/socialketchup/media/agency_attachments/2025/01/15/2025-01-15t065936648z-magazine-logo-black.png){kind=logo}
Follow Us/socialketchup/media/media_files/2025/10/16/ai-in-cinema-2025-10-16-17-31-53.png)
AI is the new game-changer in cinema, embedded everywhere from shaping ideas and greenlighting projects to the final cut. But is it a tool democratizing filmmaking or a controlling force overtaking it? Let’s find out!
Is the future of cinema no longer on screen but in code? This question has never felt more urgent. From the first film capturing a train’s arrival to a Black Mirror episode exploring technology that resurrects dead actors, we’ve come a long way. It hasn’t even been that long since ChatGPT entered our lives, yet it has already become a part of our everyday world, an AI-powered reality that, until recently, only existed in sci-fi films. And now, with millions reportedly using ChatGPT daily, it was perhaps inevitable that AI would make its way into the very industry that once predicted it. After all, how could the medium that imagined it remain untouched?
Since AI’s arrival, countless conversations have unfolded around its role in filmmaking from Oscar-winning films like The Brutalist, which used it to refine an actor’s accent, to filmmakers experimenting with AI to design story elements or build virtual sets. But when “assistance” begins to look like “replacement,” unease sets in. Hollywood recently introduced its first AI actress, Tilly Norwood, a digital composite capable of emoting like a human. Closer to home, the controversy around using AI to alter the ending of Raanjhanaa sparked its own debate. And now there is show entirely made by AI. The recently released Mahabharata series on JioHostar brought to us by Vijay Subramaniam, Founder & CEO of Collective Artists Network, it is a series where everything from actors, locations to even creation everything is done by AI.
The real threat of AI, many say, isn’t that it will replace humans but that it could make us so dependent that it dulls our critical thinking.And in a world that prizes speed, output, and productivity over process, AI has made itself indispensable with its fast efficiency, and never questions back ability. Hence the idea of an AI actress who doesn’t fuss for creative control or changing a tragic sad ending of a film or creating an epic entirely by AI, sounds so convenient yet at the same time chilling. Especially for women or creators, whose fight to be heard and seen on their own terms is still on-going.
The truth is, we’re already living in the AI age, even if it still feels new. Every tool built to make life “easier” also brings the fear of what happens when the assistant starts taking charge. Cinema reflects this shift too with some films now feeling more engineered to please algorithms than to move people. Storytelling risks becoming data-driven when it’s always been emotion-driven. But is that really happening, or are we just afraid of losing control to the very technology we created? To understand how AI is currently shaping creative decisions and storytelling, we spoke to three people working at the heart of this changing landscape - a producer, a film editor, and a screenwriter, each bringing their own view of how much (and how far) AI should be allowed to enter the creative process.
Also Read: The Deepika Padukone 8-hour shift debate: When the industry confuses discipline for defiance!
AI influencing personal decision-making
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the more we rely on technology for ease and efficiency, the more we risk letting it replace our own judgment. AI tools like ChatGPT often sound convincingly objective because they compile data from multiple sources yet they’re designed to please the user. Which raises the question that how neutral can their advice really be, and how much should we trust them in shaping our decisions?
Amita Madhvani, producer of shows like Aarya and films such as Neerja, explains that AI today plays a major role in gathering insights. “From understanding audience preferences to making effective budgets through predictive analytics or planning the flow of work.” But she is clear that when it comes to making creative decisions, human judgment remains central.
“We still look at the heart of the story - does it resonate emotionally? Is it human? And most importantly, does it reflect the vision of its creators? AI might support the process, but it never makes the decision. That responsibility lies with humans, with our instincts, ethics, and creative judgment.”
While Madhvani emphasizes balancing what AI can offer with reliance on one’s own intuition, Nitin Baid, an editor whose projects include Homebound, Gully Boy, Masaan, and shows like Ba**ds of Bollywood, offers a cautious yet pragmatic perspective. “AI is here, but not yet the editor. Right now most AI tools are still in beta (Premiere Pro’s Smart Edit, early Avid features, Runway, etc.), and they’re useful for small, assistant-level tasks like breaking down interviews, sorting clips, creating rough assemblies. Crucially, many of these tools are English-first and not yet language-agnostic. AI can create a framework, a first pass or structure based on existing patterns, and that speeds up the painful ‘blank page’ stage (think of it like your assistant editor doing the initial sorting). But editing a feature involves emotional coherence, silences, micro-pauses, and performance nuances that machines don’t understand. AI follows patterns from what already exists; it can suggest a quick cut, but it can’t feel the rhythm or the exact emotional truth you need.”
