A24's AI-Driven Indie Civil War Film Sparks Debate

A24, the independent film distributor known for its distinctive approach to releasing movies, especially in genres like contemporary horror and art-house cinema, has brought films like "Everything Everywhere All at Once," "Hereditary," and "The Lobster" to audiences. This reputation has made its films favorites among many cinephiles in the indie cinema scene.

However, A24 has recently faced significant criticism for using generative AI to create promotional posters for its new film "Civil War." What specifically has caused such a strong reaction?

Netizens have started mocking A24 by calling it A.I.24.(Source: X)

Netflix and HBO Also Implicated

"Civil War," directed by Alex Garland, whose notable work "Ex Machina" (also distributed by A24) ironically warns of AI dangers, depicts a near-future America where California and Texas secede to form an alliance against an authoritarian president. The film resonates with the increasingly polarized political climate in the United States, prompting viewers to ponder its potential to predict America's future. The film's box office success and high level of discussion attest to its impact.

Amidst this buzz, A24 released five images on Instagram on April 18, illustrating America ravaged by war. However, netizens quickly pointed out several bizarre anomalies. For instance, a poster of Los Angeles featured a swan as large as a hovercraft; a Miami street depicted a destroyed car with three side doors; and Chicago's Marina City Towers, which are adjacent in reality, were shown as separated by the river...

The left image displays an A24 poster, which significantly differs from the actual appearance of the waterfront skyscrapers shown on the right. (Source: A24, X)

A closer inspection of the poster reveals a car with three side doors, raising doubts about whether A24 staff adequately reviewed the images.(Source: A24, X)

Similarly, Netflix's true crime documentary "What Jennifer Did" has been criticized for featuring photos of the subject, Jennifer Pan, that appear unnatural, as though they were created by generative AI. Meanwhile, HBO's "True Detective" Season 4 faced criticism for using a fake poster featuring K-pop girl group IVE in a miner's room, which looked crude and cult-like; another incident involved a poster of the band Kiss, mistakenly labeled with another band's name, Metallica.

Jennifer Pan's fingers appear unnatural, bordering on the uncanny valley effect. Despite this, Netflix insists that these are authentic photos of her.(Source: X)

The two fake band posters in "True Detective" reveal that the 40-year-old miner is not only a K-pop fan but also loves metal, showcasing his diverse tastes. (Source: X)

AI Sparks Debate on Authenticity and Ethics

These examples have sparked protests on social media. Beyond the glaring, amateurish mistakes made by generative AI, there are subtle differences between the cases. A24's situation appears as a capitulation to AI, contradicting their image as a purveyor of niche, cult-status, yet refined indie cinema films, leading fans to feel that the company has lost its edge. As one user on X commented, "You make yourselves out to be paragons of cool and champions of indie film, then you go and do a loser thing like use AI, which is built on stolen art?"

Netflix's "What Jennifer Did" raises ethical concerns related to true crime documentaries: Can a work that claims to seek the truth utilize potentially false materials? Moreover, the public discourse generated by a possibly fabricated documentary can impact the real-life individuals involved in the case. Regarding "True Detective," as summarized by the online media Futurism, would a 40-year-old, blue-collar miner realistically be a fan of a Korean girl group?

Is AI Inevitable in Film and Television?

The responses from the three companies reveal much about how they perceive their public image. A24 and HBO have openly admitted to using generative AI for their images, while the producer of Netflix's "What Jennifer Did" ambiguously stated that "any film production uses a variety of tools, including Photoshop." Netflix CEO Greg Peters has even suggested their commitment to providing and developing new tools for storytellers, including generative AI.

OpenAI's Sora is also making waves, having met with Hollywood executives and released a batch of works co-created with professional image studios. Some visual artists believe the chaotic illusions of AI models can actually stimulate inspiration.

Given that capital ultimately seeks to reduce costs, it seems inevitable that AI's influence in movies and TV series will increase. However, revisiting Microsoft's AI report and considering the mishaps of companies like A24, it appears that a 'sandwich approach' to AI use—where humans with authority and creativity lead, AI handles execution, and humans review the outcome—can balance output and quality.

Alternatively, AI production could become a distinguishing method in filmmaking, similar to directors who prefer on-location shooting and minimal use of green screens, like Christopher Nolan and George Miller of "Mad Max: Fury Road."

Would you boycott a movie or series for using AI, or does quality trump the method of production? Perhaps we (including A24) need to return to the original intent—whether the story offers an interesting perspective. That might be what most audiences truly demand.

Finally, here's a fan-made poster for "Civil War," which instantly gives it the appearance of a B-movie. (Source: X)