- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,629
- 43,771
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Fancy signing a contract agreeing to do that.
Hollywood Labour Dispute and Strikes
- Thread starter spinynorman
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Fancy signing a contract agreeing to do that.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,629
- 43,771
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
But has it happened yet? Surely the actors know about it and decide whether they want the money.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,629
- 43,771
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
No, Im reading news stories where there is talk of this going to be happening with permission from the actors. Not of it already happening.
my thoughts on this are conflicting and not complimentary
how far does the movie-going public's feelings on ethics really extend? will they extend far enough so that the rights of the personnel are preserved or improved before they start whinging wanting the next overblown piece of shit movie they were hanging out for?
ai is only changing the nature of exploitation, not introducing it. rival film groups set up in competition to create ai-free product would still have some poor sap copping the wrong end of the stick.
wanting to lean on ai heavily for script shows studios understand a few things. they know they are creatively bankrupt, morally bankrupt, and that their audience is captive. there is no doubt ai could fashion a script earning studios bajillions of dollars.
ultimately studios have found the best way to give the public the disposable product they love.
i'd be all for some kind of setup where the % of ai content is listed, much like australian-made produce. don't know how it would work, but i think the consumers should be entitled to this. i'm sure the final credits would cover it but they should be made aware before money leaves hands.
i hate the use of ai, but i'm not afraid of it. there is no escaping that ai may well create something i enjoy, be that music, film, or visually. nor would my heart break if disney headquarters were to burn down in a suspicious fire.
but ai will only change the nature of arts, rather than destroy it. it can't put actors on a theatre stage, can't put a live musician in front of you, can't paint a painting, can't wave its massive comic-con **** in your face.
if the product is poor enough, people will vote with their feet and wallets. movie tickets will cost the same no matter how the movie got there.
rather than the death of the artform, it's an opportunity for people to embrace something different and small scale. put your concerns about film making ethics into practice.
have a look for something interesting that hasn't used an expensive director, writer, or producer or swathed in green screen. the stage is set for a kind of 'dogma 95' film-making movement in response to ai.
no-one's ai-created likeness should be owned by a movie studio. that's disgusting. people should think long and hard before they sign anything agreeing to this, even if they reckon it might be their big ticket into the industry.
how far does the movie-going public's feelings on ethics really extend? will they extend far enough so that the rights of the personnel are preserved or improved before they start whinging wanting the next overblown piece of shit movie they were hanging out for?
ai is only changing the nature of exploitation, not introducing it. rival film groups set up in competition to create ai-free product would still have some poor sap copping the wrong end of the stick.
wanting to lean on ai heavily for script shows studios understand a few things. they know they are creatively bankrupt, morally bankrupt, and that their audience is captive. there is no doubt ai could fashion a script earning studios bajillions of dollars.
ultimately studios have found the best way to give the public the disposable product they love.
i'd be all for some kind of setup where the % of ai content is listed, much like australian-made produce. don't know how it would work, but i think the consumers should be entitled to this. i'm sure the final credits would cover it but they should be made aware before money leaves hands.
i hate the use of ai, but i'm not afraid of it. there is no escaping that ai may well create something i enjoy, be that music, film, or visually. nor would my heart break if disney headquarters were to burn down in a suspicious fire.
but ai will only change the nature of arts, rather than destroy it. it can't put actors on a theatre stage, can't put a live musician in front of you, can't paint a painting, can't wave its massive comic-con **** in your face.
if the product is poor enough, people will vote with their feet and wallets. movie tickets will cost the same no matter how the movie got there.
rather than the death of the artform, it's an opportunity for people to embrace something different and small scale. put your concerns about film making ethics into practice.
have a look for something interesting that hasn't used an expensive director, writer, or producer or swathed in green screen. the stage is set for a kind of 'dogma 95' film-making movement in response to ai.
no-one's ai-created likeness should be owned by a movie studio. that's disgusting. people should think long and hard before they sign anything agreeing to this, even if they reckon it might be their big ticket into the industry.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,629
- 43,771
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
They need Crispin Glover's lawyer.
- Apr 16, 2008
- 6,592
- 8,309
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PHX
It's actually a perfectly reasonable comparison to make, and shows a good example of how tech has in the past impacted labour and productivity, similar to what you'll see in academic papers on the topic. Calm down.
HOWEVER, the problem that AI is presents is that it seems to have very quickly reached a point where it it can be a very dangerous, large scale replacing technology, not just one that enables increased productivity on the whole, allowing for new jobs for those who gain the skills required in the long run. Rather it could be the type of one that leaves many, many people out of work quickly, their skills redundant, and then also may prevent any industries opening up to accommodate those workers to apply themselves in different areas, because we'd have AI that can handle those new needs, and so on. It's why you've got some of the early key figures in AI development now stepping away from things, speaking out against it, worried that it's all gotten out of hand.
Personally, I don't have an opinion of AI's potential impacts that I feel are worth sharing. I've read stuff by people much smarter than me who see it is as the end of the world, others who feel that the impacts won't be that bad and more on level with what we've seen in the past (eg Industrial Revolution). But pretty much everyone seems to acknowledge that AI has the potential to be end up being bad for society on the whole.
It is in a way both good and bad that actors are the first ones who are really putting the spotlight on AI. Them doing so means that people pretty much have it shoved down their throats, but it also means that people may just roll their eyes at the famous people complaining and ignore the larger issue that this deals with. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, and may give us some insight into what the next decade has in store for 99% of us.
