A24 Took $75M From Google to Build AI Film Tools — and Its Fans Erupted

A studio that 'didn't do AI' just teamed with Google's AI lab

Here's the deal: indie studio A24 struck a roughly $75 million AI partnership with Google DeepMind. Google invests that money in A24, and in return A24 gets access to DeepMind's research and infrastructure. DeepMind researchers will work with A24 to build new filmmaking workflows — notably tools like AI-generated storyboards. For scale, the $75 million is roughly in line with what Thrive Capital invested in A24's last funding round.

Why is this big news? You have to know what A24 is. It's a brand beloved as the studio that "refuses to compromise its artistic vision" — the opposite pole from the giant studios' factory model, with a thick fanbase built on films that protect the director's vision. For that A24 to join hands with Google's AI lab — in the very industry where "AI ruins creativity" sentiment runs hottest — is a shock. It's among the first high-profile AI collaborations by a studio of A24's stature, which made it land even harder.

So here's what we'll unpack: what exactly A24 and Google agreed to, why A24 made this risky bet, why fans and filmmakers are so angry, and what it means for Hollywood's relationship with AI.

The players — A24, Google DeepMind, and a furious fanbase

First, A24. The symbol of auteur-driven indie film, known for work like Everything Everywhere All at Once. The key is that A24's brand identity is rooted in authenticity and respect for artists. So A24 fans aren't mere audiences — they're closer to believers who share the company's values. For such a company to touch AI feels, to fans, like a violation of doctrine.

Next, Google DeepMind. A top-tier AI lab, also ahead in film and video generation AI. For Google, partnering with an "icon of artistry" like A24 is enormous cover — using the A24 brand to prove "AI doesn't kill art, it helps real creators." Crucially, the deal does not give Google access to A24's content library or data. So this isn't "Google training AI on A24 films."

The third lead: the furious fans and filmmakers. The moment it was announced, the r/A24 subreddit boiled over into what multiple outlets called "meltdown" mode. Kane Parsons, the 21-year-old director behind A24's biggest hit, publicly flagged AI's "genuinely harmful consequences." About 2,000 storyboard artists work in Hollywood today, and the "AI storyboards" this partnership aims to build sit directly adjacent to their livelihoods.

Tie it together: A24, a symbol of artistry, struck a $75M AI-tools partnership with Google DeepMind in the industry most wary of AI — and the fans and filmmakers who loved those values erupted in betrayal within hours. That's the spine.

What's confirmed — what was agreed

Words scatter, so here's the table.

Item	Detail
Parties	A24 + Google DeepMind
Size	~$75M (Google's investment in A24)
Comparison	Roughly in line with Thrive Capital's last round
Core work	Co-develop AI tools/workflows for filmmaking
Flagship tool	AI-generated storyboards
A24 gets	Access to DeepMind research & infrastructure
Google does NOT get	A24's content library / data (no access)
A24's framing	"Won't look anything like the prompted generation AI people feel uncomfortable with" (Scott Belsky)
Backlash	r/A24 subreddit meltdown, filmmaker criticism
Jobs at risk	~2,000 Hollywood storyboard artists

Row by row. First, "Google gets no content/data access" is key — a defense line A24 inserted with fans in mind. "We're not training Google's AI on our films; we're just receiving tools." A careful design to dodge the AI-training-data controversy.

Second, A24 partner Scott Belsky's remark is loaded. He drew a line: these new tools "won't look anything like the prompted generation AI people feel uncomfortable with." The frame: "AI isn't churning out films instead of directors; we're building tools creators use." The deal's official banner is AI "shaped by the creators who use them."

Third — the real point — that defense didn't work. However A24 packaged it as "tools that help creators," the fanbase erupted within hours. The core: fear that AI storyboards will ultimately replace 2,000 storyboard artists, plus betrayal that "even A24, beloved for its artistry, bowed to money." The gap between the official framing and the emotional reality is the essence of this story.

What each side gets

A24. First, capital — $75M is big money for an indie studio and expands its production capacity. Second, production efficiency — tools like AI storyboards cut pre-visualization cost and time, letting a budget-tight indie make more films. Third, future-proofing — if AI entering film production is inevitable, A24 calculated it's better to lead on its own terms than be dragged along.

Google. First, brand laundering — facing "AI kills art" criticism, joining an artistry icon like A24 builds a powerful counterexample: "AI helps real creators." Second, real-world validation (not data) — refining AI tools on A24's actual sets advances Google's video AI to fit real film workflows. Third, a Hollywood beachhead — a symbolic first step into the toughest industry.

The clear group with harm fears: storyboard artists. If AI storyboard generation takes hold, the ~2,000 artists doing that work are directly hit. That's the most concrete, legitimate basis for the backlash — not an abstract "art is being ruined," but real people's livelihoods.

Past parallels — wins and losses

Film's clashes with new tech are a recurring history. The closest is the arrival of CGI and digital production. When CGI first appeared, there was loud pushback — "not real art," "the craftsman's touch is gone." But CGI became a standard tool and, in the right directors' hands, made new art. A24 and Google are betting "AI will go the same way" — it's just a tool; the person using it decides the art.

