AI written screenplays- I have read several AI generated screenplays recently. They suck. It is easy to sense what is human inspired and what is algorithmically derived.
AI is useful. Prompts require intelligent syntax. The results must be a springboard for the deep dive. The dive needs to be human driven.
Test it yourself. Write something, Write it well. Then feed it to an AI generator. Is the result better?
If it is better, post it here and we can discuss.
2 people like this
Truth!
4 people like this
As with any other tech, AI is a tool. I do not agree with most people that AI is useless as a tool to help screenwriters. If it's able to help everyone else in their own field, medicine, automation, faith, space, you name it, why is it bad for screenwriters? Now responsible usage of anything, including AI tech is a different discussion and that's where we need to talk more. How can we use it to help us do and be better writers? That's definitely where we need to be, in my humble opinion
4 people like this
Robert Franklin Godwin III I actually agree with you more than it might sound at first glance. I strongly dislike AI-generated scripts and anything that replaces human instinct or originality.
I personally use ChatGPT strictly as a structuring tool — to organize ideas that already exist, clarify format, or help untangle something that’s become too dense on the page. I’m very explicit about not wanting it to generate dialogue, rewrite voice, or make creative decisions.
For me, it’s a springboard, not a substitute. The imagination, emotional intent, and execution still have to be human-driven — otherwise it shows immediately.
2 people like this
TOM SCHAEFER Interesting, Tom. Can you post an example of your writing from the TOM-LLM and the result transformed through the AI engine? Two pages ought to do it. Eager to see your results!
3 people like this
!00% Couldn't agree more. AI cannot express human childhood trauma quite like a screenwriter can...
2 people like this
TOM SCHAEFER Interestingly enough, I had almost the opposite experience.
When I gave AI very strict, specific instructions about sentence structure, formatting, and narrative flow, the results actually broke down. One attempt returned a blank PDF with only the series title on the cover. Another condensed a 2,500+ word saga (nine chapters at the time) into roughly 500 words, stripping out the nuance and intent entirely.
For me, that reinforced that AI can be useful for structure, brainstorming, or certain technical applications — but when it comes to long-form storytelling, voice and pacing still require a human hand.
The same applied visually. I found it easier to rough-sketch my ideas myself — despite having no formal art background — than to wrestle AI image generation into something that actually matched what I was seeing in my head.
That said, I completely agree on the coding side. AI-assisted development is genuinely impressive when used correctly, especially with clear constraints and focused prompts. Like any tool, its effectiveness depends on where and how it’s applied.
3 people like this
i see this sooo often here when users post fragments of their scripts which make me want to tear my eyes out. No way any buyer with even more finely-tuned AI BS radar than me would ever read past the first page. as an experiment i ran a short story of mine through AI with clear instructions just to turn it into a screenplay without changing anything. GPT couldn’t help itself. huge chick’ chunks gouged out, leaving only its nauseating staccato lines trying but failing to channel Hemingway—awful, just dreck… and the screenplay formatting wasn’t even correct or consistent (you had one fvckin job, Chat)
1 person likes this
JAMES - Earnest Hemmingway, the drunken aggressive misogynistic journalist America so wanted to be its best author. As opposed to John Steinbeck who was Americas greatest author and they hated him because he didn't support the American Dream.
1 person likes this
hahaha ok chill david let’s keep this on topic
2 people like this
the app’s acting up again—posted the first para i just wrote but not the second para—i gotta stop using it, just rely on the web version from now on—anyone else having probs with the app?
3 people like this
James LO yes actually!! I posted in the introduce yourself lounge and for absolutely no reason, half my post was removed. Haha. Now that you mention it, it was while I was using the app, not the browser version. Might send an email informing them of the issue
Matthew and Tom thanks for weighing in and reassuring me that I’m not losing my mind hahaha
ok now let’s get back on topic and talk about the problems of letting AI do more than research and organisation (which it’s really fast at), and becoming seduced by its writing (which initially looks good, but becomes nauseating really quickly—IMO)
what’s been your experience?