WaynesWorld19
Moderator
- Moderator
- #60
I think you're misunderstanding the situation .....no-one is talking about stopping the progress AI represents ......you can't stop invention & technological advances ......gee, even the Internet hasn't been regulated
All the Actors are wanting is fair compensation for the use of their images .....royalties ....which every owner of IP already gets
It's just an extension ......Book, Novels, Journalists, rightfully are seeking the same compensation .....because AI has to get their database from someone who has written the piece
Last edited:
- Apr 16, 2008
- 6,592
- 8,309
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PHX
No I understand the situation. But the thread has ventured into general AI chat and its relation to the film biz, which is why I wrote what I wrote. Sorry for joining you guys in looking at it in a broader context, I guess?
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #64
What is the benefit of a system paying residuals over one that pays up front for the day's work? I know the creative accounting of hollywood likes to muddy the figures on profits for their content which would make back end cuts of the profits a bit disputed - so I would have thought it more prudent for performers and producers to be compensated at the start?
Or is the industry so strapped for cash that projects don't get paid if people are paid what they are worth up front?
Is it just an antiquated system trying to make passive income out of something that could be sold by the owners over and over and over again?
Or is the industry so strapped for cash that projects don't get paid if people are paid what they are worth up front?
Is it just an antiquated system trying to make passive income out of something that could be sold by the owners over and over and over again?
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #65
because you cannot value art like other services
successful shows that the companies make money off for a long time, that is what residuals are for
because no way will companies pay like everything is a hit up front and no way will the workers accept nothing is a hit up front
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #67
That would explain why their productions are set up like a business, but it does make for a messier system.
Why can't a contribution to a production be valued adequately at the start of a project, since the work is being done they should be paid for that - then whether the production is successful or not determines whether the person taking the financial risk (the people not getting paid their full value up front) get the scaled rewards for that success, multiplied by the risk?
Obviously the producing partners can assume some of that risk to see potentially more money at the back end.
I don't think there is any difference in our position regarding likeness rights though.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #69
The financiers would assume all the risk and the artists would get guaranteed money up front. It would mean productions cost more money but the workers who produce them no longer need to carry the risk that the production isn't successful in order to get paid fair value for their labor.
Why do artists (workers) not want to be paid more up front and instead choose the riskier option?
This is a good faith discussion at least on my side here. I'm trying to understand the nuances of the issues.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 33,612
- 52,818
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Eric Kripke said the same, that he gets no residuals from Supernatural, which he created, despite it regularly being in the top 10 on Netflix. He said he wasn't having a whinge because he's been rewarded well, but if he's not getting anything, then the writers definitely aren't.
Is it simply the case that residuals only apply to broadcast TV, so studios keep all the profits from selling to a streaming service?
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #71
this has existed longer than streaming as an issue
‘The X-Files’: David Duchovny Once Sued Fox While Filming the Series
David Duchovny didn't always get along with FOX, the company behind the hit science fiction series, 'The X-Files.' Learn more about the actor here.
www.cheatsheet.com
Jackson sues for Ring profits
Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson is suing distributor New Line Cinema, claiming that he was shortchanged on profits from The Fellowship of the Ring
basically with how the residuals work its in the studios best interest to creatively account away any profit so they can keep more money in house
streaming is just the latest frontier and with how its changed working and pay conditions has brought this to a head in a wider way
for example for the first 30 days of a streaming platform they don't have to pay for views like they do afterwards
so binging works in their favor if its up front
its also why a lot of shows have gone back to releasing weekly or smaller blocks, so that more people get through the episode in the first 30 days
- Sep 15, 2011
- 33,612
- 52,818
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I'm familiar with network TV and movie studios using creative accounting to avoid paying (Return of the Jedi, for example, has 'never turned a profit' despite making $475m on a $32.5m budget) but wasn't familiar with the streaming model. The bolded adds some insight, but I'd like to know the argument for how the creator of Supernatural gets no money despite it being regularly among Netflix's most watched. Does all the money simply go to the studio that sells it to Netflix at this point until a new deal is signed?this has existed longer than streaming as an issue
‘The X-Files’: David Duchovny Once Sued Fox While Filming the Series
David Duchovny didn't always get along with FOX, the company behind the hit science fiction series, 'The X-Files.' Learn more about the actor here.
Jackson sues for Ring profits
Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson is suing distributor New Line Cinema, claiming that he was shortchanged on profits from The Fellowship of the Ringwww.theguardian.com
basically with how the residuals work its in the studios best interest to creatively account away any profit so they can keep more money in house
streaming is just the latest frontier and with how its changed working and pay conditions has brought this to a head in a wider way
for example for the first 30 days of a streaming platform they don't have to pay for views like they do afterwards
so binging works in their favor if its up front
its also why a lot of shows have gone back to releasing weekly or smaller blocks, so that more people get through the episode in the first 30 days
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #74
Isn't the deal between the talent and the entity selling the license to show the IP? So the profit being made is by the studio or otherwise company that sold the syndication broadcasting to netflix?
I would expect an arrangement for selling Stargate SG1 to Nine would apply the same if it were sold to Netflix or Amazon for broadcast.
There is a big risk out of this that streaming will need to open their books and the audience figures might not be as good as they have sold to investors.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 33,612
- 52,818
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I suppose that could be true of some shows. Netflix paid $100m to continue showing Friends for one year some years back. Not sure how you calculate what that makes you in terms of sign-ups or whether it's a loss leader to bring people in. Netflix obviously keeping their finances murky, always spending billions each year on its own productions so its hard to assess what is profit and loss. Makes it more important to come up with a simple deal to ensure people get something.
