[HN Gopher] Actors union will join writers on strike, shutting d...
___________________________________________________________________
Actors union will join writers on strike, shutting down Hollywood
Author : leotravis10
Score : 160 points
Date : 2023-07-13 19:52 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| lesuorac wrote:
| I guess lucky for Hollywood the visual artists (i.e. CGI) aren't
| in a union.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| They aren't yet in a union.
| [deleted]
| dluan wrote:
| The visual effects people and animators in Hollywood should
| absolutely be organizing for one, because their work is the
| soonest to be blown up with AI stuff. There's already a ton of
| stuff for small productivity improvements that reduce editing
| or grading tasks that used to take days into minutes.
| bsimpson wrote:
| There's the Animation Guild for collective bargaining, and
| ASIFA (which is like the Academy of cartoons).
|
| https://animationguild.org/
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIFA-Hollywood
| roboror wrote:
| ASIFA is not a labor union in any way and local 839 is not
| really a VFX union, nor does representation function like
| SAG or WGA do. VFX is a mess.
| Animats wrote:
| The Animation Guild is a good model.
|
| Disney, whose animators have been unionized since the
| 1950s, bought Fox's animation operation and is trying to
| run it non-union. They're refusing to bargain with TAG,
| even though Disney has recognized the union.[1]
|
| There aren't that many animation studios left. Most either
| went out of business or were bought by Disney. The
| remaining Hollywood unionized animation studios are Disney,
| Sony, Nickelodeon, Rick and Morty, Titmouse LA/Robin Red
| Breast Production, and WAG Pictures, Inc.
|
| Despite repeated attempts, TAG has been unable to unionize
| game developers.
|
| [1] https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/support-unionized-
| worker...
| p0pcult wrote:
| [dead]
| nemo44x wrote:
| Without scripts how can the actors act anyhow?
| wnc3141 wrote:
| I think this helps disempower scabs. Plenty of non union people
| would love for s studio to pic of their script, or the studio
| might pull an old script out of the bin
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Scene for Scene remakes would be preferred to them ruining good
| classics by "reimaging them" for the modern era with new
| scripts
| geodel wrote:
| Watching Hollywood movies it seems they can do it most of the
| time.
| jfengel wrote:
| They had old scripts in the pipeline. A number of projects in
| the works will be halted immediately.
|
| TFA cites actors not doing publicity for projects that are in
| the can and awaiting release. The film can still be shown, but
| with less promotion is expected to do less well.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Now this could actually force the Hollywood studios back to the
| negotiating table in earnest. Its one thing to outsource writers,
| its not easy (I'd say rare to impossible) to outsource the actors
| themselves.
| norwalkbear wrote:
| Digital actors are the future
| shrimpx wrote:
| Fully digital actors are around the corner, and the consumers
| of comic book universe movies probably won't care about the
| lack of human actors, or will even prefer it.
|
| But good move by the actors union to force terms while they
| still can. They're effectively trying to get production
| companies to make a promise to slow down or stop going toward
| fully digital.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| TikTok :).
| Animats wrote:
| The previous Writers Guild strike, in 2007-2008, resulted in a
| big boom in "reality" shows.
| anotherhue wrote:
| Unions are a critical counterbalance to the power of
| corporations. Hardly perfect, but we'll be sorry when they're
| gone.
| SilasX wrote:
| And a critical counterbalance against automating labor. If you
| want that.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Not really. Ironically the kind of people who frequent this
| forum will be the ones to end labor once and for all.
|
| Unions are only helpful with leverage. For now labor has
| inherent leverage as capital production fundamentally requires
| some labor. As AI increases productivity of certain individuals
| the _amount_ (of people) of _productive_ labor will become
| less, thus making unions ineffective.
| youarelabor wrote:
| [dead]
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Wild! And when it doesn't happen this way, are you --
| presumably on the "productive" side -- gonna go Galt?
| endisneigh wrote:
| It will eventually happen, and it already is happening.
