People who don't mind having output that's an aesthetic amalgam of whatever it has already ingested won't mind using these sorts of tools to generate work. For a movie studio that lives and dies on presenting imagery so precisely and thoughtfully crafted that it leaves a lasting impression for decades, I doubt it will be anything more than a tool in the toolkit to smooth things along for the people who've made careers figuring out how to do that.
I think there's two reasons this sort of thinking is so prevelant. A) Since developers are only really exposed to the tools-end of other people's professions, they tend to forget that the most important component is the brain that's dreaming up the imagery and ideas to begin with. Art school or learning to be an artist is a lot more about thinking, ideas, analyzing, interpreting, and honing your eye than about using tools... people without those skills who can use amazing generative tools will make smooth, believable looking garbage in no time flat from the comfort of their own living rooms. Great. B) Most people, especially those from primarily STEM backgrounds, don't really understand what art communicates beyond what it physically represents and maybe some intangible vibe or mood. Someone who really knows what they're talking about would probably take longer to accurately describe an existing artistic image than would be reasonable to feed to a prompt. Once again, that will be fine for a lot of people-- even small game studios, for example, that need to generate assets for their 3rd mobile release this month, but it's got miiiiles to go before it's making a movie scene or key game moment that people will remember for decades.