Writer and actors on STRIKE. Most main stream TV and Movies come to a stand still

[Neil Racki]

We're at the nadir of the creative process in Hollywood. Maybe AI isn't such a bad idea when it comes to coming up with new/fresh ideas? It can't be any worse then the regurtigation we see now.

Any worse?

Theres a bazillion big budget to little budget projects being made and available at your fingertips right now. If you are not finding fresh, new, amazing scripts .. then youre not trying to look for fresh, new amazing storylines.

A kin to a coors light guy complaining when they walk into a craft beer store asking where are the 30 packs.

IMO theres just too much content/new shows/movies/projects and not nearly enough time to enjoy them.

Great time to be a dude who likes to sit on his couch drinking good beer, smoking amazing greens and watch a norweigan indie subtitle teen girl coming of age movie shot exclusively from an I phone 9

 

[PK Cronin]

Good full write up on the issues at hand. Very hard to consider anyone striking selfish given what’s at stake.

The core issue seems to be the money. There's definitely some selfishness to some of those negotiation points (for both sides). I don't have an issue with the people at the bottom of the union barrel trying to get more money, I do take issue with the mega stars who "support them" while cashing in over and over again when they have the ability to throw their weight around way more than they do.

They need a new method for determining value because what's currently in place doesn't work.

The most interesting part is the union wanting 2% of revenues generated by streaming shows.

There's no way to actually calculate the amount of revenue generated by a show because it's mostly being watched by people paying a subscription fee, as opposed to paying directly to view that specific show.

The idea that you can base revenue off a formula created by an analytics firm (as suggested by the union) using Google search information and social media mentions seems a bit far fetched.

The only reasonable solution would be to create a formula based on actual minutes watched of each show. I really hope this happens, and that the data is made public. For studios this could be embarrassing. If Amazon for example, had to report the paltry viewership for their 715M investment on Rings Of Power, that would look bad. Same with Disney Star Wars.

This is what jumped out at me as well. I'd be interested in how the analytic tool is able to determine the difference between people talking about something and revenue.

Money is the easy part imo.

Hard part is the AI and owning of a persons likeness .. or AI writing scripts

20 years from now a young actor does a Mission Impossible type movie .. then can the studio just use that actors likeness and create a bunch of sequels using AI and CGI and PBR?

AI can already create images that are not of any singular person or likeness, they won't even need to use a particular actor at a certain point in the future. Replacing Meryl Streep or Tom Cruise might take some time but replacing background actors with AI generated faces will be here sooner or later, and not require anyone to sign off on it since it isn't owned by any particular actor. They just need someone willing to walk around a set...for now.

There are stock resources for people who work within the art/design field already, that will likely just expand out to include companies that specialize in creating the best "stock" background actors or something similar.

As far as writers go, some jobs that exist now will cease to exist and new jobs will be created centering around people who know how to create the best prompts. I don't think it'll ever totally eliminate the human element to writing, because someone will always need to re-write and edit, but the needs for 10 writers on a show might be reduced to 4 or something like that (completely made up numbers).

The actors and writers are going to attempt to insulate themselves from this shift but the shift is going to happen one way or the other, as long as it's cheaper to do it this way.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Well I got bad news for you, what do you think AI/'machine learning' is right now? You feed it a bunch of existing stuff and it just regurgitates what it eats and spits it back out at you. You're not actually creating anything 'new' with AI, so from your perspective you'd only be making things much worse.

Of course. I'm being hyperbolic. I guess my point is I find it funny that Hollywood is battling with issues like AI when it'sat it's lowest point creatively that I can remember. IMO.

Any worse?

Theres a bazillion big budget to little budget projects being made and available at your fingertips right now. If you are not finding fresh, new, amazing scripts .. then youre not trying to look for fresh, new amazing storylines.

A kin to a coors light guy complaining when they walk into a craft beer store asking where are the 30 packs.

IMO theres just too much content/new shows/movies/projects and not nearly enough time to enjoy them.

