🔍 Read the full analysis: How We Made Hollow House With AI—and Learned From A Boring Draft on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
Thorsten Meyer published a behind-the-scenes account of Hollow House, a 97-second AI-generated horror-comedy made overnight on October 27–28, 2026. After judging an attractive first cut boring, the team changed the structure and workflow; Meyer says the final version used three segments generated by one model with the full cast as references. The project cost about $95 in Higgsfield credits, according to Meyer.
In an account published October 28 on ThorstenMeyerAI.com, Meyer says the film was made between early evening on October 27 and about 1:30 a.m. the following day. The premise puts a real ghost to work at an extreme haunted attraction: when a guest uses the safe word, the scares do not stop, and staff respond as if the situation were a workplace problem. Meyer describes the short as horror-comedy; the film is 1 minute 37 seconds long.
Meyer says the first version consisted of 20 shots and ran 2 minutes 15 seconds. Although he considered its images and character consistency successful, he judged the result “terribly boring and amateurish.” He compared its average shot length, 5.6 seconds by his count, with about 1.8 seconds per cut in the short that inspired the project. The second version used 66 fast cuts and ran 2 minutes 21 seconds. The final cut was assembled from three roughly 30-second segments generated with one model given references to the whole cast.
The process began with eight character reference images created using Nano Banana 2 through Higgsfield, Meyer writes. For the first version, each planned shot was turned into a start frame and animated with Google’s Veo 3.1 fast mode, which generated dialogue and sound with the video. Meyer says the team used Whisper speech recognition to check generated dialogue against the script. He reports spending 2,220 Higgsfield credits, valued at roughly $95 under his plan, and about 2,100 ElevenLabs characters for music and sound effects.
Behind the scenes · AI filmmaking · October 2026
How We Made Hollow House With AI—and Learned From A Boring Draft
One overnight production, three versions, and a blunt edit decision turned a polished but slow first cut into a 97-second horror-comedy. These details come from filmmaker Thorsten Meyer’s account.
“What if something in the house doesn’t care about the safe word?”
Three cuts, one overnight shoot
Meyer says the first version had stable faces and costumes, but the long shots and one-line-per-shot rhythm drained the comedy. Each new version tackled a different problem.
Polished, but slow
Twenty shots ran 2:15, averaging 5.6 seconds each by Meyer’s count. The cut had no score and felt too deliberate.
Meyer’s verdict: “terribly boring and amateurish.”
More pace, more cuts
The second version used 66 fast cuts and ran 2:21. Meyer compared the first cut with an inspiration short he counted at about 1.8 seconds per cut.
The timing comparison informed a structural rethink.
Three connected segments
The final 1:37 was assembled from three roughly 30-second segments generated with one model and references for the full cast.
A faster structure, shaped by human editing choices.
Reported average time per cut · relative scale
From character sheets to final grade
The workflow combined reference images, video generation, dialogue checks, sound work and editorial choices. Meyer describes an iterative process in which some shots needed rewording or retakes.
Reference consistency
Meyer says cast references helped preserve details such as hair, clothing and appearance across generated scenes.
Tools had limits
“HEY!” became spoken letters; a head turn moved the body; a planned bridge pose became a forward crawl. Some attempts needed new descriptions or retakes.
Humans made the calls
Choosing to reject the first cut, restructure the story, provide cast references and apply the final grade were decisions Meyer identifies as decisive.
Inside the haunted attraction
Hollow House is a horror-comedy about a real ghost working at an extreme haunted attraction. Guests sign waivers and can use a safe word to stop the scares. When Derek says “cotton candy,” the ghost keeps going—and staff treat the crisis like a workplace and safety problem. The story later recruits a popcorn seller for an exorcism and puts the ghost at the door.
“Did you even sign the waiver?”
Shift lead Ray · as quoted in Meyer’s account“What if something in the house doesn’t care about the safe word?”
Story premise · Thorsten MeyerA project estimate, not a price list
The reported figures describe this production under Meyer’s plan and account for selected tool usage. They do not establish a general cost for AI filmmaking.
Meyer valued 2,220 Higgsfield credits at roughly $95 under his plan. This is his reported estimate.
Reported ElevenLabs usage for music and sound effects. The supplied account gives no full expense breakdown.
Scripting, revisions, editing and sound work are not fully quantified. The account does not detail human labor at every stage.
One documented experiment
The production account is useful as a record of one creator’s choices. It leaves several details unresolved, so broader claims need more evidence.
Can the workflow be repeated?
The account does not establish that cast references, three segments or faster cutting will work for other films or at similar cost.
How were the segments joined?
Meyer says one model with the whole cast as references generated the final segments. The supplied account does not name the model or detail the assembly.
What was independently checked?
