Actors union will join writers on strike, shutting down Hollywood
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
I mean... it is ground breaking. Just in the worst possible way.
Previous discussion of the topic right here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27852017
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
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!
I would love to hear from a primatologist who's decades into their career to see if they think Planet of the Apes holds up.
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.
Anchoring[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)
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.
We didn't decide this as a society. Billionaire capitalists and the tech sector decided this on behalf of society, which is why society despises both tech and AI.
I don't think it's at all reasonable to own someone's image for an entire movie, to manipulate it for as many scenes as they want, if the actor was only paid for one scene on one day. Actors should be paid for every scene they are in, whether real or virtual IMO.
It would seem reasonable to pay actors, including their likeness, by the second multiplied by factors such as the actor's experience, importance of their part to the film, etc. Maybe they get paid a little less for using their likeness, but that's a pricing negotiation between the actor and the studio. It could be that the actor's likeness is more valuable than the actual actor performing if the studio needed to do a lot of manipulation.
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!
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
Can a human not imitate a style?
Some people do actually like the art, the process, the artist, the questions that art open (even if mundane such as "how did they think of this?"). Remove that and it's just a shell, a hollow product without soul. It's ok if you like that but then you don't actually like art.
> the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects
Conscious use of skill, there's no conscience in AI hence no art.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/arts/design/rothko-painti...
It'll be the same with these generated media. Consuming art is fundamentally an experience of humanity, of connection. The more generated it is, the more it loses its purpose.
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.
With AI it can make them automatically look lifelike, and you can just pull from your database of scans. Furthermore, you can use AI to create new extras from your existing training data.
* Kill Bill 3 with Uma Thurman by Quentin Tarantino
* Moon Race saga by James Cameron with 45 y.o. Clint Eastwood
* H.P.Lovecraft screen adaptation by Guillermo del Toro
* Alexander The Great biopic by Peter Jackson in three or five installments
* Master and Margarita by Steven Spielberg with 35 y.o. Angelina Jolie as Margarita
Add your dream movies in replies!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
Good on SAG-AFTRA. This can only increase the bargaining power of both groups.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
If you don't approve of this, you don't approve of unionization. Because this is how it works.
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.
Weird, my definition of "unionization" is "workers bargaining collectively". It doesn't involve any veiled threats of violence.
They have made an offer of employment to the union, following the legal framework in the country.
It’s the same predicament any striking worker has. Each party is applying significant financial pressure on each other to get what they hope will be a better deal than the current offer.
How… how do you think this works in other strikes?
Abusing the massive wealth imbalance to force people back to work under your own terms is violence. They should be happy people haven't actually resorted to violence in return.
How it works in other strikes? It'll depend on the context. Your small company that can't afford everyone striking for a month will go to the negotiation table and reach a deal. Other companies? In my lifetime, I have seen offices destroyed, CEOs sequestrated. And you know what? It worked.
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
I'm fully expecting more dogmatic/richer members to bankroll the strike to prevent it breaking. I'm guessing through loans or something.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is exactly it. There are tons of incredible series with high production values on YouTube created on shoestring budgets, but they mostly cater to very specific niches. They can succeed on YouTube because they aren't going for the broad appeal and hyper-consistent development cycle required for TV channels to pick them up. If such an ecosystem existed in the early 00s, some of these series probably would have been picked up and made incredibly successful to a much broader audience by channels like Discovery, History, or TLC, but falling cable subscriptions has resulted in massive consolidation diluting the original premises of these networks, thus forcing them to focus on more generalized content. (The 2007-2008 WGA strike certainly didn't help, but I think this was inevitable with the subsequent rise of streaming services - the strike just kickstarted the realityfication/enshittification of cable TV a couple years early.)
That's not to say that no YouTube series or YouTubers can make it on TV, but they have to fall into the niche of having broad appeal on YouTube without being limited to YouTube, and I think Drew Gooden made this point really well in his video covering Lilly Singh's late night show [0], which got off to a horrendous start because studio execs, blinded by the prospect of getting a popular YouTuber to make a show for them and (hopefully) get that YouTuber's audience to throw their eyeballs at it, did not attempt to create a show that worked for Lilly, but instead shoved Lilly into a tired formula which she floundered in. (Keep in mind that Lilly's core YouTube demographic would be sound asleep by the time each episode aired at 1:30 AM, and one wonders the kind of discussions that led to this show getting greenlit in the first place.)