| yafbum wrote:
| It's not clear that AI will be a productivity boost for
| writers of any more magnitude than the move from the
| typewriter to the computer word processor. It can improve
| productivity, but only marginally so, and without need to
| replace writers altogether. An AI is about as useful for
| screenwriting a complex show as a spell checker.
|
| The kinds of productivity boosts that studios and streaming
| houses have already gotten from writers are much simpler and
| timeless - hire less writers per show, for shorter term
| contracts, don't pay them residuals based on the show's long-
| term success, and keep them in the dark about the value of
| their work by hiding viewership data so that they won't know
| when they do have leverage individually.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I don't know how you could possibly compare AI with the
| typewriter to word processor evolution.
| yafbum wrote:
| I'm just talking about it for screenwriting specifically.
| It can improve productivity like GitHub copilot can for
| coders, which is to say, incremental improvement (vs
| firing the software engineering department and replacing
| it entirely by GitHub copilot)
| robotnikman wrote:
| With the major advances in AI threatening to further take power
| from the many and give it to the few, I definitely agree.
| gruez wrote:
| Unions only work because they can threaten to withhold labor.
| If AI takes off the and AI replace workers, they'll be
| unemployed. Unions aren't going to help situation.
| leotravis10 wrote:
| Considering that actors (live action and voice) are
| constantly asked to hand over their rights and likeness to
| companies creating AI and other machine-learning ways (1),
| it's surely worth fighting for so agreed here.
|
| (1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34701086
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > "In that ground breaking AI proposal, they proposed that our
| background performers should be able to be scanned, get paid for
| one day's pay, and their company should own that scan, their
| image, their likeness, and should be able to use it for the rest
| of eternity in any project they want with no consent and no
| compensation," he said. "So if you think that's a ground breaking
| proposal I suggest you think again."
|
| I mean... it _is_ ground breaking. Just in the worst possible
| way.
| stelliosk wrote:
| The Simpsons: Meep
|
| https://youtu.be/kTxeM_s8-D0
| wwweston wrote:
| Not sure it's that groundbreaking since we've already
| effectively decided as a society this is exactly what we're
| going to do with art and writing and probably a whole bunch of
| other stuff.
|
| And in general, we've long decided privileging capital is much
| more important than compensating labor.
|
| I'm not saying this is right. I'm saying we didn't just cross
| this line. This is the logical extension of some trendlines
| we've been riding for a while.
|
| If it feels uncomfortable, it's possible we should look back
| for the root of the mistake.
| foo_foo_can_do wrote:
| i think that as labour remains expensive and increasingly
| inefficient for companies to utilize they will naturally use
| capital to replace labour. the irony may be that the strength
| of the unions here hve driven studios to invest millions in
| cheaper technological solutions to get movies made. labour
| organizing only has power as long as there is no viable
| alternative to that human labour.
| goodbyesf wrote:
| Who would want to be an extra then? Aren't most extras people
| who want to break into the film business? If you are an extra
| for one movie and the studio owns your likeness forever, how
| will you get another job as an extra or a cast member? They
| wouldn't need you since they already have your likeness to use
| as they please in any film they want. I mean owning the your
| image within the movie is understandable. But owning your
| likeness which is transferable across films and mediums is
| rather amazing. I can't imagine extras are paid that much to
| begin with that it'll be worth it to sell their likeness for
| one days pay.
| ryandrake wrote:
| From an end-user's point of view, though, that's actually
| really great.
|
| I love Star Trek The Next Generation. They're never making any
| more than those seven glorious seasons. If I could subscribe to
| a streaming service that offered an infinite number of AI-
| produce believably-authentic episodes featuring the original
| characters, and plot that could plausibly have been real
| episodes, I'd subscribe in a heartbeat. I'd just watch that and
| skip the rest of what passes for TV today.
|
| I'd love for that subscription money to go to the original cast
| and crew as royalties, instead of buying the president of
| Paramount a seventh house. But I don't have a choice about
| that.
|
| Pink Floyd [maybe!], Yes, Rush, they're never making any more
| music. Would I pay for an AI-based infinite album maker? You
| bet!
| Kye wrote:
| Toss in the 100+ novels with a lower weight to account for
| the more spotty quality and you have another 5-6 seasons.
