News: 0183323374

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

This Cannes Film Cost $500,000 to Make. $400,000 Was AI Compute Costs.

(Friday May 22, 2026 @05:00PM (BeauHD) from the lights-camera-prompt dept.)


Higgsfield AI is debuting a 95-minute fully AI-generated film at Cannes called "Hell Grind" that reportedly cost $500,000 to make, [1]$400,000 of which was spent on compute alone . The project took just two weeks to produce and is intended to showcase the startup's AI production tools. But it also underscores the current limits of AI filmmaking: thousands of detailed prompts, endless iteration, high costs, and plenty of traditional filmmaking judgment were still required. The Wall Street Journal reports:

> What might surprise viewers is how much technical film know-how was needed to create the movie, said Adil Alimzhanov, a content lead at Higgsfield who also worked on it. "You have to understand camera composition, which shots are changed. Like you can't have two close-ups back to back, you have to start with an establishing shot," he said. "You still need those filmmaking skills." Higgsfield, which was valued at $1.3 billion in its latest funding round earlier this year, crossed $400 million in annual revenue run rate in May. It doesn't make the actual video-generation models, relying instead on existing tools like Google's Veo 3. But it does provide the tooling on top to make sure that the visuals are consistent across all the incoming generations.

>

> The core of the movie-making process here was prompting the AI models and getting clips back, Alimzhanov said. Each prompt would generate about 15 seconds of footage. Those 15 seconds needed to be generated a number of times, with tweaks to the prompt to get the best possible version. The first 25 minutes of the movie required 16,181 initial video generations, which ended up as 253 final shots. One of the biggest difficulties in making longer-form films with AI is maintaining consistency across the outputs. AI models can be unpredictable, and a feature-length film can't have scenes that look completely different from one moment to the next.

>

> Because of that, every prompt had to be extremely long and detailed. Each one would typically start with a prefix that defined requirements like style (8k IMAX, photorealistic), lighting (natural light only, "contre-jour" backlight, camera on shadow side) and the type of camera it should look like it was being shot on ("cine lens," 180-degree shutter motion blur). The lighting was key to avoiding the AI sheen that typically gets branded as "slop," said Alimzhanov. AI-generated video tends to over-light scenes in an unnatural way. That prefix would also have to remind the AI to obey the laws of physics with wording like: "gravity and inertia respected -- mass has real weight, correct contact shadows, no floating props." The individual prompts were, on average, 3,000 words each.

>

> One aspect of what Higgsfield has built, and sells to clients, is an AI tool that generates these complex, detailed prompts. Users can enter a page from the original script, and the Higgsfield tool will return with a prompt that could be thousands of words long, designed to create production-quality outputs. And all that prompting is how the company racked up a $400,000 AI compute bill on the project. Co-founder and CEO Alex Mashrabov, however, noted that working with "cloud" providers, like Nebius and CoreWeave, rather than big hyperscalers, helped it keep costs from going even higher.

You can watch the trailer for Hell Grind [2]on YouTube and judge the results for yourself.



[1] https://www.wsj.com/cio-journal/this-cannes-film-cost-500-000-to-make-400-000-was-ai-compute-costs-a823b08d

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVzfQuC0aMU



The Asylum (Score:2)

by El_Muerte_TDS ( 592157 )

Oh no... they are in danger.

"money spent on compute..." (Score:4, Insightful)

by Valgrus Thunderaxe ( 8769977 )

Compute is not a noun.

Re: (Score:1)

by Anonymous Coward

It's short for "compute cycles" which was short for "computational cycles". Soon it'll be comp or 'pute, but spelled "pyoot". Then 'oot, Then "oo oo ah ah" while Carls Junior checks your blood pressure. Welcome to Costco. You know the rest.

Re: (Score:2)

by TheStatsMan ( 1763322 )

Verbing weirds language

The movie looks pretty bad (Score:2)

by Z80a ( 971949 )

And i don't mean in a "it's full of AI artifacts" way, more like in the "they didn't had a good or coherent artstyle" kind of way.

