Will AI rescue advertising creativity?

Andrew Lang's recent article in shots [The future is here, and it's human] was a thoughtful and impassioned piece, and quite likely spoke to a lot of people in the industry. 

I agree with some of the sentiment, but there is much I don't agree with. So, in the interest of debate, I thought I'd offer a different perspective. Not a rebuttal, exactly. More a dispatch from the other side of the fence.

I agree with some of the sentiment, but there is much I don't agree with.

All the way back in the summer of 2025, I, like Andrew, was pretty sure I didn't want to be "that kind of filmmaker". An 'AI filmmaker'. Whatever that was. I had spent years directing commercials, collaborating with wonderful crews and cast. I am also the creator of The MUTE Series – short comedic films made to three strict rules: no dialogue, no camera movement, and only one shot. It's about as back-to-basics as filmmaking gets, and entirely dependent on the deadpan nuances of skilled human performers.

Above: Some of Lambert's shorts from The MUTE Series. 

Gradually, though, my curiosity got the better of me and I started to give AI a try. Really, why would any filmmaker, when presented with a magic box that can transform all those incredible ideas in their head into an actual film, not want to use such a device? Why have a head full of unrealised ideas? Filmmakers gotta make films and with AI there's (almost) no financial, organisational or practical obstacle in your way.

The AI filmmaking process felt immediately familiar. The same decisions still applied – casting, location, lighting, art direction, performance. In fact, directing with AI means being bombarded with creative decisions every few seconds. Yes, the model will happily offer up generic, middle-of-the-road imagery if you let it, but just like on a live-action set, the director’s job is to fight that drift toward the average, pushing the tool out of its comfort zone to get the exact frame the idea demands.

Directing with AI means being bombarded with creative decisions every few seconds.

As I made more AI short films and ads the technology improved rapidly. Dialogue and subtle facial reactions are now possible and there's no reason to think that it won't get even better. Who knows what AI will mean for feature films, but I do feel it is incredibly well-suited for advertising. 

Not every brief will suit it – there will always be campaigns that demand the real thing – but with its ability to make striking short shots that can absolutely engender a range of human emotions in the viewer, machine-made images and commercials are, I believe, made for each other. 

Above: "Why would any filmmaker, when presented with a magic box that can transform all those incredible ideas in their head into an actual film, not want to use such a device?"

Plus, it does all this at a fraction of the cost of traditional filmmaking. It's no secret that advertising production budgets have been on a downward trajectory for the last two decades. The gap between what's actually on the table and the ambition of the creatives and clients is often elephantine. And yet, producers and crews are still expected to do the impossible on ever-shrinking resources. 

The AI revolution has the potential to herald a creative renaissance in advertising, a world where the best idea wins, not the biggest budget. 

My heart now sinks when I receive a script for a live-action project that the budget clearly can't support. 'Why don't they just do it in AI?', I think, and make something that can do justice to the idea, something with great production values, instead of something compromised at birth. 

It's true that the logical conclusion of this is that your local dentist can now make a commercial with the same production values as Nike or BMW. The idea of wowing the viewer with exotic locations, a cast of hundreds or elaborate VFX is no longer sufficient. But what happens, then, when all ads can have a Hollywood-level production look? I hope it means that the idea and execution will become the single most important differentiating factor in advertising. The AI revolution has the potential to herald a creative renaissance in advertising, a world where the best idea wins, not the biggest budget. 

Above: Audiences are only repelled by AI filmmaking if the films in question are mediocre.

As for the contract with the viewer, are audiences repelled by AI? If it looks fake and has a mediocre idea then, yes, they probably are. But as AI improves, I imagine the viewer won't particularly know or care if something is made by AI or not. After all, no-one is that conscious of how much CG is used in films and ads. Viewers will just respond to what they see. 

As AI improves, I imagine the viewer won't particularly know or care if something is made by AI or not.

If it connects with them, thrills them, amuses them, intrigues them, then why wouldn't it work? And none of these reactions strictly require a carbon-based life form to be standing in front of a lens. What is a camera anyway? A device that records light-reflecting surfaces in motion. And who's to say that every pixel of that recording can't be simulated perfectly – even every tear – by Seedance4 or Veo5? 

AI could also create new genres or revive old ones. Take sketch comedy. The expense of shooting multiple scenarios has all but pushed it off on TV, leaving it on life-support via shoestring social media productions. But the idea of making high-production-value comedy sketches that can be made quickly enough to respond to the events of the day is now possible with generative video. I put this to the test myself with my AI sketch The Oil Taker, recently featured on shots.