Hollywood Labour Dispute and Strikes

[Gralin]

So many stories coming out about past court cases between studios and creatives due to how studios do their accounting to avoid paying creatives

 

[phantom13]

Spoiler Alert for a film a few years old and not very good anyway.

Devon Sawa didnt know that he was in Final Destination 5 until the movies premiere (which he was invited to and attended) and was not paid for it.

Similar to other stories 5 was a prequel to 1 (which was the twist) and ends with the plane scene from 1 from a different angle, AI etc was used to create it.

 

[Gralin]

Spoiler Alert for a film a few years old and not very good anyway.

Devon Sawa didnt know that he was in Final Destination 5 until the movies premiere (which he was invited to and attended) and was not paid for it.

Similar to other stories 5 was a prequel to 1 (which was the twist) and ends with the plane scene from 1 from a different angle, AI etc was used to create it.

Haven't seen the flash but have seen some clips and there were a lot of CGI "cameos"

 

[Seeds]

The issue is wider than just streaming though.

There are only a few big players left in the industry to begin with, Disney is now so massive that their actions impact on everyone.

And they're moving to a model where as much as possible they are killing off the unions and old industry skills

if you look at how they make big budget movies now with digital cameras you get s**t like this

View attachment 1741303

No set, minimal props, mostly stand in props

using digital artists to fill out most of it

they do this for a few reasons

digital effects isn't unionised the way the traditional industry jobs are

less skills required, easier to change, say someone doesn't like the look of the gun or the furniture in the background

or they get paid for product placement, they can change that stuff in the computer, no reshoots, much cheaper

plus less power to the unions on set because less of the jobs are skilled union jobs

s**t they don't even need actors filming together half the time, this seen they shot Jackson and Evans in different physical locations on different days and made it look like they were in the same room having a conversation

Disney has also been doing makeup in post production, we've seen digital versions of actors in cameos, not just things like dead or "young" versions but just, eh we've got that guys face chuck him in.

now they're scanning in actors, the smaller ones especially, bit parts all that sort of stuff and owning the rights to use them whenever they want without paying

they're using AI for the opening credits on Secret Invasion so not even paying VFX artists

you can see they want to get to the point where they do it all in computer with prompts, without people as much as possible to keep the most money in their own pockets

everyone was talking about repetitive manual jobs, switchboard etc being automated out of existence, but they're going for everything they can

the entire arts is at risk for corporate greed

I dont get why this is bad? Most of this sounds good for society because isnt this just efficiency? Being able to produce more services with less workers which frees up those workers to go produce other things resulting in more output per unit of work? This is how average living standards improve.

we replaced farm hands with tractors and those farm hands went and did other things increasing societies output and living standard. How is this significantly different?

the only aspect i see a bit different is the studios scanning a copy of ones image. Now this needs some regulation around it but ultimately if the technology is good then we should use it. In the same way we use a camera to scan ones performance and send it all over the planet at once. actors should, however, get paid by studios to take their image and continuously use it. but that pay wont be equivalent as if they are acting everytime cos their time is freed up to go work on other things.

there is also the issue of whether the technology works properly or instead produces inferior films. If the latter then the free market will rightly penalise it and it wont be an issue. Howevers lets hope it works. It will make movies both cheaper and easier to make enabling much more grander and diverse story telling while reducing the power of big studios.

 

[Gralin]

oh great seeds has entered the chat

 

[Seeds]

still showing for me, twitter is ****ed these days though

View attachment 1742655

Yeah thats pathetic behaviour by the studio.

 

[phantom13]

Haven't seen the flash but have seen some clips and there were a lot of CGI "cameos"

Yeh i have and im pretty sure the cameos youre speaking of were all CGI. Every, single, one.

 

[Seeds]

oh great seeds has entered the chat

Why be personal? Cant we just discuss topics on their merits without personal comments. Is it to hard to ask?

 

[Gralin]

Why be personal? Cant we just discuss topics on their merits without personal comments. Is it to hard to ask?

because your first post was comparing artists to farm hands

 

[JackOutback]

because your first post was comparing artists to farm hands

Christopher Nolan is an artist but I’m not sure the guy that played Corpse #2 in CSI is.

I don’t agree with Seeds’ take on the purported benefits, that said, I actually appreciate the opposing argument in this case. People are always scared of new technology, people lose jobs whenever there is innovation, there will surely be some benefits.

Now, obviously he’s underselling the shithousery of movie studios, but I am interested in hearing what some people think the benefits are. And for every James Cameron and George Lucas that want to play with the newest toys, there’s a Nolan or Tarantino that wants to do it old school. It will be interesting to see what there free market makes of it if they push too far with technology. Lucasfilm’s Volume, which allows sets to be projected around the actors was hailed at first but it creates an emptier world. Fans noticed and Andor received a lot of praise for a more real world, using sets, locations and background actors.

