🔍 Read the full analysis: Why Version One Of Our AI Horror-Comedy Was Boring 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’s 97-second AI horror-comedy Hollow House was made in three versions overnight on Oct. 27–28, 2026. Meyer says the first cut looked polished but dragged, leading him to shorten the shots and generate the final film in three segments using one model with the full cast as references.
Thorsten Meyer says his 97-second AI horror-comedy Hollow House took three versions made overnight to reach a cut he considered successful, after the first looked polished but felt boring and amateurish. In a production account published Oct. 28, Meyer describes the change that mattered most: faster editing and a generation approach that gave one model references for the whole cast.
The short follows a ghost who joins the scare crew at an extreme haunted attraction. When a guest says the safe word, the scares do not stop; the staff respond as if the ghost were a new employee with paperwork to complete. Meyer says the film’s characters, voices and sets were AI-generated. The finished runtime is 1 minute 37 seconds.
According to Meyer, version one comprised 20 shots over 2 minutes 15 seconds, with an average of 5.6 seconds per cut. He compared that pacing with the short that inspired the project, which he counted as having about 74 cuts in 2 minutes 14 seconds, or an average of roughly 1.8 seconds per cut. Those counts and the comparison are Meyer’s, not an independent measurement.
The second version used 66 fast cuts and ran 2 minutes 21 seconds. Meyer says the final version was made as three roughly 30-second segments using one model supplied with references for the full cast. It ran 1:37. Across the three versions, he reports spending 2,220 Higgsfield credits, which he values at about $95 at his plan price, plus around 2,100 ElevenLabs characters for music and sound effects.
Production account · Hollow House · Oct. 27–28, 2026
Why Version One Of Our AI Horror-Comedy Was Boring
Thorsten Meyer says his polished first cut dragged. Three overnight versions later, faster editing and cast references helped shape a 97-second final film. His central lesson: the pictures were not the problem. The rhythm was.
01 / The revision arc
Three cuts, one pacing problem
Hollow House follows a ghost who joins the scare crew at an extreme haunted attraction. When a guest uses the safe word, the staff treat the ghost like a new employee with paperwork to finish. Meyer says the first version looked polished, but its slow rhythm weakened the comedy.
Version 01
Polished, but slow
Twenty shots over 2:15. Longer takes and a single-line structure made the short feel, in Meyer’s words, boring and amateurish.
20 SHOTS · 5.6 SEC / CUTVersion 02
More cuts, still longer
The second cut increased the pace with 66 fast cuts, but ran 2:21 before Meyer moved to the final structure.
66 CUTS · 2:21 RUNTIMEFinal version
Three compact segments
Meyer says he generated the finished film in three roughly 30-second segments, using one model with references for the full cast.
1:37 RUNTIME · 3 SEGMENTS02 / The rhythm in numbers
A sharp difference in shot length
Meyer compared his first cut with the short that inspired the project. These shot counts and averages come from his account; they are not independent measurements.
Meyer counted about 74 cuts in 2:14 for the reference short, compared with 20 shots in 2:15 for version one. The source short is not identified in the supplied account.
03 / How he built it
From character sheets to final grade
The account describes AI-generated characters, voices, sets and sound, alongside decisions Meyer made at each stage. He credits human judgment with identifying the pacing issue and directing the revisions.
Eight character guides
Meyer created one 2K reference image for each character with Google’s Nano Banana 2 through Higgsfield. He says each cost two credits and the set took under two minutes.
Shots, speech and sound
For version one, he drafted 20 shots, generated starting images with character references, then animated them using Google’s Veo 3.1 fast mode.
Check what the model said
He checked clips with Whisper speech recognition against the script, catching errors such as “HEY!” being spoken as the letters “H-E-Y.”
Set the premise
Ghost joins the haunted attraction crew.
Build references
Prepare visual guides for all eight characters.
Revise the rhythm
Judge the first cut, then change the structure.
Finish the look
Generate three segments and grade the final film.
04 / What the account emphasizes
The decisive calls were human
The models generated material, while Meyer describes the filmmaker’s choices as central: assessing the first cut, changing the pacing, preparing references and finishing the colour grade.
“The first version looked great, and when I watched it I called it what it was: terribly boring and amateurish.”
Thorsten Meyer · on version one
“The pictures were never the problem. The rhythm was.”
Thorsten Meyer · on the core production problem
“The decisive moves were human: calling the first cut boring, handing the whole cast to one model, and the final colour grade.”
Thorsten Meyer · on the production’s central decisions
05 / Cost and limits
A project snapshot, with open questions
Meyer reports spending 2,220 Higgsfield credits, valued at about $95 at his plan price, plus around 2,100 ElevenLabs characters for music and sound effects.
What the estimate covers
It is a creator-reported figure for this production. The account does not establish a typical cost for AI shorts or fully quantify time spent writing, prompting, selecting outputs and editing.
