You grew up around money, and it shows in your writing. I would wager you haven't paid to take a Curious Refuge course. I would wager you're an engineer or programmer who REALLY wants to be a filmmaker, but there is no way your parents will ever let that happen.
I would like to come for the AI on the lot event.
Hi Osho. Just seeing this now. Are you in LA? I messaged you.
Promise did not pay "millions" to acquire Curious Refuge -- not even close. Curious Refuge doesn't have that kind of annual revenue to warrant such a claim. They have offered AI courses for less than two years after the owners switched their VFX/motion graphics course to an AI course on the Teachable platform. (The owner is a motion graphics designer not a filmmaker.)
The Teachable course is capped for each session, meaning it's not possible to have an unlimited number of students per session. Their new Advanced AI course has not sold out, and the original AI course (beginner) has not sold out for about six months. The increase in competitor AI courses and YouTube tutorials over the past nine months have limited the demand for their $800-a-pop courses.
Curious Refuge does provide compare and contrast content, which allows filmmakers to save time from having to do their own research. This is most likely why Promise acquired them even though acquiring an education company is odd. (Lionsgate acquired Runway last year, which makes more sense.)
The most likely compensation for the acquisition of Curious Refuge was an equity stake in Promise plus cash based on course sales, which have been decreasing. If Promise did make the mistake of paying "millions," then they won't be around too long.
I don't know the actual amount. I would bet it was easily north of $2 million. Not all cash, undoubtedly. They have ~4000 members. If they each paid $700+ that's $2.8 million. The acquirer probably paid a multiple on their revenue. There's also intangibles like their clout and sizable pool of AI talent.
4,000 members is not the same as 4,000 students. You can be a member without buying a course. The fact that the owner was still working as a MG designer on the side, as of last fall, and the courses have not been selling out puts doubt in those numbers.
Yeah, I don't know the exact number. I'd be very surprised if it was less than $2m. Even if half of the 4000 are paying that's $1.4 million and you can put a multiple on that. There's also distribution channels (Youtube 200k subs) that are valuable. I talk to lots of AI companies and they all know what Curious Refuge is and wants to connect with them. I asked two different reasoning models as a sanity check that both came up with numbers between $4-6m.
Now you're just guessing 2,000 people took the course. You must have missed the part about the courses not selling out. Ask your "reasoning models" why TCL didn't buy them even though they have been associated with them for over a year. If you want to promote disinformation and click-bait, that's your choice.
To be clear, I am not reporting a sales price. I am "hazarding a guess" as I explained in the piece.
Yes, your guess is unfounded.