Great time to be a dude who likes to sit on his couch drinking good beer, smoking amazing greens and watch a norweigan indie subtitle teen girl coming of age movie shot exclusively from an I phone 9

I guess I'm being taken to literally which is the bane of the internet I suppose.

 

[PK Cronin]

Of course. I'm being hyperbolic. I guess my point is I find it funny that Hollywood is battling with issues like AI when it'sat it's lowest point creatively that I can remember. IMO.


I guess I'm being taken to literally which is the bane of the internet I suppose.

Wouldn't it naturally decrease over time just from a saturation standpoint? Going from 100 movies ever to 1000 means there are now 900 less original ideas that can exist. Once an idea is out there then there will just be twists or deviations on those particular ideas. We're in an era where there's unprecedented access to create and consume films and television shows so it's not really that surprising that there's redundancy. I don't think there will ever be another time where there's a revitalization of the industry as a whole. You'll just get specific companies pushing more unique/off-beat content than others but that won't ever captivate the mainstream audience.

If you're mainly talking about re-makes, I'm with you on disliking it but as long as it makes money it'll keep happening. Just like sequels that don't need to be made.

 

[RandV]

Of course. I'm being hyperbolic. I guess my point is I find it funny that Hollywood is battling with issues like AI when it'sat it's lowest point creatively that I can remember. IMO.

One thing to consider is you or people seem to put this on the writers being the ones to lack creativity when they are essentially employees creating what the studios pay them to. And we're talking here about giving said studios an invention that lets them endlessly create regurgitated concepts without requiring any pesky human creativity.

While machine learning is done by mimicking how actual brains learn and both humans and AI will be getting fed the same material, the human brain is still mostly built from the human experiences of actually living. AI has made massive leaps in recent years but it's still a very very long way away from recreating actual human ingenuity and creativity. The key point for AI is what it can do it can do exponentially faster. A script draft that could take a human months to write an AI can spit out in a few seconds.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

11% raise from one year? That isn’t a promotion? Who is the one who has never worked? Sounds like you.

I guess you're cheering for studio executives who make millions a year already huh?

 

[Mario_is_BACK!!]

I guess you're cheering for studio executives who make millions a year already huh?

Same guy took Netflix’s side in password sharing crack downs so shouldn’t be a shock.

 

[Mario_is_BACK!!]

So selfish!

 

[Osprey]

So selfish!

That's propaganda. It was released by SAG-AFTRA and there's even editorialization in some of the counters to make them sound unacceptable. Also, it seems unlikely that so many proposals were rejected if they were really as reasonable as they sound there. I imagine that there was a lot more to each proposal and they were rejected for reasons that were left out. We should take anything coming from either side with a large grain of salt, IMO. If they're going to the media, they're trying to get public opinion on their side and pressure the other. That said, I'd like to now hear AMPTP's side of the story and how they might spin the same issues in the opposite direction, to make themselves sound like the reasonable ones. That would be interesting.

 

[johnjm22]

The actors are winning the PR war. (As expected).

In any dispute, each side generally has a point, but I think it's pretty clear that with industry changes over the past decade the union contract needs an update.

I hope they come to an equitable and sensible agreement.

One concern I do have, is that organized labor can make it difficult for an industry to be flexible and innovative. The cost to produce a mass marketed Hollywood film or TV show has skyrocketed to seemingly unstainable levels. In my view, the industry looks like it's set up for a contraction. I think studios and producers are going to have to find ways to be more nimble moving forward. Complicated labor agreements can make that more difficult.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

That's propaganda. It was released by SAG-AFTRA and there's even editorialization in some of the counters to make them sound unacceptable. Also, it seems unlikely that so many proposals were rejected if they were really as reasonable as they sound there. I imagine that there was a lot more to each proposal and they were rejected for reasons that were left out. We should take anything coming from either side with a large grain of salt, IMO. If they're going to the media, they're trying to get public opinion on their side and pressure the other. That said, I'd like to now hear AMPTP's side of the story and how they might spin the same issues in the opposite direction, to make themselves sound like the reasonable ones. That would be interesting.

