Filmmaking / Directing : AI Actors & AI‑Written Scripts Now Ineligible for Oscars by Sandra Correia

That's really good news they've made this statement. Will be interesting as AI is more and more developed who analyzes the films to confirm this.

Sandra Correia I don't know that it means anything in itself. AI actors would never be eligible for an oscar, any more than any other animated character. The VO actor would and I believe they still would. So far as AI scripts... nice gesture but by mathematical fiat, AI cannot produce anything that is not average. So... you know. I doubt it will stop the zillion or so untalented who think that they can be famous with an AI generated script, but that's just a momentary phenom, IMO.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai , I get what you mean, especially about AI “actors” being closer to animated characters than actual performers. And yes, the VO or mocap actor would still be the one recognized. That part hasn’t really changed.

Where I think this update matters is less about AI’s abilities and more about the Academy putting a clear boundary in writing before things get messy. With all the talk around scans, likeness rights, and studios experimenting with digital doubles, it feels like they wanted to say, “This is the line, performance is human.”

And with scripts, I agree that AI tends to flatten everything into the middle. But the ruling still sends a message: you can’t replace the writer and call it award‑eligible. Even if people keep trying to churn out AI scripts, at least the industry isn’t validating that path.

So for me, it’s more about protecting the craft and the people behind it than about AI’s actual output.

Xochi Blymyer, thought the same. It’s reassuring to see the Academy make the statement, but the real test will be how they verify it as AI tools get more sophisticated. Right now it’s pretty easy to tell when something is AI‑generated, but in a few years the lines may blur.

The Academy has officially updated its rules to clarify that AI actors and AI‑generated performances will not be eligible for Oscar consideration, and the same goes for AI‑written screenplays. Only real human performers and human‑authored scripts qualify. I say bravo!

Likewise my friend <3 I say BRAVO too Pat Savage :)

i haven’t really been keeping up with all the academy stuff around AI but i saw this post and it hit that weird insecurity i always get about using AI in my own process. i’m not out here like, trying to replace actors or writers and i don’t even know if my script will ever get produced (finger crossed) or if it’ll just live with me, but AI has been a helpful tool while i’m figuring out emotional logic/structure buuut at the same time there’s always this little voice that makes me feel like i’m doing something wrong or taking shortcuts just because of my usage

seeing the academy draw a line honestly clarifies that maybe hollywood isn’t gonna die as soon as we thought LOL

i know in my case- the work i’m doing still depends on MY human instincts and MY lived experience. AI just helps me think (barely) but it’s not what gives my work its soul. it’s just part of how i get unstuck & see things from another angle kinda thing

thanks for sharing the update though sandra!

This is going to be interesting to see how it gets interpreted. There are lots of cases where there is a human artist supporting - whether it is the characters in Planet of the Apes, Smeagle or even Rocky in PHM. The language suggests that as long as there is a human supporting the character - and it is not fully computer generated, then that would be eligible, and that makes sense. From what I can tell there are a lot of people using a performance actor to do the motion, and then use AI as a VFX layer to translate that into character movement. Im guessing that still is eligible. If there is no human behind the character, who would receive the award? :D

Sandra, I’d like to share my perspective on why artificial intelligence will never replace a human — and I think this is partly connected to why it’s no longer being considered for the Oscars.

Every film is about feelings. The feelings of the writer, the director, and the actors. When a writer creates a script, they feel what they’re writing and truly live through the theme. When a director shoots a film, they feel how it should be shaped in order to engage the audience. And when an actor performs, they feel how to embody a role in a truthful way.

Artificial intelligence cannot feel, and because of that, it will never create what a human being can create.

At the same time, AI has very useful functions. For example, I personally use it as a kind of writing tool, especially because I have vision difficulties. Right now, I’m working on a project where I need to clarify details about churches, humor, and environments. Instead of spending days searching for information, I can simply ask ChatGPT and quickly understand how things work in different regions.

But when it comes to creating a truly meaningful film — that remains something only a human can do.

Sandra Correia I’m surprised that this is really something which is deemed worthy consideration. Or does it show us how desperate the studio industry is to even be thinking that this would ever be possible. A few years ago, the American courts decided that AI generated material couldn’t be copyrighted, so it’s been a non-flyer for years.

Romel Simmons, I get that feeling completely. A lot of us had that same insecurity at first, like using AI meant we were somehow “cheating” or skipping steps. But what you’re describing isn’t replacing anything. You’re still the one making the choices, shaping the emotional logic, and bringing your lived experience to the page. AI isn’t giving your script its soul — you are.

And honestly, the Academy drawing this line actually makes things clearer. It shows there’s room for AI as a tool without threatening the human part of the work. Hollywood isn’t going anywhere.

