AI art introduced itself to the general public through novelty TikTok filters, but has since been used in major theatrical releases both promotionally and narratively. In a creative era already permeated by reboots and remakes, this dependence on AI art allows film executives to continue their mistreatment of creatives, in the form of writers and authors. 

A24’s newest release “Civil War” was a top-five highest grossing film for the studio and continues its run in the theaters. A political thriller starring Kirsten Dunst, “Civil War” centers around the dubious ethics of war photography and journalism. 

As the film continued to trend, A24 made the decision to release several alternative posters, depicting different American landmarks ravaged by the titular civil war. The general response was laughably bad, and most likely had the opposite intended effect, driving people away from the movie instead of towards it. 

Upon first glance, the posters are typical over stylized landscapes. When looking closer, simple mistakes have been made and geographical discrepancies can be spotted. 

Director of “Civil War”, Alex Garland’s first feature film “Ex Machina” centered around the ethics of artificial intelligence. While he likely has no control over the promotional aspects of his newest film, it’s still interesting to see how his own narrative intersects with the current age of artificial intelligence. 

Not only is it embarrassing for posters to feature such simple mistakes, it’s incredibly easy to avoid, through not using artificial intelligence. 

Movie posters provide an opportunity to highlight unique aspects of the film and a creative team can interpret various parts of the film and decide how best it translates into a static movie poster, critical thinking that at the moment, artificial intelligence lacks. 

Recently movie posters have, as most aspects of the film industry, been influenced by Marvel Studios. The ‘floating head’ style of movie posters emphasizes the cast over any plot aspects of the movie, bypassing creativity in favor of celebrity status. 

The ‘floating head’ style and encroachment of AI generated movie posters show a downward trajectory in terms of creative showcasing, a common theme in the film industry. 

In the weeks leading up to Shudder’s recent theatrical release, “Late Night with the Devil” the public’s attitude towards the movie shifted from anticipatory to negative, as it became clear parts of the film were AI generated. 

The film features several “We’ll be right back” title cards, in reference to the alluded commercial breaks that the late night show cuts to over the course of events. 

After the film’s debut at Sundance, it was revealed that these title cards were AI generated, which becomes impossible not to notice once you know this fact. The most egregious example of this was the skeleton card which pops up several times throughout the movie and has the classic AI generated look about it. 

“Late Night with the Devil” served as the general public’s introduction to Shudder original movies and it would have been a wise choice, with a predictably stellar performance from David Dastmalchian and a fittingly spooky climax. 

The inclusion of AI art however, became “Late Night with the Devil”s main buzz and will most likely be the movie’s lasting legacy, with many finding it to be an unnecessary and distasteful element of the film. 

Most moviegoers had a generally good impression of the film, but some found it difficult to reward it with a good rating, given the seemingly lazy choice to outsource art to AI. 

While seeing an otherwise good movie get review-bombed on Letterboxd is a little disheartening, it’s a positive sign to see moviegoers caring about the lasting employment of writers and artists during this bout of uninspired media. 

AI art has been criticized for as long as it’s been prominent in media, with artists seeing their own art styles reflected back to them in the work of an artificial intelligence. At the moment, artificial intelligence does not have the capacity to generate wholly original concepts, having to pull from existing art and writings. 

As a result, the majority of AI art feels like a cheap rendition of existing artist works, and with a growing online art community, it’s easier than ever for AI to find ‘reference’ material for the prompts it’s being fed. 

 A less relevant aspect of AI art is also the predatory nature used to boost engagement, taking advantage of the technological naivety of older Facebook users. 

A24 and Shudder’s use of AI art is especially indicative of production company’s attitudes towards AI art and the current trajectory. These two production companies have a reputation of uplifting indie filmmakers and producing stories that major production companies find to be too niche or not easily marketable. 

AI art is often free or able to be generated at a marginal cost. This allows filmmakers to generate graphics without working with or paying another person. Given the smaller nature of these companies, AI generated art may have been a way to save money or a way to work around time constraints. 

The illusion was broken for many when A24 and Shudder used artificial intelligence, exposing the fact that at the end of the day, they are companies whose bottom line will always be money. 

If the studios that built their brand around the human experience and working with indie filmmakers are willing to outsource work to artificial intelligence, it’s only a matter of time before the bigger studios follow suit. 

As with anything, corporations often neglect the work of the creatives in favor of maximizing profit and saving money, with the film industry being no different in this aspect. Audiences at the moment have a negative perception on AI generated art but eventually this could pass, leaving creatives out of the film industry as a whole.