AI Didn’t Make My Film: The people behind HAPTIC.

Last week, I wrote about getting the shots out of my head and into a form I could use to plan HAPTIC. Having those references helped, but there’s a lot that happens between an image of a scene and a group of people actually making it happen.

I’ve spent the first few posts explaining why I used AI and where I felt that AI wasn't a great fit. But filmmaking is, and always has been, a human-centered experience.

The story came first

I wrote HAPTIC. The story, screenplay, revisions, and decisions about what I wanted the film to say came from me. AI wasn’t meaningfully involved in that development.

Writing is personal for me. The things that stay with us, the uncomfortable questions, the odd little details that don’t seem important until they find their way into a scene - the human experience. I’m interested in telling my stories, and that part of the process remains mine.

The shot references I described last week were a way to communicate something I was already imagining. They gave me a starting point for planning and a clearer way to share it, but they didn’t decide why the scene belonged in the film.

Then people had to make it happen

We completed principal photography over nine days, working within a budget of approximately $35,000. That meant scheduling, locations, equipment, wardrobe, hair and makeup, camera work, lighting, sound, transportation, lodging, and food. All the things that have to come together so you can actually shoot what’s on the page and all done by people.

The cast and crew brought their own skills and judgment to the work. My job as a director included communicating what I was trying to achieve, working with the people helping me achieve it, and making decisions about the scene in front of us. A reference image could help explain the intention, but so much can change on set (as it did with HAPTIC) and that, again, is very much a human experiece.

This is also why I’m careful with the phrase “my film.” The story is mine, and I’m responsible for the finished work. But getting it made required other people’s time, commitment, and talent. Taking responsibility for a film doesn’t mean taking credit for everyone else’s contribution.

The performances were filmed

The actors in HAPTIC performed for the camera. Casting, table read, direction, and the choices about which performances belonged in the finished film remained human.

An actor brings more than the words on the page. Timing, a look, a pause, the way someone listens. Those things affect how a scene feels. They’re part of why I want to work with actors in the first place. Even a very good backdrop still needs someone to step onto the stage.

Some of that work was filmed on location and some against green screen. Where I used AI-generated environments or individual visual-effects plates around a performer, I built the scene around the photographed performance. I then had to do the work of making those elements belong together.

As I explained in Part 2, HAPTIC also includes fully generated shots and portions of sequences. One transition moves from a filmed performer to a generated distant view of a raft. I don’t want to blur that distinction or suggest every frame was photographed. The actors’ live performances were not generated or replaced by AI.

The film still had to be put together

Once filming was finished, I still had to edit the film. Which take to use, where to cut, how long to stay in a moment, and how one scene moved into the next were decisions I made. Having the material didn’t make those choices for me.

The effects work involved its own set of decisions. Generated plates were individual pieces I could work with. I assembled composites manually, worked on color and lighting, and blended elements with the filmed actor. Getting an element out of a tool was one step in finishing a shot.

And finishing a shot wasn’t necessarily the same as deciding it belonged in the film. At the end of the day, I had to ask: Did it support the scene? Did it draw attention away from the performance? Was I holding onto something because it worked, or because I had spent so much time trying to make it work?

I still have to stand behind it

AI helped me get past specific limitations on HAPTIC. I’m grateful for what that made possible within the resources I had. The writing, performances, work on set, editing, and final creative decisions still came from people.

Next time, I’ll get into where AI failed: the bad results, the things that looked generic, and the work involved in trying again or choosing another approach. Generating a prompt sounds simple enough (it wasn't). Making something I actually wanted to put in HAPTIC and actually made sense was something else, entirely.