Hollywood's creative teams are starting to feel the floor move beneath them. Recent Marvel layoffs have renewed concerns that major studios are moving away from in-house artists and toward leaner freelance and AI-assisted production models. While Disney did not explicitly say the layoffs were due to AI, new CEO Josh D'Amaro wrote in an April 14 memo that the company is looking for ways to "streamline our operations" and build a "more agile and technologically-enabled workforce" to meet future demands.
Former Disney animator Tom Bancroft, who worked on The Lion King, Aladdin, and Beauty and the Beast, spoke with TechRepublic about how the Marvel layoffs reflect a broader shift that could change how animated and effects-heavy stories are made. Bancroft, whose career spans over two decades at Disney's Florida animation studio, has seen the industry evolve through major transitions before—from hand-drawn cel animation to computer-generated imagery. Now, he believes the combination of freelance hiring practices and generative artificial intelligence could fundamentally alter the landscape for artists.
Are studios replacing human creativity with AI?
Bancroft says the artists he spoke with described the layoffs as part of a larger move away from permanent in-house creative teams. "It wasn't necessarily because of AI," Bancroft continued. "I do think that's part of it. But most studios don't want in-house employees anymore. They want freelancers they can hire as needed." This trend is not limited to Disney or Marvel. Across Hollywood, studios are increasingly relying on project-based staffing, which allows them to scale up for blockbuster films and downsize quickly when projects end. The Hollywood writers' and actors' strikes of 2023 brought some of these tensions to the surface, but the underlying structural shift toward a gig economy in entertainment has been accelerating for years.
Still, AI remains part of the conversation. Bancroft pointed to ongoing reports that Disney has been training its internal AI models on decades of studio content, potentially laying the groundwork for future productions that require fewer artists. "We already know the rumors are out there that Disney has been training internal models on their films," he said. "That does sound like something Marvel could eventually do, too." The fear among many artists is not just automation itself, but the possibility that studios could use AI systems trained on creative work while gradually reducing the number of creatives involved in making future projects. This echoes concerns voiced by visual effects artists, writers, and voice actors who worry that studio-owned AI tools could devalue their labor.
What happens when long-term creative teams disappear?
AI-assisted tools could also help studios work faster and give artists more room to experiment during early development. When used responsibly, they may reduce repetitive production tasks, speed up visual exploration, and make certain kinds of animation less expensive to produce. That could open the door for smaller teams, independent studios, or even hand-drawn projects that might otherwise struggle to compete with blockbuster budgets. That upside could depend on whether studios use AI to strengthen creative teams or replace the conditions that make those teams effective.
Bancroft compared Marvel's situation to Disney Animation Florida, where he worked for more than a decade before the studio was shut down despite producing successful films like Mulan and Lilo & Stitch. When studios dismantle established teams, Bancroft says they also lose years of collaborative chemistry and institutional knowledge. "That team knew who was good at what," he said. "They were probably working at a very efficient, higher artistic level." The Florida studio closure in 2004 was a shock to the animation community, and many veterans scattered to other studios or left the industry entirely. Bancroft notes that rebuilding that kind of team from scratch takes years—time that modern production schedules rarely allow.
Freelance-heavy production models may offer flexibility and access to global talent, but Bancroft says they also tighten timelines and reduce opportunities for creative refinement throughout the production process. In the traditional studio system, departments such as layout, animation, and effects could overlap and iterate on scenes over months. With freelancers brought in for specific phases, continuity is lost, and the ability to evolve a scene organically diminishes. This is particularly important for emotional storytelling, where subtle adjustments in timing, expression, and lighting can make the difference between a good scene and an unforgettable one.
Could a moment like Mufasa's death still happen today?
Bancroft believes scenes like Mufasa's death in The Lion King benefited from a production environment that allowed artists to continuously refine emotional and visual details throughout development. With project-based staffing, that flexibility becomes harder to maintain. "You're suddenly on a tighter timeline," Bancroft explained. "You might only have a few weeks to develop the look and feel of a major scene." The death of Mufasa is often cited as one of the most emotionally powerful moments in animation history, achieved through the combined efforts of story artists, animators, layout designers, and background painters who worked closely together over many months. Bancroft worries that such collaborative depth could become increasingly rare if studios prioritize speed and cost savings over creative synergy.
It's not just Disney. Other major studios like Sony Pictures Imageworks and Pixar have also experimented with AI-assisted workflows, though they have been more cautious in public statements. Meanwhile, smaller studios and international animation houses are already adopting generative AI for concept art, storyboarding, and even background generation, raising questions about how quickly the technology will spread across the industry. Some executives argue that AI can democratize animation, allowing independent creators to produce content that was once only feasible for major studios. But many artists counter that without proper safeguards, AI could concentrate power even further in the hands of a few tech-savvy corporations.
Bancroft: AI is 'not inherently bad'
Bancroft doesn't believe AI itself is inherently bad. Like many artists, he already uses AI-powered tools in certain parts of his workflow. His concern is specifically with generative AI trained directly on artists' previous work. "It's hard to think of a positive scenario where artists help train an AI and then aren't needed anymore," he said. At the same time, Bancroft argues that artists cannot afford to completely reject the technology. "AI is not going away," he said. "Artists need to get involved in shaping how it's used." He even sees potential for AI-assisted tools to reduce production costs enough to help revive hand-drawn 2D animation—a format that has largely disappeared from major US studios. With budgets for CGI films often exceeding $150 million, the lower cost of 2D animation combined with AI efficiency could make it economically viable again, especially for streaming services looking for distinctive content.
This perspective aligns with some industry analysts who predict that AI will not eliminate jobs but will instead transform them. New roles such as AI prompt specialists, AI-assisted artists, and model trainers are emerging, though they often require different skills than traditional animation. Unions like the Animation Guild have begun negotiating for provisions that protect artists' rights and ensure that AI tools are implemented in a way that augments rather than replaces human creativity. But the pace of technological change is outstripping the speed of collective bargaining, leaving many artists in a precarious position.
Should young artists still pursue animation?
Despite the uncertainty, Bancroft says yes. He remembers when computer animation first emerged, and many traditional animators feared hand-drawn animation would disappear entirely. While CG animation dramatically changed the industry, he believes there is still room for traditional artistry to evolve alongside new tools. "The tools change, but storytelling still matters," Bancroft said. Young artists today are entering the field with a different set of expectations—they are often more comfortable with digital tools and have grown up with AI-assisted apps. Bancroft advises them to focus on the fundamentals of drawing, timing, and narrative, while also learning the basics of AI and how it can be integrated into a creative workflow.
The bigger question is how studios will use AI as creative workflows evolve. For artists, the hope is that the technology supports long-term creative teams, preserves institutional knowledge, and still leaves room for the slow collaboration behind memorable storytelling. Some positive examples exist: a few independent animation studios have used AI to generate rough concepts that are then refined by human artists, resulting in faster pre-production without sacrificing quality. But the pressure from shareholders to cut costs and increase output may push studios toward more aggressive automation. The coming years will likely see a tug-of-war between efficiency and artistry, with the outcome shaping not just how films are made, but what kinds of stories get told.
Source: TechRepublic News