🔍 Read the full analysis: Hollow House: How We Tackled A Boring First Draft In Our AI Horror-Comedy on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get privacy and security gear delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
Thorsten Meyer says Hollow House, a 97-second AI-generated horror-comedy, took three versions to get right during an overnight production. The first version looked polished but felt boring, he said; faster editing and using one video model with references for the full cast shaped the final cut.
Filmmaker Thorsten Meyer says he made Hollow House, a 97-second AI-generated horror-comedy, in three versions overnight after deciding the first cut looked good but was “terribly boring and amateurish.” His account, published October 28, describes how he changed the editing rhythm and production approach to turn a haunted-attraction premise into a faster short film.
The short follows a ghost joining the scare crew at an extreme haunted attraction, where staff treat the supernatural intruder as a workplace problem. In Meyer’s account, a guest says the attraction’s safe word, “cotton candy,” but the ghost does not stop scaring him. The shift lead responds by asking whether the apparent new employee signed a waiver. The film’s characters, voices and sets were all AI-generated, according to the article.
Meyer says the first cut comprised 20 shots and ran 2 minutes 15 seconds. He judged its images and character consistency successful, but found the pacing too slow. By his count, that version averaged 5.6 seconds per cut, compared with about 1.8 seconds in the short that inspired the project. The final film was assembled from three 30-second segments generated with one model that had references for the cast; it runs 1:37. The account says a second version used 66 fast cuts and ran 2:21.
Before generating video, Meyer created eight character reference images using Google’s Nano Banana 2 image model through Higgsfield. He says they helped keep appearance and costumes consistent across later images and clips. The project used 2,220 Higgsfield credits, which Meyer valued at roughly $95 at his plan’s prices, plus about 2,100 ElevenLabs characters for music and sound effects. Those figures are the author’s accounting, not an independently verified production audit.
AI FILMMAKING / PRODUCTION NOTES / OCTOBER 2026
Hollow House:
How We Tackled a Boring First Draft
A 97-second horror-comedy took three versions and one overnight sprint. Thorsten Meyer says the breakthrough came when he stopped polishing the pictures and started fixing the rhythm.
01 / THE STORY
A ghost, a waiver, and a safe word
At an extreme haunted attraction, a guest says the safe word “cotton candy.” The ghost keeps scaring him. The shift lead’s response is less supernatural than administrative: did the new employee sign a waiver?
Workplace horror
A real ghost joins the scare crew, and the staff handle the intruder as a staffing and safety problem.
Rules meet the paranormal
The supernatural chaos lands against matter-of-fact workplace procedures and a waiver check.
Cast, voices, sets
Meyer says the characters, voices, and sets were all AI-generated; the premise and jokes were his.
02 / ITERATION
Three cuts to find the pace
The account describes a visual success that still felt dramatically dull. Each version changed the edit; the final workflow also shifted how the cast was supplied to the video model.
Polished, but slow
20 shots across 2:15. Meyer says the faces, costumes, and lighting held together, but the pacing felt “terribly boring and amateurish.”
More cuts, still not there
The second version used 66 fast cuts and ran 2:21. The source says only the third version worked for him.
A tighter final short
The 1:37 cut was assembled from three 30-second segments generated with one model and cast references.
03 / EDIT RHYTHM
What changed between the cuts?
Meyer compared his first cut with the short that inspired the structure. His account points to editing rhythm as the central revision.
| Cut / reference | Runtime | Shot count | Reported pace | Role in the process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First version | 2:15 | 20 shots | 5.6 sec per cut | Strong-looking images, but too slow for Meyer |
| Inspiration short | Not stated | Not stated | About 1.8 sec per cut | Structural inspiration; title and creator not identified |
| Second version | 2:21 | 66 cuts | Fast cuts | More rapid editing; still not the version that worked for him |
| Final film | 1:37 | Not stated | Not stated | Built from three 30-second segments with cast references |
Attractive frames did not automatically make an effective comedy. Meyer says he changed the editing rhythm, used cast references with one video model for the final segments, and applied the final colour grade.
04 / THE WORKFLOW
From character sheets to final grade
Production began in the early evening on October 27 and continued until about 1:30 a.m. the next day, according to Meyer.
Build the cast
Eight full-length character images were generated with Google’s Nano Banana 2 through Higgsfield, to help preserve appearance and costumes.
Animate the frames
The first version used 20 still frames animated with Google’s Veo 3.1 fast mode, which generated speech and sound alongside the visuals.
Check, retake, grade
Meyer checked generated dialogue against the script with Whisper, retook clips with errors, and says he made the final colour grade.
05 / PRODUCTION REALITIES
Human judgment stayed in the loop
The production account reports specific successes and misses. These are observations from this project, not universal rules for every model or prompt.
Dialogue: a shouted “HEY!” came out spoken as the letters “H-E-Y”; Meyer used Whisper to compare generated dialogue with the script.
Movement: a planned head turn became a full-body turn. A lifting scene barely rose after the prompt was reworded as floating.
Visual consistency: character sheets were intended to reduce changes in hair, clothing, or build from shot to shot.
Creative decisions: Meyer identifies calling the first cut boring, changing cast references, and colour grading as decisive choices.
06 / REPORTED INPUTS
What the production used
The figures below come from Meyer’s own account. They are not an independently verified production audit.
