What the AI Odyssey Film Is Really About
An AI filmmaker, Ash Koosha, has revealed he is producing his own 135-minute adaptation of Homer's Odyssey, titled "Odysseus: The Fall," timed closely to the release of Christopher Nolan's $250 million big-budget version of the same story. Made for a few thousand dollars with no actors, using generative AI tools, the project has sparked controversy and debate about whether it undermines traditional filmmaking, with Koosha insisting he is not competing with Nolan but demonstrating a parallel, lower-cost path for storytelling.
Koosha, an Iran-born, England-raised engineer, runs the AI-focused production company Fountain 0 alongside his brother Pooya and producer Tom Rogers, the CNBC founder. The announcement landed amid a public disagreement between Nolan and star Matt Damon over the future of large-scale analogue filmmaking, intensifying scrutiny of Koosha's motives. He points to his earlier AI film "Dreams of Violet," about Iran's democracy protests, which debuted at Tribeca, as evidence AI filmmaking can serve urgent storytelling needs, arguing his new project raises similar questions about speed and access in cinema, even though release is still several weeks away.
- AI filmmaker Ash Koosha is making his own Odyssey film alongside Nolan's
- Made for thousands, not millions, using AI tools with no actors
- Move sparks debate on AI's role amid Nolan-Damon filmmaking dispute
New here? Start with this
Ash Koosha is an Iran-born, England-raised engineer and AI filmmaker who runs the production company Fountain 0 with his brother Pooya and producer Tom Rogers. He has made a low-budget, 135-minute film called "Odysseus: The Fall," based on Homer's ancient Greek epic the Odyssey, using generative AI tools instead of actors or a traditional crew. His earlier AI-made film, "Dreams of Violet," about Iran's democracy protests, screened at the Tribeca festival.
The project has drawn attention because it arrives close to Christopher Nolan's own $250 million adaptation of the same story, prompting questions about whether cheap AI-made films threaten conventional, big-budget filmmaking. Koosha says he is not trying to compete with Nolan, but wants to show that AI offers a faster, far cheaper alternative way of telling stories on screen.
The debate has been sharpened by a separate public disagreement between Nolan and actor Matt Damon about the future of large-scale, traditionally shot cinema. Together, these strands have turned Koosha's film into a talking point about what AI could mean for how films are made, funded and valued in future.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of Koosha's approach argue that generative AI radically lowers the barriers to entry in an industry historically gatekept by enormous budgets and studio backing, allowing a single small team to tell an ambitious mythic story for a fraction of Hollywood's cost. They point to his earlier film on Iran's protest movement as evidence that speed and accessibility can serve urgent or marginalised storytelling that traditional financing structures would never greenlight in time. On this view, a parallel, low-cost Odyssey is not an attack on Nolan's film but a demonstration that technology can widen who gets to make cinema and how quickly stories can reach audiences.
The case against
Sceptics, including those sympathetic to Nolan and Damon's defence of large-scale analogue filmmaking, contend that releasing an AI-generated Odyssey timed so closely to a $250 million production is difficult to read as anything other than opportunistic, riding on the publicity of a major release regardless of Koosha's stated intentions. They argue that filmmaking's value lies substantially in the human craft it employs, actors, cinematographers, production designers, and that a no-actor, AI-assisted production made for a few thousand dollars risks devaluing that labour and setting a troubling precedent, even if it is framed as complementary rather than competitive.