| tiltowait wrote:
| For anyone wondering where to start, this chart is helpful
| (if you can read it):
| https://www.thetrekcollective.com/p/trek-lit-reading-
| order.h...
| arrakeen wrote:
| > Would I pay for an AI-based infinite album maker? You bet!
|
| it sounds like you don't even like art
|
| what exactly do you feel when you listen to music? what makes
| you want to listen to music? what drew you to rush and pink
| floyd in the first place? i ask because my subjective answers
| to those questions are diametrically opposed to some
| theoretical generative AI album maker
| Kye wrote:
| Jet Li famously turned down The Matrix because he was worried
| about what they might do with his motion capture in the future.
|
| Previous discussion of the topic right here on HN:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27852017
| solardev wrote:
| It probably won't be long before algorithms can mocap just
| from the recorded footage and then transpose those movements
| to arbitrary 3D models :/
|
| That doesn't take away from the beauty of martial arts
| though. You can have an exact definition of all the moves
| you'll ever do, but still spend decades refining them.
|
| For actors though... yeah I can see why they're worried
| mmcwilliams wrote:
| It's already very possible with off-the-shelf OpenPose. I
| can only imagine that the proprietary systems are more
| powerful and have better performance.
| solardev wrote:
| Good to know. Thanks for sharing!
| norwalkbear wrote:
| They can do that today
| manmal wrote:
| I've seen the new Indiana Jones last week, and found the
| (clearly) animated opening scenes quite unrealistic. There
| was constantly something wrong with Indy's sudden movements
| and other tells. Felt more like a really good cutscene. And
| they did have mocap available for that. I don't think
| you'll get believable virtual actors (outside of action
| scenes) without mocap anytime soon.
| lbotos wrote:
| It's definitely rudimentary possible.
|
| During covid I was working on a paintball video game and I
| took pro paintball footage and ran some university research
| skeleton modeling program on it and got reasonably good
| results. I was going to use that for crouch and bunker
| hugging animations. And that was just me an HN reader
| playing around.
|
| EDIT: Sibling posted and I was using that project --
| OpenPose!
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| There is an Al Pacino movie called "S1m0ne" - thought this is
| the sad future of movies.
| darkclouds wrote:
| > their company should own that scan, their image, their
| likeness, and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity
| in any project they want with no consent and no compensation
|
| Thats how science works globally! Do you think scientists
| should be striking, or are they too stupid to realise how they
| are being used by the global population?
|
| There is also one other deer in the headlights which I havent
| seen mentioned yet, and thats the financial system. Financiers
| dont realise their days are numbered and I certainly dont see
| nay VC's or bankers striking yet, but then I dont get paid for
| pointing out their demise.
| merth wrote:
| well, alternative they will just create non-existing actors
| with generative AI. my guess in 50 years, almost everything
| will be extremely cheap including human labour. except land
| maybe?
| 26fingies wrote:
| i guess we are about to embark on a grand experiment to see
| if Marx was right
| saltminer wrote:
| This was part of the plot of "Joan is Awful" (Black Mirror
| S06E01). I sorta expected some sort of AI proposal but I didn't
| think it would be so drastic, so soon. Then again, it might
| just be the tactic of asking for a mountain to get the hill you
| really want (I'm sure there's a name for this).
| herdymerzbow wrote:
| Yes, term your thinking of is 'ambit claim'.
| User23 wrote:
| > I'm sure there's a name for this
|
| Anchoring[1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)
| Oarch wrote:
| It's also a key plot point of The Congress (2013), the
| scanning process of the actress is even in the movie trailer.
| robterrell wrote:
| "Looker" is a Michael Crichton film from 1981 that features
| actors getting scanned and replaced with cheaper & more
| compliant CGI equivalents.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| This was among the first mainstream major 3D rendering in
| a motion picture.
| nine_zeros wrote:
| Black mirror surprisingly accurately captured the human
| consequences of the ultra-capitalistic-tech future.
