Why GenAI is Going to Win Hollywood

Box-office figures are snapshots. The video reflects figures recorded during editing; article figures were checked October 28, 2026.

The last month changed Hollywood and showed why GenAI is going to win and have a place in Hollywood.

We’ve watched ambitious animated films introduce new worlds and stories, then struggle to attract the enormous audiences needed to justify their budgets. At the same time, creators using AI are making films that, as far as I’m concerned, are already ready for paying audiences.

For filmmakers who want to tell original stories, this is a very very big deal. If we can bring the cost of making those films down while delivering something people love, we can get more projects funded, tell more innovative stories, and give more creators a way to keep working.

Let’s look at what’s happening.

Wildwood, Forgotten Island, and the challenge of introducing a new world

My two big examples are Wildwood and Forgotten Island. Wildwood is a pinnacle of animation greatness, of what can be achieved when the highest form of human craft is brought to bear. I look at the work LAIKA has put into that film and see something beautiful, ambitious, and full of creative vision. It’s based on a book, but it’s introducing audiences to a world most don't know about, outside an established movie franchise. It’s exactly the kind of project I want filmmakers to keep making.

Wildwood opened to approximately $12.2 million domestically, with an early worldwide total around $15.2 million, against a reported production budget of $100 million. It’s still early in the run, and we’ll see how it does over time. But a filmmaker trying to finance something at that budget has a very very high number to reach. Opening results and budget reporting.

Forgotten Island is also on my example block. DreamWorks introduced an original story, and they created a world and characters that show why we love cinema. Rich in personality, story, world design, and thematic meaning. But its worldwide box office is around $70.5 million so far against a reported $80 million production budget. Its run is still ongoing too but it looks to be a loss and a painful one. The filmmakers did an amazing job, and I'm sad audiences aren't showing up to see that work. Budget and box-office figures.

As a producer, I want to see more filmmakers get opportunities to make these kinds of projects. But somebody has to put up the money, and they need a reasonable chance of earning it back so they can fund another film. If they are losing money, they eventually run out and stop making films like these. Then we all get nothing.

Let’s look at the economics of animation

When you’re putting a film together, you have to think about how much it will cost, who will watch it, and how the people funding it can earn their money back. You can love a project and still have a very difficult time making those numbers work.

Here’s a selection of animated films released from 2022 through 2026. These are reported production budgets and worldwide theatrical grosses, rounded to the nearest million. Figures were checked October 28, 2026; Forgotten Island is still in release.

Production budgets generally exclude marketing, and theaters keep part of every ticket sale. Worldwide box office is the amount moviegoers spent, before the studio or distributor receives its share. Streaming, home entertainment, licensing, and other revenue also matter when working out whether a film ultimately made money.

Looking beyond the examples in the table, I compared 30 animated theatrical releases from 2022 through October 2026. Here’s what their reported production budgets and worldwide box office averaged:

If we combine the franchises and book adaptations, those 21 films averaged $111.3 million in production costs and $673.8 million worldwide. The originals cost more on average while bringing in about a third of that box office. That creates a very very difficult situation for the people deciding whether to fund another film.

But look at what happens when we separate the book adaptations. Their average worldwide box office was $186.8 million, below the originals’ $220.4 million, with Wildwood still early in release. Established franchises drive the much higher average. Adapting a book and asking audiences to discover a new movie world carries a different commercial position from making another Toy Story.

That is a huge part of the financing problem. An original story, or a first adaptation, can find an audience that loves it and still struggle to bring in enough money at the budget it was made for. A studio looking at those numbers has a strong financial reason to fund another familiar franchise. Many new ideas have a much harder time getting made at all.

This is a selected comparison, not a complete industry survey. The averages describe these 30 films. The biggest hits pull the averages up, and the four book adaptations include Wildwood while it is still early in release. Worldwide totals also include Forgotten Island’s ongoing run as of October 28. Flow and films released primarily through streaming are kept separate.

You can see why a studio would want another Toy Story or Inside Out. Those characters already have audiences who know them, love them, and want to spend more time with them. A filmmaker introducing a new world has to get people interested enough to buy a ticket in the first place.