Mario is basically a propaganda machine i’ve seen over the years. It’s comical. Sometimes i think it’s just a bot.

 

[Mario_is_BACK!!]

That's propaganda. It was released by SAG-AFTRA and there's even editorialization in some of the counters to make them sound unacceptable. Also, it seems unlikely that so many proposals were rejected if they were really as reasonable as they sound there. I imagine that there was a lot more to each proposal and they were rejected for reasons that were left out. We should take anything coming from either side with a large grain of salt, IMO. If they're going to the media, they're trying to get public opinion on their side and pressure the other. That said, I'd like to now hear AMPTP's side of the story and how they might spin the same issues in the opposite direction, to make themselves sound like the reasonable ones. That would be interesting.

Based on the writers strike and how the AMPTP’s consistently done business over the history of Hollywood calling this propaganda (and especially given consistency of claims leading up to this info dump) seems to give the AMPTP credit they don’t deserve. Especially with moves like this.

 

[Jovavic]

Saw that CBS is going to put Yellowstone on to fill up some airtime, how the f*** are they going to censor that show for network TV? Gonna be like watching a R rated movie on cable with voice over words instead lol

 

[Mario_is_BACK!!]

Saw that CBS is going to put Yellowstone on to fill up some airtime, how the f*** are they going to censor that show for network TV? Gonna be like watching a R rated movie on cable with voice over words instead lol

They did this with Dexter during the last strike. They’ll find a way, it’ll just be awkward as hell.

 

[Osprey]

Based on the writers strike and how the AMPTP’s consistently done business over the history of Hollywood calling this propaganda (and especially given consistency of claims leading up to this info dump) seems to give the AMPTP credit they don’t deserve. Especially with moves like this.

It isn't giving the AMPTP credit. It's simply calling it what it is. We should be able to recognize that and be skeptical of it no matter our feelings about either side.

 

[Mario_is_BACK!!]

It isn't giving the AMPTP credit. It's simply calling it what it is. We should be able to recognize that and be skeptical of it no matter our feelings about either side.

Considering it’s not propaganda or fake I’m not sure why you are able to say with certainty it is? It’s all true, per friends in the industry.

 

[Osprey]

Considering it’s not propaganda or fake I’m not sure why you are able to say with certainty it is? It’s all true, per friends in the industry.

No offense, but your friends in the industry also told you about the HBO residuals and that was debunked. I highly doubt that they're involved in the negotiations here. They're likely just saying that it's true because they got that same document from their union leaders and trust them. It was probably e-mailed to all 160,000 SAG-AFTRA members. If AMPTP sent out a similar e-mail and a few members way down the ladder swore that everything in it was true, I'd be just as skeptical of that; wouldn't you?

 

[Mario_is_BACK!!]

No offense, but your friends in the industry also told you about the HBO residuals and that was debunked. I highly doubt that they're involved in the negotiations here. They're likely just saying that it's true because they got that same document from their union leaders and trust them. It was probably e-mailed to all 160,000 SAG-AFTRA members. If AMPTP sent out a similar e-mail and a few members way down the ladder swore that everything in it was true, I'd be just as skeptical of that; wouldn't you?

So what is YOUR proof that it’s propaganda? Because mine is an agent that said it’s extremely dire and he may have to switch careers with how bad they expect it to get while confirming the validity of the document posted.

Yes, the residual in question was debunked. This is different.

 

[Osprey]

So what is YOUR proof that it’s propaganda? Because mine is an agent that said it’s extremely dire and he may have to switch careers with how bad they expect it to get while confirming the validity of the document posted.

Yes, the residual in question was debunked. This is different.

It's propaganda because it came from SAG-AFTRA and they obviously want it out there. In fact, it's so short, simplified and easy enough for a lay person to read that it had to have been written with the intent of persuading as many people as possible.

To be clear, propaganda simply means information spread widely to help or harm a cause. It doesn't mean lies, if that's what you're thinking. Propaganda can be 100% true, but it's just hard to trust, obviously, considering the source and intent behind it.