|
| Still remember the episode where the guy runs on a treadmill
| to collect points and uses it on porn. Not too different from
| tech workers running hard everyday and yet, spending all
| their money on only-fans, living in a studio apartment in a
| VHCOL city.
| solardev wrote:
| [flagged]
| nine_zeros wrote:
| It is good that tech money is getting redistributed but
| it is also important to recognize how stupidly
| trivialized tech worker life has become.
| solardev wrote:
| Stupidly trivialized how?
| [deleted]
| tibbon wrote:
| Do we know how the unions are asking people to interact with
| media companies, streaming services and films?
|
| Would they prefer people avoid them, cancel services, and avoid
| buying tickets for the moment as a form of picket line? I don't
| cross picket lines, and would be more than happy to stop my
| consumption of these things if it helps send a message.
| m-ee wrote:
| A writer on addressed this on a podcast. They said maintain
| business as usual unless you see a call to action from the
| writers/union. A large shift in response to such a request
| sends a much stronger message than a slow trickle of
| cancellations.
| monkeyodeath wrote:
| The business philosophy of "maximize shareholder value above all
| else" is going to eviscerate our society until there's nothing of
| quality left.
|
| Hollywood has always been a dirty and money-focused business, but
| it seems like the latest crop of execs are hellbent on entirely
| divorcing the creative enterprise from its human elements. Now
| studios are just exotic financial instruments that seek to turn
| "content" into stock prices.
| eatsyourtacos wrote:
| Completely agree. And the worst part is that sentiment is used
| as a completely valid reason/excuse.
|
| "They are just doing what is legally required of them and
| maximizing shareholder value!!".
|
| People throw that out in there as if it's some inherent law of
| nature that can't be questioned. No- it's an intentionally
| created human construct by the rich & powerful to completely
| excuse them of any actions.
| [deleted]
| Sterm wrote:
| [dead]
| gruez wrote:
| > The business philosophy of "maximize shareholder value above
| all else" is going to eviscerate our society until there's
| nothing of quality left.
|
| Well no, because there are literally an entire industry (luxury
| goods) where the main selling point is quality, and I don't see
| any sign that's going to disappear anytime soon.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| Quality and price are frequently orthogonal in the luxury
| goods business.
| spacemadness wrote:
| Our society will be eviscerated, but at least we'll have
| luxury goods,
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| If you think all LVMH workers have good working conditions,
| or that materials are sourced ethically, I have bad news for
| you.
|
| Quality doesn't prevent the search of profit maximization.
| Hell, luxury goods aren't even about quality. The
| price/quality ratio on your Vuitton Bag or your Ferrari is
| down in the gutter. You're buying a social status, not
| quality.
| LapsangGuzzler wrote:
| I'm not sure how familiar you are with luxury goods, but
| there are lots of YouTube channels and analyses of the
| quality of luxury products, and it's not what you think it
| is. They're maximizing shareholder value too, they're just
| going after people narcissistic and wealthy enough to not
| notice that they're buying junk that's dressed up because the
| brand name means something to them.
| Sterm wrote:
| [dead]
| karaterobot wrote:
| Some of them, sure. But a lot of luxury products are Veblen
| goods, where the demand is created by the high price itself,
| rather than the quality. Status symbols and the like.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Everything measured and optimised for shallow goals goes into
| the gutter. As the analytics overtook decision making, the
| quality of everything declined sharply.
|
| IMHO, it's happening because we the humans optimize for proxy
| metrics which once were good as a proxy to the real thing but
| with the computer age they turned into shallow goals that end
| up destroying the real thing as the optimisation became too
| robust. Removing the human element from the machinery creates a
| fatigue on the remaining parts and the consumers. All jobs have
| become horrible, even if the productivity increases the
| optimisations end up destroying the workforce and this started
| eating into the society because no one is happy with their job
| and life. Seamen no longer can see the world through their
| sailing career because the stays at the ports are too short, a
| person can't have a simple job and a simple life because the
| simple job is optimised into exhaustion.
| p0pcult wrote:
| [dead]
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Goodhart's law and the McNamara fallacy.
| innisfreehoney wrote:
| Or if you want to get philosophical about it, reification.
