Producing : Producers, would you take on this project? by Aleksandr Rozhnov

As a producer in my own mind - the concept sounds excellent. Have you run the numbers?

Honestly, I haven’t calculated the budget down to the last cent, as that’s not my expertise. However, overall, I believe it will be relatively low, because this is a small-scale, intimate series, with the main action taking place in a courtroom. Essentially, it’s mostly one location, so it won’t require a large budget.

There's way more but this is what Claude thinks of your idea:

You know, budgets should be calculated by financiers. My job as a screenwriter is to write a story that as many viewers as possible would watch and enjoy. That’s all I focus on. I believe this kind of series would attract a large audience because it’s genuinely interesting. There are fictional court cases that probably would never happen in real life, but this lawyer handles them. People will simply be curious to see how the trial ends and what decision he makes. I think that would be very engaging. A little later, I want to fully develop this project, including the pilot episode.

Let's take a look ... Claude seems confident about your series.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lc6L_brtPJu4FUcHWoEmsr7c1S5EPo4y...

Claude's recommendations:

I apologize, for some reason it says I don’t have access, probably because I’m not in your region. Could you just tell me in words what he wrote and what he thinks about the series? Just do it on your side, and I can simply copy the feedback and paste it. Please do this. Thank you for reviewing!

Claude doesn't seem to be up to date on what streamers and other producers pay, or don't pay, and how, at this time.

Only The Shadow knows ... so I just plugged it in ... so if you think he's wrong please let's dive in where do you see the fails? Now as to timing, keep in mind these AI Guys are gonna be last "model release" so whatever he knows is based upon what, a few months ago. But even if his numbers are off there's a lot to unpack.

Try the link again - it should have been wide open - try again:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lc6L_brtPJu4FUcHWoEmsr7c1S5EPo4y...

IP Value Assement

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nBsPn7lCpnE9Q8Y5edNfWHH_OaQOYo9E/view?u...

Market

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kktuFvLxt34c_osFWa3uXmz8U9x2CZHx/view?u...

Bible

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ozYQFpk0qYND65acs-AHuPfD0Hwf6H9d/view?u...

I will put the PDFs on another server if necessary ... I got lots

Jonathan Frakes chimes in - i.e. Google uses NotebookLM to talk about this in audio format:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jovhHNmUg32vbDWf16Wwx227H3XS9a4j/view?u...

Tom Petty: ""Their A&R man said 'I don't hear a single', the future was wide open" = Claude thinks you can go 7 seasons dude. The question then becomes ... drum roll ... who's the new truth?

OK so I even had Claude do you a pitch deck - there's another folder within that first folder. This level of depth was not in these kinds of results a year ago. None of this was available. Now the depth is over the friggin top.

Tom is claude writing scripts for you?

Well, first of all, no one is writing scripts for me — I write my own scripts.

As for everything that has been said, here’s my take. I will begin working on this project only after I finish my current series, Swallowed. Once that’s completed, I’ll move on to this one.

There are a lot of questions here. For example, the AI suggests seven seasons with ten episodes each — that’s seventy episodes. I don’t want the show to eventually slip into complete absurdity, because finding seventy compelling, unusual, and still believable cases is extremely difficult. Possible — but difficult.

I also don’t fully agree with the budget estimates. The AI suggests several million dollars for a single location. In my opinion, that’s excessive.

So yes, artificial intelligence is helpful, but ultimately decisions should be made by a human, not by AI.

Still, thank you very much for your feedback. It was genuinely useful and reinforced my belief that I will write this project — just a little later.

Thanks again, everyone.

Tom is at the forefront of this new tech.

Aleksandr - valid points. However, above and beyond specific numbers is the massive business education for artists to actually see the potential value not just to themselves but to investors.

Back in the mid 90's I was part of the dot com explosion, and one position I had as a sysadmin was a company in which all of us were given a number of meetings that explained the importance of The VC.

The company VP at that time, he kept referring to "The VC" (venture capitalists) like The Viet Cong, using a humourous approach that "these VC will gut your project like a fish" - it was funny but at the same time reminded us the importance and bottom-line ruthlessness of bean counters - those folks writing the checks!

So this is ever present in what I am attempting to do with my stories.

The VC need these numbers, and our AI Guys are there to help. I have no illusions about their accuracy, because there will always be subjective views - but the education is priceless.

