writers' strike and Trek

[William Gatsby]

They're not asking for more money, they're asking the studios to stop cheating them out of the money they used to make when the system was actually functional, and to stop dismantling the system by which new writers were trained and allowed to rise through the ranks to become the next generation of producers and showrunners.

I guess we have a different interpretation of what more means.

Because from my understanding they're asking for more money:

What do striking Hollywood writers want? A look at demands

INCREASED PAY
The guild is seeking higher compensation for writers across the board.

BETTER RESIDUALS
For more than half a century, residuals have been a foundational way for writers to make money. But streaming has upended those payouts.

STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
The union wants TV shows to staff a certain number of writers for a period of time. At issue is the rising practice of “mini rooms” where only a handful of writers are working on a series.

SHORTER EXCLUSIVITY DEALS
Many of the rules around TV writing are also still based on a now increasingly outdated model. Writers might have once expected to spend almost a year working on a 22- to 25-episode season of broadcast TV. Now, the average season is much shorter. Popular shows like “Bridgerton” might have only eight episodes. Not only does that diminish writers’ per-episode pay, it can limit them from working on other programs if they’re tied to longer terms of exclusivity.

ASSURANCE ON AI
Writers are also increasingly concerned that producers will use artificial intelligence to write scripts or at least fill in the blanks on unfinished screenplays. The fast-advancing technology has potentially widespread ramifications for Hollywood, and, in some cases, may be a useful tool. But the WGA wants production companies to agree to safeguards around its usage.

So it seems like they want more money to me. Which is fine, of course. But asking for more money is what it seems like to me.

I don't think the strikes will ever end until the studios abandon their plans to replace artists with AI. This is an existential question, one the writers and actors are unlikely to compromise on, because it would destroy their ability to make a living in the profession.

Yeah, that's the thing that I just have a hard time believing the writers are going to win on.

I don't see how you halt the advancement of technology. I don't see how you win that.

Studios aren't "losing" millions. The executives are hoarding those millions into their own pockets instead of paying their workers what they're worth or investing the money in the future of the industry. Don't make it sound like the studio execs are hapless victims here. It's their own incompetence, greed, and outright evil (we're talking people who literally want to leave the writers homeless and starving) that created this mess in the first place.

Oh, no, I don't think the studios are hapless victims at all.

No, they're just doing what's expected. They're doing what they see as best for them. They're looking out for themselves. As they always have done and always will do.

Also, the studios are losing millions. Paramount just lost hundreds of millions last quarter.

Yes, it's through greed and incompetence and whatever else. But of course they're not going to punish themselves or anything. No, someone else will take the fall. That's what corporations do. You know, it is what it is.

One thing I will say on strikes: the UPS situation I see totally different. UPS has been making money hand over fist the last few years. So the drivers asking for air-conditioned trucks and more pay... I can easily see that strike being resolved quickly, if they even go on strike.

The money is there, and a strike (even for a week; maybe even a day) would really hurt UPS.

Contrast that with the Hollywood writers: the money really isn't there, and the studios have so much content that they can ride it out for a while. For example, Paramount is putting Yellowstone on Sunday nights on CBS this fall. So it seems like they can ride this out. Although, I'm sure things won't drag out for very long. (Well, I say that now... )

 

[Christopher]

I guess we have a different interpretation of what more means.

Because from my understanding they're asking for more money:

Yes, more than they're getting now, because what they're getting now is a tiny fraction of what they used to get. The residuals they get from streaming are minuscule compared to the residuals from network and cable TV, and as streaming becomes the primary outlet for new content, writers are getting paid enormously less as a result. The studios refuse to strike a deal that would compensate them fairly for their streaming work on a par with how they're compensated for network writing. They're using streaming as an excuse to avoid paying their employees.

Yeah, that's the thing that I just have a hard time believing the writers are going to win on.

I don't see how you halt the advancement of technology. I don't see how you win that.

For one thing, it's bullshit to think this is an "advancement." It's just a flashy new toy that doesn't live up to the hype. There's a headline circulating that ChatGPT is now getting a math problem right 2% of the time that it used to get right 98% of the time. It's getting dumber. Because these things are not actual "artificial intelligence" of any kind; that's empty hype. They're just programs that mindlessly compile and average out the data fed into them. And they're only as good as their input -- garbage in, garbage out. The more "AI" content is produced, the more it feeds back into the AI, until it's just swallowing its own tail and dumbing itself down. This isn't the Singularity, it's just another flash-in-the-pan tech fad like NFTs.

Contrast that with the Hollywood writers: the money really isn't there

That is an absolute goddamn lie. The studios are reporting record profits to their shareholders, then turning around and telling their workers that they're too broke to pay them. The WGA's demands would cost 2% of current studio profits. The salary of a single studio executive like Zaslav or Iger is greater than the amount it would cost to meet 100% of the writers' demands. The money is there; it's just being hoarded by executives who are earning nearly 400 times as much as their average employee.