| Which is something the Frankfurt School (despised by some
| as "Cultural Marxists") discussed with great depth and
| subtlety
| monkeyodeath wrote:
| "As the analytics overtook decision making, the quality of
| everything declined sharply."
|
| Pretty much. I'm sure Hollywood execs have always wanted to
| make as much money as they could, but they also (formerly)
| didn't want to be known as guys who only made terrible
| movies. Prestige, vanity, relationships,
| reputation...unanalyzable human factors are really important
| for the production of human-centric products like art and
| entertainment.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Couldn't Have Said It Better. It expands to everything,
| every job has perks and qualities that cannot be measured
| qualitatively and optimisations eat into it. As people
| spend most of their lives working, this degradation
| destroys people's life satisfaction too.
| davidw wrote:
| "Captain's log, Stardate 3034. The Enterprise is now in its
| 23rd reboot."
| rightbyte wrote:
| Made me chuckle.
|
| I can't recall any STNG episode where they solve some tech
| issue by doing the same thing but after a restart or two.
|
| Didn't computers at the time of writing have the state
| problem solved by reboots? Like, reloading the program was
| essentially the same thing or something?
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| The last time both were on strike was 1960. How did Hollywood
| cope back then? Less shows/different landscape obviously....was
| that the birth of the rerun? haha
| bwestergard wrote:
| A refreshing show of solidarity between groups of workers whose
| interests clearly align. If they call for the public to cancel
| subscriptions, I'll do it.
| thefounder wrote:
| Well, to be honest we've been served a lot of trash content
| before the strike for various reasons so I'm not sure how our
| interests and worker's interests align here.
| dkh wrote:
| People have been continuingly trying to say "content is
| garbage, the writers on strike weren't any good anyway" and
| such throughout this whole ordeal. But there's a lot of
| content for a reason--we each have our preferences. What one
| person loves, someone else thinks is shit. Most content will
| not be for _everyone_. This is fine.
|
| But are you actually saying that there is _nothing_ out there
| that you really enjoy? That 100% of it across the board is
| terrible? And are you willing to say that most other people
| feel the same way? There is _nothing_ out there for _anyone_?
|
| If there is anything you do like, then you want to support
| the workers because it gets made the same way as the stuff
| you don't like, and this is by design.
|
| Unless, of course, you're expecting everything to be _Game of
| Thrones_ or some other huge show that most people seemed to
| enjoy simultaneously. In that case, you should be even more
| on board, because those are hard to come by, they are
| expensive, risky, and require all the talent available to
| them.
| falcolas wrote:
| Given the explicit "we'll just wait for them to lose their
| housing" messaging from the Hollywood executives...
|
| Good on SAG-AFTRA. This can only increase the bargaining power of
| both groups.
| vkou wrote:
| Waiting until striking workers run out of money is absolutely
| gentille, when it comes to the history of strike-breaking.
| gruez wrote:
| "absolutely gentille" and "strike-breaking" seems like weird
| ways to describe studios refusing to accept the union's
| offer, as if they're expected to accept whatever that the
| union offers.
| falcolas wrote:
| The studios haven't even come to the negotiation table in
| the 70 days of the WGA's strike. Their entire plan is
| waiting them out so they'll accept a worse offer.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| They haven't come to the table because they know the
| writers will not accept the offer. What's the point in
| wasting time?
| Arrath wrote:
| Its such a shame that the laws of the universe only allow
| the studios to make that one offer they want to bring to
| the table.
| gruez wrote:
| The same could be said for the union. Why should either
| side be forced to make concessions?
| Arrath wrote:
| Same argument could be made in the vein of why should one
| side be forced to accept the other's demands
| unilaterally? Thus the deadlock and the strike. After
| all, each side making concessions is how this usually
| works.
| gruez wrote:
| >The studios haven't even come to the negotiation table
| in the 70 days of the WGA's strike.
|
| What's the point of coming to the negotiation table when
| the other side's demands is so far from what you're
| willing to offer?
|
| >Their entire plan is waiting them out so they'll accept
| a worse offer.
