Recently, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which runs the Oscars, released new eligibility rules: films that use AI or other digital technologies are officially allowed to compete for all major awards, including Best Picture.

This announcement immediately reignited the debate over “AI entering the film industry,” since it’s the first time the Oscars have explicitly mentioned AI in their official rules.

The Academy’s stance is clear: the use of AI will neither increase nor decrease a film’s chances of being nominated. In other words, AI isn’t the problem—as long as the final work is good enough, it can compete. This policy was actually recommended by the Academy’s Science and Technology Council and reflects an open attitude toward technological change: they don’t want to exclude new tools, but they still care about creativity and quality above all.

That said, they do have a bottom line. While the rules recognize AI as a legitimate tool, Academy voters will still consider “human creative contribution” a key factor in selecting winners. AI is just that—a tool, not a replacement for true artistic vision.

Why did they make that explicit?

There’s a very real reason behind it: AI is already being used in Hollywood, and it’s not just a novelty—it’s become a serious production tool.

Take a recent high-profile example from the 97th Oscars: the much-talked-about film The Brutalist. Despite its relatively modest budget ($9.6 million), it had huge ambitions. To deliver top-tier quality on a tight schedule, the production relied heavily on AI technology.

For example, Adrian Brody portrays a Hungarian-Jewish architect who needs to deliver his English lines with a perfect Hungarian accent and also speak Hungarian convincingly. Brody put in serious effort to learn, but Hungarian is notoriously hard. To make sure the accent was perfect—even to native speakers—the production used Respeecher, a Ukrainian AI company, to “re-speak” his recorded lines with subtle phonetic refinements.

Most viewers had no idea AI was involved because the result was so smooth. They still heard Brody’s own voice and performance—just polished by AI to make the character fully convincing.

Parts of the film’s concept art and architectural sketches were also created with generative AI tools like MidJourney. Traditional art departments might take ages to produce dozens of style variations, while AI could instantly generate them for the team to select and refine. This saved time and money while maintaining high artistic standards.

In short, The Brutalist is a great example of AI not “stealing” anyone’s job but helping a small-budget film achieve world-class quality. It went on to win three Oscars: Best Actor, Best Cinematography, and Best Original Score—proving that what the Academy and audiences ultimately rewarded was still human performance and creative soul.

So why is there still so much controversy?

Simply put, because AI’s capabilities are advancing very quickly, and its disruptive potential in creative industries is obvious.

AI can now mimic an actor’s voice, face, even their performance style, which understandably makes many actors nervous. Susan Sarandon once said:

“If someone can use my face, my body, my voice to make me say things I never said or do things I never did, that’s not okay.”

Last year’s big Hollywood strikes had AI as a core issue. Actors and writers feared studios would replace them with cheap AI-generated substitutes, or use tools like ChatGPT to churn out first drafts and reduce demand for human screenwriters.

While the eventual deal included protections—like mandatory disclosure if actors’ likenesses were used to train AI, and requirements for fair compensation—everyone in the industry knows the issue is far from settled.

The New York Times called the Oscars’ rule change a milestone: it’s the Academy signaling that “AI is here, and it’s not going away. We’ll have to learn to live with it.”

What does the future hold?

The new rules don’t require films to disclose in detail exactly how they used AI, even though the Academy considered that. Some people think that lack of transparency is a problem. But the Academy’s position is that they don’t want to stifle innovation with one-size-fits-all requirements.

They’re also stressing their values: technology is a tool, not the goal. AI can save you time and money, but whether it can move people depends on human creativity, acting, and storytelling.

Many industry observers expect AI-heavy projects will win plenty of “technical” Oscars in the future—Best Visual Effects, Best Sound, Best Production Design—but that the Best Picture Oscar will always require the human touch that makes audiences laugh, cry, and think.

Conclusion

Ultimately, AI’s role in filmmaking is like lighting, cameras, or editing software: it’s a tool, not the star.

This new Oscar rule gives the technology a kind of official legitimacy, but it also reminds filmmakers not to fear new tools—and not to forget what matters most: the story and the human heart.

AI will certainly be used more and more in the future of cinema. But when people pay for a ticket and sit down in a theater, what they want to see is human emotion and experience.

AI can help make things sound more authentic, look more beautiful, and feel more polished. But making audiences truly laugh, cry, and remember—that’s something only humans can do.