If AI helps you get unstuck or see a beat from a new angle, that’s just part of your process. Every writer has their own way in. And I’m glad the update helped ease that pressure a bit. My pleasure and happy for that Romel :))

Vijay Anand, yeah, that’s exactly how I’m reading it too. As long as there’s a real human performance underneath, like Serkis, the Planet of the Apes cast, or even the digital work done on Rocky, it still counts. The Academy seems to be drawing the line at fully computer‑generated characters with no human performer behind them.

A lot of what people call “AI” right now is really just a VFX layer translating a human actor’s movement, so I’m guessing that stays eligible. And honestly, you’re right; if there’s no human behind the character, who would they even give the award to?

Aleksandr Rozhnov, this is beautifully said. You’re right, films are built on human feeling at every stage, and that’s the part AI can’t touch. It can help us think, research, organize, or see options, but it can’t live a moment or translate emotion the way a person can.

And honestly, the way you’re using it makes total sense. If it helps you navigate research or fill in details you’d otherwise spend days digging for, that’s just a tool supporting your process, not replacing it. The heart of the work still comes from you, your instincts, and your experience.

I think that’s exactly why the Academy drew the line. AI can assist, but it can’t create meaning. That part stays human.

Hi Geoff Hall :)) I get what you mean. It’s wild that this even had to be clarified, but it does show how far the studios were willing to push the idea. And you’re right; the copyright ruling already made fully AI‑generated work a dead end. This just reinforces it on the creative side. It feels less like a new decision and more like the Academy finally catching up to the reality everyone else already knew. I think it’s a good thing because they’re setting their own boundaries at the same time.

That’s also quite an interesting question: where does the human end and artificial intelligence begin?

Let me give you an example. A person comes up with a very simple scene: two men arguing and shouting at each other. But then artificial intelligence expands it — it defines the setting, describes what exactly they are yelling, and adds details to the moment.

So the question is: should this scene be considered created by the human, since they came up with the core idea, the direction of the events, and what is happening in that moment? Or is it already the work of artificial intelligence, which dressed the characters, shaped their emotions, and defined what they say to each other?

Technology can support the creative process, but at the core of any story there is human experience and emotion. that’s what truly resonates with the audience. Maybe it’s not about who or what wrote it, but whether the story makes people feel.

Aleksandr Rozhnov, I’d say it this simply: the human creates the intention, and the AI creates the options. The scene is still the writer’s, because the meaning, the stakes, and the emotional direction come from them. AI is just filling in texture. IMO

Muzafar Batyrkhodzhaev, I agree, at the end of the day, the thing that actually reaches people isn’t the tool; it’s the feeling. Technology can help shape a moment, but it can’t originate the lived experience behind it.

For me, the line is simple: AI can generate words, but only a human can generate meaning. If a story moves someone, it’s because a human intention was there first, the emotion, the perspective, the truth underneath the scene. AI can support that, but it can’t replace it.

By the way, I’ll also say this: artificial intelligence works strictly according to standards and rules. But the world is built in such a way that very often you have to step outside those rules and standards, otherwise you simply won’t survive. That’s why I think it will be very difficult, almost impossible, for artificial intelligence to replace people

Very thoughtful post, Sandra.

I believe the Academy’s decision is less about technology itself and more about protecting the origin of human intention inside storytelling.

Because cinema has never been purely about information delivery.

It is about emotional transference.

And that process is profoundly human.

A screenplay is not simply a sequence of structurally correct scenes.

It is:

* subconscious association

* contradiction

* memory residue

* emotional bias

* personal fear

* psychological vulnerability translated into narrative form

That is why two scripts can contain identical plot mechanics —

yet one feels alive while the other feels mathematically assembled.

The same applies to performance.

Great acting is not merely facial replication or vocal realism.

It is the invisible psychological tension between:

* thought and speech

* impulse and restraint

* emotion and suppression

The audience is not reacting to perfect behavior.

They are reacting to human unpredictability.

And unpredictability is extraordinarily difficult to synthesize authentically because it emerges from lived contradiction.

I also think this decision quietly acknowledges something deeper about cinema:

Audiences do not connect to perfection.

They connect to human imperfection carrying emotional truth.

Ironically, many of the greatest performances in film history are powerful precisely because they contain micro-imperfections:

* hesitation

* fragmented rhythm

* emotional leakage

* asymmetrical reactions

* silence under pressure

Those elements create psychological authenticity.

From a directing and script development perspective, I see AI becoming extremely valuable in:

* visualization workflows

* structural analysis

* iterative concept exploration

* production acceleration

* research support

But authorship is something different.

Authorship is not just generating narrative patterns.

It is making emotionally meaningful choices under uncertainty.

And that may remain fundamentally human for a very long time.

What fascinates me most is that the more AI evolves, the more valuable genuinely human storytelling may actually become.

Because in an age of synthetic content abundance, emotional authenticity becomes premium currency.

Excellent discussion.