|
| It takes two to make a deal. By refusing to accept a
| deal, both sides' are hoping to inflict damage to the
| other side so they can get what they want. You might have
| your own opinions about which side has the more
| reasonable offer and is therefore in the "right", but
| both sides are essentially trying to do the same thing.
| Arrath wrote:
| > What's the point of coming to the negotiation table
| when the other side's demands is so far from what you're
| willing to offer?
|
| Uh, does this situation not fit the dictionary definition
| of negotiation? Such a gulf in demands/desires/position
| between the sides necessitates negotiation and
| compromise. The institution saying "lol fuck them, we'll
| starve 'em out" is monstrous in that context, imo.
| [deleted]
| gruez wrote:
| >> What's the point of coming to the negotiation table
| when the other side's demands is so far from what you're
| willing to offer?
|
| >Uh, does such a situation not fit the dictionary
| definition of negotiation?
|
| There's nothing in the definition of "negotiation" that
| _necessitates_ compromise. Moreover, negotiation isn 't
| an end goal in and of itself. The point is to reach an
| agreement (ie. contract), and the very definition of a
| contract is that it's voluntary. That means walking away
| is an entirely valid response.
| falcolas wrote:
| Not being the worst tactic used by companies to break strikes
| doesn't make it _good_ or even _OK_.
|
| Nor should it lessen the condemnation faced by these
| companies.
|
| EDIT: To be clear, I expect a company's executive team in the
| 21st century to act ethically and with even the smallest bit
| of compassion for their coworkers. I do not expect them to
| act like some entitled plantation owner in the late 19th
| century.
|
| And if that's me being naive, it's a naivety I'll gladly take
| to the grave.
| vkou wrote:
| > Not being the worst tactic used by companies to break
| strikes doesn't make it good or even OK.
|
| I mean, I'm very pro-union rights, but I think in this
| case, it's pretty simple. If you don't work, you don't get
| paid. Both the studios and the unions are playing by the
| rules, here.
|
| It may not produce a fair outcome (because the distribution
| of power in society isn't fair), but it is at least a fair
| _process_.
|
| And the union should really have put aside more money to
| fund a longer strike.
| ninth_ant wrote:
| This not some dirty tactic, it is specifically how all
| breakdowns in employer/union negotiations go. Union
| withdraws their labour until their demands are met,
| employer doesn't agree until their demands are met. As time
| goes on, both lose money, both parties are betting the
| other party will compromise in a beneficial way before
| their side does.
|
| If you don't approve of this, you don't approve of
| unionization. Because this is how it works.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| You seem to misunderstand what unionisation is. The
| current state of things has been reached as kind of a
| gentleman's agreement. If employers want to revert to
| life threatening solutions, unions will revert to life
| threatening solutions too. Sequestration, destruction,
| tarring, and other fun things.
|
| But then again, defenestration of a bunch of execs might
| just be the exact thing the world needs to put some fear
| back into these ghouls again.
| gruez wrote:
| > You seem to misunderstand what unionisation is. The
| current state of things has been reached as kind of a
| gentleman's agreement. If employers want to revert to
| life threatening solutions, unions will revert to life
| threatening solutions too. Sequestration, destruction,
| tarring, and other fun things.
|
| Weird, my definition of "unionization" is "workers
| bargaining collectively". It doesn't involve any veiled
| threats of violence.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| That is what it means, but it's an arrangement that
| replaces the previously "we'll resolve this with
| violence" situation. If one party wants to dump the "new"
| way of doing things, mostly likely it just goes back to
| the "old" way.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| Violence begets violence. Pretty simple.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > As time goes on, both lose money, both parties are
| betting the other party will compromise in a beneficial
| way before their side does.
|
| Historically when the key demand is "we want fair pay"
| versus "we are not giving you another dime", this
| strategy from the employer ends in violence.
|
| So, not a great plan for employers tbh
| kristofferR wrote:
| That is just a silly argument. Yeah, they aren't hiring
| private armies and shooting at the striking workers, but that
| doesn't mean it's gentille.