The ability to extrapolate - now even the VC don't have to fear the project - they too can run the numbers themselves and "let's just see what we got here" is no longer The Hunch System. Now you can know better.

Now when I go into the jungle, I know more about how these 'VC' operate! :)

AND they can see I did my homework and polished my turds into golden eggs EVERYBODY makes money and awards from.

I see the AI Guys as true assistants. I have played with their scriptwriting - and even fed in Stage 32's screenplay formatting and Claude nails it. Now, do I accept what he has done at face value? No, but he's damn good and has been a HUGE educator!!!!

Ever present - making shows that are truly saleable! No prima donnas, just more polish.

John - using Claude to write scripts. This was my biggest fear in getting into AI with my screenplays.

The big fear that somehow you pull the handle and poof screenplay - It just doesn't work that way.

You can feed in ideas, and see what it creates - mind blowing. I had it create - by leading the chat - a 27 chapter book that I would have said was 5-6th grade level at best. It just doesnt create like the mythology of AI has been sold to us.

Even the dev platforms, like Loveable and others - it's not instant soup. It's a weird dichotomy - Claude does "novelty" but it's not always in the right direction. You don't just pull the handle and poof you get a script. I edit in plain text editor, put in my own dialogue and let him "Final Draft" it. Ok so I can speak in human terms, "It was a dark foggy night" and Claude can Final Draft it into screenwriterese. I code in a variety of languages, so for me screenwriterese is a whole new language for me to learn and I get first hand mentoring from idea to proper format, and frankly exposes some major weaknesses I can go back and fix.

Keeping in mind polished saleable stories. Not literary awards for "my precious". So that's an even bigger plus for the VC.

You know, I’d like to share a bit of my situation.

I have serious problems with my eyes — I’ve had retinal detachments — and I can’t look at a screen or read letters anymore. So I’ve adapted my writing process. I dictate my scripts to GPT-chat exactly as I think them. I always ask it: “write it word for word, don’t add anything.” And it does — mistakes included. After that, I find someone who can read it back to me, and I edit by ear.

I’ve also tried another way: giving GPT ideas and asking it to write the script. And honestly, it produced absolute nonsense. I truly believe only a human can feel where a script needs quiet, where it needs action, where comedy should shift to drama, and where the emotional heartbeat of the story lies. No artificial intelligence can genuinely feel that.

Yes, AI can polish some rough edges — but only on the technical side. Creating a story that resonates with viewers, that carries emotional depth and real human insight — that’s something AI simply cannot do, and probably won’t be able to. Because storytelling doesn’t come only from the brain; it comes from the heart. And AI doesn’t have one.

Aleksandr - agree ... it's close but not there yet. I see the near future blurring this line. I imagine there will be many studios using AI and not talking about it, and we'll go through an AI Slop Phase. (which we are probably already in)

However, I think this will mature as a matter of adjustment, and quality will always shine through over stuff built by shortcuts. It's in our dna to constantly improve and Model T a lot of what we do.

I see this initial fear giving way to practical aspects, as we can see using AI as a very comprehensive way to extrapolate the numbers, and/or as in your case as a tool to overcome disability.

I have such a huge amount of original material, and essentially no writer's block using techniques I learned well before AI. For me, AI is a new tool that enables me to produce more of what I already have or to refine it without previous hurdles.

My own disability is asberger's/add/adhd/nuerodivergence. AI has helped me to communicate in human terms what my nuerodivergent brain dumps in mass quanities that needs to be interpreted, so I'm using it as a coffee grinder for that which I already have.

And btw - even using all of the numbers we produced in this Absurd Lawyer example, we still have no scripts, no dialogue and this would all have to be done by human writers imho. AI just isn't there yet.

By the way, Tom, I have a logline for the series SWALLOWED in my “Loglines” section. Would it be possible for you and Cloud to do the same kind of review?

I’d really like to know whether a series like this could fit the American market or the streaming platforms. If you could simply tell me, in your own words, whether it works or not, it would help me a lot.

If you can do that, I’d really appreciate it. Thank you.

By the way, about dialogue. I also believe that artificial intelligence is not capable of truly replicating a human being. AI invents dialogue, but it does not hear it.

I write the way Quentin Tarantino describes his process — I simply record my characters. They speak for themselves. I just follow them and write down what they say. This is something AI cannot do.