There are substantial audiences for new stories too. Hoppers brought in about $390 million worldwide against a $150 million production budget. GOAT reached about $195 million on an $80 million budget. Migration earned about $301 million against $72 million, and The Wild Robot, a first book adaptation, earned about $335 million on $78 million. Elemental found a substantial audience over its run. And Lightyear shows how an established franchise can still struggle to bring in enough money for an expensive production.

People will watch original films. They will! The difficult part is consistently bringing in an audience large enough to support what those films cost. That audience can already exist, and the economics can still prevent the next original film from getting funded.

A smaller audience could support a much smaller budget

This is why so many original films struggle to get financed: an audience can exist without being large enough to support the budget. If GenAI brings that budget down substantially, many more of those films could become viable.

Let’s use a hypothetical example. A film that costs $100 million to produce and makes $30 million at the worldwide box office has a serious financial problem.

Now imagine filmmakers could make a compelling film for $5 million, with the quality and storytelling to attract that same $30 million audience. They would have much more room to cover their costs and potentially earn enough to make another film. Marketing and distribution would still have to fit, and the producer would receive only a portion of those ticket sales. But the amount they would need to recover would be dramatically different.

Flow is an interesting comparison from outside Hollywood. Its filmmakers worked with a budget of €3.5 million, and its sales company reported that it had passed $50 million at the worldwide box office by June 2025. It also won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature. Budget and filmmakers’ account, reported box-office milestone, Academy record.

A filmmaker can reach far fewer people than a billion-dollar franchise film reaches and still make something meaningful that people will pay to see. Flow’s team used Blender to bring the film to life on a much smaller production budget. It shows what a different technological approach can make possible in animation.

This is where GenAI could dramatically accelerate original filmmaking. If creators can deliver films audiences want at a much lower total cost, then projects that were too risky to finance could become viable. A smaller audience could support the film. That film could help fund the next one. And more people could get a chance to make something original.

We have audiences for these stories already. Bringing the cost within what those audiences can support could open up an enormous amount of filmmaking.

The quality is already there, Machine Cinema is showing it

I went to the Machine Cinema screening during SF Tech Week, and as far as I’m concerned, the films I was watching were at the level of what we’ve seen in Netflix’s Love, Death & Robots. That’s a series I look at as some of the most innovative, creatively ambitious work being made with animation and technology.

Films like Pequeña Máquina, KITA, and Oneiric made that feel very real to me. Pequeña Máquina is by Alexandre (Arlo) Garnier with Nura Studios; KITA is by Jidenna Mobisson with Wonder Studios; and Oneiric is directed by Malik Zenger, from Higgsfield Originals.

Some of what I saw was already audience-ready. NOW. I would happily watch more of it.

Watching those films made the economic opportunity feel much more immediate to me. Creators are already making work I want to watch. I want to see them build a production process they can afford to repeat, find their audience, and get paid enough to keep going.

A finished short and a full feature are different production challenges of course. But I remember my time at USC seeing my fellow students make short films, then get hired to make big-budget full-length features and succeed at that. The $5 million example is a possibility I want to explore, and we’ll need real production budgets to understand how far we can take it.

I could see some of this work finding a home in an anthology, like Love, Death & Robots, while other projects grow into features. Creators could try different formats depending on the story they want to tell and the resources they have.

Giving more creators a way to keep making films

We also have to get the films in front of people. A creator could have an excellent film and still need help finding distribution, attracting an audience, and giving those people a reason to watch. Making the film at a lower cost gives them more room, but they still have to make the whole business work.

What excites me is how many people have ideas they’ve never had the money or access to make. If they can make something people love at a cost those audiences can support, then they can get the next project funded. More filmmakers can take chances on stories that mean something to them, and more interesting, innovative ideas can get out into the world. That could lead to a huge acceleration in how many original films get made.

For me, that’s how GenAI wins in filmmaking: by making it possible for many more people to create something worth watching and earn enough to do it again.

I want to see those films. I’m excited to see who gets to make them.

Stephen