Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesNo, Galaxy of Flesh (1985) is not a real David Cronenberg movie. The images are an AI-generated series posted by music-video and commercial director Keith Schofield on January 10, 2023. Midjourney generated the supposed film stills, which were designed to resemble lurid 1980s science-fiction body horror rather than document an actual production.
What “Galaxy of Flesh” really is
Schofield published a set of images under the title “David Cronenberg’s Galaxy of Flesh (1985).” Some viewers initially treated them as rediscovered stills from an obscure Cronenberg film. Futurism reported on January 14, 2023 that the movie did not exist: the pictures were synthetic images made with Midjourney.
![Rabid (1977) - Collector's Edition 4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray [4K UHD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51OoEQFvnvL._SL160_.jpg)
![The Dead Zone - Collector's Edition 4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray [4K UHD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41xbclDsl5L._SL160_.jpg)
There is therefore no legitimate release, cast, distributor, archival film, or 1985 production called Galaxy of Flesh. The title is a fictional framing device applied to an AI image series.
| Question | Established answer |
|---|---|
| Is it a real David Cronenberg movie? | No. It is a fictional AI image series. |
| Who posted the images? | Keith Schofield, a music-video and commercial director. |
| What generated them? | Midjourney. |
| When were they posted? | January 10, 2023. |
| What date did the mistaken-film story appear? | Futurism reported it on January 14, 2023. |
Why the images looked like film stills at first glance
The series combines cues associated with grimy, high-concept 1980s genre cinema: fleshy appendages, colorful figures in worn science-fiction clothing, stark lighting and a glossy period finish. That combination gives the pictures the surface language of an expensive lost movie. Presenting them as a named 1985 film also encouraged viewers to read each image as evidence from a larger production.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
![David Cronenberg s Early Works [Blu-ray]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/519qz91JcEL._SL160_.jpg)
- David Cronenberg's Early Works ( Transfer / From the Drain / Stereo / Crimes of the Future )
- David Cronenberg's Early Works
- Transfer / From the Drain / Stereo / Crimes of the Future
The illusion weakened when viewers examined details. Hands and eyes were visibly malformed, artifacts commonly associated with the image-generation tools discussed in coverage of the series. Those errors do not prove what a picture depicts, but they are strong clues that it is generated rather than a scanned production still.
Who made the AI Cronenberg movie images?
Keith Schofield made and posted the series; Midjourney produced the images from text instructions. Schofield is the human author of the concept and presentation, not the director of a newly discovered Cronenberg film.
Rank #2
Did Midjourney ban “David Cronenberg”?
Schofield later said he did not use Cronenberg’s name in his prompt because Midjourney had banned it. He described the substitute prompt as “Star Wars medical body horror.” That account explains how he sought a recognizable combination of space-opera imagery and medicalized body horror without directly entering the filmmaker’s name. It is Schofield’s description of the prompting process, not evidence that Cronenberg participated or approved the project.
Why Cronenberg fans rejected the attribution
The central criticism was not simply that the images were AI-made; many viewers also found the claimed authorship implausible. Film critic Jeff Zhang wrote, “Proof that AI art is a horseshit scam. David Cronenberg has never in his entire life made a single movie that looked anything like this.”
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteFuturism similarly described the pictures as a broad 1980s horror-and-science-fiction pastiche, likening the result to “Star Wars” crossed with Society, rather than a faithful match for Cronenberg’s filmography. In that reading, the images borrow a generalized era and genre vocabulary—mutations, flesh, grime, hard light and retro production design—then attach a famous director’s name to it.
Genre resemblance is not the same as an artist’s style
A period look can be assembled from widely circulating conventions. Cronenberg’s work has its own recurring concerns, narrative structures and visual decisions; reproducing a few body-horror signals does not establish that an image belongs to his artistic language. The backlash exposed that gap between a fast visual association and a defensible attribution.
Rank #4
![CRIMES OF THE FUTURE UHD [Blu-ray]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41lkRN81X3L._SL160_.jpg)
- Crimes of the Future
- ABIS DVD
Why the episode became an AI-art controversy
The post also became a proxy for larger arguments about consent and style imitation. Futurism reported criticism that systems including Stable Diffusion and Midjourney were trained on human artists’ work without permission. Critics compare that practice to plagiarism and object to prompts that explicitly seek a living or identifiable artist’s style.
“Galaxy of Flesh” intensified those concerns because the images were initially easy to mistake for historical material. A synthetic work can be provocative when it is plainly labeled as fiction; presenting it in the visual grammar of archival evidence creates a different obligation to identify what viewers are seeing.
Best Value
![eXistenZ (1999) [ Blu-Ray, Reg.A/B/C Import - Spain ]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41Gyjj744PL._SL160_.jpg)
- eXistenZ (1999)
- eXistenZ (1999)
Five questions that clarify similar cases
- Consent: Did the named artist agree to the imitation or participate in the project?
- Labeling: Is the output clearly identified as synthetic?
- Fidelity: Does it reflect the artist’s documented work, or only a generic genre collage?
- Artifacts: Do malformed anatomy, inconsistent details or other generation errors reveal the process?
- Historical framing: Is the work being presented as a real past artifact?
How to recognize the claim correctly
- Check whether the title appears in reliable filmographies, archives or contemporary release records. In this case, no legitimate Galaxy of Flesh release is established.
- Look for the creator’s own disclosure. Schofield identified the images as a Midjourney project and explained his prompting choice.
- Inspect hands, eyes and repeated details at full resolution; generation artifacts can be easier to see than the overall style.
- Separate a recognizable 1980s mood from evidence of Cronenberg’s authorship. Similar lighting, costumes or body-horror imagery do not make a film part of his filmography.
The bottom line on the “lost movie”
Galaxy of Flesh (1985) was fictional. Keith Schofield posted the concept images, Midjourney generated them, and their initial plausibility came from a carefully assembled 1980s science-fiction/body-horror pastiche. The malformed details, the mismatch with Cronenberg’s actual body of work and the dispute over unconsented style imitation all show why synthetic images need clear labeling—especially when they are packaged as a nonexistent historical film.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