Something that in practice we see for the screenwriter of Avrodh: The Seigie Within, Sudeep Nigam, from whom AI tools like ChatGPT have become a part of his routine but only as a support system, never as a co-writer. “AI is derived information. It pulls from what already exists. So whatever output it gives you is something you’ve seen before. While such tools can assist with research, fact-checking, or brainstorming, they cannot replace the human imagination that gives birth to truly original stories.”
Democraticizing films or overtaking?
AI has undeniably opened doors for aspiring filmmakers who previously lacked access to resources. With the right tools, creators can now build worlds of fiction, prototype ideas, and manage post-production in ways that were once reserved for large studios. Even though AI relies on patterns learned from existing inputs, it provides resources and capabilities that were previously unavailable. But the question remains- is this truly democratizing filmmaking, or is it centralizing control into the hands of a few, replacing the collaborative human team with a single AI?
Madhvani sees it as a potential equalizer. “From prototyping ideas to post-production support, it can greatly aid those with vision but limited resources. But like any tool, its impact depends on how it is distributed and who controls it. If it is not easily accessible, it could very well deepen existing inequalities.” For her, the key question is not whether AI can democratize filmmaking, but whether it can be made inclusive, transparent, and affordable. “Technology should serve talent, not just capital.” On the practical side, both Baid and Nigam emphasize the current limitations of AI, making it unlikely to take over the filmmaking process, at least for now. Baid notes,
“There are also practical constraints as feature films produce hundreds of hours of footage (300–400 hours), and scanning all of that intelligently requires massive compute, time, and new workflows for transporting and processing footage. Current AI edits still need human correction because the software can mis-decode or miss crucial details. In short, AI will compress time and handle mechanical, repetitive tasks that are useful for first assemblies and assistant duties but the final emotional shaping, the director-editor conversation, and the art of pacing remain human work. Over time workflows will improve, but for now AI assists; it doesn’t replace.”
For Nigam, AI mimicing patterns, but cannot invent a unique voice or story is the core limitation and that the value lies in how creators use AI, not in the tool itself. “If a writer begins to lean too heavily on it, the result risks becoming ordinary and derivative, rather than a cut above the rest." He stresses that character work, especially in long-running series, demands human empathy and instinct. “Machines cannot yet create complex, evolving characters that last across seasons.” He also raises a critical concern. “When you feed your story into a tool, do you really know if it’s safe? Who owns it? Hence AI can be a valuable assistant to polish, research, or inspire but it must never drive the creative process. Technology should aid your originality, not dilute it.”
Ethics, boundaries, and the human touch
One of the most debated questions around AI is whether, even if it can’t truly grasp emotions now, it eventually might and what that would mean for creative control. Since AI depends on human input, the question of ethics becomes inevitable. Where do we draw the line between assisted creation and automated replacement, especially as the pull toward full automation grows stronger the more AI learns and evolves on its own?
Madhvani warns that the risks emerge when efficiency starts outweighing human empathy, or when speed is prioritized over the soul of a story. “AI-driven tools are helpful for pre-visualization, breakdowns, and technical aspects but they should never override the director’s vision or the actor’s performance.” She draws a clear line at authorship and consent stating that AI can assist, not author. “The creative choices, from tone to character arcs, must ultimately remain human-led. We should ensure that AI enhances our storytelling, not replace storytellers.” And for maintaining that creative control for her it begins with clarity.
“Who is telling the story, and why? Was this performance generated or real? Was the artist involved in control? Are we using AI to enhance a vision, or just as a shortcut? Ehicscannotbe an afterthought. Workflows should position AI as a toolwithinahuman-ledprocess, neverasthedriver. Maintaining boundaries means defining them clearly, and then standing by them even when the technology appears tempting.”
Baid approaches the issue from a hands-on perspective. He acknowledges AI’s utility, but stresses that filmmaking remains inherently human and emotional. “Unlike writing, where AI can follow textual prompts, visual storytelling depends on nuance - the silences, glances, and rhythm between characters.” He explains that if you give AI a framework, for instance, two lovers talking, a shot list, and an instruction to cut a scene it will assemble something coherent based on algorithms. But it will not capture the moment.
"AI can only read upper mechanics; it can't understand the intricacies of performance, a local emotion, or even a pause.”