Also certain parts looking cartoony as hell.

Re: (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

Getting a coherent style good or bad from AI requires training, which is a lot harder than just prompting. Since AI isn't actually working from pictures, just statistical analyses of them, it has a really hard time giving consistency. A real art department making a real film has a body of concept art, samples, and other resources to draw from and compare to, and brains to do it with.

Re: (Score:2)

by DarkOx ( 621550 )

I don't understand why people think a lot of these things are 'products'. I have seen a ton of security industry stuff in the last month that once you peel back the marketing glossy, you find out that it is a just a tool that generates longer more verbose prompts from simpler ones, and for the better ones that means insertion of content from the 'system prompt' so you get something that is at least considered and somewhat consistent. The crappier examples just run with whatever the model tends to spit out

Re: (Score:3)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

Most people want things to just work, and then they delude themselves into thinking they do even when they do not.

If I had a dollar for every person who I've seen join a 3d printing group and ask how they can print more than the models shipped on the machine, I could buy another printer. It's a desktop-sized industrial robot, not a games console.

Near the neolithic cave painting level with AI (Score:3, Insightful)

by drnb ( 2434720 )

> Getting a coherent style good or bad from AI requires training, which is a lot harder than just prompting. Since AI isn't actually working from pictures, just statistical analyses of them, it has a really hard time giving consistency. A real art department making a real film has a body of concept art, samples, and other resources to draw from and compare to, and brains to do it with.

The problem is more that the prompts to the AI are too simplistic. There is too much context and background info in human minds and we take things for granted. The trick to using AI is the human learning how to feed info and instructions to the AI more accurately and more completely. We're new at this, still pretty low on the learning curve. A human drawing on an iPad still has thousands of years of institutional knowledge from painting and drawing that can apply. With respect to AI, we're kind of at the ne

Re: (Score:2)

by nospam007 ( 722110 ) *

"more like in the "they didn't had a good or coherent artstyle" kind of way."

So like a normal, napkin script movie?

Its more of an animated film if its AI (Score:1)

by drnb ( 2434720 )

> And i don't mean in a "it's full of AI artifacts" way, more like in the "they didn't had a good or coherent artstyle" kind of way. Also certain parts looking cartoony as hell.

How is that a problem? (*), AI films are really just animated films. It's kind of erroneous to consider them comparable to live action films. Animated films have not been hand drawn and painted in quite a long time. Computer models, animation, and rendering is nothing new. What AI is doing is making the modeling and animation more automated.

(*) Yes, if in uncanny valley territory it can be a problem.

Polar Express with explosions? (Score:2)

by jddj ( 1085169 )

Whole trailer looks like a video game cut-scene. Meh. I'd want my $400,000 back.

Re: (Score:2)

by BroccoliKing ( 6229350 )

You are far kinder than I am. At least a video game cutscene can stay more than five seconds before cutting away.

Re: (Score:2)

by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

A movie is not a trailer, and most trailers have sharp fast 5 seconds cuts.

Re: (Score:2)

by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

> Whole trailer looks like a video game cut-scene. Meh. I'd want my $400,000 back.

If you actually tried to make something you'd get a whole lot less for $400,000, yeah it looks bad, but literally any movie on that budget would.

Re: Polar Express with explosions? (Score:4, Insightful)

by jddj ( 1085169 )

I'll take 'What is"Primer"' for $55,000, Ken.

Re: (Score:2)

by Ambiguous Puzuma ( 1134017 )

And "Pi" for $135,000, which launched Darren Aronofsky's career.

Re: Polar Express with explosions? (Score:2)

by jddj ( 1085169 )

Of course, at $19,000 you get "Manos: The Hands of Fate", so your gold doesn't always get you gold.

Sometimes you take a sow's ear and make the rest of the sow.