It can imitate patterns, assemble phrases, and try to sound “natural,” but it can’t capture the real energy or spontaneous rhythm of a living person. True dialogue comes from intuition, emotion, and the inner lives of the characters. That’s something only a human writer can feel, and I don’t think any AI will ever fully understand it.

Try this link again if you are able, he created 4 docs for you also:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d4H9nzhOuNyitYfnkfeGaP59zAtT-nsy/view?u...

but I'll paste in Claude's repsonse here as well

This is direct from Claude - I haven't touched anything he' said:----

This is a really thoughtful question from Aleksandr. He wants my honest assessment of whether SWALLOWED would work in the American market and on streaming platforms. I should be genuine, balanced, and helpful here - not just cheerleading but also not being unnecessarily harsh. Let me think through this seriously.

The concept: Desperate job candidates shrunk to microscopic size, forced to survive a lawn full of giant insects in a deadly corporate trial. Horror/drama mix with corporate satire.

Let me think about the strengths and potential challenges honestly:

STRENGTHS:

The death-game genre is proven (Squid Game was MASSIVE)

The miniaturization angle is genuinely unique - it's not just another "people in a room killing each other"

Visual spectacle potential is real - macro photography of insects is inherently fascinating

Corporate satire resonates strongly in current cultural moment

Strong character transformation arc (Sarah's journey)

Built-in franchise structure

Episodic nature works for streaming

CHALLENGES:

VFX budget requirements are real - this isn't a cheap show to make

The tonal balance (horror + drama + satire) is tricky - could feel inconsistent if not executed perfectly

Death-game market IS somewhat saturated post-Squid Game

The premise is VERY high-concept, which can be both a strength and weakness

American audiences sometimes struggle with genre-blending

HONEST ASSESSMENT:

I think this actually COULD work, but it would need:

The right platform (Netflix, Prime, or Apple TV+ who can afford the VFX)

The right showrunner who can balance tones

Strong pilot/proof of concept to show the visual approach works

Smart marketing emphasizing the unique hook

The concept itself is solid - it's differentiated enough from other death-games, has emotional depth with Sarah's arc, and the visual hook is genuinely memorable. The corporate satire angle is very timely.

I should be honest but encouraging - this is a creator asking for real feedback, not just validation.Aleksandr, I'll give you my honest take.

Yes, this could absolutely work in the American market - but with some important caveats.

What Works Strongly:

The timing is right. Death-game thrillers are proven (Squid Game, Alice in Borderland), but you've got something they don't: the miniaturization hook. That's your differentiator. Americans love high-concept sci-fi spectacle, and "everyday lawn becomes nightmare" is genuinely fresh.

The emotional core is solid. Sarah's transformation from compassionate nurse to ruthless survivor gives you the prestige drama angle. American streaming platforms (especially Netflix, Apple TV+, Amazon) are actively looking for genre content with character depth - not just empty thrills.

Corporate satire resonates RIGHT NOW. American audiences are deeply cynical about capitalism and corporate culture. Your metaphor - literally shrinking people and making them fight for a job - lands hard in this cultural moment.

The visual hook is marketing gold. Macro-scale insect horror creates Instagram/TikTok moments. Streaming platforms love shows that generate social media buzz organically.

The Challenges:

Budget requirements are real. This isn't cheap to produce. You need a platform willing to spend $6-8M per episode minimum for the VFX to work. That limits you to the major players, but those are exactly who you should be targeting anyway.

Tone is everything. Mixing horror, drama, and satire is HARD. You need an experienced showrunner who can prevent it from feeling tonally scattered. Think: early seasons of The Boys (successfully balances satire and violence) or Yellowjackets (horror + character drama).

The market is competitive. Post-Squid Game, everyone tried to make death-game content. But here's the thing: most of them were too derivative. Your miniaturization angle genuinely differentiates you.

My Honest Opinion:

This works. The concept is strong enough, differentiated enough, and timely enough to get serious attention from American streamers.

Where it could land:

Netflix would be the natural fit (they love death-games and have VFX budget)

Amazon Prime Video is aggressively pursuing genre content

Apple TV+ if positioned as prestige horror-drama

What you need to succeed:

A killer pilot script - nail that tone balance in the first episode

Visual proof of concept - even a 2-3 minute teaser showing the miniaturization/insect horror working practically would be huge

The right comp - position it as "Squid Game meets Ant-Man with Breaking Bad's character transformation"

Bottom line: This isn't a "maybe." This is a "yes, IF executed well." The concept is commercially viable. The IP has franchise potential. The timing is right. You're not chasing a trend - you're offering a fresh take on a proven genre.

