Over the past year, artificial intelligence has become one of the film industry's great dividing lines. Few art forms reach as many people, command such cultural influence or generate as much revenue as cinema, making the debate over how new technologies are used particularly prominent. So we asked Gen Z what they think about AI in the films they watch.
At Cannes, Demi Moore argued that "against-ness breeds against-ness", suggesting we should look at ways to work with it. Christopher Nolan takes a different view - on the press tour for his almost CGI-free epic The Odyssey, he described generative AI as a "Trojan Horse made of glass", while praising younger audiences for their ability to spot so-called "AI slop".
With directors, film icons and other industry big cats taking sides, an important question remains: who should decide where the industry goes next?
Danny Boyle believes the answer lies with 20-year-olds, and there is good reason to listen. Gen Z are becoming cinema's most loyal audience. A 2025 Fandango survey found 87% of Gen Z respondents in the US had seen at least one film in a cinema over a 12-month period, compared with just 58% of baby boomers.
The British Council's own research points to the cultural influence of this generation too. Last year, when we asked young people which UK cultural export had the greatest potential to shape global culture over the next decade, film and television came out on top. In fact, almost twice as many respondents chose film and television as their top cultural export than chose digital content creation.
This is an audience that not only pays to watch films but recognises the cultural value of the industry. They are also growing up alongside rapidly developing AI technology and will, in time, become the directors, producers, writers and performers shaping its future.
Yet their views are rarely at the centre of conversations about how AI should be used in filmmaking. So, we went back to 16 to 24-year-olds, 2,001 of them across the UK, to understand what they think about the technology – where they see its potential, where they have reservations and what they expect from the industry.
Transparency is not optional
If there is one area where young audiences are almost unanimous, it is transparency.
Nine in ten believe productions should disclose their use of AI, whether that means declaring every instance of its use or only when it has informed a major creative decision.
This expectation is particularly strong when it comes to traditional screen productions. More than seven in ten respondents wanted AI use disclosed in films shown in cinemas, while similar proportions expected transparency from television programmes and films watched on streaming platforms .
But the appetite for disclosure extends well beyond the big screen. Two-thirds wanted to see AI use declared in videos made by online creators and advertising or branded content , while expected the same from short-form videos on platforms such as TikTok and Instagram.
There is also appetite for going a step further. Almost three-quarters said they would be interested in a formal labelling or certification scheme showing how AI had been used in a production. This raises a broader question about whether greater transparency could eventually become a regulatory requirement, rather than simply an industry-led commitment.
The EU's AI Acthas already introduced transparency obligations around certain AI-generated and manipulated content, including requirements to disclose some deepfakes and AI-generated text published to inform the public.
Human creativity in the driving seat
Almost three-quarters agreed that human creativity should remain central to film and television production, while more than sixty per cent said knowing AI had been used would make it harder for them to connect emotionally with a film or television programme.
Many people also worry that greater reliance on AI could come at the expense of creative diversity. More than six in ten worried that AI could make different productions look or feel too similar. And this isn't simply about audiences wanting to preserve traditional ways of working: most said artists and creative teams should lead decisions about how AI is used.
AI as a supporting tool, not a replacement for creativity
Perhaps the most interesting distinction in the findings is not whether young people support or reject AI, but where they feel it belongs.
Young people appear considerably more comfortable with AI supporting production than taking on creative responsibilities. Almost half said they were very or fairly comfortable with AI helping with tasks such as budgeting, scheduling and audience analysis. Only a minority said they were uncomfortable with these uses.
That confidence drops when the technology moves closer to the creative and performance aspects of filmmaking. More than half said they were uncomfortable with AI being used to alter or replicate an actor's appearance, voice or performance.
Similar reservations emerge when AI mores into core work such as composing music and sound effects, creating artificial voices, or writing scripts and dialogue. In these areas, young audiences are more likely to express discomfort than enthusiasm.
AI may have a role in making productions more efficient, supporting creative teams and assisting with the practical demands of filmmaking. But audiences are much less convinced when it starts to replace the people whose creativity and performances give films their character.
The findings point to a wider question about who gets to shape the future of creative technology – and the importance of ensuring artists and creative communities have a meaningful role in that process.
This is a central theme of the British Council's work in artist-led innovation, including its major report Why Technology Needs Artists: 40 International Perspectives. The report explores how artists and creative communities can help shape emerging technologies rather than simply respond to them, from improving the cultural inclusivity of AI systems to building public trust in new tools.
Our research reinforces the importance of this approach. Young audiences are not simply for or against AI; their attitudes depend on how and where it is used. They recognise its potential as a supportive production tool but are more cautious about its role in creative decision-making and performance. Their message is not that AI should be rejected. It is that creativity should remain human-led.