AI's Not-So-Secret Invasion: Disruption in the Screen Industries: Is AI a Catalyst for Change or a Cause for Concern?

AI's Not-So-Secret Invasion
Disruption in the Screen Industries: Is AI a Catalyst for Change or a Cause for Concern?

Significant technological advancements are often met with resistance from society. Just as we experienced computerphobia in the past, we are now facing ‘AI-phobia’ in response to the previously inconceivable power of artificial intelligence (AI) (Chen et al., 2024). The use of AI in the opening title sequence of Secret Invasion (2023), produced by Method Studios, has sparked controversy amongst its audience and creative professionals (Thompson, 2023). These anxieties stem from how AI impacts the screen industries, ranging from job security to creative integrity, copywrite infringement and intellectual property (IP) ownership (ScreenCrush, 2023). As we navigate this new frontier, we must proceed with caution and consider how to ethically harness this creative potential to better society for all, because "With great power there must also come — great responsibility" (Lee, 1962, p.11). This study analyses these concerns surrounding the ethical use of advancing AI technologies in the development of screen-based products to explore how AI will impact the screen industries.

Job security is a major concern for creative professionals and the advancement of generative AI poses the threat of creative jobs being replaced and puts their livelihoods in danger (Clarke, 2022). However, Method Studios have stated no creative jobs were replaced in the production of the opening sequence that used a custom AI tool to reprocess original artwork produced by their creative professionals (Giardina, 2023). According to series director Ali Salim (Millman, 2023), the intent behind this method was to conceptualise ‘Skrull Cubism’ through otherworldly imagery that mirrors the shapeshifting Skrull characters, while echoing the series’ themes of uncertainty in distinguishing reality from illusion. This concept reflects societal anxiety surrounding the authenticity of imagery. However, it raises the question whether human artistry could have produced a similar outcome (ScreenCrush, 2023) without the use of AI tools, thereby creating more opportunities for creative individuals that have dedicated their life to mastering artistic abilities (Glazebrook, 2023). This illustrates the ethical dilemma of integrating AI tools into creative pipelines, highlighting the tension between technological advancement, creative expression and job security for creatives, even if their roles are not directly replaced.

Image taken from the opening title sequence Secret Invasion (2023).

While technological advancements have streamlined and automated low-skill jobs in sectors like manufacturing, generative AI now extends this capability to skilled professions by producing convincing creative imagery once thought impossible for computers (Zane, 2023). Whittaker et al. (2020) discuss an AI generated video using free AI tools that produced a lifelike representation of former President Barack Obama saying things he never actually said. AI Animation (2025), an online platform embracing AI animation, showcases a range of high-quality AI generated animations, illustrating AI’s capabilities in animation. Furthermore, a survey conducted by Hitsuwari et al. (2023), which found that participants struggled to distinguish between human and AI-generated haiku poetry. These points highlight how indistinguishable AI generated and human generated media can be to the average person, even when using commercially available AI tools. This concern is raised by Heather Antos, group editor of licencing at IDW publishing, in her discussion with ScreenCrush (2023) where she argues that if AI generated content is ‘good enough’, studio executives may be more inclined to reduce their creative workforce. These insights ratify the growing fear creatives now face as AI is increasingly integrated into production pipelines, warranting greater consideration of acceptable AI use and the establishment of support systems to protect creative professionals.

The animation industry is a multibillion-dollar industry (Sharma, and Juyal, 2023) with digital animation holding a market share of 23.8% in 2024 (Hazelton, 2024). Building on the previous argument, both studio executives and stakeholders may favour generative AI tools over employing creatives to reduce production costs. This positions studio executives and stakeholders as ‘prosumers’ with these tools lowering the barrier to entry for creative media production (Gillies, 2017). Noah Sterling, an animation producer formerly with Marvel Entertainment, in his discussion with ScreenCrush (2023) confirms that generative AI is being used to draft preproduction materials, employing creatives only to refine them into production ready assets. This diminishes a creative’s artistic input and undermines their expertise. Whilst the allure of improved profit margins is tempting, the expertise of experienced creative professionals must not be overlooked if production companies aim to deliver high-quality animation content (Liu, and Peng, 2021). Therefore, as generative AI continues to advance, stakeholders must exercise caution so that AI is utilised constructively alongside creatives to enhance animation content (Ayyappan and Nirmala, 2024). Ultimately, the success of the screen industries is reliant on achieving a harmony between technological advancement and human artistry to craft innovative media that resonates with audiences.

