Imagine a world where Hollywood’s gatekeepers—those who decide which stories make it to the big screen—are no longer human, but machines. This isn’t science fiction; it’s happening right now. Morris Chapdelaine, an indie producer drowning in a sea of unread scripts, found himself at a crossroads. With a daunting pile of screenplays on his desk, he turned to artificial intelligence for help. Despite initial skepticism—“Some of it scares me,” he admits—Chapdelaine embraced tools like Greenlight Coverage, an AI platform that summarizes scripts, grades elements like plot and dialogue, and even delivers a verdict: Pass, Consider, or Recommend. The result? AI doubled his reading pace and, surprisingly, felt more honest than human feedback. But here’s where it gets controversial: Could AI replace the very humans who’ve long been Hollywood’s first line of defense against mediocre storytelling?
AI’s ability to summarize written material is undeniable, and its encroachment into the film industry is already underway. At agencies like WME, AI tools like ScriptSense help sort submissions and track client work. Aspiring screenwriters are also turning to AI for feedback, though sometimes the praise feels a bit too generous. Meanwhile, at major studios, human story analysts—the traditional threshing machines separating cinematic wheat from chaff—are watching nervously as AI creeps into their workflows. Jason Hallock, a story analyst at Paramount, recalls his first unsettling encounter with ChatGPT: “How quickly am I going to be replaced? Is it six weeks? Or six months?”
To confront this question head-on, Hallock teamed up with the Editors Guild to pit AI against human analysts in a head-to-head competition. The results were both reassuring and alarming. AI-generated loglines were nearly indistinguishable from human ones, but when it came to deeper analysis—like identifying character growth or plot inconsistencies—AI fell short. And this is the part most people miss: While AI can summarize and distill, it struggles to care. As Holly Sklar, a veteran analyst at Warner Bros., puts it, “An LLM can’t care.” Yet, AI proponents argue it can make the process more efficient and objective, potentially giving new voices a chance. But at what cost?
Kartik Hosanagar, the mind behind ScriptSense, sees AI as a solution to Hollywood’s unread pile. “This is a great way to clear the pile and figure out where to focus your attention,” he says. But not everyone is convinced. Alegre Rodriquez, an Editors Guild analyst, admits, “Nobody wants to lose their job, but we’re not sticking our heads in the sand. We’re asking, ‘How do I stay in this game?’”
The debate intensifies when it comes to AI’s role in creative judgment. Jack Zhang, founder of Greenlight, believes AI excels at being the “average”—ideal for reaching a broad audience. Yet, Hallock’s study revealed AI’s tendency to cheerlead rather than critique. A romantic comedy praised by AI as “a compelling, well-crafted coming-of-age story” was dismissed by a human reader as “lacking bite.” Is AI too sycophantic to be truly critical? Hosanagar admits, “We’re not there yet.”
While some analysts find solace in AI’s limitations—it can’t spot originality or brilliance—others worry about the industry’s future. Chris Giliberti, CEO of Avail, insists AI is here to enhance, not replace, human work. But Sklar fears a younger generation might prioritize AI summaries over human insight. “That’s what keeps me up at night,” she says.
Here’s the million-dollar question: Can AI ever truly understand what makes a story resonate? Or will it always be a tool that, while efficient, lacks the soul to separate art from algorithm? As Hollywood stands at this crossroads, one thing is clear: the battle between humans and machines is just beginning. What do you think? Is AI the future of storytelling, or will it always fall short of the human touch? Let’s debate in the comments.