What remains untested
No audience response or independent comparison of the three cuts is provided. The earlier short that inspired the structure is unnamed in the supplied material.
06 / Key questions
What to know about Hollow House
What is Hollow House?
A 1-minute-37-second horror-comedy about a real ghost joining the staff of an extreme haunted attraction. Meyer says its characters, voices and sets were AI-generated.
Why was version one boring to Meyer?
He says its 20 shots averaged 5.6 seconds each, with one line per shot and little camera movement. He judged the rhythm too slow for comedy.
How many versions were made?
Three versions, made overnight from Oct. 27 to 28, 2026: a 20-shot cut, a 66-cut version and the final 1:37 film in three segments.
Was the final cut tested with viewers?
The supplied account reports Meyer’s assessment but gives no audience testing or viewer-response data.
Why the First Cut Lost Its Rhythm
Meyer’s account points to a practical distinction in AI video production: generating attractive shots did not automatically produce an effective short film. He says the first version maintained consistent faces, costumes and a red-and-teal haunted-house look, but its longer shots and single-line structure weakened the comedy. His assessment was that pacing, not image quality, was the main problem.
The production also shows where human decisions remained central in this project. Meyer says people selected the premise, judged the first cut, altered the shot rhythm, prepared reference images and completed the final colour grade. The models generated visuals, speech and sound, but the account describes the decisive revisions as choices made by the filmmaker. That distinction matters to readers trying to understand what a small AI-assisted production can—and cannot—do on its own.
The reported credit total offers a limited cost snapshot, not a complete measure of production expense. It reflects Meyer’s account and subscription pricing; it does not establish a typical cost for AI shorts or include a broader estimate of time spent writing, reviewing and editing.
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 1000 Plus v2 Portable Power Station
Bose S1 Pro+ Portable PA Speaker
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Character Sheets to Three Cuts
Before generating video, Meyer created one reference image for each of eight characters using Google’s Nano Banana 2 image model through Higgsfield. He says each image cost two credits at 2K resolution and that the set was completed in under two minutes. The images served as visual guides for later frames and clips, helping keep details such as hair and costumes consistent.
For version one, Meyer wrote a 20-shot list, generated a starting image for each shot with character references, then animated the frames with Google’s Veo 3.1 fast mode. The model generated speech and sound alongside the images. Meyer says he checked clips with Whisper speech recognition and compared transcripts against the script, catching errors such as a shouted “HEY!” being spoken as the letters “H-E-Y.” He also reports that some requested actions were altered or blocked, including a lift and a backward bend.
Meyer says the premise and structure were inspired by an AI horror-comedy short shared on X, while he describes his script, characters and jokes as original. The source account does not identify the earlier short in the supplied material, so the relationship cannot be independently assessed here.
““The first version looked great, and when I watched it I called it what it was: terribly boring and amateurish.””
— Thorsten Meyer, describing his reaction to version one
What the Production Account Leaves Open
The account describes Meyer’s own workflow and evaluation; it does not provide an independent review of the film, the three cuts or the claimed improvement in comic timing. The earlier short that inspired the structure is not named in the supplied source material, and the extent of that inspiration cannot be checked from the account alone.
Some production details also remain unclear, including the full time spent on scripting, prompting, selecting outputs and editing, and whether the reported credit cost includes every service or only the stated Higgsfield credits and ElevenLabs usage. The source gives no audience or performance data to show how viewers responded to the final cut.
The Published Short and Its Workflow
Meyer published Hollow House alongside the production account on Oct. 28, 2026. The article describes the final film and the workflow behind it, but does not announce a sequel, a new release date or further production milestones. The next concrete step for readers is to view the short and judge whether the faster cut resolves the problem Meyer identified in the first version.
Any broader conclusions about AI filmmaking will depend on additional projects and independently verifiable comparisons. For now, Hollow House is a single creator’s documented account of three overnight iterations, with the filmmaker’s own judgment—not audience testing—serving as the measure of which version worked.
Key Questions
What is Hollow House?
Hollow House is a 1-minute-37-second horror-comedy short about a real ghost joining the staff of an extreme haunted attraction. Meyer says its characters, voices and sets were AI-generated.
Why did Meyer say the first version was boring?
Meyer says the first cut used 20 shots averaging 5.6 seconds each, with one line per shot and little movement in the camera. He judged its rhythm too slow for the comedy.
How many versions were made?
Meyer reports three versions, all made overnight from Oct. 27 to 28, 2026: a 20-shot cut, a 66-cut version and the final 1:37 film made in three segments.
How much did the AI generation cost?
Meyer reports using 2,220 Higgsfield credits, worth about $95 at his plan price, plus roughly 2,100 ElevenLabs characters for music and sound effects. That is his project-specific estimate, not a general industry cost.
Was the final version independently tested with viewers?
The supplied account reports Meyer’s own assessment of the versions but gives no audience testing or viewer-response data. It is not clear how viewers other than the creator would rate the final cut.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