2 people like this
The saying in the AI world is that it's not AI that will replace people's jobs, it's someone who knows AI. As a screenwriter and AI consultant for ethical integration, I'd refine that to: "It's the experienced artist who uses AI." But experienced means skilled in both prompting and the craft itself.
One challenge is that many prompts are too simple to produce useful results. I agree AI isn't the best storyteller, but there's a world of difference between a few-sentence prompt and a detailed one. There's also a big difference between AIs. ChatGPT and Gemini are solid, but Claude remains the favorite among writers I've worked with. The results I've demonstrated in class are night and day.
To be clear, I don't use AI to write stories. I use it as a first-round reviewer and error-catcher. More of a writing assistant. But if you haven't tried Claude, it's worth exploring.
Here's an example of the difference prompting makes:
Too simple: Act as a screenwriter with 30 years experience. Write a story about a man who came back from war and is trying to be a detective. He's been given a big case but has to fight the demons of his past while solving it. Give me a three-act story.
More effective: Act as a screenwriter and story editor for drama features with a budget up to $3M. Follow the Save the Cat structure. The story is about a man returning from Afghanistan, suffering from PTSD he tries to hide while building his detective agency. He takes on a major case. Give me five case options that are compelling and subtly mirror his emotional journey. He should end broken but changed. This case is his rebirth. Don't give me the full story; give me three options for each beat so I can choose and develop further.
3 people like this
Even worse that following Save the Cat, is telling your AI to follow the Save the Cat structure!
1 person likes this
as i've said, i don't use AI to write scenes or dialog for me--that's an absolute line i won't cross--not just for ethical reasons but because they're so transparently robotic and often hallucinatory. but i will ask AI for pros and cons in moving a scene from act 2 to act 3 in terms of story scaffolding, for example.
i'm gonna be specific now: i'm working on GUNPOWDER, which features two parallel narratives that take place in the same world--on the same day--but don't intersect, until 50 years later, when they briefly touch. spoiler alert one of my main themes is humanity vs post-humanity. when i ran my structural framework past GPT for comments, it responded:
Homo continuus co-exist with Homo sapiens the way we did with Neanderthals:
- briefly
- asymmetrically
- without understanding what was happening
understand: this is the story i was telling, 100%, but i had never framed the effect of my long interlude in those terms--not explicitly in the script, nor even to myself while laying out the plot. in 2.5 seconds, GPT read my underlying intent and wrapped it in a neat package--for me to dive deeper, or use in pitch/ explanatory materials. "to be honest?" i couldn't have put it better myself.
James LO "GPT read my underlying intent and wrapped it in a neat package". This is basic feedback and has value as it identified what you are doing. What you do with that insight is governed by your ability to tell a story. ChatGPT or other AI LLMs shouldn't be relied upon to tell you what to do or how it should be written. Otherwise. what is your contribution that makes it unique to you? The revelation your prompt provided is interesting, but I wonder why you didn't have some cognizance of what inspired in the first place.
Robert Franklin Godwin III you said you wondered why i didn’t have some cognisance of what inspired “it” in the first place. I’m afraid there’s some miscommunication — i wrote the parallel stories (of a human, and a robot which spoilers achieves post-humanity of sorts). these parallel stories don’t intersect except briefly in an epilogue set in the future. my writing was not based on AI suggestions and has not been changed by the AI comment which i quoted in my previous message.
all i was trying to say was that AI, after reading what i had written, explicitly compared my telling of the brief intersection of homo sapiens (us) and homo continuus (our post-human successors) to that of the historically real and likewise brief coexistence of neanderthals and homo sapiens. i hadn’t made that comparison in my script, and i was quite impressed when AI did. i was cognisant of what i myself had written, but i just hadn’t thought of the neanderthals comparison.
i hope this elaboration clarified my earlier statement.
1 person likes this
James LO it does.