🔍 Read the full analysis: A One-Night AI Film Experiment: Why Hollow House’s First Version Fell Flat on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
Hollow House, a 97-second AI-generated horror-comedy, was made across three versions between the evening of Oct. 27 and about 1:30 a.m. Oct. 28, according to its creator, Thorsten Meyer. Meyer says the first version looked polished but felt boring, prompting a faster-cut approach and a change to how the cast was referenced; the reported production account does not provide independent audience or performance data.
Filmmaker Thorsten Meyer says he made Hollow House, a 97-second AI-generated horror-comedy, in three versions during one night, replacing an initially polished but, in his judgment, boring first cut with a faster edit. His account, published Oct. 28, describes how changes to shot length and character references shaped the version he released, offering a practical look at the creative decisions behind a short made with generative tools.
The short follows a ghost who joins the staff of an extreme haunted attraction. When a guest says the safe word, the scares do not stop; the employees then try to handle the supernatural intruder as though it were a workplace problem. Meyer says the characters, voices and sets were AI-generated. He describes developing the film from early evening on Oct. 27 until about 1:30 a.m. the following day.
Meyer reports that the first version consisted of 20 shots and ran 2 minutes 15 seconds. He generated reference images for characters, made starting frames for shots, then animated them with Veo 3.1. Although he thought the images and visual continuity looked good, he judged the pacing ineffective. In his count, the first cut averaged 5.6 seconds per shot; he compared that with an inspiration short that he counted at about 74 cuts over 2:14, or roughly 1.8 seconds per cut.
For the final version, Meyer says he moved to three roughly 30-second segments generated with one model using references for the full cast. The finished film runs 1:37. Across all three versions, he reports using 2,220 Higgsfield credits, which he estimated at about $95 at his plan price, and about 2,100 ElevenLabs characters for music and sound effects. These are the creator’s production figures, not independently audited costs.
Behind the cut · One night · Three versions
A One-Night AI Film Experiment: Why Hollow House’s First Version Fell Flat
Hollow House is a 97-second horror-comedy about a ghost hired by an extreme haunted attraction. Creator Thorsten Meyer says the first cut looked polished but felt boring, so he reworked its rhythm and production approach overnight.
“Comedy lives on timing, and we had none.”Thorsten Meyer · Creator of Hollow House
From character sheets to a shorter final cut
Meyer’s Oct. 28 account describes three versions and a series of creative choices. The schedule and production figures are his own report.
Build the cast
Eight character reference images helped hold faces and wardrobe steady across generated shots.
Try the first cut
Twenty shots, generated start frames and Veo 3.1 Fast animation produced a 2:15 version.
Rethink the rhythm
Meyer judged the polished images and continuity insufficient: long shots left the comedy without the timing he wanted.
Release version three
He describes three roughly 30-second segments using one model with references for the full cast. Final runtime: 1:37.
The problem was sequence, not just image quality
In Meyer’s account, the revision addressed pacing, continuity and practical generation problems—while leaving the creative decisions in human hands.
Polished, but too slow
Meyer counted an average of 5.6 seconds per shot. He said the long shots and sparse sound weakened the comic timing.
References for the full cast
He moved to roughly 30-second segments generated with one model and references for the entire cast, alongside other edits.
Evaluate, edit, check
Meyer says he rejected cuts, changed prompts and images, checked dialogue against a Whisper transcript, and applied a final color grade.
A much shorter average shot in the creator’s comparison
Shot lengths below are Meyer’s counts and comparison, not independently measured results.
Average seconds per cut
Meyer compared his first version with an inspiration short he counted at about 74 cuts over 2:14.
Bars use a shared scale based on the reported 5.6-second first-cut average. The reference figure is Meyer’s own count.
Small production snags changed the shots
The account includes examples of how generated results were checked and revised during this particular film.
Capital letters became spelling
A shouted line written in capitals was spoken letter by letter. Meyer says he checked generated dialogue with Whisper and retook a misspoken word.
The head turn did not land
Instead of relying on a full turn in generated motion, he changed the image so the head was already reversed, then added a bone-cracking sound.
“Floating” meant a slight lift
A revised prompt passed a content filter but produced only a small rise. The account shows iteration, not a guaranteed result from a prompt.
A workplace problem with a supernatural guest
The setup
A ghost joins the staff of an extreme haunted attraction. When a guest says the safe word, the scares keep going—and the employees try to handle the supernatural intruder like a workplace issue. Meyer says the characters, voices and sets were AI-generated.
The creative boundary
Meyer says the premise structure drew inspiration from an AI horror-comedy short shared on X, while his script, characters and jokes were his own. The account describes AI tools as part of a human-directed process.
A useful case study, not a controlled comparison
The production details come from Meyer’s account. They do not establish how other creators or projects would perform.
The source does not independently verify the tools, credits, costs or editing measurements, and it reports no audience response or distribution results. Because several elements changed between versions, the account cannot isolate how much the final cut’s effect came from faster pacing, cast references, other edits or a different generation method. The supplied material also ends before a complete shot-by-shot account of version three.
- No independent audience or performance data is reported.
- The ~$95 estimate is not a complete production-cost audit.