An analysis of the concept of creativity allows us to better comprehend the value of human artistry and the limitations of AI. Weir (2024) argues that innovative outcomes require creative human input for them to hold worth. This is supported by Liu and Peng (2021, p.3) who state “…the moment the subject consciousness is vague and the works of art “re-reproduction” lacks the conscious creation, which is not the work of art.” These compelling arguments emphasise the creator as the primary driver of creative outcomes and demonstrate their absence will result in less impactful outcomes. Furthermore, as AI becomes increasingly integrated into production pipelines, there is the risk of overreliance on these tools, which could stagnate creativity and limit innovation (Islam and Greenwood, 2024). Therefore, for AI tools to have a positive impact on outcomes they must be harnessed by experienced creatives with purposeful creative intent to achieve valuable outcomes.

Having established the benefit of human creativity in conjunction with AI, we can now analyse whether the use of AI in Secret Invasion (2023) embodies creativity. In an interview with Polygon (2023), series director Ali Salim expressed that AI was “…explorative and inevitable, and exciting, and different.” This aligns with Sautoy’s (2020) theories position coding as a creative artform equivalent to traditional artistic outcomes, highlighting that programmers intentionally create original outcomes through a distinct creative workflow. AI is known to produce unsettling imperfections, such as characters with six fingers (Tabbara, 2023). These imperfections were deliberately leveraged to achieve an aesthetic that mirrors the show’s themes and the shapeshifting nature of the ‘Skrull’ characters. This decision was driven by the director’s artistic vision to achieve a stylistic outcome, rather than being solely entrusted to AI, thereby validating its role in the creative process.

Image taken from the opening title sequence Secret Invasion (2023).

This argument is further supported by considering broader perspectives on the unique role of human creativity alongside AI tools. Yang (2021) identifies that true human creativity, which machines cannot replicate, is essential for success in animation. This supports the Secret Invasion (2023) director’s decision to employ AI intentionally to achieve a distinct level of charm. Weir (2024) emphasises that human lightbulb moments are pivotal in steering the creative processes, which raises the question of whether AI systems can truly replicate this to produce creative outcomes. This perspective highlights the director’s realisation of AI’s distinctive qualities and further justifies integrating AI into this project, which may not have achieved the same effect in a different project. This highlights that human creativity is at the heart of the creative process, and without human guidance, the tools we use lose their purpose and remain powerless.

This trajectory of thought demonstrates that the combination of human creativity and advancing AI tools achieves a state of symbiosis between humans and technology that will achieve the most successful results. Shin et al. (2022) argue that AI cannot fully replace humans, as human emotion, imagination and judgement play a crucial role in shaping the outcome. If we align this theory with that of Chen et al. (2024) who argue that AI tools hold little value when used without intent, but when thoughtfully applied for a specific purpose to meet defined need, the results are vastly superior. These findings highlight that human creativity is vital in the production of meaningful outcomes, however, it can be enhanced through AI capabilities, which directly correlates to the findings of Hitsuwari et al. (2023). This establishes humans as the central driving force in creation, with AI serving as an assistant (Sautoy, 2020) to amplify, rather than dictate, our workflows.

Recognising the essential role humans play in utilisation AI tools to produce meaningful outcomes allows for a more optimistic analysis of future job prospects for creatives in the screen industries. AI's automation capabilities can eliminate repetitive, time-consuming tasks for animators, enabling them to focus on the more creative and artistic aspects of their work (Ayyappan and Nirmala, 2024). This shift could lead to higher-quality products being created in less time, allowing studio heads to take on more projects or deliver content faster without expanding the workforce (Tabbara, 2023). Even if this efficiency led to reduced cost for animation outcomes, this could make animation media an appealing option for clients and drive greater demand for the labour (Zane, 2023). This does challenge the traditional ‘iron triangle’ dilemma of balancing time, cost and quality (Pollack, Helm and Adler, 2018) for the first time since the common adoption of computer in animation production workflows. However, AI tools offer opportunities for enhanced flexibility across all three dimensions, positioning animation as an increasingly appealing medium and potentially driving greater demand and positive job growth in the industry.

