🔍 Read the full analysis: Why The First Version Of Hollow House Didn’t Make Us Laugh on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get hardware and tech essentials 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
Hollow House, a 97-second AI-generated horror-comedy, took three versions to reach a cut its creator considered successful. The creator says the first version’s polished images could not make up for slow pacing and weak comic timing.
The creator of Hollow House, a 97-second AI-generated horror-comedy, says its first version looked polished but failed to make him laugh, leading him to produce two further cuts overnight. The account, published by ThorstenMeyerAI.com on October 28, 2026, argues that the main problem was not image quality but pacing: the initial cut averaged 5.6 seconds per shot.
Meyer says all three versions were made between early evening on October 27 and about 1:30 a.m. the next day. The first cut used 20 shots and ran 2 minutes 15 seconds. A second version used 66 faster cuts and ran 2 minutes 21 seconds. The final film was built as three roughly 30-second segments using one video model with references for the full cast, and runs 1 minute 37 seconds.
The premise puts a ghost into the staff of an extreme haunted attraction. When a guest says the safe word, the scaring does not stop; the employees then handle the apparent supernatural problem as a workplace issue. Meyer says the characters, voices and sets were AI-generated. He describes the script, characters and jokes as original, while noting that the structure was inspired by an AI horror-comedy short shared on X.
For the first version, Meyer made a list of 20 shots, generated reference images for them and animated each with Google’s Veo 3.1 fast mode. He says the visuals held together, including the faces, costumes and haunted-house lighting. But the film’s shots each carried one line, the camera mostly stayed still, and the soundtrack had a synthesized drone rather than a score. Meyer reports spending 2,220 Higgsfield credits on the three versions, which he estimates at about $95 under his plan, plus roughly 2,100 ElevenLabs characters for music and sound effects.
Why The First Version Of Hollow House Didn’t Make Us Laugh
Polished images were not enough. Thorsten Meyer says the first cut of his 97-second horror-comedy fell flat because its pacing and comic timing were slow. Two more versions helped him find a rhythm he considered successful—all made overnight.
01 / Three versions, one evolving edit
From slow build to shorter final film
Meyer says work began in the early evening of October 27, 2026, and continued until about 1:30 a.m. The first cut looked coherent to him, but its long shots left the jokes without enough momentum.
The polished first pass
20 shots, averaging 5.6 seconds each. Mostly static camera work, one line per shot, and a synthesized drone instead of a score.
More cuts, more pace
The second edit increased the cut count and moved faster. It ran six seconds longer than the first version.
Three compact segments
Built as three roughly 30-second segments, using one video model with references for the full cast. This was the version Meyer says worked for him.
02 / How the short was made
Reference sheets, generated shots, human choices
Before making video, Meyer created reference images for eight characters. He says each 2K image cost two Higgsfield credits and the set took under two minutes. The references were used to carry hair and costume details across later images and clips.
From character to cut
Build the cast. Create one reference image for each of eight characters with Nano Banana 2 through Higgsfield.
Animate the first pass. Generate shot starting frames, then animate each with Google’s Veo 3.1 fast mode.
Rework the rhythm. Increase cuts, then assemble the final film in three segments with references for the whole cast.
Shape the finish. Meyer identifies editing, creative choices, and a final colour grade as important to the result.
Where generation needed judgment
These are examples from this production, not a guarantee of how the models behave in other prompts or settings.
03 / The story and its creative core
A ghost becomes a workplace problem
Hollow House is a horror-comedy about an extreme haunted attraction. When a guest says the safe word, the scares do not stop—the employees treat the apparent supernatural problem like a staff issue. Meyer says the characters, voices, and sets were AI-generated; he describes the script, characters, and jokes as original. He also says the structure was inspired by an AI horror-comedy short shared on X.
“The first version looked great, and when I watched it I called it what it was: terribly boring and amateurish.”— Thorsten Meyer, creator of Hollow House
“what if something in the house doesn’t care about the safe word?”— Thorsten Meyer, describing the premise
04 / What the account establishes
A production report, not an audience study
The account documents Meyer’s process and his own assessment of the final cut. It does not report audience testing, viewership figures, or a measured reception.
What did the production cost?
Meyer reports 2,220 Higgsfield credits, estimated at about $95 under his plan, plus roughly 2,100 ElevenLabs characters for music and sound effects.
Why did the first cut fall flat?
In Meyer’s view, 20 shots averaging 5.6 seconds, mostly static framing, and one line per shot gave the comedy too little pace.
What remains unclear?
The source does not identify the X short that inspired the structure, independently verify the edit measurements or costs, or show how viewers responded.
What can viewers see?