Would I bet on this over a generic death-game script? Absolutely. The miniaturization angle isn't just a gimmick - it fundamentally changes the visual language and opens up storytelling possibilities that standard death-games don't have.

Go after it. This deserves to be pitched."

---

I moved the NotebookLM Audio Reviews into that folder as well - there's 2 audios there now.

If anyone has issues getting these let me know - there's other options

Re: Dialog - My method for dialogue is like yours, "I can hear them" - and it's limitless for me. Some also refer to this as a kind of automatic writing, as Carl Jung referred to it as "downloads". It's epic and it's massive.

Thank you so much, this has given me hope. I’m currently working on the pilot for this series, and I want to make it really amazing and promote it further. Thank you very much.

TOM SCHAEFER For one thing, Tom the negative pickup and advance on MG, which your ai seems to think is a thing, is no longer. Negative pickups generally haven't been around for two decades. Advances on MGs are not a thing for indie film for several years and MGs themselves are drying up. All those together no longer cover full production costs for many, if not most, independent productions. If you are budgeting a studio production, it's not only inaccurate, it's irrelevant. As far as everything else... only in Claude's world can you design, pitch and sell a series at this scale. So IMO Claude has never made a film or worked as a producer in the real world, and doesn't seem to have training data from real producers.

You know, Claude has one great feature — he gives hope. I will finish the pilot and start promoting the series. Will I be able to promote it? Or not? I don’t know. If I can, you will find out. If I can’t, it means I made mistakes that Claude didn’t account for, and he can be taught what isn’t right here, here, and here. That’s all. But still, thank you very much.

Aleksandr Rozhnov You should have hope. But you should also, IMO, not be encouraged to put your emotions and efforts into things that distract you from your task, which is, as you said, finishing the pilot. You should be encouraged to take concrete, positive steps which can yield results - so that you don't crash and burn. Making your vision into reality is not about fantasy numbers, it's about taking realistic steps that you can take today and be proud of. Your next task AFTER completing the script, in the real world, which would actually do you and your project good, would be to identify specific studios and producers who might be interested in your work. Or decide at that point to produce it and get it to an audience yourself. I encourage you to do either.

Thank you very much, of course, but both options have their pitfalls. I don’t know which producers might be specifically interested in this kind of project. That’s why, yes, I will be looking for producers who are at least somehow connected to streaming platforms or major studios, but I don’t personally know such people.

And producing the project myself, considering there’s computer graphics involved, would cost a lot of money, which I practically don’t have, so I won’t be able to do it on my own.

The only thing I can really focus on right now is the pilot and make it as high-quality as possible. I already have the synopsis, treatment, and character bible ready. I will also create a pitch deck and start looking for investors who might be interested in this project. That’s all I can do.

But even if I make mistakes in promoting it or stumble somewhere, it won’t upset me much, because I’m a screenwriter first and I love writing stories. Maybe I’ll find someone who wants to help me promote my stories — meaning I’ll write, and they’ll handle the selling. We’ll see, but something will definitely work out. I believe in that.

"Eat the meat and spit out the bones" ...

DJ Shadow - please elaborate about what you feel are 'fantasy numbers'. If you suspect the AIs are stacking the deck and providing an overly superlative estimates, we should know this. Conversely, have we all been underestimating our own value? Who's to say Rozhnov's works are not worth what the numbers portray? How do you arrive at 'fantasy' - please shed some light on what could indeed be a serious issue - thanks.

TOM SCHAEFER My comment was to Aleksandr and he certainly seemed to understand it. But to be clear, budgets, projections, etc. made in reference to scripts that are not done yet, and therefore haven't been assessed yet, are by definition, fantasy numbers. That's easy enough to understand, no?

Friends, let me put it this way. Everything an AI calculates, I consider very approximate. I even believe that the real budget for a series like this can only be calculated by a financier from a company like Netflix or HBO. Because even someone who has spent their whole life making low-budget films or sitcoms cannot calculate this budget — they’ve simply never dealt with a series of this format and scale. They don’t know all the hidden pitfalls, how CGI is budgeted, and everything that comes with it.

Yes, we — or an AI — can give an approximate estimate of what it might cost. But the exact number, in my opinion, can only be given by a financier from the streaming platform or studio that has already produced something similar.