| Arrath wrote:
| > Given the explicit "we'll just wait for them to lose their
| housing" messaging from the Hollywood executives...
|
| Yeah, that was fuckin disgusting. Its tar and feather territory
| if you ask me.
|
| I'm in full support of this strike and I applaud the actors for
| getting in on it. Bring the studios to their knees if that's
| what it takes.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| What's to stop the actors or writers from simply making their
| own content?
|
| It made sense to me when you had terrestrial television
| stations with actual monopolies over broadcast rights.
|
| But now with the internet they have many vectors to share and
| market their content.
|
| So you won't be on NBC or Netflix or whatever, so what, post
| it on Twitter and YouTube. If they move to alternative
| distribution platforms and the studios don't do anything then
| the studios will lose their audience and thus their revenues.
| falcolas wrote:
| IMO, it's because writers and actors form a seriously minor
| part of the labor needed to make a film or TV episode.
|
| From VFX to catering, there's a lot of labor needed - much
| of which is highly specialized - that would cost too much
| to contract or develop independently.
| 1shooner wrote:
| >What's to stop the actors or writers from simply making
| their own content?
|
| At this point, I would think the union. I have a family
| member in Equity that couldn't play in his own productions
| because he couldn't afford to pay himself. Sounds like a
| joke, but it's true.
| yafbum wrote:
| > What's to stop the actors or writers from simply making
| their own content?
|
| 1) access to capital to cover the cost of production. $/min
| of a Mandalorian episode or even a late night comedy show
| is way above self funding capacity of most of the people
| employed as writers or actors.
|
| 2) critical mass providing leverage in distribution. It is
| very very cheap for Netflix to market just one more show,
| as compared with the costs of a new subscription service to
| try to acquire new customers. On the feature side, studios
| pay a lot less to be in theaters (as percentage of box
| office revenue) than indie films.
|
| > So you won't be on NBC or Netflix or whatever, so what,
| post it on Twitter and YouTube.
|
| It's not like people haven't been trying. But take any
| successful show in the last few years, it simply could not
| have made nearly the same audience or revenue on these
| platforms. The stuff you see there is already hyper
| optimized for these platforms - it'd be a very poor
| business decision to take a show with the production cost
| of TV or subscription services, and monetize it purely on
| these platforms.
| morgango wrote:
| Distribution, access to capital, a reliable track record,
| contracts or relationships with channels, etc. All the
| unglamorous parts of media.
|
| There were some very cool things that came out of the last
| strike (like Dr Horrible's Sing Along Blog) but I would
| guess that at least 75% of you have never heard of it.
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| Some of the best content I've encountered is exactly this.
| A good example is "High Maintenance", which started as a
| Vimeo web series and cost $1000 / episode to produce. [1]
| Another example is Christopher Nolan's first film,
| "Following", which cost $6,000 to produce. "El Mariachi" by
| Robert Rodriguez famously had a $7,000 budget.
|
| They could also pool their money, crowdfund, or otherwise
| shoot for a bigger budget, in which case they could mimic
| the first Coen Brothers movie, "Blood Simple", which had a
| $1.5 million budget. There's also "The Blair Witch Project"
| ($200k), "Clerks" ($230k), "Paranormal Activity" ($15k),
| etc. [3]
|
| I truly hope this latest labor dispute causes an industry
| shift in the direction of creatives taking more control
| over production and distribution of their content. Musician
| Anton Newcombe said this about the recording industry, and
| I think it applies equally well to film studios:
|
| "...it's a mafia. And until they can write the letter that
| I'm writing, they are the postman, and I am the letter
| writer. Period. End of discussion."
