This is the best answer I've seen, but I think what was demonstrated is miles away from this. A lot would need to be able to be specified (and honored) from the prompts, far more than any examples have demonstrated.
I'm not against tools for directors, but the thing is, directors tell actors things and get results. Directors hire cinematographers and work with them to get the shots they want. Etc. How does that happen here?
Also, as someone else mentioned, there is the general problem that heavily CG movies tend to look... fake and uncompelling. The real world is somehow just realer than CG. So that also has to be factored into this.
I think it starts simple. Have you ever been watching a movie or tv show, and it shows the people walking up to the helicopter or Lamborghini and then cut to "they've arrived at their destination no transportation in sight"?
It will start out with more believable green screen backgrounds and b roll. Used judiciously, it will improve immersion and cost <$10 instead of thousands. The actors and normal shots will still be the focus, but the elements that make things more believable will be cheaper to add.
Have you ever noticed that explosions look good? Even in hobby films? At some point it became easy to add a surprisingly good looking explosion in post. The same thing will happen here, but for an increasing amount of stuff.
Interesting that you pick that example in particular. Due to the sheer depth of behinds the scenes takes HBO has provided for Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon, it seems to be the consensus view among effects folks that CG fire and explosions are nearly impossible to get right and real fire is still the way to go.
That I could believe, although... there is quite a bit of commentary from film buffs that lots of the stuff done in post doesn't quite look right, compared to older films.
Which doesn't mean it won't keep happening (economics), but it doesn't necessarily mean any improvement in movie quality.
My guess is the art form will evolve. When YouTube started, some people thought it would not be able to compete with heavily produced video content. Instead, YouTube spawned a different type of "movie". It was short-form, filmed on phone cameras, lightly scripted, etc. The medium changed the content. I suspect we will see new genres of video content show up once this tech is widely available.
The first real movies made 100 years ago looked like something someone today could put together in their garage on a shoestring budget. AI-generated movies have existed for just two years, and are only going to get better. This is bleeding edge research, and I haven't seen any sign yet of AI models hitting a quality ceiling.
I'm not against tools for directors, but the thing is, directors tell actors things and get results. Directors hire cinematographers and work with them to get the shots they want. Etc. How does that happen here?
Also, as someone else mentioned, there is the general problem that heavily CG movies tend to look... fake and uncompelling. The real world is somehow just realer than CG. So that also has to be factored into this.