AI isn’t new to Hollywood — but this was the year when it really made its presence felt. For years now, the entertainment industry has used different kinds of generative AI products for a variety of post-production processes ranging from de-aging actors to removing green screen backgrounds. In many instances, the technology has been a useful tool for human artists tasked with tedious and painstaking labor that might have otherwise taken them inordinate amounts of time to complete. But in 2025, Hollywood really began warming to the idea of deploying the kind of gen AI that’s really only good for conjuring up text-to-video slop that doesn’t have all that many practical uses in traditional production workflows. Despite all of the money and effort being put into it, there’s yet to be a gen-AI project that has shown why it’s worth all of the hype.

This confluence of Hollywood and AI didn’t start out so rosy. Studios were in a prime position to take the companies behind this technology to court because their video generation models had clearly been trained on copyrighted intellectual property. A number of major production companies including Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. Discovery did file lawsuits against AI firms and their boosters for that very reason. But rather than pummeling AI purveyors into the ground, some of Hollywood’s biggest power players chose instead to get into bed with them. We have only just begun to see what can come from this new era of gen-AI partnerships, but all signs point to things getting much sloppier in the very near future.

Though many of this year’s gen-AI headlines were dominated by larger outfits like Google and OpenAI, we also saw a number of smaller players vying for a seat at the entertainment table. There was Asteria, Natasha Lyonne’s startup focused on developing film projects with “ethically” engineered video generation models, and startups like Showrunner, an Amazon-backed platform designed to let subscribers create animated “shows” (a very generous term) from just a few descriptive sentences plugged into Discord. These relatively new companies were all desperate to legitimize the idea that their flavor of gen AI could be used to supercharge film / TV development while bringing down overall production costs.

Asteria didn’t have anything more than hype to share with the public after announcing its first film, and it was hard to believe that normal people would be interested in paying for Showrunner’s shoddily cobbled-together knockoffs of shows made by actual animators. In the latter case, it felt very much like Showrunner’s real goal was to secure juicy partnerships with established studios like Disney that would lead to their tech being baked into platforms where users could prompt up bespoke content featuring recognizable characters from massive franchises.

That idea seemed fairly ridiculous when Showrunner first hit the scene because its models churn out the modern equivalent of clunky JibJab cartoons. But in due time, Disney made it clear that — crappy as text-to-video generators tend to be for anything beyond quick memes — it was interested in experimenting with that kind of content. In December, Disney entered into a three-year, billion-dollar licensing deal with OpenAI that would let Sora users make AI videos with 200 different characters from Star Wars, Marvel, and more.

Netflix became one of the first big studios to proudly announce that it was going all-in on gen AI. After using the technology to produce special effects for one of its original series, the streamer published a list of general guidelines it wanted its partners to follow if they planned to jump on the slop bandwagon as well. Though Netflix wasn’t mandating that filmmakers use gen AI, it made clear that saving money on VFX work was one of the main reasons it was coming out in support of the trend. And it wasn’t long before Amazon followed suit by releasing multiple Japanese anime series that were terribly localized into other languages because the dubbing process didn’t involve any human translators or voice actors.

Amazon’s gen-AI dubs became a shining example of how poorly this technology can perform. They also highlighted how some studios aren’t putting all that much effort into making sure that their gen AI-derived projects are polished enough to be released to the public. That was also true of Amazon’s machine-generated TV recaps, which frequently got details about different shows very wrong. Both of these fiascos made it seem as if Amazon somehow thought that people wouldn’t notice or care about AI’s inability to consistently generate high-quality outputs. The studio quickly pulled its AI-dubbed series and the recap feature down, but it didn’t say that it wouldn’t try this kind of nonsense again.

All of this and other dumb stunts like AI “actress” Tilly Norwood made it feel like certain segments of the entertainment industry were becoming more comfortable trying to foist gen-AI “entertainment” on people even though it left many people deeply unimpressed and put off. None of these projects demonstrated to the public why anyone except for money-pinching execs (and people who worship them for some reason) would be excited by a future shaped by this technology.

Aside from a few unimpressive images, we still haven’t seen what all might come from some of these collaborations, like Disney cozying up to OpenAI. But next year AI’s presence in Hollywood will be even more pronounced. Disney plans to dedicate an entire section of its streaming service to user-generated content sourced from Sora, and it will encourage Disney employees to use OpenAI’s ChatGPT products. But the deal’s real significance in this current moment is the message it sends to other studios about how they should move as Hollywood enters its slop era.

Regardless of whether Disney thinks this will work out well, the studio has signaled that it doesn’t want to be left behind if AI adoption keeps accelerating. That tells other production houses that they should follow suit, and if that becomes the case, there’s no telling how much more of this stuff we are all going to be forced to endure.

When your kid starts showing a preference for one of their stuffed animals, you’re supposed to buy a backup in case it goes missing.

I’ve heard this advice again and again, but never got around to buying a second plush deer once “Buddy” became my son’s obvious favorite. Neither, apparently, did the parents in Google’s newest ad for Gemini.

It’s the fictional but relatable story of two parents discovering their child’s favorite stuffed toy, a lamb named Mr. Fuzzy, was left behind on an airplane. They use Gemini to track down a replacement, but the new toy is on backorder. In the meantime, they stall by using Gemini to create images and videos showing Mr. Fuzzy on a worldwide solo adventure — wearing a beret in front of the Eiffel tower, running from a bull in Pamplona, that kind of thing — plus a clip where he explains to “Emma” that he can’t wait to rejoin her in five to eight business days. Adorable, or kinda weird, depending on how you look at it! But can Gemini actually do all of that? Only one way to find out.

