Technology news today: Wicked: For Good hits theaters, shatters preview records with $30.8M
WWE SmackDown results: AJ Lee returns for WarGames, Cody Rhodes bloodied by Drew McIntyre
“Possibly the end of human creativity,” the line that set off an industry storm — and it landed without a name attached. The remark, voiced on live TV by a tech CEO this week, ties an avant‑garde project to a broad claim: AIs will soon produce entertainment at scale, shifting billions in revenue and reshaping who gets credit. This matters because the comment blends a cultural fear (jobs and authorship) with a literal film rescue effort that promises to reconstruct lost Orson Welles footage. What should creators and audiences worry about — and what could they gain?
What This Explosive AI Claim Means For Creators And Jobs In 2025
- The Remark: A CEO Said On CNBC (Sept. 5, 2025) That AI Might End Human Creativity, Triggering Outcry.
- The Project: An AI Reconstruction Team Aims To Rebuild Missing 1942 Orson Welles Footage Over Two Years.
- The Stakes: Of 73 Original Scenes, 60 Were Altered Or Cut; 43 Minutes Of Footage Were Destroyed Historically.
- The Fallout: Creators, Guilds, And Fans Are Debating Job Loss, Authorship, And Monetization Rights.
- Next Move: Reconstruction Is Projected Over Two Years — Will Rights Holders Approve Monetization?
Why That Single Quote Flipped The Script For AI And Film Rights Today
The quoted line landed like a grenade because it mixes the abstract (creativity) with the concrete (a reconstruction project of a lost 1942 film). On live CNBC, a tech CEO framed AI not as a tool but as a new creative actor — and that framing turns a technical demo into an existential threat for writers, actors, and directors. If you write, perform, or fund stories, ask yourself: who owns the work once machines can reproduce a director’s style? The remark amplified existing legal fights and made a restoration effort suddenly feel like an audition for a future where studios sell AI‑generated sequels alongside originals.
Samuel L Jackson jokes he cheers for Ravens because Lamar is his bastard son on Kimmel
Rama Raju Mantena’s daughter’s Udaipur wedding becomes the event of the year with JLo, Trump Jr joining star-studded celebrations
https://twitter.com/DEADLINE/status/1964034440285606263
How Industry Voices Turned One Line Into A Culture War — Who’s Angry, Who’s Excited?
Reactions split fast. Some creators called the idea devastating, warning about lost livelihoods and hollowed‑out authorship; others framed it as an opportunity to monetize new fan content and revive lost art. The CEO argued studios could share revenue from AI spin‑offs rather than ceding profits to big tech. Fans and commentators on social platforms amplified both angles, mixing moral outrage with speculative excitement about restored classics. Which side will you cheer for — those protecting jobs or those promising new, mass‑produced art?
https://twitter.com/JustineBateman/status/1964143146545397801
The Key Figures That Explain Why This Debate Matters Right Now
| Indicator | Value + Unit | Change/Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Original Scenes | 73 scenes | 60 altered vs original |
| Missing Footage | 43 minutes | Destroyed For Silver Nitrate |
| Reconstruction Time | 2 years | Projected Showrunner Effort |
Only 13 of 73 scenes remain intact; reconstruction is extensive and legally fraught.
What The Quote Actually Said — The Context You Need Before Picking A Side
The line opened the segment; the speaker framed AI as capable of producing entertainment “alongside” humans and said studios could earn from that activity — even imagining millions of new scenes within days of a release. That context matters: this wasn’t a throwaway provocation, it was a sales pitch tied to a real, two‑year project to reconstruct lost Orson Welles material. So the quote is both a forecast and a business plan, not only an abstract warning.
Who Said It And Why Their Role Changes The Stakes
The speaker was Edward Saatchi, CEO of Amazon‑backed startup Fable. He framed Showrunner — an AI reconstruction platform — as a way to “train our AI on the greatest storyteller of the past 200 years,” and described AI as creating “millions of new scenes” around a release weekend. That identity matters because Saatchi directly profits from both the technology and the reconstruction project, turning a cultural claim into a commercial pitch. Does a CEO selling the tech have the standing to define what creativity is — or should creators and rights holders set the rules?
What This Controversy Could Mean For You — Jobs, Rights, And The Next 12 Months
Expect a year of legal fights, guild lobbying, and test cases as studios, writers, and tech firms negotiate new licensing and revenue rules. If you work in TV or film, prepare for pressure on contracts and possible AI clauses; if you’re a fan, expect surprise releases and AI‑generated extras tied to big titles. Will policy and unions protect creators — or will market forces and convenience hand the narrative to machines? Which side would you defend?
Sources
- https://deadline.com/2025/09/ai-the-end-of-human-creativity-amazon-backed-startup-fable-orson-welles-1236504257/
- https://deadline.com/2025/09/anthropic-ai-lawsuit-settlement-1-5-billion-1236509423/
- https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/call-of-duty-paramount-live-action-movie-coming-1236358976/
Jessica Morrison is a seasoned entertainment writer with over a decade of experience covering television, film, and pop culture. After earning a degree in journalism from New York University, she worked as a freelance writer for various entertainment magazines before joining red94.net. Her expertise lies in analyzing television series, from groundbreaking dramas to light-hearted comedies, and she often provides in-depth reviews and industry insights. Outside of writing, Jessica is an avid film buff and enjoys discovering new indie movies at local festivals.