With regard to Generative Artificial Intelligence and other digital tools used in the making of the film, the tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination. The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award.
But it’s icky because the issue of remuneration for legacy actors remains the unspoken part here. Actors train for their whole lives and these models have the potential to undermine the value of these actors.
I don’t have a problem with AI in filmmaking but I’d have a problem if AI actors were suddenly winning awards in the acting category.
Paired with the recent change that Oscar award judges are no longer allowed to skip parts of the media they’re reviewing (because apparently that was a thing), the number of AI slop movies is going to be absolutely gruelling for them to wade through.
One possible outcome is that this means AI kills the Oscars… but it’s more likely to get that watch-all rule rolled back.
And either way, it would probably mean that we’ll never see another 2001: A Space Odyssey again because a bunch of that movie looks like AI slop.
… I just realised this means that AI-generated movies could well end up being trained - accidentally or on purpose - to determine what would generate the most Oscars by exploiting underlying psychology that exists only in the sort of people who are employed as Oscar judges, but which somehow manages to mostly exclude everyone else.
That said, many people disagree with the Oscar nominations and awards anyway, so whether that makes any real difference is probably moot.
They shouldn’t care since “AI” doesn’t actually exist.