The future of film making (Score:2, Interesting)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

I think the future of film making is a small handful of creatives using AI software to make a movie and overall I think this will be good for cinema. While I do think it will be a shame to lose all of the acting and craft person jobs (amongst others) making movie making cheap enough for the common person to enter into the field without major financial backers means opening the way for a lot more creatives to make good cinema.

And before I hear it, yes this will mean a ton more crap movies out there as well.

Re: (Score:3)

by ambrandt12 ( 6486220 )

A ton-more crap movies? More like 99.99(repeating)% crap movies.

AI-generated script, AI-animated movie, AI-generated voices... awesome! No humans involved besides one guy feeding pages of the script into a scanner.

That trailer for the video game-looking movie... from the first frame of the video, it looks no better than Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (and that was about 1997-2001 as far as production)

Making movie making cheap enough for the common person? I don't know about you, but I don't have $400k

Re: (Score:2)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

"the future of film making", not the current reality. Big difference there. Given how far we've come so quickly I think it's well within reason that within my life time the results of AI film making will be both indistinguishable from our current methods and cheaper than even $400k to make a movie (although that's less than the cost of a house in half the country so isn't that crazy of a cost to make cinema).

Re: (Score:2)

by toxonix ( 1793960 )

"Creatives" don't use LLMs when they work on creative things. They use them because the people who employ them saying "AI is the future" and humans are just expensive meat that gets in the way.

Almost everyone in film making that's entirely finance/business end of things is an artist or at least a crafter/technician. Actors, set work, costume work, lighting, sound, weapon making, vehicles, stunts, visual FX, editing .. Watch the f-king credits of any film, even the low budget stuff and you see lots and lots

Re: (Score:2)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

I'm not talking about how Hollywood does or will use AI, I'm talking about when the technology matures more and the potentials for small film makers that AI will bring and they are absolutely huge. The sky will be the limit for creatives as they will no longer be limited by money. Cinema will become as accessible to artists as painting is and I can't wait for that to happen.

Re: (Score:2)

by ObliviousGnat ( 6346278 )

You don't need to spend $400k on AI tokens to make a movie. You can do it all in Blender, and it's free.

Re: (Score:2)

by Pseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 )

If you want a picture of the future of cinema, imagine a Skil-Crane claw jacking off Harvey Weinstein through the hole in the bottom of his popcorn bucket, forever.

Re: (Score:1)

by regyfrancis ( 7575864 )

Next: A CYBER MOVIE STUDIO: [1]https://www.the-big-picture.in... [the-big-picture.info] ..anyone anywhere can collaborate, The platform's DAO eventually decides who makes the grade. Individual contributions tracked by blockchain tokens - profit income shared.

[1] https://www.the-big-picture.info/

They sum it up at the end of the trailer (Score:2)

by kid_wonder ( 21480 )

"That was terrible"

We are going to burn in hell (Score:2)

by thePsychologist ( 1062886 )

We are going to burn in hell, literally, for this frivolous use of energy. It's insane this world, I hate it. It's absolutel asinine - we had everything we needed to make decent entertainment and stories and we're ruining it with AI.

Surplus is a bad thing for humanity. I hate this.

What is it? (Score:2)

by RitchCraft ( 6454710 )

I watched the trailer. So, is this a movie or a video game? As a video game I might give it a go. As a movie, nah, the uncanny valley is very obvious.

So it was slave labor? (Score:2)

by OverlordQ ( 264228 )

So that leaves only $100k to pay everybody who had to babysit it

actors should be furiosa (Score:2)

by toxonix ( 1793960 )

The woman with the cane looks like Charlize Theron. The love interest looks like anybody - too generic to be interesting. The protagonist looks like a composite of 3-5 actors who's names I can't conjure up right now. If the director "just wants to tell stories" as he claims, he's not telling very original or interesting ones. I'm sure someone will come along and write a script and 100k lines of prompts to make something we forget is AI generated because it's such a good story, but that has yet to happen. So

paradigm shift...without a clutch