 

[Gralin]

Christopher Nolan is an artist but I’m not sure the guy that played Corpse #2 in CSI is.

I don’t agree with Seeds’ take on the purported benefits, that said, I actually appreciate the opposing argument in this case. People are always scared of new technology, people lose jobs whenever there is innovation, there will surely be some benefits.

Now, obviously he’s underselling the shithousery of movie studios, but I am interested in hearing what some people think the benefits are. And for every James Cameron and George Lucas that want to play with the newest toys, there’s a Nolan or Tarantino that wants to do it old school. It will be interesting to see what there free market makes of it if they push too far with technology. Lucasfilm’s Volume, which allows sets to be projected around the actors was hailed at first but it creates an emptier world. Fans noticed and Andor received a lot of praise for a more real world, using sets, locations and background actors.

I mean he replied to me and I was talking about Hollywood union busting and doing everything in computers so the studio execs have control.

And the reply was tractors are good and those people can go do something else productive for the economy.

Like **** an accountants view of art


Christopher Nolan can't be an artistic director if there's no one left with the skills to do the other stuff.

Movies are a production, there are sets, costume, props, lighting, sound, writers, photography and yeah way more people than just the big name actors.

Practical effects almost always look better for the vast majority of things.

They aren't doing this to make movies better, they're doing this to increase their margin and control.

So yeah someone talking about how good that is can get ****ed

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I mean he replied to me and I was talking about Hollywood union busting and doing everything in computers so the studio execs have control.

And the reply was tractors are good and those people can go do something else productive for the economy.

Like * an accountants view of art


Christopher Nolan can't be an artistic director if there's no one left with the skills to do the other stuff.

Movies are a production, there are sets, costume, props, lighting, sound, writers, photography and yeah way more people than just the big name actors.

Practical effects almost always look better for the vast majority of things.

They aren't doing this to make movies better, they're doing this to increase their margin and control.

So yeah someone talking about how good that is can get ****ed

It's interesting, that in the recently signed Contract with the Directors Union ....it was agreed AI would not be used to replace Directors

The exact same agreement is being asked by SAG ....I'm not sure if it's a sticking point with the writers ....of course it should be

 

[phantom13]

It's interesting, that in the recently signed Contract with the Directors Union ....it was agreed AI would not be used to replace Directors

The exact same agreement is being asked by SAG ....I'm not sure if it's a sticking point with the writers ....of course it should be

Seems like Ai couldn’t really do the role of a director and would struggle to do the work of an actor (to a point at least).

Writers on the other hand…

 

[Gralin]

It's interesting, that in the recently signed Contract with the Directors Union ....it was agreed AI would not be used to replace Directors

The exact same agreement is being asked by SAG ....I'm not sure if it's a sticking point with the writers ....of course it should be

Pretty sure it is.

Very shit of the directors to not be striking in solidarity also.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Seems like Ai couldn’t really do the role of a director and would struggle to do the work of an actor (to a point at least).

Writers on the other hand…

They're already using scans of extras / low involvement actors in the background of movies already .....without the actors knowledge

I agree .....hard to use AI to direct a movie

 

[phantom13]

They're already using scans of extras / low involvement actors in the background of movies already .....without the actors knowledge

I agree .....hard to use AI to direct a movie

Yeh hence the “to a point comment”.

 

[Gralin]

The regrowth on those trees would suggest they cut them well before the strike.

Nope

 

[Big_Luch]

Nope

It doesn't mention when they were cut.

As a carlton supporter it takes time for the green shoots to come through. In our case...8 years and still counting.

 

[phantom13]

It doesn't mention when they were cut.

As a carlton supporter it takes time for the green shoots to come through. In our case...8 years and still counting.

I’m no plant expert but I’m pretty sure they might have just cut them back to those green bits not cut them back to nubs and waited for the growth.

 

[Gralin]

I’m no plant expert but I’m pretty sure they might have just cut them back to those green bits not cut them back to nubs and waited for the growth.

you can see in the first photo some of the branches under the canopy were already cut and the green shoots were on those branches

they cut the canopy off in its entirety which isn't trimming a tree and has a good chance of killing all those trees

 

[JackOutback]

I mean he replied to me and I was talking about Hollywood union busting and doing everything in computers so the studio execs have control.

And the reply was tractors are good and those people can go do something else productive for the economy.

Like * an accountants view of art


Christopher Nolan can't be an artistic director if there's no one left with the skills to do the other stuff.

Movies are a production, there are sets, costume, props, lighting, sound, writers, photography and yeah way more people than just the big name actors.

