[skeledrew]

> A large studio production still retains the voice and editorial oversight of its director, which is why you can differentiate between films by their directors

None of that really matters. Ultimately films are rated based on how much they make at the box office, which is a function of the content, audience preferences and marketing. A director becomes well known by the impact of their production, not the other way around. Really doesn't matter - to the majority spending to see a given film - who the director was, beyond as a marker to find/avoid similar works in the future. If a director makes a crappy film with humans, they'll be known as a crappy director. And if they make a good film using AI, they'll be known as a good director (UNLESS there are a lot of specifically anti-AI people in the crowd AND it's known the film was made using primarily AI). And the good director will be praised for the artistry they put into the work.

[jcgrillo]

Well, before we get too far ahead of our skis, let's wait until someone makes a good film with AI. This company didn't, nor will they. It's not their business. Whether anyone ever will is an open question.