Costs, settings and version measurements come from Meyer’s own account. The supplied material does not include independent verification.
What comes next?
No follow-up, new version or production schedule is announced in the supplied material. Viewers can assess the published film against Meyer’s description.
Spot the weakness. Change the cut.
Why the First Cut Fell Flat
Meyer’s account points to a practical distinction in AI-assisted filmmaking: consistent images did not guarantee an effective film. The first cut kept costumes and faces relatively stable, he says, but its long shots, one-line-per-shot structure and lack of a score left the comedy without the pace he wanted. His comparison with the inspiration’s faster cutting became a concrete reason to revise the edit rather than simply generate prettier images.
The production also shows where human decisions remained central. Meyer identifies the choice to call the first draft boring, provide one model with the full cast references, and apply the final color grade as decisive moves. The account does not establish that these methods will work for other productions, but it documents how one creator used repeated generation, speech checks and editing judgments to address specific weaknesses.
For readers following generative video, the reported $95 credit cost offers a project-specific estimate, not a general production price. It covers the reported Higgsfield credits at Meyer’s plan rate; it does not establish a market-wide cost or account for every possible expense, including labor.
Products Worth Considering
Sonos Era 100 SL Compact Microphone-Free Speaker, Black
Jackery Explorer 300 Portable Power Station with 40W Solar Panel
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Bluetooth Headphones with Active Noise Cancellation, Mic, USB‑C Charging, Deep Bass, 24‑Hour Battery – White Smok
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Three Cuts, One Overnight Shoot
The short’s premise centers on a haunted attraction where visitors sign waivers and use a safe word to stop the scares. In Meyer’s story, a guest named Derek says “cotton candy,” but the ghost continues. The staff initially treat the presence as a staffing and safety problem; one character asks whether the newcomer signed the waiver. The account also describes a popcorn seller recruited to perform an exorcism and the ghost later working at the door.
Meyer says the story structure was inspired by an AI horror-comedy short shared on X, while the script, characters and jokes were his own. He does not identify the other short in the supplied account. The character sheets were intended to reduce visual drift across generated shots: Meyer says a fixed reference image helped preserve details such as hair, clothing and appearance.
The first version exposed technical limits as well as pacing problems, according to Meyer. Veo rendered “HEY!” as the spoken letters “H-E-Y,” and attempts at a full head turn moved the character’s body as well. A first attempt to show Derek lifted off the floor was blocked; Meyer says a rephrased floating prompt passed but produced only a small lift. A planned backward bridge pose became a forward crawl. He says the team addressed some issues with revised descriptions, a different still image, sound effects or retakes.
““terribly boring and amateurish””
— Thorsten Meyer, describing his first cut
What the Production Account Leaves Open
The figures and workflow details come from Meyer’s own account; the supplied material does not include independent verification of the costs, generation settings or version-by-version measurements. The comparison with the inspiration is also Meyer’s count, and the source does not name or link to that short. It is unclear how much work went into scripting, revisions, editing and sound beyond the tools and credit totals he reports.
Meyer says one model with the whole cast as references was used for the final three segments, but the supplied account does not specify the model’s name or explain precisely how the segments were joined. Nor does it provide a detailed breakdown of the final cut’s shot count or editing time. The account describes the film as AI-generated, but does not set out the specific human labor involved in every stage.
Where the Experiment Goes From Here
The published film and production account are the next available points for viewers to assess the results against Meyer’s description. He has not announced a follow-up, further version, or additional production schedule in the supplied material. Any broader conclusions about AI video costs or filmmaking methods would require more projects and independently documented comparisons.
For now, the reported outcome is specific: after two unsatisfactory versions, Meyer says a faster final structure and a cast-reference workflow produced the 1:37 Hollow House. Whether that approach can be repeated on other films, or at similar cost, remains to be seen.
Key Questions
What is Hollow House?
Hollow House is a 97-second horror-comedy short about a ghost working at an extreme haunted attraction. Meyer says its characters, voices and sets were AI-generated.
Why did the creators make three versions?
Meyer says the first version looked good but felt boring, with 20 shots averaging 5.6 seconds each. A second version used 66 fast cuts; he says the final version used three roughly 30-second segments generated with one model that had references for the whole cast.
How much did the project cost?
Meyer reports using 2,220 Higgsfield credits, which he valued at about $95 at his plan price, plus about 2,100 ElevenLabs characters for music and sound effects. This is his estimate for this project, not a general cost for AI filmmaking.
What problems did the video tools have?
In Meyer’s account, generated dialogue sometimes differed from the script, certain movements did not work as requested, and an attempted lift was blocked before he changed the wording. He says speech recognition, retakes, prompt revisions and altered start frames helped address some of the issues.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