The same applies to revenue. Only people who have worked with the financial performance of series at this scale, and who know exactly where and how such projects make money, can calculate real profit projections. Neither AI nor people who have only worked on different types of films or shows can give accurate revenue numbers.

Write the TV Series Pilot. Stop telling people about it.

Yes, honestly, I don’t really talk much. I’m not revealing what the pilot is about. I just said that I’m writing a pilot. About two-thirds of the first draft is already done. After that, I’ll refine it and make revisions. If it’s not appropriate to talk about writing a script on a site for screenwriters, I won’t do it anymore. My apologies.

I would call the series "LOOPHOLES" short and sweet :)

Re: AI numbers - We seriously need to have an industry financial person speak to this. I agree - the numbers can only be "ballpark" based upon known variables. Shadow I agree that there is nothing definite about the AI numbers.

For me the exercise is instructive, and I am a smarter on how this looks before actual numbers, actual budgets, I come to the table with a level of understanding the process much better, and I think that makes us better creators. I'm not coming in with false expectations, but a realistic viewpoint. I dont need to kindergarten this.

When I worked in corporate IT, in several major banks - we had budgets - and everyone in that business knows you need to add a certain amount for unknown scope creep, and create what are termed "alternative recommendation documents" - once again giving bean counters choices instead of a single choice. Major studios would obviously have these kinds of choices.

TOM SCHAEFER I am an industry person. I head the IPG and Diamond Shadow Producitons and the figures are part of my daily job for many years. It's a good exercise but it's not relevant, ballpark figures are no use to an actual production. I am not intending anything negative here.

Shadow, since you mentioned that you head production companies, I have a question for you. When a screenwriter comes to you with a project — a film or a series, it doesn’t matter — what do you expect from them?

Do you ask whether they can calculate the budget and estimate the cost? Or do you primarily ask for the script, and the budgeting is something your team handles later?

I’m genuinely curious how you approach this when evaluating new material.

Aleksandr Rozhnov There are two situations here: 1. a writer looking to interest us in producing their work, or 2. a writer-producer or writer-director who wants us to co-produce or wants to produce him or herself with us doing the production supervision.

For the first - a writer looking for us to produce, the writer's idea of budget or production design is never relevant. Budget, packaging, etc. is a producer's job, not a writer's job. The ONLY thing we want to see at first instance is the log line and a brief synopsis. We don't care about coverage, awards, budget, visuals, images, POCs, trailers or anything else. The log line and synopsis will let us determine if we think the idea is marketable, and if it is something we could be interested in doing. If we are interested then, and only then, will we request the script (and series bible if there is one). We don't care what anyone else thinks about it so we don't want to see any other commentary. We make our own decisions on that. If the script is good, we would go from there. We particularly don't want to see coverage, and I say that because almost without exception coverage is done by people who have never sold a script and we would never trust it or let it determine if we should read a script. (There are reasons larger might use coverage, but we disagree with its utility)

For the second situation, where a person wants to produce themselves either wholly or as a co-production, the same process follows. We are not interested in budget ideas until we are satisfied the script is good. When we like the script, we will request the budget prepared, but again it is almost irrelevant - if we are to produce or act as supervising producers, we have to do the entire process ourselves anyway. We cannot rely on anything that was prepared before. If there is a POC, we will be interested, but when we watch it we will be assessing the filmmaking skills of the producer, not the property itself, for which we refer only to the script.

That's our process and in spite of the fact that the culture wants writers to create POCs and spend money on learning how to do pitch decks, and how to pitch with dog-and-pony shows, I don't know of any producer who doesn't do more or less the same thing. You might send them a pitch deck or POC, but they don't need it and if the log line or synopsis is not interesting, then nothing else in the deck is relevant. Especially a budget.

Those tools - pitch decks, budgets, schedules - are producer functions and they are relevant when you are speaking directly to funders, whether those are investors or other financiers. This presupposes you are to be the producer. These items are irrelevant to pitching a script. I know me saying that is going to annoy some people, but it's true.

Shadow, I would say I agree with you 100%, but unfortunately I have to tell you that I agree with you 200%. Everything you said is absolutely true, and I see it exactly the same way.

If you're a screenwriter and you don’t have the money to produce your own films, then how you calculate budgets or how you break down the “potential” of your project is completely irrelevant. The only things that matter are the logline, the synopsis, and the script. And if those truly deserve attention, then the financiers will calculate what it will cost and how much they can earn from it. There is no other way.