07 / IN HIS WORDS
The lines that frame the process
The production notes describe a first-person account of one short film, not an independent evaluation or general benchmark.
“terribly boring and amateurish”
Thorsten Meyer, describing his reaction to the first version
08 / WHAT REMAINS OPEN
What the account does not establish
The article offers a useful production snapshot, while leaving several details unconfirmed in the supplied material.
Final video model: the account does not name the model used for the final three-segment version, so its relationship to the Veo 3.1 tests is unclear.
Independent review: no independent assessment of the finished film or detailed comparison of all three versions is provided.
Inspiration: the earlier short that inspired the structure is not named, and the supplied account does not identify its creator.
Model behavior: reported limitations and content-filter behavior reflect this production, not confirmed rules for every model session.
09 / QUICK QUESTIONS
Hollow House, at a glance
A short guide to the film, its revisions, and the limits of the reported production figures.
What is Hollow House?
A 97-second AI-generated horror-comedy about a ghost joining the crew of an extreme haunted attraction, where staff treat him as a workplace and safety issue.
Why remake the first version?
Meyer says the images looked good, but the edit felt slow and boring: 20 shots averaging 5.6 seconds, compared with about 1.8 seconds in the structural inspiration.
How many versions were made?
Three: a 20-shot, 2:15 cut; a 66-cut, 2:21 version; and the final 1:37 film assembled from three 30-second segments.
What did it cost?
Meyer reports 2,220 Higgsfield credits, valued at roughly $95 at his plan price, and about 2,100 ElevenLabs characters. The figures are not independently audited.
Why the First Cut Fell Flat
Meyer’s account illustrates a distinction in AI filmmaking: generating attractive images did not, by itself, produce an effective comedy. He says the first cut had consistent faces, costumes and lighting, but long shots and a lack of music weakened its rhythm. The response was an editorial change, not simply another effort to improve image quality.
The production also shows how much human judgment remained in the workflow. Meyer identifies three decisive choices: calling the first version boring, changing how the cast was supplied to the video model, and applying the final colour grade. The account does not establish that this process will work for other filmmakers, but it offers a concrete example of iteration shaping an AI-made short.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Bluetooth Headphones with Active Noise Cancellation, Mic, USB‑C Charging, Deep Bass, 24‑Hour Battery – White Smok
Jackery HomePower 3000 Portable Power Station with Two 200W Solar Panels
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Character Sheets to Final Cut
Meyer says work began in the early evening on October 27 and continued until about 1:30 a.m. the next day. He first generated a full-length reference image for each of eight characters, then used those images as references for the film’s frames and clips. He describes the character sheets as a way to limit the visual drift that can change a character’s hair, clothing or build from shot to shot.
For the first version, Meyer generated 20 still frames and animated them using Google’s Veo 3.1 fast mode, which produced speech and sound alongside the visuals. He reports several limitations: a shouted “HEY!” was spoken as the letters “H-E-Y,” a planned full head turn became a turn of the whole body, and some requested actions did not come out as intended. A lifting scene was initially blocked; after he reworded it as floating, the character barely rose from the ground. Meyer says he checked generated dialogue against the script using Whisper speech recognition and retook clips with errors.
The article says the premise and jokes were Meyer’s, while the structure drew inspiration from an AI horror-comedy short shared on X. It does not identify that earlier short in the supplied account. Meyer’s production notes are a first-person description of this project, not an independent evaluation of the models or a general benchmark of AI filmmaking.
““terribly boring and amateurish””
— Thorsten Meyer, describing his reaction to the first version
What the Production Notes Do Not Show
The account does not provide an independent review of the finished film, detailed comparisons of all three versions, or a breakdown showing how the reported production costs were calculated beyond the author’s stated plan price. It also does not name the AI video model used for the final three-segment version, so the relationship between that workflow and the reported Veo 3.1 tests is not fully clear from the supplied material.
Meyer describes the earlier short as inspiration for the structure but does not name its creator or provide enough information here to assess how closely the works are related. The reported model limitations and content-filter behavior are observations from this production, not confirmed rules that would apply to every prompt or model session.
The Short and Its Workflow
The published account points readers to the 1:37 Hollow House short and says it includes behind-the-scenes material such as character sheets, start frames, failed attempts and a contact sheet of the final cut. No further release, sequel, or additional production update is specified in the source. For now, the next step for readers is to compare the finished short with Meyer’s description of the three edits and the choices he says changed the result.
Key Questions
What is Hollow House?
It is a 97-second AI-generated horror-comedy about a real ghost joining the crew of an extreme haunted attraction. The staff respond to the ghost as if he were a workplace and safety issue.
Why did Meyer remake the first version?
Meyer says the first cut looked visually good but felt slow and boring. It had 20 shots averaging 5.6 seconds per cut, while the short that inspired its structure averaged about 1.8 seconds, according to his count.
How many versions were made?
Meyer reports three versions: a 20-shot, 2:15 cut; a 66-cut, 2:21 version; and the final 1:37 film made from three 30-second segments. The source says only the third version worked for him.
What did the production cost?
Meyer reports using 2,220 Higgsfield credits, valued at roughly $95 at his plan price, and about 2,100 ElevenLabs characters for music and sound effects. These are his figures and are not independently audited.
What is still unknown about the film?
The supplied account does not name the model used for the final segments or provide an independent assessment of the finished film. It also does not identify the earlier short that inspired the structure.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