 

[William Gatsby]

Yes, more than they're getting now, because what they're getting now is a tiny fraction of what they used to get. The residuals they get from streaming are minuscule compared to the residuals from network and cable TV, and as streaming becomes the primary outlet for new content, writers are getting paid enormously less as a result. The studios refuse to strike a deal that would compensate them fairly for their streaming work on a par with how they're compensated for network writing. They're using streaming as an excuse to avoid paying their employees.

Yeah, looking at the most recent developments regarding the screen actors:

Why SAG-AFTRA's Streaming Revenue Sharing Proposal for Casts Was Flatly Rejected by AMPTP

On the key issue of basic wage increases, the union was seeking an 11 percent increase in the first year and 4 percent in years two and three, while the AMPTP offered a 5/4/3.5 percent combination. This offer, the AMPTP said, was “historic,” arguing that “the last time the Union secured a general wage increase of 5% in any year was in 1988.” According to the AMPTP, the producers’ proposal would offer $717 million in additional wage compensation, more than double the gains in SAG-AFTRA’s 2020 contract, which allegedly boosted wages by $305 million.

So the union is asking for an 11% increase in pay for year one, and 4% in year two and three.

The studios are countering with a 5% increase in pay for year one, 4% in year two, and 3.5% in year three.

So I imagine a deal can be struck on this point.

On the residuals though I think the union is in kind of a hard place on that. The studios only make money when people subscribe to their streaming service. So it's not like the old days.

For one thing, it's bullshit to think this is an "advancement." It's just a flashy new toy that doesn't live up to the hype. There's a headline circulating that ChatGPT is now getting a math problem right 2% of the time that it used to get right 98% of the time. It's getting dumber. Because these things are not actual "artificial intelligence" of any kind; that's empty hype. They're just programs that mindlessly compile and average out the data fed into them. And they're only as good as their input -- garbage in, garbage out. The more "AI" content is produced, the more it feeds back into the AI, until it's just swallowing its own tail and dumbing itself down. This isn't the Singularity, it's just another flash-in-the-pan tech fad like NFTs.

If AI wasn't an issue they wouldn't be striking over it. And the AI aspect is the most fascinating thing to me.

The increase in pay and the residuals can be worked out. Although, again, the issues with the residuals is that streaming is just a different model than before.

On the AI, and this is obviously from the screen actors' position:

When it comes to the hot-button topic of A.I., SAG-AFTRA claimed that its proposal would “establish a comprehensive set of provisions to protect human-created work and require informed consent and fair compensation” when a member’s performance is ingested into an A.I.-powered system. According to the union, the AMPTP’s counter-offer “failed to address many vital concerns, leaving principal performers and background actors vulnerable to having most of their work replaced by digital replicas.”

The AMPTP disputed this characterization, saying that it offered a “comprehensive” proposal that the union ultimately never responded to. Some of its language, the group said, required companies to obtain consent to use a “digital replica” of a background actor “other than for the motion picture for which the background actor was hired.” The group also said it agreed not to use digital replicas of background actors instead of hiring the required number of background actors per SAG-AFTRA’s contract.

As for performers, the AMPTP argued it agreed to require consent to create a “digital replica” of that member and to “digitally alter the performance beyond typical alterations that have historically been done in post-production.” When a company wants to use a “digital replica” for a project other than the one that the performer agreed to, it “must obtain a performer’s consent and bargain separately,” the group claimed.

This is fascinating to me, because I do want to see a digitally-created actor.

Also, I think background actors are going to be replaced with digital actors. That seems inevitable. And once the technology is there, the primary actors will be replaced too.

There will be new Star Trek content with a Captain Kirk that looks and sounds exactly like William Shatner. And a Mister Spock that looks and sounds exactly like Leonard Nimoy.

Some of course will bemoan it, most I suspect though won't really care and may really enjoy it.

Totally new actors will obviously be created too.

You need an actor that looks like the son or daughter of Captain Kirk (of William Shatner)? You simply create one. And that one the studios own, and they probably wouldn't have to pay William Shatner's descendants like they may have to when it comes to using his likeness.

As for AI when it comes to replacing the writing, that's as good as done, I think. There's no stopping that.

Because there's nothing now stopping a writer from taking an AI-generated script and polishing it up and submitting it as their own work.

So yeah, that's done. The only remaining hurdle is replacing the actor. And that's what, maybe a decade away, maybe less.

Some of course will bemoan that too, most again though I suspect won't really care and may really enjoy it.

 

[TedShatner10]

Virtually all the media megacorps have said or done things that are so, so pathetic and irrational (like they want to be seen as comedic, inept bad guys).