This sets the landscape for acknowledging that AI will transform the future of work through its rapid advancement (Yang, 2021). Rather than reducing workforces, it is imperative that employers support their creative workforce to embrace and build skills in new technologies that empower them to create (Zane, 2023). This effort must be underpinned by education systems that embrace innovation and equip learners with relevant skills needed to succeed in a rapidly evolving world (Çelik and Baturay, 2024). Yang (2021) emphasises the importance of promoting understanding of AI technologies to prepare future workforces and identifies that most animation courses currently do not foster development of AI knowledge or skills. The existence of AI tools is undeniable and without proper education on their optimal use, there is risk of inappropriate application that could threaten job security and prosperity. Therefore, both education systems and employers share responsibility to support effective learning and integration of AI tools, ensuring they drive positive advancement within the screen industries.

Much of the fear surrounding AI tools and job security arises from the overreliance on employers for financial stability (Tabbara, 2023). However, the capabilities and widespread availability of AI tools could empower individuals to create successful animation outcomes (Clarke, 2022), driving a potential shift away from large studio productions (Gillies, 2017) and opening opportunities for entrepreneurship. The animated film Flow (2024) won an Oscar using the free software ‘Blender 3D’, triumphing against industry giants like Disney and DreamWorks, whose budgets were more than twenty times larger (Galuppo, 2025). This achievement demonstrates that smaller teams can produce innovative, high-quality content.  Therefore, while AI tools may pose challenges to job security, they also offer possibilities for creatives to take bold steps in shaping their own futures and establish financial independence.

Blender3D promotional image (Veldhuizen, 2025) of Oscar award winning animation Flow (2024).

Whilst entrepreneurship may not suit everyone, AI tools could offer advantages within the traditional employer employee framework. By reducing the time needed to produce animated outcomes, AI tools could pave the way to decreasing employee working hours (Gillies, 2017) whilst still earning the same salary. Evidence already supports the benefits of a four-day working work, showing increased productivity and enhanced wellbeing for employers and employees (Business Matters, 2024), which could be further accelerated by AI tools. Zane (2023) argues that the rapid evolution of AI requires additional evidence to inform policies that support AI growth, balance job security with business development, and ensure these advancements benefit both individuals and society. This marks a shift from societal norms that currently prioritise working harder over quality of outcomes (Gillies, 2017). An optimistic perspective that demonstrates how AI could drive societal evolution by attributing monetary value to the worth of outputs rather than the time invested to produce them.

Concerns about job security often dominate discussion around the rise of AI, however, copywrite issues also concern the screen industries as AI tools are increasingly adopted into production pipelines. A key challenge lies in the ownership of AI-generated outcomes, as current copyright laws require the creator to be human for authorship to be attributed (Rabago, 2024). The complexity deepens in scenarios where outputs feature a blend of human and machine production (Resende and Lima, 2024). As outlined previously, AI outputs with minimal human involvement often lack value, however, when harnessed by humans, they can enhance creativity (Chen et al., 2024). This perspective positions AI as a tool rather than an author, aligning with Resende and Lima’s (2024) view that copyright should belong to the human user. However, they stress that AI creations where minimal human input has been employed may fail to meet copyright requirements. This introduces new complications and demands the need for greater transparency in the artistic production process to properly define ownership and copyright.

Generative AI process used in artwork production, known as diffusion, utilise existing artwork to produce original outcomes. Many creatives regard this process as theft (Clarke, 2022) and raises concerns surrounding potential copyright infringement of creative’s IP. This view is echoed by Heather Antos in her interview with ScreenCrush (2023), where she argues that creatives should receive royalties when their artwork is being leveraged by AI tools by others for commercial gain. Whilst this may appear logical at first glance, it would destroy the fundamental process of inspiration, where creatives frequently draw from a variety of references to create something original. AI diffusion effectively replicates and automates this process. To address this, Lovato et al. (2024) argues that AI tools should disclose the sources used in their outputs to provide transparency on copyright infringement. Chen et al. (2024) build on this idea and argue that whilst the primary responsibility of copyright violation lies with the creator of generative AI tools, its users also bear some accountability. These ideas illustrate the complexities of determining whether an AI-generated outcome infringes on copyright, while universally emphasising the demand for greater transparency.

Furthermore, the AI process of diffusion exhibits creative and qualitative limitations in the artworks it produces. Tabbara (2023) argues that because it relies on existing artwork, the process is effectively “…collating and finding the average. The best cinema and television isn’t average.” Whilst diffusion may appear impressive on the surface, the most innovative outcomes cannot depend on this process. Chen et al. (2024) highlight that the ‘uncanny valley’ phenomenon may be exacerbated by diffusion, through the introduction of even subtle imperfections which cause unease in audiences. Consequently, for AI generated artwork to be fit for audience consumption, creatives will be required to correct flaws that could have been avoided in an artistic centric production. This reinforces previously established concepts that, at least in the short term, creatives job roles remain indispensable to the production of high-quality outcomes and cannot be replaced by AI tools.