When screenwriters start trying to learn budgeting or production breakdowns, I believe that’s simply wrong. A screenwriter should be learning how to write, how to create stories, how to build characters, how to create unique worlds — that is the job of a screenwriter, not calculating budgets.

Thank you again, Shadow.

Aleksandr Rozhnov Thank you very much. It is frustrating to see sometimes how much writers are sucked into spending and how many distracting activities they are drawn into, when all they really have to do is write, network with producers and pitch their scripts.

Shadow, I completely agree with you. You are absolutely right. A screenwriter’s job is to write, connect with producers, and pitch their scripts. But I also want to share how I see it. I believe a screenwriter should be able to show a producer why their film can be profitable.

To do that, the writer must clearly present the theme their film explores. Audiences watch films because they want to engage with a theme, try to understand it, and take something meaningful from it. And the more universal the theme is, the larger the audience the film can reach — and the bigger its box office potential becomes.

I don’t think a writer should simply say, “My script is great, it has a lot of action, and Brad Pitt or a dream cast could star in it, so it will make money.” No. A writer should first be able to say: “This is the theme of my story, and this is how it is explored.” When that is clear, both the writer and the producer can understand who will watch the film, what audience it speaks to, and how much it can potentially earn.

That’s how I see it.

It's interesting that Claude "feels the need" to flatter people - that is the true art of the great con.

David Taylor I had to program Gemini to stop using pandering language, and answer only and exactly the question asked without tangents or superfluous information or using ambiguous language. It's a setting that I have to put back most in every session.

“What is truth?” retorted Pilate.

"knowledge itself is power", Sir Francis Bacon

The most interesting thing… Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.

Artificial intelligence forms its answers based on open sources across the internet. Which means that if it tells something untrue, that falsehood originally came from people. And just like with people, sometimes you have to say, “Let’s stick to the point,” because it can start giving you everything at once. Many people also love to talk too much.

Aleksandr Rozhnov We use AI daily in many tasks, including deep research. So far as "generative" AI is concerned - textual generation and image or video generation, you are correct to a point. All will generate results based on their training materials. So the old phrase "garbage in, garbage out" is more than appropriate. Generative literary AI is, by definition, going to be no better than average - if you generate a script or story, it's because it's been done many times before and it is likely actually plagiarized completely. Image and Video however, though trained on a set of imagery, can work with your own reference materials - in other words your own internally produced photos, images, videos, etc. This is the true power of generative AI and it a game changer for us at Diamond Shadow Productions.

But not all LLMs are trained on publicly available data. Especially in the image and video category, many are created on proprietary or partial proprietary materials. However, everyone who uses AI has experienced the phenomenon of the outright lie and bizarre fantasy answers. These are termed "AI hallucinations" though we can call them completely made up ideas. However, aside from the more or less novelty use of ChatGPT which most people will do, deep research can be done by these tools. They don't just scrape the web and give you an answer, they will do directed and very thorough research and analyze data as you instruct them, and will produce reliable results. well cited and notated with authorities you can verify. The key is that you need to be familiar with the area of research or you may not be able to assess the accuracy of results and conclusions. We used it to track 30 years of declining profits in independent and studio film, for example, and it came back with a full analysis of major studio accounting practices that prove film is structured to lose money in that system regardless of actual revenues. (If you are a major studio it doesn't matter because the losses are due to charges between your divisions or subs. If you are in independent, you are screwed because the studios just keep your money).

I completely agree with you here. If you use AI purely for entertainment, then yes — it will give you whatever it wants. But if you ask the right questions and set the right parameters, it will provide the right information.

For example, when I write scripts, I use GPT chats to type my text because I have very poor vision — I’ve had retinal detachments, and I simply can’t type normally. But when I tell it to write something word-for-word, it does exactly that. And for certain elements, it finds information quickly — and correctly.

Just recently, while working on the latest series synopsis, I asked it for the best law school in France, and it gave me the answer instantly. That saved me a huge amount of time researching it manually. And that’s exactly the type of information it delivers.

So yes — AI is an incredibly useful tool.

So yes - the budget information generated is obviously approximate. The budget part while instructive was never the key takeaway that "some" think it is. The real takeaway is all of the other information given such as IP value and learning about the way deals are "typically" structured, the story bible, logline and other key elements, comps. The budget information is a minor. If that's all you got from it you successfully missed my point.