 

[Christopher]

On the residuals though I think the union is in kind of a hard place on that. The studios only make money when people subscribe to their streaming service. So it's not like the old days.

All you're doing is regurgitating the studios' excuses and lies, uncritically assuming they're made in good faith.

If AI wasn't an issue they wouldn't be striking over it.

The issue is not the software. The issue is the way the studios hope to use the software to screw over labor and reduce the creative industries to assembly lines where workers have minimal power. The fact that creative industries can't actually function that way is the problem. If they succeed in instituting the system they want, it will inevitably collapse and the industry won't survive.

The problem is that the studio execs believe AI will be able to replace writers, actors, and other creators. It's an idiotically wrong belief on many levels, but it's giving them an excuse to do what management always does, which is to do everything it can to take power away from labor.

And the AI aspect is the most fascinating thing to me.

And it's empty hype. It's a misnomer to even call this "artificial intelligence." It's just a souped-up version of your phone's predictive text. It has no intelligence at all.

This is fascinating to me, because I do want to see a digitally-created actor.

Why? It's just going to be a mathematical averaging of previous human creations. It's erroneous even to call it creation. It's a compilation.

Also, I think background actors are going to be replaced with digital actors. That seems inevitable. And once the technology is there, the primary actors will be replaced too.

I find it absolutely horrific that you find that desirable. I'm not going to respond to you anymore.

 

[William Gatsby]

All you're doing is regurgitating the studios' excuses and lies, uncritically assuming they're made in good faith.

Well, it makes sense to me. I don't know how else they make money from streaming.

Yes, they have introduced lower-priced tiers that has advertising. But from what I gather most people don't want the tiers with the ads, they want the ad-free versions.

Either way, if you have additionally knowledge on the matter please share.

The issue is not the software. The issue is the way the studios hope to use the software to screw over labor and reduce the creative industries to assembly lines where workers have minimal power. The fact that creative industries can't actually function that way is the problem. If they succeed in instituting the system they want, it will inevitably collapse and the industry won't survive.

The problem is that the studio execs believe AI will be able to replace writers, actors, and other creators. It's an idiotically wrong belief on many levels, but it's giving them an excuse to do what management always does, which is to do everything it can to take power away from labor.

Yes, that's understood. No one is making the argument that the software is the issue. No, it's the use. That's very clear.

That's why I say, the union wouldn't be making it an issue if they weren't worried about its uses.

Also, yes, of course the studios/management want to maintain control. And the union/labor want what they feel is fairer treatment. And you need leverage to get that. And from where I'm sitting I'm not sure if the union/labor has a great deal of leverage.

They are withholding their services in the form of a strike as leverage, but it looks as though what they do (that service) is replaceable in the not too distant future.

Yes, that may be a scary thought, but it is what it is. Times change.

And it's empty hype. It's a misnomer to even call this "artificial intelligence." It's just a souped-up version of your phone's predictive text. It has no intelligence at all.

Why? It's just going to be a mathematical averaging of previous human creations. It's erroneous even to call it creation. It's a compilation.

I think we're talking about two different things here.

When I say I want to see a digitally-created actor, what I'm talking about is basically a realistic looking animated character. Because that's essentially what it would boil to at the end of the day.

There's people who really enjoyed Star Trek: Prodigy. They enjoyed the characters. Those new characters were obviously created. So just imagine them as being made to look realistic instead of animated.

Further, I see some complaints about the actor playing Kirk in Strange New Worlds. Imagine in the not too distant future a digitally-created actor that looked and sounded like William Shatner at that point in the timeline.

This is what I'm talking about. Basically a more advanced version of something that can be done in Unreal Engine or something.

Not autonomous creations or anything like that. No, we're far away from that. Decades away.

Anyway, this will create new jobs in Hollywood. Because you will need teams of digital artists to create digitally-created actors. (Until these digital artists become replaceable, of course.)

I find it absolutely horrific that you find that desirable. I'm not going to respond to you anymore.

That's probably for the best. Because you seem to be coming at this from a far more emotional state than I am.

To me it's just the business of entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Tuskin38]

Also, the studios are losing millions. Paramount just lost hundreds of millions last quarter.

Then maybe they should pay their executives less.

To me it's just the business of entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.

So what you want the job of an actor to go extinct?

 

[William Gatsby]

Then maybe they should pay their executives less.

I imagine the shareholders would fire them before paying them less.

If you're not getting the job done then they're not going to pay you less, you'll just no longer have the job.

It happens all the time. Executives are fired and hired at the studios all the time.

It's business. It's show business.

So what you want the job of an actor to go extinct?

Honestly, I don't care.

All I want from entertainment is to be entertained.