The published account includes the finished short and behind-the-scenes material: character references, start frames, failed attempts, and a final-cut contact sheet.
The reported model failures and workarounds describe one creator’s experience with this project. The production notes do not establish whether the three-segment approach changed generation time or consistency compared with earlier versions.
Why the First Cut Felt Slow
The account illustrates a distinction between generating attractive shots and assembling an effective short film. Meyer’s central finding is that the first version’s images were not the problem; its timing was. He compared its average shot length of 5.6 seconds with about 1.8 seconds per cut in the short that inspired the project, based on his own count. That comparison is his measurement, not an independently verified industry benchmark.
For readers following AI video production, the case also shows how much judgment can remain with a human creator. Meyer identifies three decisive choices: calling the first cut boring, changing how the cast was supplied to the video model, and applying a final colour grade. The tools generated the components, but the account credits editing and creative decisions with shaping the result.
The story is also a small example of the limits creators can encounter when asking generative video systems for precise actions or dialogue. Meyer says some requested movements did not appear as intended, while speech recognition helped catch lines that differed from the script. His experience is one creator’s account, rather than a controlled test of the tools or a guarantee of how they will perform for others.
Products Worth Considering
Logitech MX Master 4 for Mac, Ergonomic Bluetooth Mouse with Haptic Feedback, Ultra-Fast Scrolling, USB-C Charging, for MacOS, iPadOS, Windo
Logitech MX Mechanical Full-Size Wireless Mechanical Keyboard, Tactile Quiet Switches, Backlit Keys, Bluetooth, USB-C, Multi-Device, Graphit
Apple MacBook Pro 2021 16‑inch with M1 Max, 32 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD, Space Gray (QWERTY English)
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 2K image cost two credits and that the set was produced in under two minutes. Those references were then used to keep character details such as hair and costumes consistent across later images and clips.
The first version followed a conventional shot-by-shot process: generate a starting image for each shot, then animate it with Veo 3.1. In Meyer’s account, the process produced coherent-looking scenes but not the comic rhythm he wanted. He says the second version increased the number of cuts to 66. For the final version, he instead divided the film into three segments and gave one model references for the whole cast.
The production notes also describe attempts that did not work as planned. Meyer says Veo spelled out the letters in a line written as “HEY,” failed to turn a character’s head independently of his body, and altered a requested backward bend into a hunched crawl. A lift was initially blocked; after the prompt was changed to describe the character as floating, Meyer says the resulting movement was still slight. These examples are reported by the creator and do not establish how the models behave in every prompt or setting.
“The first version looked great, and when I watched it I called it what it was: terribly boring and amateurish.”
— Thorsten Meyer, creator of Hollow House
What the Production Notes Leave Open
The account does not provide independent verification of the editing measurements, credit totals, estimated dollar cost or the claim that the final version worked better. It also does not identify the short shared on X that inspired the structure, so readers cannot compare the two works or assess the extent of that influence from the information provided.
Meyer says the final cut was the only one that worked, but the source does not report audience testing, viewership figures or a measured response to the finished film. It is also unclear how the three-segment approach affected generation time or consistency compared with the earlier methods. The described model failures and workarounds are specific to this production; the source does not establish whether they have since changed or how broadly they apply.
The Final Cut and Its Reception
The published account includes the finished 1:37 short and behind-the-scenes material, including character reference sheets, start frames, failed attempts and a contact sheet of the final cut. Readers can watch the film through the video link in the source. No further release, follow-up project or audience-response figures are announced in the account.
For now, the documented next step is the completed film itself: a compact version of a project that Meyer says took three attempts in one night. Whether its faster pacing lands for viewers is not established by the production notes, which focus on the creator’s process and decisions rather than an independently measured reception.
Key Questions
What is Hollow House?
Hollow House is a 1-minute-37-second horror-comedy short about a ghost joining the staff of an extreme haunted attraction. Its creator says the characters, voices and sets were AI-generated.
Why did the first version not work for its creator?
Meyer says the first cut looked good but felt boring. It had 20 shots averaging 5.6 seconds, with mostly static camera work and one line per shot, which he felt did not give the comedy enough pace.
How many versions were made?
Meyer says he made three versions overnight. The first used 20 shots, the second 66 faster cuts, and the final version was assembled from three segments and runs 97 seconds.
How much did the production cost?
Meyer reports using 2,220 Higgsfield credits, which he estimates at about $95 at his plan price, plus approximately 2,100 ElevenLabs characters for music and sound effects. That is the creator’s estimate, not an independently audited production budget.
Was the film based on another short?
Meyer says the structure was inspired by an AI horror-comedy short shared on X, while describing Hollow House’s script, characters and jokes as his own. The source does not identify the earlier short.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