I fed Gemini three pictures of Buddy, our real life Mr. Fuzzy, from different angles, and gave it the same prompt that’s in the ad: “find this stuffed animal to buy ASAP.” It returned a couple of likely candidates. But when I expanded its response to show its thinking I found the full eighteen hundred word essay detailing the twists and turns of its search as it considered and reconsidered whether Buddy is a dog, a bunny, or something else. It is bananas, including real phrases like “I am considering the puppy hypothesis,” “The tag is a loop on the butt,” and “I’m now back in the rabbit hole!” By the end, Gemini kind of threw its hands up and suggested that the toy might be from Target and was likely discontinued, and that I should check eBay.

In fairness, Buddy is a little bit hard to read. His features lean generic cute woodland creature, his care tag has long since been discarded, and we’re not even 100 percent sure who gave him to us. He is, however, definitely made by Mary Meyer, per the loop on his butt. He does seem to be from the “Putty” collection, which is a path Gemini went down a couple of times, and is probably a fawn that was discontinued sometime around 2021. That’s the conclusion I came to on my own, after about 20 minutes of Googling and no help from AI. The AI blurb when I do a reverse image search on one of my photos confidently declares him to be a puppy.

Gemini did a better job with the second half of the assignment, but it wasn’t quite as easy as the ad makes it look. I started with a different photo of Buddy — one where he’s actually on a plane in my son’s arms — and gave it the next prompt: “make a photo of the deer on his next flight.” The result is pretty good, but his lower half is obscured in the source image so the feet aren’t quite right. Close enough, though.

The ad doesn’t show the full prompt for the next two photos, so I went with: “Now make a photo of the same deer in front of the Grand Canyon.” And it did just that — with the airplane seatbelt and headphones, too. I was more specific with my next prompt, added a camera in his hands, and got something more convincing.

I can see how Gemini misinterpreted my prompt. I was trying to keep it simple, and requested a photo of the same deer “at a family reunion.” I did not specify his family reunion. So that’s how he ended up crashing the Johnson family reunion — a gathering of humans. I can only assume that Gemini took my last name as a starting point here because it sure wasn’t in my prompt, and when I requested that Gemini created a new family reunion scene of his family, it just swapped the people for stuffed deer. There are even little placards on the table that say “deer reunion.” Reader, I screamed.

For the last portion of the ad, the couple use Gemini to create cute little videos of Mr. Fuzzy getting increasingly adventurous: snowboarding, white water rafting, skydiving, before finally appearing in a spacesuit on the moon addressing “Emma” directly. The commercial whips through all these clips quickly, which feels like a little sleight of hand given that Gemini takes at least a couple of minutes to create a video. And even on my Gemini Pro account, I’m limited to three generated videos per day. It would take a few days to get all of those clips right.

Gemini wouldn’t make a video based on any image of my kid holding the stuffed deer, probably thanks to some welcome guardrails preventing it from generating deepfakes of babies. I started with the only photo I had on hand of Buddy on his own: hanging upside down, air-drying after a trip through the washer. And that’s how he appears in the first clip it generated from this prompt: Temu Buddy hanging upside down in space before dropping into place, morphing into a right-side-up astronaut, and delivering the dialogue I requested.

A second prompt with a clear photo of Buddy right-side-up seemed to mash up elements of the previous video with the new one, so I started a brand new chat to see if I could get it working from scratch. Honestly? Nailed it. Aside from the antlers, which Gemini keeps sneaking in. But this clip also brought one nagging question to the forefront: should you do any of this when your kid loses a beloved toy?

I gave Buddy the same dialogue as in the commercial, using my son’s name rather than Emma. Hearing that same manufactured voice say my kid’s name out loud set alarm bells off in my head. An AI generated Buddy in front of the Eiffel Tower? Sorta weird, sorta cute. AI Buddy addressing my son by name? Nope, absolutely not, no thank you.

How much, and when, to lie to your kids is a philosophical debate you have with yourself over and over as a parent. Do you swap in the identical stuffie you had in a closet when the original goes missing and pretend it’s all the same? Do you tell them the truth and take it as an opportunity to learn about grief? Do you just need to buy yourself a little extra time before you have that conversation, and enlist AI to help you make a believable case? I wouldn’t blame any parent choosing any of the above. But personally, I draw the line at an AI character talking directly to my kid. I never showed him these AI-generated versions of Buddy, and I plan to keep it that way.

But back to the less morally complex question: can Gemini actually do all of the things that it does in the commercial? More or less. But there’s an awful lot of careful prompting and re-prompting you’d have to do to get those results. It’s telling that throughout most of the ad you don’t see the full prompt that’s supposedly generating the results on screen. A lot depends on your source material, too. Gemini wouldn’t produce any kind of video based on an image in which my kid was holding Buddy — for good reason! But this does mean that if you don’t have the right kind of photo on hand, you’re going to have a very hard time generating believable videos of Mr. Sniffles or whoever hitting the ski slopes.

Like many other elder millennials, I think about Calvin and Hobbes a lot. Bill Watterson famously refused to commercialize his characters, because he wanted to keep them alive in our imaginations rather than on a screen. He insisted that having an actor give Hobbes a voice would change the relationship between the reader and the character, and I think he’s right. The bond between a kid and a stuffed animal is real and kinda magical; whoever Buddy is in my kid’s imagination, I don’t want AI overwriting that.

The great cruelty of it all is knowing that there’s an expiration date on that relationship. When I became a parent, I wasn’t at all prepared for the way my toddler nuzzling his stuffed deer would crack my heart right open. It’s so pure and sweet, but it always makes me a little sad at the same time, knowing that the days where he looks for comfort from a stuffed animal like Buddy are numbered. He’s going to outgrow it all, and I’m not prepared for that reality. Maybe as much as we’re trying to save our kids some heartbreak over their lost companion, we’re really trying to delay ours, too.

All images and videos in this story were generated by Google Gemini.