A movie trailer dropped this week. Science fiction anthology, four connected stories, rated R, hitting theaters December 4. All normal stuff except for one detail: no camera ever rolled, no actor stood on a mark and no crew ate lunch off a craft services table. The whole film was generated by artificial intelligence, built by a team of about ten people, and it just became the first fully AI-generated movie to receive an official rating from the MPA, same stamp as everything else at the multiplex.

Oh, and they moved the release date up to campaign for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. The producer says it’s the first AI film with a real shot at a nomination.

You can probably guess how I feel about that but I’m not going to just blurt it out. Walk with me, because this debate is messier than either side wants to admit, and I want to illustrate our take on this topic.

First, the scale of the moment. The machines are not coming, they’re here. By this past spring, AI-generated tracks reportedly made up around 44 percent of everything uploaded to one major streaming service every single day. That’s nearly half. And, the industry is scrambling to build walls: Bandcamp banned wholly AI-generated music outright, other platforms are labeling it, hiding it from recommendations, or refusing to pay royalties on it.

And here’s the messy part: Some of the artists we respect most aren’t panicking. Ice-T defended AI music videos this year purely on the math: “...fans stream the song for fractions of a penny, there’s no MTV anymore, so who’s paying for a six-figure video?” Nile Rodgers, a man who has earned the right to defend human musicianship more than almost anyone alive, says “…any tool that lets an artist create is an amazing thing.” He remembers when drum machines showed up and everybody swore it wasn’t real music. But now? Where would modern music be without the technology drum machines gave us?

They have a point, and I want to be honest about it. Every generation of tools and technology gets labeled the ‘death of art’ on arrival: the drum machine, the sampler, the digital camera. Artists picked them up anyway and made things that moved us.

But here’s where I get off the train, and I need you to see the difference, because the whole debate lives in that difference.

The drum machine never wrote the song, a human chose the pattern. The sampler never picked the break, a human heard something in an old record and knew. Every tool that earned its place in the history of the arts had one thing in common: there was still a person on the other end, making the choices, meaning it. The tool extended the human but never replaced them.

A fully generated film is a different thing wearing the same costume. There’s no one on the other end.

So let me tell you plainly where Idu House stands. Do we use AI tools? Yes. We use it the way we use any good tool: to be more productive. The paperwork, schedules, and all the other busywork that eats the hours we’d rather spend on creating. The tools buy our people time to do the human part. But everything that goes out into the world with our name on it, the story, the frame, the performance, the final word, is made and finished by human hands. That’s not a step in our process we’re sentimental about. That is the product. The human touch is the whole thing.

Here’s why I believe that. Think about the last song that really moved you. The scene in that one movie that gave you goosebumps. Part of what got you, whether you clocked it or not, is that somebody meant it. Art is one person reaching through the noise and clutter of life in a language we all understand to touch another person. That transmission is the whole plot. A generated film can imitate the shape of that signal, but there’s no sender and we aren’t stupid. We can feel the difference between being spoken to and being simulated at.

The sales pitch for this stuff deserves a closer look. We’re told this is democratization. Anyone can make a feature now! But look at who owns the machines. The models belong to some of the biggest companies on earth, and they were trained on a century of human craft, most of it swallowed without consent, credit, or a dime to the artists who made it. That’s not fewer gatekeepers, that’s a new gatekeeper bigger than any studio head ever was, built on the unpaid work of the very people it’s replacing. Meanwhile a feature film used to mean hundreds of jobs. Gaffers, editors, composers, background actors, caterers. Ten people and a render farm might be a technical marvel but it’s a wound at the same time. But, that truth isn’t a very compelling logline.

So no, I won’t be rooting for the machine come awards season. Not out of fear but out of loyalty to the art. This house is built on the belief that the stories worth telling come from people, belong to people, and reach people. The tools will keep changing but that truth won’t.

Come see what humans are building at iduhouse.com. If you’re a creator feeling like the ground is moving under you right now, the door is open. There’s a seat here for you, and nobody’s going to generate you out of it.

Talk soon.

Idu House turned last week.

Funny enough, we are Idu House and we don’t yet have a building. But, here we are.

Walk with me for a minute, because I want to paint a picture of what this year as looked like.

A year ago, Idu House mostly lived in long (long) conversations. The kind that start over dinner and end with somebody opening a shared doc at midnight. We kept coming back to the same idea: there should be a place where making great work and actually owning that work are not at odds with each other. Where artists can find collaborators, build careers that last, and have a real say in what happens to the things they make.

