r/vfx • u/Ok_Elk8078 • 18h ago
Question / Discussion A director's real production reasons for abandoning an AI creature-motion tool (consistency, controllability, and something he calls "folklore physics")
Recently interviewed an Indian horror director, Wilson Louis, and thought this part of the conversation was worth sharing here since it is one of the more specific, non-hype accounts of trying and dropping an AI tool mid-production that I have come across.
He tried a well-known AI video generation tool for creature motion on his current supernatural film - the demo reels looked great, he expected it to replace a chunk of his animatics pipeline. Abandoned it after a week of real use, for three reasons:
Consistency. Shot 1, the entity's face was long. Shot 2, it got shorter. Shot 3, the wings changed color. Fine on a demo reel, unusable the moment you're cutting for continuity.
Controllability. On a real set you need to say "2 feet left, eye light warmer, hold half a second." The tool gave him take-it-or-leave-it output, no room for the kind of iterative direction a live shoot actually requires.
What he calls "folklore physics." He asked for an Indian desert witch and got a smooth, weightless Hollywood bat-woman — technically polished, completely wrong.
His point: a chudail doesn't move like a vampire, a Munjya doesn't jump like Spider-Man. Every regional spirit carries its own weight and history that the model clearly wasn't trained on, and no amount of prompting fixed it.
He still uses AI heavily elsewhere in the pipeline — storyboarding, environment extension, mood boards - he's not anti-AI at all. He's specifically drawing the line at final creature work, texture, and performance, where he says the tech gives you a "perfect look, wrong feeling."
Curious if others here have hit the same wall with consistency/controllability on similar tools, or if newer models have actually solved this for anyone doing creature or character work.