 

[sdf]

they wrote crap anyway

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

part of the problem is writers/actors are looking for a piece of the pie that isnt there with respect to residuals.

Residuals were higher in the past because of TV. What made syndication/re-runs lucrative was ad revenue. That's what the residuals were being funded by. With streaming you dont have that pool of ad revenue to divide up. Combine that with a massive library of content to split up the subscriber fees with (whats left of them after the streaming company takes their cut) and you have the current situation.

Honestly, to me it feels like a lot of the writers/actors think a lot more people are watching their shows on these platforms than really are. Even the hit shows dont see a whole lot of re-watches.

 

[StreetHawk]

part of the problem is writers/actors are looking for a piece of the pie that isnt there with respect to residuals.

Residuals were higher in the past because of TV. What made syndication/re-runs lucrative was ad revenue. That's what the residuals were being funded by. With streaming you dont have that pool of ad revenue to divide up. Combine that with a massive library of content to split up the subscriber fees with (whats left of them after the streaming company takes their cut) and you have the current situation.

Honestly, to me it feels like a lot of the writers/actors think a lot more people are watching their shows on these platforms than really are. Even the hit shows dont see a whole lot of re-watches.

Shows are now on demand vs just being on when someone flips channels and stops to watch it. Thus they will be watched fewer times.

I’ve seen the original top gun like 20 something times. Just via flipping channels and catching it partway through and stopped to watch it. Saw Maverick in theatre and watched twice at home. Don’t foresee watching maverick as many times as the original from this point on.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Shows are now on demand vs just being on when someone flips channels and stops to watch it. Thus they will be watched fewer times.

I’ve seen the original top gun like 20 something times. Just via flipping channels and catching it partway through and stopped to watch it. Saw Maverick in theatre and watched twice at home. Don’t foresee watching maverick as many times as the original from this point on.

Good point. With the viewers having choice now they're more likely to seek out new things to watch rather than re-watch something because its there vs the days of cable you had to watch what was on.

IDK, just feels to me like the writers/actors aren't accepting that the pool of money they think is sitting there really isn't. They really need to adopt the mindset musical acts have, keep producing new content to keep the money coming in (with the obvious caveat that they cant take a movie on tour)

 

[StreetHawk]

Good point. With the viewers having choice now they're more likely to seek out new things to watch rather than re-watch something because its there vs the days of cable you had to watch what was on.

IDK, just feels to me like the writers/actors aren't accepting that the pool of money they think is sitting there really isn't. They really need to adopt the mindset musical acts have, keep producing new content to keep the money coming in (with the obvious caveat that they cant take a movie on tour)

You don't know what will be a hit and what won't. So, what can be included in the contract that ensure that the writers get a fair share on a show that hits? How do they figure that out?

With more and more cord cutting, the residuals that the network shows have produced will continue to dwindle with each passing year.

 

[RandV]

part of the problem is writers/actors are looking for a piece of the pie that isnt there with respect to residuals.

Residuals were higher in the past because of TV. What made syndication/re-runs lucrative was ad revenue. That's what the residuals were being funded by. With streaming you dont have that pool of ad revenue to divide up. Combine that with a massive library of content to split up the subscriber fees with (whats left of them after the streaming company takes their cut) and you have the current situation.

Honestly, to me it feels like a lot of the writers/actors think a lot more people are watching their shows on these platforms than really are. Even the hit shows dont see a whole lot of re-watches.

There are also network TV shows that get picked up by streaming services. Like there was a TV show filmed in Vancouver a few years ago called Manifest that had a couple seasons, which over the past year I've noticed in the 'top 10' list frequently on Netflix. I'd imagine no 'residuals' were paid out for that.

Streaming has taken over but I regular network TV still isn't going away for a while so you'll see this happen for shows. And tV being paid for by advertisement is simply being replaced by being paid for by subscriptions. The streamers no exactly what you're watching, when you're watching it, and for how long, that they could create an accurate model with, they simply don't want to share or release that data.

This is stuff they didn't know with cable TV, where they simply broadcast or output the signal