The scale of filmmaking further limits AI’s capabilities. Hundreds of hours of raw footage make it technically unfeasible for AI to meaningfully process long-format storytelling. “It’s a question of power usage and energy on a very large scale.” He does, however, see a future, perhaps a decade away where a film could be entirely made within an AI ecosystem - shot, edited, and constructed digitally. But for stories involving real people and real emotions, he insists the human touch is indispensable. “You’ll always need that perspective, the vision that only a person can bring.” While Nigam, who is also an SWA member emphasizes that the conversation around AI is still exploratory, particularly regarding legality, ethics, and intellectual property.
“We are still trying to understand it before we come up with what is the legal, intellectual, or ethical response to this challenge. The topic is already central to global screenwriting discussions. At the recent AGM of the International Affiliation of Writers’ Guilds (IAWG) held for the first time in Mumbai with over 15 guilds participating, AI in screenwriting was a major point of discussion. The consensus was to first invest our resources in understanding the implications before we move toward IP rights or credits.”
At the heart of the concern is ownership and authorship. “When you put your story online, who’s reading it? Where is it being used? If the response a chat tool gives me is derivative of what others have fed it, then my original idea is now feeding someone else’s work.” For him, the lines remain blurry. “Writers are taking individual calls on whether or not to use AI tools, but the overarching agreement is clear that the conversation is only beginning.”
The future in the next few years
As AI becomes more deeply embedded in cinema, its role is expanding beyond efficiency to reshaping how stories are made and experienced from personalized viewing to interactive storytelling. Yet, even as technology evolves, the emotional core of cinema with its empathy, connection, and humanity still remains irreplaceable. The only question is, for how long?
Madhvani sees AI as an emerging force that could shift the way audiences engage with stories. “We are just starting to see how AI might change interactions, not just watching, but sometimes influencing or even shaping them. Personalization and interactive formats may grow in the near future.” Yet, she emphasizes the human core of storytelling. “In film, most people come to a story because they want to be moved, not because they want to control it. AI can make things faster or more efficient, yes, but these are tools that don’t replace creative conversation.” Ultimately, for her, the filmmaker-audience relationship is built on trust, not tech. “No matter how much AI evolves, the story still needs to feel honest, human, and emotionally real.” For Baid, AI’s role in the editing room will be more about streamlining the mechanical than replacing the creative.
“I feel it will just declutter the processes that are very mechanical and will become better, but not the editor’s mind. Yeah, AI will make rough cuts instead, but the final cut will still need someone who understands tension, pacing, and human contradiction.”
What he finds more interesting and perhaps challenging is how AI could reshape audience expectations. With personalization driven by algorithms, he imagines a near future of “variable-length edits or adaptive storytelling tuned to your data. That could push editors to redefine the edit cards themselves as people become used to robotic outputs of the edits that follow a predictable pattern. That’s where the editor’s layer pitches in as to how do you create differentiation, not just fix something, but craft a curated emotional path?”
In his view, the next few years aren’t about losing the craft but redefining human authorship in a collaborative machine age. “AI will become like one of those partners you’ll have constantly with you. While it may compress some jobs, especially assistant or associate editor roles, yet it’s still early days to say anything finite. We still have to see where it lands eventually. Visual change will definitely happen, but when it comes to putting together a narrative through visuals, AI can only give you a framework. I don’t think you can edit a show or a feature film fully right now without the presence of human mind and human touch to see what you really want.” Nigam thinks that the fear that AI might take over storytelling is, at least for now, misplaced.
“Honestly, I don’t see AI replacing screenwriters in the next 5,10 or even 15 years. This is a creative field and screenwriting is deeply creative. Automation might work in template-based formats like in television or advertising where formula-driven storytelling already exists. But anywhere you need original thought, where the writing isn’t built out of a template, you will always need a writer. Rather look at AI as a tool, not a threat. I don’t feel fearful of AI. I feel it’s something that can help us if we use it the right way. That should be our goal to use it our way. It remains clear that while experiments will happen, in any kind of long-format content creation, I don’t see it as a replacement. Some people may try it, but it may not lead to any good results.”
AI in cinema is no longer futuristic idea, it is here in assisting, streamlining, and reshaping workflows. But as Amita Madhvani, Nitin Baid, and Sudeep Nigam point out, the heart of filmmaking still beats with human emotion and instinct. AI can offer efficiency, insights, and creative frameworks, but it can’t feel or capture the subtleties that make stories resonate. And that the real future lies in collaboration, not replacement where AI supports creativity without overshadowing it. Ultimately, it’s up to filmmakers to decide how far they let technology in, and how fiercely they protect the human soul of cinema!
What are your thoughts on this subject? Tell us in the comments below!
For more such conversations, follow us on @socialketchupbinge
/socialketchup/media/media_files/2025/10/15/desktop-leaderboard-2025-10-15-12-55-48.png)