In conclusion, this research tackles the challenges posed by the integration of evolving AI technologies into production pipelines within the screen industries, such as the AI generated title sequence in Secret Invasion (2023). This divisive issue has sparked polarised opinions and will likely continue to as it becomes more prevalent (Zane, 2023). While human creativity remains vital to the success of animation productions, AI tools have the potential to enhance this creativity when applied meaningfully (Chen et al., 2024). However, productions that rely solely on AI as a cost-cutting exercise risk producing lacklustre outcomes (Ayyappan and Nirmala, 2024), likely leading to diminished profits and further audience backlash.

Rather than replacing creative job roles, AI serves as a powerful tool for creation (Chen et al., 2024) that offers significant creative potential and paves the way for new opportunities. It could act as a vessel to drive significant change to challenge societal working norms and foster entrepreneurial bravery (Clarke, 2022; Gillies, 2017). Independent films like Flow (2024) have demonstrated achievable success with miniscule budgets compared to those of industry giants. Therefore, the accessibility and capabilities of evolving AI tools could support smaller teams to achieve similar success. Rejecting the capabilities that AI technologies bring to the screen industries would be foolish (Liu and Peng, 2021), however, challenges surrounding copyright transparency must be resolved for their inclusion to become widely accepted. Ultimately, these perspectives warrant the need for ethical AI usage, to ensure its power benefits creatives, employers, employees and audiences alike.

Word Count: 2716

Reference List

Academic Sources:

  1. AI Animation (2025) The AI Animation Platform. Available at: https://aianimation.com/ (Accessed: 22nd March 2025).
  2. Ayyappan, P. and Nirmala, T. (2024) ‘An Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Techniques on Animation in Animated Movie Series’, ShodhKosh: Journal of Visual and Performing Arts, 5(ICITAICT), 19–25,  Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.iICITAICT.2024.1248
  3. Business Matters (2024) ‘The 4 Day Work Week – Could it Be a Win-Win Scenario?, Business Matters, [Online]. Available at: https://bmmagazine.co.uk/business/the-4-day-work-week-could-it-be-a-win-win-scenario/ (Accessed: 28th March 2025).
  4. Çelik, F. and Baturay, M.H. (2024) ‘Technology and innovation in shaping the future of education’, Smart learning environments, 11(1), pp. 54–6.
  5. Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Yu, T. and Pan, Y. (2024) ‘The effect of AI on animation production efficiency: an empirical investigation through the network data envelopment analysis’, Electronics, 13(24), p. 5001. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13245001 (Accessed: 25 March 2025).
  6. Chen, Y.-S., Tang, Y.-C. and Chen, C. (2024) ‘The Ethical Deliberation of Generative AI in Media Applications’, Emerging media (Online), 2(2), pp. 259–276
  7. Clarke, L. (2022) 'When AI can make art – what does it mean for creativity?’, The Guardian UK Edition, 12th November. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/12/when-ai-can-make-art-what-does-it-mean-for-creativity-dall-e-midjourney (Accessed: 14th March 2024).
  8. Giardina, C. (2023) ‘‘Secret Invasion’ Opening Using AI Cost “No Artists’ Jobs,” Says Studio That Made It (Exclusive)’, The Hollywood Reporter, 21st June. Available at: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/secret-invasion-ai-opening-1235521299/ (Accessed: 22nd March 2025).
  9. Gillies, M. (2017) 'AI won’t take your job, prosumers will, Medium, 15th October. Available at: https://medium.com/machine-learning-for-all/ai-wont-take-your-job-prosumers-will-e24151cd2d4e (Accessed: 14th March 2024).
  10. Glazebrook, L. (2023) ‘Secret Invasion's AI Opening Credits & Backlash Explained’, Screen Rant, 21st June. Available at: https://screenrant.com/secret-invasion-ai-opening-credits-controversy/ (Accessed: 22nd March 2025).
  11. Hazelton, J. (2024) Why outsourcing and AI means the US animation sector is facing hefty challenges in 2025, Screen International. Available at: https://www.screendaily.com/features/why-outsourcing-and-ai-means-the-us-animation-sector-is-facing-hefty-challenges-in-2025/5199989.article (Accessed: 30 March 2025).
  12. Hitsuwari, J., Ueda, Y., Yun, W. and Nomura, M. (2023) ‘Does human–AI collaboration lead to more creative art? Aesthetic evaluation of human-made and AI-generated haiku poetry’, Computers in human behavior, 139, p. 107502.
  13. Islam, G. and Greenwood, M. (2024) ‘Generative Artificial Intelligence as Hypercommons: Ethics of Authorship and Ownership’, Journal of business ethics, 192(4), pp. 659–663.
  14. Lee, S. (1962) Spider-Man! Amazing Fantasy #15. Marvel Comics.
  15. Liu, Q. and Peng, H. (2021) ‘Influence of Artificial Intelligence Technology on Animation Creation’, Journal of physics. Conference series, 1881(3), p. 32076.
  16. Lovato, J., Zimmerman, J., Smith, I., Dodds, P. and Karson, J. (2024) ‘Foregrounding Artist Opinions: A Survey Study on Transparency, Ownership, and Fairness in AI Generative Art’.
  17. Millman, Z. (2023) ‘Yes, Secret Invasion’s opening credits scene is AI-made — here’s why’, Polygon, 23rd June. Available at: https://www.polygon.com/23767640/ai-mcu-secret-invasion-opening-credits (Accessed: 22nd March 2025).
  18. Pollack, J., Helm, J. and Adler, D. (2018) ‘What is the Iron Triangle, and how has it changed?’, International journal of managing projects in business, 11(2), pp. 527–547.
  19. Rabago, G. (2024) ‘Can AI Have a Signature: Legal Ownership and Authorship of Creative Materials Involving Artificial Intelligence’, UC Merced undergraduate research journal, 16(2).
  20. Resende, A.L.S.A. and Lima, É.P.P.S. (2024) Challenges of Copyright Law in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Authorship and Ownership of Posthumous Musical Works Using the Voice of Deceased Artists', Title of Journal, 15(4), [Online]. Available at: DOI https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2024.154114
  21. Sautoy, M. D. (2020) The Creativity Code: How AI is learning to write, paint and think. Fourth Estate paperback edition. Great Britain: Fourth Estate.
  22. ScreenCrush (2023) Secret Invasion's ai Art Intro, Explained. 24th June. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-C-EBNPUMk (Accessed: 14th March 2024).
  23. 23. Sharma, H. and Juyal, A. (2023) ‘Future of Animation with Artificial Intelligence’, ShodhKosh: Journal of Visual and Performing Arts, 4(2SE), 180–187, Available at: https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v4.i2SE.2023.559
  24. Shin, D., Hameleers, M., Park, Y.J., Kim, J.N., Trielli, D., Diakopoulos, N., Helberger, N., Lewis, S.C., Westlund, O. and Baumann, S. (2022) ‘Countering Algorithmic Bias and Disinformation and Effectively Harnessing the Power of AI in Media’, Journalism & mass communication quarterly, 99(4), pp. 887–907.
  25. Tabbara, M. (2023) ‘Animation and AI: useful tool or existential threat?’, Screen International.
  26. Thompson, D. (2023) ‘MCU Fans Disgusted by Marvel Studios' New AI-Generated Opening’, The Direct, 21st June. Available at: https://thedirect.com/article/mcu-marvel-studios-ai-generated-opening (Accessed: 22nd March 2025).
  27. Veldhuizen, B. (2025) Blender Nation. Available at: https://www.blendernation.com/2025/02/16/flow-is-the-splash-screen-for-blender-4-4/ (Accessed: 30 March 2025).
  28. Weir, K. (2024) ‘The science behind creativity’, American Psychological Association, 30th January. Available at: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/04/cover-science-creativity (Accessed: 16 March 2025).
  29. Whittaker, L., Kietzmann, T.C., Kietzmann, J. and Dabirian, A. (2020) ‘"All Around Me Are Synthetic Faces": The Mad World of AI-Generated Media’, IT professional, 22(5), pp. 90–99.
  30. Yang, Y. (2021) ‘Application of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Virtual Reality Animation Aided Production’, Journal of physics. Conference series, 1744(3), p. 32037.
  31. Zane, M. (2023) ‘Artificial intelligence and job security challenges’, Akofena, 3(10).

Artefact Examples:

  1. Secret Invasion (2023) Marvel Studios. Available at: Disney+ (Accessed: 22nd March 2025).
  2. Flow (2024) Directed by Gints Zilbalodis [Feature film]. Latvia, France, Belgium: Dream Well Studio, Sacrebleu Productions, Take Five.

Popular Posts