We had a name, a vision, and an almost embarrassing amount of ambition.

What we did not have was a track record.

So we got to work.

Over the past year we have been turning those conversations into things you can actually see, hear, and show up to. Crate Chronicles gave us a reason to sit down with creative people and listen to their stories. Sound Sessions gave us a reason to play music loud and get people in the same room. We took on production work. We started developing original stories of our own across film and animation.

And behind all of that, we have been working on the parts that never make it to a feed. Threshold (more to come), our theory on creative ownership and distribution, and the question of what it would actually take to build a company that supports a creator beyond one project.

I’m proud of everything we have done but I have also learned there is a very real difference between having an idea and bringing it to life.

If year one taught me anything, it’s that.

Because not everything went according to plan.

We had ideas we were excited about that did not land the way we expected. We planned an event and had to pull back from it, and that forced us to rethink what a meaningful community experience should actually feel like. Some projects took a lot longer than we hoped. A few priorities changed once we understood what the real cost. And, that’s more than just money.

There were plenty of moments when the ambition was moving faster than our ability to execute. That is a humbling thing to admit. It’s also a useful one.

You can have a beautiful vision for a house but you have to figure out how to build it.

That is what this first year was all about: you, the creators, artists, and idealists.

Somewhere along the way, our little corner of Instagram has grown to around 1,700 of you. People who simply believe there should be more room for independent creative work to thrive.

Some of you collaborated with us. Some of you offered advice we REALLY needed. Some of you shared our work or came out to support something we were trying for the first time and some of you have been quietly watching, waiting to see what we do next.

I see all of it and I appreciate all of it.

When you’re building something from the ground up, knowing other people see a reason for it to exist is not a small thing. Some days it’s the whole thing.

So what does year two look like?

More making.

We want to get more of our original work into the world and we want to create more rooms where creative people can meet, collaborate, and grow. We want to keep figuring out what real ownership and real support look like for creators, not in theory, in practice. And we want to keep laying the foundation for something that can eventually be much bigger than the projects we’re making right now.

We call Idu House a House of Beginnings.

One year in, that phrase means more to me than it did when we picked it. Because now I know what a beginning actually demands. It demands patience, wrong turns, work nobody sees and people who show up when there’s still very little to show them. We have a lot left to learn and an enormous amount left to build but we have more to show today than we did a year ago and I’m proud of that.

To everyone who has been here for any part of this first year, thank you. I hope you stick around. There’s a lot we want to share with you.

And if you’re a creator, I’d love to hear what you’re working on. Seriously. Hit reply. Tell me what you’re making, what you’re dreaming up, or what you wish existed to help you bring it to life.

After all, the whole point of building a house is to have people in it.

Talk soon.

Close your eyes and… wait. No. Just visualize something for me: the posted for the last movie you watched in a theater that was not a sequel, a remake, a reboot, based on a book, or based on something you already knew (comic, video game, toy, etc.).

Take your time. I’ll wait.

If you’re struggling, that is not a you problem. Look at the biggest films of the last few years: Barbie, Wicked, Super Mario, Minecraft, anything in the MCU. All of them built on something that already lived in your head before the trailer dropped. The industry calls this IP, and right now it is the only language the major studios speak fluently. An original story walks into a pitch meeting carrying risk. A brand walks in carrying a built-in audience. Guess which one gets the greenlight.

Here’s the lazy conclusion the industry drew: audiences only want what they already know. And for a while, the numbers let everyone believe it.

Then, in the spring of last year, Sinners happened.

If you haven’t seen it, fix that this weekend. Ryan Coogler wrote and directed an original story about twin brothers, both played by Michael B. Jordan, who open a juke joint in 1930s Mississippi. While the Delta blues shakes the walls, something hungry circles outside. No comic. No game. No ride. Just a filmmaker with a story that was original to him.

It opened to 48 million dollars, the biggest opening weekend for an original film since before the pandemic. It climbed to roughly 278 million dollars in the US alone, more than any Marvel movie released in 2025. The audience that supposedly “only wants the familiar” showed up in droves for something brand new, then told their friends to go too. And if you’ve seen it, you already know why. That one scene.

So write this down somewhere: the appetite for original stories is alive. The problem was never us.

But the box office isn’t even the most important part of this story. The deal is.