- The comparison short’s cut count is Meyer’s own measurement.
- No sequel, next production or further test is confirmed.
Hollow House, at a glance
What is Hollow House?
A 97-second horror-comedy short about a ghost joining the staff of an extreme haunted attraction, according to creator Thorsten Meyer.
How many versions were made?
Meyer says he made three overnight. The first ran 2:15 across 20 shots; the released cut runs 1:37.
Why did the first cut fall flat?
Meyer said it looked good but felt boring, citing longer shots and a lack of musical scoring as problems for the comedy’s timing.
How much did the tools cost?
He reports 2,220 Higgsfield credits, estimated at about $95 at his plan price, plus around 2,100 ElevenLabs characters for sound and music.
Why the First Cut Needed a Rethink
The account highlights a distinction between generating attractive images and making a short film work as a sequence. Meyer says the first version maintained recognizable faces, costumes and a haunted-house color scheme, but its long shots and sparse sound left the comedy without the timing he wanted. The revision treated editing rhythm as a creative problem, not simply a matter of generating more detailed images.
It also shows the human decisions involved in this particular AI workflow. Meyer identifies his decision to reject the first cut, supply the cast references together, and apply a final color grade as important choices. Generative tools produced images, motion and voices, but the creator still selected the premise, evaluated the results, changed the approach and checked dialogue. The report does not establish that one workflow will suit other films or creators.
The production costs and overnight schedule may interest people weighing AI tools for small projects, but the figures are specific to Meyer’s account and subscription pricing. They do not include a full accounting of labor, revisions, equipment or other expenses, and they cannot establish what a comparable production would cost for someone else.
Popular right now
DeLonghi Rivelia Automatic Espresso Machine Bundle with Grinder and Frother, Beige
Dreame L50 Ultra Robot Vacuum and Mop
Samsung 42-Inch Class OLED S90F 4K Smart TV (2025)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Character Sheets to Three Cuts
Before generating video, Meyer says he made one reference image for each of the film’s eight characters using Google’s Nano Banana 2 image model through Higgsfield. He describes the reference sheets as a way to hold appearance and wardrobe steady, because generated video can change details between shots. Each 2K image cost two credits, and he says the set of eight was completed in under two minutes.
The first approach paired a written list of 20 shots with generated start frames and Veo 3.1 Fast animation. Meyer says the clips included generated speech and sound. That version surfaced practical limitations: shouted text written in capitals was spoken letter by letter, a planned full head turn did not work as intended, and a floating effect was difficult to achieve. He says a revised “floating” prompt passed a content filter but produced only a slight lift.
Meyer also describes checking generated dialogue with Whisper, an OpenAI speech-recognition model, and comparing the transcript with the script. He says this revealed misspoken words and prompted a retake. For the head-turn effect, he changed the image so the character’s head was already reversed, then added a bone-cracking sound. The source account says the premise’s structure was inspired by an AI horror-comedy short shared on X, while Meyer says his script, characters and jokes were his own.
“The first version looked great, and when I watched it I called it what it was: terribly boring and amateurish.”
— Thorsten Meyer, creator of Hollow House
What the Production Account Leaves Open
The production details come from Meyer’s own account. The source does not provide independent verification of the tools used, credits consumed, costs or editing measurements, nor does it report audience response, distribution results or whether viewers found the final cut more effective. The stated comparison with the inspiration short is Meyer’s count and is not presented as an independently checked analysis.
It is also unclear how much of the final film’s improvement came from faster pacing, the revised character-reference setup, other edits, or the different generation method. Meyer describes several changes between versions, so the account does not isolate the effect of any one choice. The supplied material ends during the description of a retake image and does not give a complete shot-by-shot account of the third version.
The Released Short and Its Process
Meyer’s Oct. 28 account points readers to the released 1:37 Hollow House short and includes behind-the-scenes material such as character sheets, starting frames, failed attempts and a contact sheet of the final cut. The source does not announce a sequel, a new production, or further technical testing, so no next project or release date is confirmed.
For now, the film itself is the reference point for evaluating Meyer’s account: viewers can compare the finished short with the production materials he says he made available. Any broader conclusions about AI filmmaking costs or reliability would require more projects and clearer comparisons than this single overnight experiment provides.
Key Questions
What is Hollow House?
Hollow House is a 97-second horror-comedy short about a ghost joining the staff of an extreme haunted attraction, according to its creator, Thorsten Meyer.
How many versions did Meyer make?
Meyer says he made three versions overnight. The first used 20 shots and ran 2:15; the released version runs 1:37.
Why did the first version fall flat?
Meyer said the first cut looked good but felt boring. He pointed to its longer shots, averaging 5.6 seconds per cut by his count, and the lack of musical scoring as problems for the comedy’s timing.
How much did the AI tools cost?
Meyer reports spending 2,220 Higgsfield credits, which he valued at about $95 at his plan price, plus about 2,100 ElevenLabs characters for sound and music. Those figures are his estimates and do not represent a complete production-cost audit.
Was the entire film made by AI?
Meyer says the film’s characters, voices and sets were AI-generated. His account also describes human decisions in writing and revising the film, choosing references, judging cuts, checking dialogue, and applying the final color grade.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