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Maintenance
|
| 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Following
|
| 3. https://collider.com/movies-with-smallest-budgets/
| gruez wrote:
| >Its tar and feather territory if you ask me.
|
| Refusing to accept a deal is akin to acts of violence? I feel
| like the pro-union rhetoric is getting hyperbolic, and is
| detrimental to the quality of the discussion. If simply
| refusing to accept a deal is "tar and feather territory",
| then what do you call it when studios are literally covering
| union members in tar and feather? "tar feather (fr!)
| territory"? Rather than discussing actually relevant topics
| like which side's offer is objectively more fair, half the
| comments here are about trying to describe the studio's
| actions in increasingly hyperbolic terms.
| Woberto wrote:
| I think you're vastly oversimplifying their stance as
| merely "refusing to accept a deal". If studios are waiting
| for writers to "start losing their apartments and losing
| their houses,"[1] that is a major negative impact to
| people's lives.
|
| [1] various sources, e.g.
| https://www.ign.com/articles/hollywood-studios-want-
| writers-...
| gruez wrote:
| >that is a major negative impact to people's lives.
|
| I fully acknowledge the hardship that the union members
| are going through, and that the impact is likely
| disproportionate. However, that's a negative impact
| brought on by themselves by choosing to engage in said
| strikes. The union might still be in the "right" in terms
| of what they're demanding, but they're still the
| proximate cause of their own hardship.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| Arrath wrote:
| > Refusing to accept a deal is akin to acts of violence?
|
| Its not 'refusing to accept a deal', its this:
|
| ""The endgame is to allow things to drag on until union
| members start losing their apartments and losing their
| houses," a studio executive told Deadline." [0]
|
| I don't think I can get more hyperbolic than "our stance is
| we won't talk to them until they're freezing in the
| streets".
|
| [0] https://deadline.com/2023/07/writers-strike-hollywood-
| studio...
| [deleted]
| ilamont wrote:
| For consumers, now is a good time to evaluate paid streaming
| services. The content pipeline will be rationed and extended,
| leading to a decline in new programming. HBO/"Max" was already
| looking shaky, and we've noticed Apple and Amazon are
| increasingly plastered with paid options.
| dangerboysteve wrote:
| This is where the broadcasters and streamers opt for more
| unscripted TV and foreign dubbed content.
| chongli wrote:
| Consumers are savvier than ever about that stuff. People
| already demonstrate a strong willingness to hop on and off
| subscriptions for different services based on specific shows
| they want to watch.
|
| I can imagine a ton of people canceling their subscriptions
| if all the providers put out is that crap "filler content."
| geodel wrote:
| One thing we all can do is to be less _entertained_. But I
| guess this would be considered extreme measure, specially
| in US.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| And when you do cancel, be sure to let the services know in any
| feedback forms they offer.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| I have been doing that for a long time not because of the
| strike, but because 90% of the content is garbage, and the few
| shows that have found interesting they cancel after 1
| season....
|
| I think the situation with the Witcher will be the last straw
| with me and Netflix..
|
| I am probably one of the few people that still have Prime
| because of the shipping but as they keep increasing costs to
| add a bunch of things I have no interest in (like Sports, and
| complete Trash that is Rings of Power) the value is less and
| less for that as well
| nightski wrote:
| The Witcher wasn't really Netflix's fault though? I thought
| Cavill was lured by the Amazon deal to do Warhammer. Gotta
| love a company like Amazon producing shows and selling toilet
| paper all in one shop.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Cavill did not leave voluntarily. HE was pushed out because
| he wanted to stay true to the lore.. Netflix and their hand
| picked show runners disagree and want to completely change
| the story
| gamblor956 wrote:
| OTOH, the best season of the Witcher was Season One,
| which Cavill had little to no control over substantively
| or stylistically.
|
| Season 3 is the season in which he has exercised the most
| creative control...this is the Witcher as _he_ envisions
| it...and it 's making GOT Season 7 look good.
| User23 wrote:
| Isn't that the Japanese model? You can get your motorcycle
| and your baby grand piano from the same company. It looks
| like it works pretty well for them so maybe there's
| something to it.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| Disney's operating income from its entertainment segment was over
| $1.1B for the last quarter [0]. It's down quite a bit from the
| year before but there is still plenty of wiggle room to pay
| actors and writers.
|
| [0]
| https://alpharesearch.io/platform/share?filingId=0001744489-...
| owyn wrote:
| Since that money belongs to the share holders, any non-
| management salary expenses are clearly securities fraud. /s
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-13 23:02 UTC)