We may have only just passed the midpoint, but 2026 has already been quite the year for a certain subset of filmmakers suddenly embracing AI. Darren Aronofsky released his bizarre AI generated history series to Youtube¹, Hideo Kojima made a commercial with AI² for freaking Prada, and “peak cinema” director Martin Scorsese signed on to promote an AI company and touted it as the future of making movies³. Most recently, George Lucas proclaimed that AI was “inevitable” and makes it “easier for us to make movies.”⁴ It’s been very distressing.

But something I have noticed is that a lot of the big names who have suddenly pivoted to boosterism are those who would be considered “auteurs.” People who have been praised as being visionary, who are often presented as being the singular creative force behind their projects. “Great Men” etc etc.

I am not going to spend a lot of time discussing auteur theory except to say that films and TV shows and video games are all extremely collaborative art forms which rely on talents and efforts that go well beyond any one individual’s. What I do want to talk about, what has lodged itself in my brain lately, is if there is something about seeing yourself as an auteur that lends itself to jumping aboard the AI hype train.

It makes intuitive sense. If you view yourself as the singular vision behind your films or games, and if that is how you have been referred to in reviews and media, I would imagine that eventually you start to truly see yourself as the only indispensable part of the process. You are the genius, you are what makes these projects good and noteworthy. You are the one with the ideas and decision making skills that hold everything together. And when everything rests on you, everyone else is replaceable. So of course you can outsource storyboarding to AI. Of course you just prompt a series of images rather than actually film anything. Because the important thing is they are your ideas. That is all that matters.

There is a pernicious logic among AI boosters that having an idea is the most important and valuable part of a creative project. This is what they mean when they talk about AI “democratizing art.” They want to be rewarded for having an idea and feel that having to spend time actually working to bring that idea to fruition is beneath them, a waste of time. How dare anyone suggest they learn to draw in order to make the sick and totally cool image of a scantily clad Harley Quinn riding atop a Joker dragon a reality. Wasn’t coming up with the idea enough to earn them praise? Everything after the conception of that epic and not at all cringe visual is just grunt work.

I feel like this is what is happening with a lot of these auteur creators. They have had their own innate genius reinforced by their respective industries to the point that being able to prompt their ideas into existence without the need of input from anyone else is probably very appealing. By going through less collaborators the vision is somehow more pure, more true to the initial intent.

Needless to say, this is a very bad way to approach artistic endeavors. Being forced to work with others and having limitations placed on what you can and can’t do is a big part of the creative process and often leads to a better result.

Since Lucas stepped into the ring, let’s look at Star Wars as an example. Much of what makes the original so beloved were products of both technical limitations and Lucas’s many collaborators taking the reigns at various points. Famously his then wife salvaged the final run on the Death Star and turned it into an iconic set piece in the editing room⁵. Compare that to the prequels, where he had both access to greater technology that removed many of the limits he faced making the original and no one saying no or challenging his vision in any real capacity. The difference is notable.

We know that AI psychosis is real.⁶ In its attempts to keep you engaging with it as long as possible it will gas you up. It will back up and support your reasoning no matter how delusional. And if you are someone who sees themselves as a genius, a “great man,” this is in many ways what you have always wanted. No idea is too grand, too weird, too incoherent. Whatever the thought, AI will dutifully agree it is groundbreaking and do its best to realize the vision no questions asked.

The one glaring counter-example to this thesis is Guillermo Del Toro, a filmmaker who would absolutely be considered an auteur but who has been incredibly consistent, vocal, and absolute in his opposition to using AI in any way in any creative project. But not only is he a potential exception to prove the rule, but he is a nerd and dork in the most affectionate way. The man loves posting pics of the minis he is painting on his social media. He bankrolls stop-motion animation studios to preserve the artform.⁷ He is a lover of the process of art, not just the final product. Not just the acclaim. It’s why he so easily bounces between making critical darling award winners and absolute cheese fests like Pacific Rim. He is less concerned with whether he is seen as a visionary and more into just making things he enjoys.

Still, this thought, that the Auteurs are more susceptible to AI, has been with me for several weeks now. AI is an inherently isolating technology. It is the ultimate bubble; intimate, flattering, and reassuring of all your priors. It is the antithesis of collaboration. But that is a feature and not a bug if you see collaborating as a hindrance anyway. AI takes away the various layers of coordination and co-creation, allowing you to “do it all” yourself.

And as the driving creative vision and force behind your projects, isn’t that what you were doing anyway? Now things are streamlined, and you no longer need to wait on anyone else to execute your ideas. It is an understandable but terrible logic that will only make things worse.

Anyway, if it comes out that David Fincher backs AI, I will truly lose my mind.