In a way, though, we're already seeing lots of content which is hyper-optimized for streaming services that is paid for by the big studios - I remember seeing an interview with some writers for a show only available on Netflix (I think, and I wish I could remember anything more specific) who remarked that with broadcast shows, you had to fit everything neatly into very specific timeslots, and that each timeslot had to have a hook to keep you sticking around after the commercial break, but when you're writing for a streaming platform, all those considerations just go out the window, allowing for much easier and more natural storytelling, like a movie.
Of course, you could still air these shows on TV, but they wouldn't work as well on TV as, much like movies that get chopped up for broadcast, very rarely do you have good hooks before commercial breaks. In addition, many shows made for streaming services do not follow the standard 18-22/37-42 minute show length, which means you have to either insert a ton of ads to pad the runtime into a 30/60/90 minute timeslot or have an odd lineup until you can get to some other oddball-length show (or until the infomercials begin).
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
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.
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.
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.
[1] various sources, e.g. https://www.ign.com/articles/hollywood-studios-want-writers-...
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.
See my previous comment: "The union might still be in the "right" in terms of what they're demanding, "
My only point was that the union and its members was presented with two choices: accepting a "bad" offer, or striking in hopes of getting a better offer. If they chose the latter and lost out, it was entirely their decision that led to their predicament.
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...
The union members are choosing not to accept a deal that will leave them nearly destitute.
The studio execs are choosing not to accept a deal that will...leave them still massively wealthy, just slightly less so.
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.
you are labor.
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.
If you won't sacrifice for someone else, they won't sacrifice for you. If you won't put yourself at risk, nobody will put themselves at risk for you. When you allow the oppression of others, you allow the oppression of yourself.
The opposite of tyranny is supporting your peers and therefore being supported by your peers.
I can imagine a ton of people canceling their subscriptions if all the providers put out is that crap “filler content.”
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
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.
The thing about The Witcher is that the books aren't very good. People like the Witcher despite the horrible writing (the same way people liked Twilight despite the horrible writing). If Season 1 had been faithful to the books it would never have taken off.
Most people seem to be basing their ideas for what the show should be like based on what the games were like, but the games are quite liberal in their adaptation of the underlying material.
Can’t be any worse than it already is with rationed and extended, completely formulaic shoes like NCIS or Simpsons far overstaying their welcome.
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.
I wouldn't mind to try the AI stuff. Why would I care if the sea of junk content is generated by an AI instead of low paid humans? Maybe the AI will prove how worthless this B content actually is and let real humans focus on good/valuable content. Either way competition is always a good thing in my book.
I'm sure there will still be premium content such Game of Thrones, Top Gun, Avatar etc. Maybe the AI will even let us tailor the experience/plot more to our individual preferences(i.e our own check-boxes) so let's embrace the technology once again.
It may be the solution not the problem to the quality of content and not only(i.e diversity). People could choose to watch the same movie in different modes(i.e director's mode, kids mode, snowflake mode, adult mode, asian mode, black mode, caucasian mode, lgbtq+ mode, mixt mode, random mode and so on).
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.
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...
Is R+M in Hollywood while the rest is run from Atlanta?
I guess the part that feels disconnected to me is that just because you call something art doesn't make it so, and just because you make something with AI doesn't mean it will be intelligent or interesting. But content creators will only care about improving their standards if content comsumers stop eating shiny-looking shit on a platter. I guess one can dream...or demand better standards and have higher expectations. If the bar to create something is so low, then anything that's created must be proportionally evocative, profound etc.
[0] https://alpharesearch.io/platform/share?filingId=0001744489-...
If film is treated primarily as entertainment but not art, consequences are obvious.
Same case with overproduction low quality stuffs. Coroporate greed for monetization BS needs to be addressed. It's not sustainable.
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.