Ava DuVernay’s declaration that “Hollywood is over” sounds dramatic, but the changes behind it are real. The movie and music businesses are both being reshaped by cheaper technology, direct access to audiences, new funding models and artificial intelligence. Together, those forces are reducing some of the advantages that once belonged almost entirely to major studios and record labels.
DuVernay made the comment during a BFI London Film Festival appearance this week. She pointed to studio consolidation, shrinking institutions and new ways for artists to finance their work. Her argument was not that movies are disappearing. It was that the old system in which a small number of companies controlled financing, production and distribution is losing some of that control.
There are signs of that shift throughout the film business. Greater Los Angeles recorded 4,711 on-location shoot days during the second quarter of 2026, down 12.7 percent from the same period a year earlier, according to FilmLA. California has expanded incentives to bring productions back, but filmmakers now have more choices about where and how to make their projects.
At the same time, consolidation is making the traditional studio system even more concentrated. Paramount Skydance completed its $110 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery this month. The deal combined some of the best-known film, television and streaming properties under one company and came with plans for billions of dollars in savings.
Yet smaller creators are proving that expensive studio development is not the only route to a large audience.
Curry Barker’s horror film “Obsession” was made for about $750,000 and became one of the year’s surprise hits. Barker had already built an audience through YouTube and inexpensive horror projects. Kane Parsons also came from YouTube before directing “Backrooms,” which cost about $10 million and eventually passed $400 million worldwide.
Those examples need an important qualification. They were not completely independent of Hollywood. “Obsession” was distributed by Focus Features. “Backrooms” was released by A24 and had established production companies behind it. The difference is that the filmmakers arrived with concepts, audiences and creative identities already developed outside the traditional studio pipeline.
That is a major change.
For decades, a young filmmaker needed access to expensive cameras, editing equipment, sound facilities, visual-effects specialists and distribution. A musician faced a similar problem. Professional recording, mixing, mastering, manufacturing, promotion and radio access required money and industry connections.
Personal computers, digital cameras and online distribution weakened those barriers. AI is likely to push them lower.
A small filmmaker can already use software to clean dialogue, remove backgrounds, create temporary visual effects, generate storyboards, translate voices, organize footage and speed editing. Generative video is improving quickly. These systems are not yet a substitute for everything a professional crew does, but they can reduce the number of people and hours needed for some tasks.
That matters most at the low end of the budget scale. Saving $100,000 means little on a $200 million movie. Saving $100,000 can determine whether a $500,000 independent film gets made at all.
The same economic change is arriving even faster in music. A musician with a laptop can record at home, distribute worldwide and promote songs directly through social platforms. Generative AI can now help create instrumental tracks, suggest arrangements, produce backing vocals, alter sounds and generate entire songs.
The major labels are not ignoring this development. They are trying to become part of it.
Universal Music Group has signed several agreements involving licensed AI music. Its 2026 deal with ElevenLabs calls for new AI tools that can create remixes, mashups and other personalized music using participating artists’ work. Warner Music and BMG have also worked with Suno on licensed generative music models.
The recording business remains financially strong. Global recorded-music revenue reached $31.7 billion in 2025, according to IFPI, with streaming accounting for nearly 70 percent of the total. The threat to major labels is therefore not that they suddenly have no business. It is that some of the services they historically provided are becoming easier for artists to obtain elsewhere.
Financing is changing too.
Kickstarter says more than $596 million has been pledged to film projects on its platform and more than 34,000 films have been funded. The company is also promoting crowdfunding directly to musicians, telling artists that they can finance albums, performances and videos with their listeners instead of waiting for a label.
Crowdfunding does more than provide money. It can prove that an audience exists before production starts. A filmmaker who attracts thousands of paying supporters is showing distributors that people already want the project. A musician who can finance an album directly from fans gains bargaining power when a label comes calling.
AI could strengthen that model because it lowers the amount that must be raised. A creator who once needed $2 million may eventually be able to produce something comparable for far less. That does not eliminate the need for actors, musicians, designers, editors or technicians. It changes where human labor is most valuable and how large a team must be.
The established companies still possess enormous advantages. Major studios can finance expensive productions, market them around the world and place movies in thousands of theaters. Record labels have catalogs, promotion networks, relationships with streaming services and the money to turn an artist into a global brand.
They also control valuable intellectual property. That may become even more important as AI makes generic content inexpensive. Audiences may have an unlimited supply of newly generated songs and videos, but recognizable characters, franchises, performers and trusted creators can remain scarce.
Copyright could become one of the biggest dividing lines. Music companies have fought AI developers over the use of copyrighted recordings and compositions for training. At the same time, they are signing licensing agreements with AI companies that they believe can create new revenue. The result suggests that established companies may not fight AI itself. They may fight to make sure they own or license the material that AI systems use.
There is another risk for independent creators. When production becomes easier, competition becomes much larger. If millions of people can make acceptable songs, short films and visual effects cheaply, simply producing content will no longer be enough. Finding an audience may become the hardest and most expensive part.
That is where the large companies could retain tremendous power. Marketing, recommendation systems, famous brands, distribution agreements and access to stars can still separate one project from an ocean of competing material.
The likely future is therefore not a simple replacement of Hollywood studios and record labels by individuals using AI. It is a shift in leverage.
More creators will be able to make professional work before asking a large company for permission or money. Some will finance projects directly from fans. Others will build audiences on YouTube, TikTok or streaming platforms and approach traditional companies only when they want wider distribution.
Studios and labels may increasingly become amplifiers rather than gatekeepers. Their value will come from making a successful idea much bigger instead of deciding which ideas are allowed to exist in the first place.
That may be the most important part of DuVernay’s argument. Hollywood is unlikely to disappear. The recording industry is unlikely to disappear either. But the era when artists needed those institutions just to get started is fading quickly, and AI is likely to accelerate the change.