Practical effects almost always look better for the vast majority of things.

They aren't doing this to make movies better, they're doing this to increase their margin and control.

So yeah someone talking about how good that is can get ****ed

I'm firmly on the writers and actors' side when it comes to pay, residuals, working hours etc etc. I've been a union member all my life and will always go into bat for collective bargaining. The studios are greedy kents, no doubt about it. But I am interested in the technology side. Every great innovation has destroyed another area of business that requires people to retrain. Hell, CGI eliminated a lot of set makers and puppeteers, but there's also a whole new VFX industry created. So some of these might become niche industries (they will always be there if there's moviemakers that want them) while new industries pop up. So given we're unlikely to put the genie back in the bottle, how can it be used effectively, what new industries will support it etc etc.

Importantly, innovations only have legs if they provide value. Traditional filmmakers will try to hold the line. I don't think anyone knows which way it will go yet.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I'm firmly on the writers and actors' side when it comes to pay, residuals, working hours etc etc. I've been a union member all my life and will always go into bat for collective bargaining. The studios are greedy kents, no doubt about it. But I am interested in the technology side. Every great innovation has destroyed another area of business that requires people to retrain. Hell, CGI eliminated a lot of set makers and puppeteers, but there's also a whole new VFX industry created. So some of these might become niche industries (they will always be there if there's moviemakers that want them) while new industries pop up. So given we're unlikely to put the genie back in the bottle, how can it be used effectively, what new industries will support it etc etc.

Importantly, innovations only have legs if they provide value. Traditional filmmakers will try to hold the line. I don't think anyone knows which way it will go yet.

TBF though .....I don't think anyone is suggesting holding back AI in movies / shows ....it's the actors that rightfully want to be compensated for the use of their image ......no different to any other entity getting royalties on copyrighted material .....in this case the copyright is their image

As for the writers ......and I hope their copyright infringement suits succeed ......as James Cameron has said:

According to Cameron: “I just don’t personally believe that a disembodied mind that’s just regurgitating what other embodied minds have said — about the life that they’ve had, about love, about lying, about fear, about mortality — and just put it all together into a word salad and then regurgitate it…I don’t believe that’s ever going to have something that’s going to move an audience. You have to be human to write that. I don’t know anyone that’s even thinking about having AI write a screenplay.”

James Cameron Doubts AI Can Write Good Scripts, Says the ‘Weaponization of AI Is the Biggest Danger’: ‘I Warned You in 1984 and You Didn’t Listen’

James Cameron doubts AI can write a script that moves people.

variety.com

 

[JackOutback]

TBF though .....I don't think anyone is suggesting holding back AI in movies / shows ....it's the actors that rightfully want to be compensated for the use of their image ......no different to any other entity getting royalties on copyrighted material .....in this case the copyright is their image

As for the writers ......and I hope their copyright infringement suits succeed ......as James Cameron has said:

James Cameron Doubts AI Can Write Good Scripts, Says the ‘Weaponization of AI Is the Biggest Danger’: ‘I Warned You in 1984 and You Didn’t Listen’

James Cameron doubts AI can write a script that moves people.

variety.com

I don't believe writers or directors can be replaced by AI, that said, AI could potentially in the future put the bones of something together and have one writer flesh it out, rather than having several writers work for years on something. Actors and digital copying is definitely one of the biggest issues for the SGA, along with residuals for streaming into the future.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I don't believe writers or directors can be replaced by AI, that said, AI could potentially in the future put the bones of something together and have one writer flesh it out, rather than having several writers work for years on something. Actors and digital copying is definitely one of the biggest issues for the SGA, along with residuals for streaming into the future.

Can AI have innovative thinking though .....it can regurgitate what is already known .....but can AI develop a fresh script

Example .....could AI have ever thought up the concept for the original Avatar?

 

[phantom13]

Can AI have innovative thinking though .....it can regurgitate what is already known .....but can AI develop a fresh script

Example .....could AI have ever thought up the concept for the original Avatar?

The original Avatar script was basically Dances With Wolves, Fern Gully and The Last Samurai (along with a bunch of other white saviour films) set in space. The only original concept in that movie was the filming, 3D and mocap developments.

A better example might be something like Inception, Donnie Darko, Everything, Everywhere All at Once or even some more abstract stuff like Titane or even Banshees.

I suspect as AI develops it could probably punch out a script with the parameters (100 pages, broad dialogue, concept of X) to be refined by a writer OR the opposite, broad strokes done by a writer and refined by AI.

It wont replace main character actors and i would sincerely hope the contract dispute lands on not being allowed to fill extras after a single filming for an unrelated movie and it wont replace directors.