Before a single frame was shot, Coogler told the studios bidding on Sinners that he had three non-negotiables. Final cut, meaning full creative control over the finished film. First-dollar gross, meaning he gets paid from the first ticket sold instead of waiting for the studio to announce a profit. And the one that nearly ended every conversation in every room: 25 years after release, ownership of the film returns to him. In 2050, Sinners will belong to Ryan Coogler.

Warner Bros. said yes. And then Hollywood lost its mind.

One executive told Vulture the arrangement could be the end of the studio system and called it very dangerous. The end of the studio system. Over one movie, returning to one director, a quarter century from now. I did not know the studio system was that fragile.

And then Warner told on itself. The studio’s own film leadership later explained that they ran the math on what a movie is worth after 25 years of sitting in a library, and the amount they found was negligible. Their word, not mine. Negligible.

Hold those two thoughts next to each other for a second. The thing Coogler asked for is dangerous. The thing Coogler asked for is worthless. Those two things cannot both be true.

So which is it? I think you already know. The fight was never about the money. Their own math said the money barely exists. The fight was about the principle the whole system is built on: creators make, studios own. One director owning one of his own films, even decades from now, threatens the idea more than the asset. That’s why it felt dangerous. Not to the balance sheet. To the arrangement.

And let’s be honest about how he pulled it off. Coogler walked into that room with more than 2 billion dollars of box office behind him. He is one of a tiny handful of filmmakers alive, Tarantino and George Lucas among them, who could make that ask and not get laughed out of the building. Which means the system’s actual offer to creators is this: you can own a piece of what you make, as long as you first make billions for the people who own everything else. Ownership as a retirement gift. Something you get at the end of the road, never at the start of it.

Sit with that. A kid from Oakland had to become one of the most successful directors on the planet to win back one of his own stories. And he still has to wait until 2050 to hold it.

That’s the part I can’t accept.

A novelist keeps the copyright to her book. A painter can sell the canvas and still own the image. But film decided a long time ago that the people who made the movies were never really the authors at all, and we all just nodded along. At Idu House we’re done nodding. We develop original stories and we develop artists. How are we different? Here, the work ALWAYS belongs to the people who make it. No 25-year wait to enjoy owning the thing you made. No requirement that you conquer the box office before you’re allowed to keep what’s yours. We call ourselves a possibility engine for creators, and that’s what ownership really is. Possibility. The right to decide what your story becomes next.

Coogler proved the audience is hungry for new stories. His deal proved the system still treats storytellers like renters. One of those is worth celebrating. The other is worth replacing. We’re working on that.

Go see Sinners if you haven’t. Then come poke around the rest of Idu House and see what we’re building. And if you’re a creator sitting on an original story, wondering if there’s room for it anywhere, there is. Right here. The door is open.

Talk soon.

Right now, two of Hollywood’s five major studios are becoming one company. Paramount is buying Warner Bros. Discovery for about 111 billion dollars, the largest merger in Hollywood history. Twelve states sued to block it this summer. On Monday, after a weekend of marathon negotiations, those states settled. The lawsuit is over. The companies say they expect to close within weeks.

I know. Mergers. Lawsuits. Attorneys general. Your eyes are glazing over but walk with me for a minute, because buried in those legal filings is a number I can’t stop thinking about.

Once this deal closes, one company will control nearly a third of the movies in theaters and nearly a third of basic cable.

One third. One company.

The media coverage treats this like a business story. Stock prices, deal terms, who’s up and who’s down. But I don’t run a hedge fund. I make things. And if you’re reading this, chances are you make things too, or you love the things people make. So let’s say out loud what this actually is: a story about creativity and who gets to practice it.

Here’s something I believe. The most impactful pieces of creativity are usually kept away from us. They get buried because they won’t make loads of cash, or because they threaten something a studio is already selling. That might sound dramatic so let me give you a real example:

In 2022, Warner Bros. Discovery shelved a finished film called Batgirl. Not paused it. Not delayed it. Shelved it. The movie was shot. Actors gave performances. Crews built sets and lit scenes and fed everybody for months. Editors shaped it into a real thing that ACTUALLY exists. And then someone did the math and decided it was worth more as a tax write-off than as a movie. Nobody will ever see it. Years of human creativity, deleted to look better on the balance sheet.

That is what happens when art becomes a line item. And here’s the part that really gets me. Warner Bros. Discovery is itself only four years old. It exists because of a merger. Now it’s being merged again. The machine doesn’t slow down. It just gets hungrier.

