I cover the intersection of Hollywood and AI for paying subscribers. I wrote about eight companies that are using AI the right wayexplored Disney’s deal with OpenAI and I dove into what AI interpreter is Tilly Norwood means for the actors.
The Academy cinema arts and sciences keeps repeating the same phrase about artificial intelligence: that its use in film “neither helps nor hurts” a film’s chances at the Oscars.
This seems neutral, even sensible. But neutrality, as the Swiss learned decades ago, is a choice – and one that has consequences. And it marks a new front in the war over what constitutes “human authorship.” Because the Oscars aren’t facing a hypothetical future shaped by AI. They are already evaluating films made using this technology. By refusing to draw clearer lines, the Academy has turned this year’s awards into a referendum on how much machine assistance Hollywood is willing to consider a human achievement.
For the record, the Academy’s official guideline on the matter: “With regard to generative artificial intelligence and other digital tools used in the making of the film, the tools neither help nor harm the chances of obtaining a nomination. The Academy and each branch will judge success, taking into account the extent to which humans were at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing the film to reward.”
The best photos of this year are One battle after another And Sinners – two very different films that nevertheless share one defining trait: they were made by an industry where AI is already present, even if no one bothers to mention it. None of the producers of these films were forced to disclose the AI workflows. And this silence is perhaps the most revealing fact of all.
Take One battle after another. The film has been praised for its performances, exquisite craftsmanship, and classic restraint – precisely the kind of qualities the Academy holds up as proof of “human authorship.” You don’t hear much about AI-assisted post-production tools that have likely been used for dialogue cleaning, automated sound balancing, stabilization, and editorial efficiencies that reduce deadlines and costs. And why would you do it? This is quite common in cinema, including prestigious auteur projects. A representative for One battle after another did not respond to request for comment.
Sinners is maximalist, technically ambitious and the most aggressively awarded film of the year, landing an impressive 16 nominations. Publicly, this is presented as a triumph of vision and execution. Privately, it is also understood as a model of contemporary studio filmmaking, where AI-assisted previsualization, planning tools, and post-visualization workflows are simply assumed. Michael B.Jordan‘s virtuoso performance as twins – rightly rewarded with a Best Actor nomination – was polished with cutting-edge visual effects work, including a set of tools from Rising Sun Pictures called REVIZE which uses machine learning techniques for face replacement.
The conversation has changed. Films can get multiple Oscar nominations without Academy voters being asked whether artificial intelligence helped make them more effective, more polished or more competitive. The Academy does not question. Campaigns determine how much they volunteer. Don’t ask, don’t tell.
And the big question: does it still matter?
Today, I examine what this impasse means for the Oscar race and the encroachment of AI technology into Hollywood’s new arenas, including:
-
What better image for Avatar: Fire and Ash reveals the rapidly changing industry perspective on technology
-
How was the hubbub last year? The BrutalistHungarian AI-assisted dialogue – and Academy silence – reignited tech debate
-
Which authors are still opposed to AI and which Academy groups are on which side of the fence?
-
The long-term consequences of the Oscars’ agnostic approach to AI
