Lately, I’ve been fielding a lot of questions about AI — specifically, how it fits into our industry’s production pipelines. My background crosses long-form entertainment, advertising, and short-form content, so I’ll focus today on what matters most to creative leads and studio execs: quality, intent, and the myth of AI as a one-size-fits-all solution.

We’ve all seen the AI-generated videos making the rounds. Wild claims about low budgets and 72-hour turnarounds, usually accompanied by glitchy visuals and awkward choreography that prompt equal parts awe and skepticism.

Let’s start here: just because something is “AI-generated” doesn’t make it innovative. And just because something is “human-made” doesn’t assume excellence. The standard at The New Blank has always been to raise the floor and the ceiling of creative output. So, can AI match traditional production quality?

Yes — and no. Sure, AI can mimic the production value of underbaked human-made content. But when it comes to thoughtful, creative direction, emotional nuance, and purposeful execution, it still falls short. This argument may sound familiar to those who regularly debate “craft” vs. “art.” You could probably make a Star Wars movie with AI, and you’d get all the space travel, aliens, and otherworldly environments, but would you get a performance that makes you cry? Would the script be unique and inspire young kids to imagine themselves as the film’s hero? Would you care to watch it more than once? Today, you can ask that same question of a movie or a TV show, and if the answer is “No,” then it is just subpar performance or writing or directing, or the studio execs got too handsy with the creative vision, or, or, or. But there is a good chance the answer could be “yes.” How amazing is it, and how moving is it when you watch something truly transcendent?

AI will never hit that mark by itself, but it can make a lot of meh.

You may be able to watch a film with explosions, and angry people, and fight scenes, but would AI invent Birdman? The first season of Game of Thrones? of The Revenant? Barbie? I, personally, am not looking forward to the likes of the last season of Game of Thrones inundating my favorite medium.

When I lead creative, I evaluate the delivery medium before the concept. You don’t build a campaign for broadcast the same way you build for TikTok or a dome projection. The medium shapes the message and the execution. The same goes for tools. In a recent project for Overland AI, we tested both Unreal Engine and Redshift for C4D to decide which tool better served the visual narrative. We chose Redshift because it handled reflections and lighting with more control — and that mattered for the story we were telling.

That same mindset should apply to AI. It’s a tool, not a replacement. And like any tool, you have to know its strengths and weaknesses.

Take this viral spot from the NBA Finals. It works not in spite of AI’s weirdness — but because of it. The creators leaned into AI’s chaotic, surreal strengths. The result is a frenzied, stylish fever dream — and it works because it was built with purpose. It would likely have been safer and less effective if it were traditionally produced.

Compare that to this Star Wars fan film. It’s beautiful in parts and brilliant in concept, but it’s hollow. There’s no rhythm, no soul. As previs? Great. As a tool to sell through an idea or prep your actors? Absolutely. But as a final product? It’s a (following is a blatant Gen X lean-in) Wonder Bread and Butter sandwich.

The difference between these two pieces is two words: Creative intent.

The first example couldn’t have worked without AI. The second would’ve worked better without it. And here’s the broader truth: AI isn’t going to invent the next storytelling trend. But a person will. Someone with taste, cultural fluency, and vision will pick up whatever tools they need to express it — including AI. That’s where the next wave of content will come from.

Let’s not waste time arguing whether AI will replace creators. Let’s ask how we — as creators — use it with purpose.

PS: We could also start asking why we aren’t fixating on AI as a CEO replacement as much as we are on creative replacement. Doesn’t it all feel like a distraction?