So what does any of this have to do with you?

If you’re a creator, everything. Every consolidation means fewer buyers for your work. Fewer green-lights. Fewer people who can say yes, and every one of them more careful than the last. You’re asked to compete harder for shrinking shelf space in a system you will never own a piece of. Your leverage goes down while theirs goes up. That’s not an opinion. That’s the math.

If you’re an audience, it matters just as much. The states that sued said it plainly in their own case: higher prices, fewer movies, less variety. Fewer chances for you to stumble onto the song or the film that rearranges something inside you. The goosebumps moment. The moment you see yourself in a character you didn’t expect. The ones you carry for the rest of your life.

Now here’s where I’m supposed to tell you the sky is falling. I’m not going to do that. And I want to be fair about what just happened, because the states did not walk away empty handed. The settlement commits the new company to release at least 30 films in theaters every year, to put another 1.5 billion dollars into American film production over the next five years, and to fund support for workers the merger displaces. The writers’ union settled its own lawsuit and won protections for its members. Those are real things, and real people will feel them. Credit where it’s due.

But listen closely to the man who led the lawsuit. When he announced the settlement, he made a point of saying it was “…not a vote of support” for the merger. He said he still doesn’t believe these two companies should combine. Sit with that for a second. Twelve states, a writers’ union, and months of litigation, and the best outcome available was not a different direction. It was terms. Five major studios still become four. The commitments run on five year clocks. The machine keeps moving.

And here’s the thing I really can’t shake. Look at the list of what got negotiated in that room. Film counts. Production spending. Cable fees. Worker funds. All worthy. You know what was never on the table? Ownership. Nobody in that room was negotiating for creators to own a piece of what they make. That’s not a knock on the negotiators. It’s just not something that system values or wants. If creators want ownership, it has to get built somewhere else, on purpose.

So we’re not betting against consolidation. After this week, nobody should. We’re building around it.

Idu House exists because we looked at this pattern and decided the answer isn’t bigger. It’s something materially DIFFERENT. One where ownership stays with the people who make the work. We develop original stories. We develop artists. And when we do, we don’t take equity from the artist and we don’t quietly fold your catalog into our asset column. Your work stays yours. That’s not a marketing line. It’s the design.

We call Idu House a possibility engine for creators, and this is exactly what we mean by it. We aren’t building more chairs to sit at someone else’s table. We are building our own table for you to be seated with us.

Twelve attorneys general could not stop a 111 billion dollar merger. So no, we can’t either. But we can build the thing that makes mergers like this one matter less: a place where independent art gets made, owned, and carried by the people it belongs to.

The industry may be consolidating but ownership shouldn’t.

If any of this stirred something in you, go poke around the rest of the site and see what we’re building. And if you’re a creator wondering where you fit in an industry that keeps getting smaller, reach out. The door is open. We built it that way on purpose.

Talk soon.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

What are we doing here?

What are any of us doing here?

Ok let’s not get existential, but walk with me for a moment.

Think about how you felt the first time you heard your favorite song. What did that moment do for you? Did it evoke an emotion? A memory? Did it bring about a physical sensation? Now think about the first time you watched your favorite movie. Did it give you goosebumps when the main character did that thing? Did you see yourself in the villain? Was there a moment that brought you to tears? Art should be able to do all of those things. The unfortunate part? With the current state of things, the impactful pieces of creativity are usually kept away from us. Mostly because they don’t have the potential to make loads of cash or because they threaten another product that a studio is already making.

So what are we doing here?

We are here because we believe in creativity. Beyond that, we believe that the right to create is inherent and should be freely practiced. We believe independent art matters and that art as a whole should be collaborative. There is a lot happening in the entertainment world but we are here because we believe that the stories being told outside of the gaze of the headlines deserve a headline as well.

But what are we doing in this specific medium?

There is a ton of info here at iduhouse.com about what Idu House is. Go explore the rest of our site and take a look at what we do. Please do. We spent a lot of time on it and we are very excited about it. But, in this particular forum, we are going to discuss what is happening in the entertainment world and share our perspective on it. We are also going to talk about the things that don’t make headlines but that matter to us.

So welcome to this space and welcome to Idu House. Kick off your shoes and find somewhere comfortable to sit. We have a lot of work to do but man is it gonna be fun.

Talk soon.