On the other side, the memory of the 2023 Hollywood strikes casts a shadow of failure. Writers and actors waged massive strikes to protect jobs and rights from AI, and AI became a "minefield of trust" in Hollywood. In that context, A24's move pokes a wound that hasn't healed. However much you call it "a tool," when the industry's collective memory equates AI with job threats, backlash is inevitable.

Also worth remembering: the clash between brand identity and business decisions. When a brand beloved for its values makes a decision that seems to contradict those values, the backlash is far bigger than for an ordinary company — because fans are believers, not just consumers. A24's AI deal is far louder than the same move from another studio precisely because of the identity A24 built. The bigger the love, the bigger the sense of betrayal.

Competitors' counter-plays

The most interesting counter-play is other indie studios and creators. Seeing A24 go AI, rivals split two ways. One side follows — "if even A24 does it, let's adopt AI tools fast." The other does the opposite, making "100% human-made film" a new differentiator. In the AI era, "made by humans" becomes a premium label — a paradox. A24's move may actually open a market for "anti-AI branding."

Hollywood unions and artist groups plot counters too. Having won some AI protections in the 2023 strikes, they'll read the A24-Google deal as "the opening shot of AI's intrusion" and demand stronger rules and contract terms. Protecting roles like storyboard artists is likely to top the next bargaining table.

For other Big Tech AI labs, this is an opportunity signal. With Google partnering A24, the likes of OpenAI and Meta will eye partnerships with other studios and creators. The race to "sell AI to Hollywood" begins in earnest — though, having watched A24's backlash, they'll approach more cautiously, emphasizing "creator-friendly."

So what actually changes

If you're a film fan, A24 movies don't suddenly become "AI-made films." This deal is about production tools, not "AI writing and directing." Still, watch how AI tools get credited and used in A24's process going forward — and whether it changes the "texture" of the work. Whether the reason you loved A24 gets eroded is something the films themselves will answer.

If you work in creative or visual industries, this is a direct signal — especially for storyboarding, pre-visualization, and concept art, now within AI tools' reach. "Skill at wielding AI as a tool" may become a new edge, or "the human-only creativity AI can't do" may become a new moat. Too early to call, but it's time to form a stance on the change.

If you watch the AI industry, the A24-Google deal is a symbolic scene of "AI entering the creative domain in earnest." At the same time, the scale of the backlash shows how high the wall of trust is that AI must clear in creative fields. The gap between what's technically possible and what's socially accepted — art is where that gap shows most nakedly.

One step further — the real risk A24 took

To read this right, see what A24 staked. A24's biggest asset isn't its film library — it's trust. Audiences believed, on seeing the A24 logo alone, "this will be an artful, uncompromised work." That trust is A24's real capital. And the AI deal touched exactly that. In exchange for $75M, it risked losing some fans' trust. The company put "future production efficiency" and "present brand trust" on the same scale.

Another easy-to-miss thread: "why do this now, and so publicly?" A24 could have used AI tools quietly, internally. Announcing a $75M partnership with Google means A24 chose to confront AI head-on rather than hide it. It's a gamble, but it has logic — if AI is coming anyway, planting a flag first ("we use it creator-friendly") beats being caught using it in secret. The problem is the flag came too early for the fans.

Caveats, coldly. First, what the actual tools look like: if they emerge as genuine creator tools "different from prompted generation," as Belsky said, the backlash may ease — but if the output ends up "press a button, get a film," trust is unrecoverable. Second, the substance of the jobs question: whether AI storyboards "assist" or "replace" artists depends on how they're deployed. Third, the fanbase's memory: whether this betrayal is a passing anger or a permanent scar on the A24 brand is something time will answer.

In the end, the A24-Google deal isn't just a studio-investment headline — it's a symbolic event of an era where art and AI collide head-on. In the industry most wary of AI, the brand most beloved for artistry extended its hand first, and met the fiercest backlash for it. Whether this becomes "a new model for AI-era creativity" or is remembered as "the day A24 sold its identity" is something the coming tools and films will answer.

🥄 Three Things You're Probably Wondering

— So are A24 films AI-made now? No. This deal is about production tools like storyboards, not AI writing and directing. Google wasn't even given access to A24's film data. But how much, and how, AI tools enter the process remains to be seen.

— Why does A24 specifically catch more flak? Because A24 is beloved as a brand of "artistry and authenticity." Fans weren't just audiences — they shared those values. The bigger the love, the bigger the betrayal. The same move from a major studio wouldn't be this loud.

— Will storyboard artists actually lose jobs? That's the most concrete worry. Whether AI storyboards "assist" or "replace" isn't settled. About 2,000 people do that work in Hollywood, and unions will push hard for protections. Too early to call.

Sources

• Google Invests $75 Million in A24 to Develop AI-Powered Filmmaking Tools — Variety
• A24 and Google DeepMind form AI Partnership — The Hollywood Reporter
• Google Invests In A24 To Develop AI-Powered Filmmaking Tools 'Shaped By The Creators Who Use Them' — Deadline
• A24 Opens Filmmaking Workflow to Google DeepMind in AI Partnership — IndieWire
• A24 takes $75 million from Google for AI research — The A.V. Club

Numbers are as of announcement and may change.