If the studios replace human actors with digital actors and it's entertaining to me, fine.

As for the human actors, they can work in theatre. Or do independent projects. Things that they have more control over and are not at the whims of a corporation.

If you do business with corporations you better have leverage, you better make yourself indispensable, or they will run over you.

It's business. It's show business.

 

[The Wormhole]

Honestly, I don't care.

All I want from entertainment is to be entertained.

If the studios replace human actors with digital actors and it's entertaining to me, fine.

As for the human actors, they can work in theatre. Or do independent projects. Things that they have more control over and are not at the whims of a corporation.

If you do business with corporations you better have leverage, you better make yourself indispensable, or they will run over you.

It's business. It's show business.

No

 

[TedShatner10]

William Gatsby you are arguing for AI eventually being employed as as our jailer, spy, and wealth/resource extractor for corrupt, autocratic corporate oligopolies (stamping down on all human creativity, expression, empathy, and freedom).

 

[Mudd]

William Gatsby you are arguing for AI eventually being employed as as our jailer, spy, and wealth/resource extractor for corrupt, autocratic corporate oligopolies (stamping down on all human creativity, expression, empathy, and freedom).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[William Gatsby]

No

Yes.

William Gatsby you are arguing for AI eventually being employed as as our jailer, spy, and wealth/resource extractor for corrupt, autocratic corporate oligopolies (stamping down on all human creativity, expression, empathy, and freedom).

Yes.

Yes, if AI has to take over all humanity for me to get a Benjamin Sisko Kelvin universe show on Paramount+, then let's go!!!

And do it with digital actors.

To the future, baby!

 

[TedShatner10]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

LOL

I think most people (since Covid acted as a unforeseen, extreme external pressure on the global system) have just gotten fed up with all the megacorp gaslighting (and there's the problem of now approaching middle aged older Millennials being economically ruined).

 

[fireproof78]

you do business with corporations you better have leverage, you better make yourself indispensable, or they will run over you.

Welcome to why there are strikes.

 

[Tuskin38]

All I want from entertainment is to be entertained.

If the studios replace human actors with digital actors and it's entertaining to me, fine.

I hope you get replaced at your job by an AI, see how you feel about it.

 

[TedShatner10]

I imagine the shareholders would fire them before paying them less.

If you're not getting the job done then they're not going to pay you less, you'll just no longer have the job.

It happens all the time. Executives are fired and hired at the studios all the time.

It's business. It's show business.

US business is a fatally flawed, woefully outdated organisational system that has been visibly harming America since the 1990s or 2000s, due to increasingly lax regulations and the historical error of the US courts granting companies individual personhood, not an immutable law of the fucking Universe.

Automation and AI destroying the need for people's input to maximise shareholder value (but corporations needing people's input to exist in the medium to long run) seems to be an unsolvable paradox for present day Capitalism, an aged system left in place by corrupt, arrogant vested interests and US ultra elites.

 

[William Gatsby]

US business is a fatally flawed, woefully outdated organisational system that has been visibly harming America since the 1990s or 2000s, due to increasingly lax regulations and the historical error of the US courts granting companies individual personhood, not an immutable law of the fucking Universe.

Automation and AI destroying the need for people's input to maximise shareholder value (but corporations needing people's imput to exist in the medium to long run) seems to be an unsolvable paradox for present day Capitalism left in place by corrupt, arrogant vested interests and US ultra elites.

Yes.

I hope you get replaced at your job by an AI, see how you feel about it.

Well, I'm studying to work in finance, so hopefully AI will do my job for me!

Fingers crossed.

Welcome to why there are strikes.

Right.

Yeah, again, looking it, the union is asking for an 11% pay increase (which is down from the 14% that they were asking for earlier). The studios countered with 5%. So something like that seems like it can be resolved.

The residuals thing though I don't know how they're going to resolve that. Streaming just doesn't work that way.

And as for AI, I seriously don't know how that's going to be resolved. Because the writers I think can be replaced. And the actors too.

So they're striking. It's obviously their most viable option. But I don't know how much leverage they have.

The Directors Guild made their deal last month, so they're good. The directors see the writing on the wall, so they're taking care of themselves. And we're not anywhere near the point where we can replace the directors, and the studios know this...

Looking to the future, again, the theatre and live performances I think may be a huge growth sector. That's where human actors will be. And the independent films will be a place for human actors as well, because they're doing it "for the art." And the corporations, the studios, that's going to largely be made up of digital performers, because the corporations and studios are in it for the money.

Of course, I can be totally wrong about this, but it looks like this is where everything is headed.

 

[TedShatner10]

Well, I'm studying to work in finance, so hopefully AI will do my job for me!

Fingers crossed.

Will the AI (really uppity, gimmicky algorithms) serve you or will it just serve the top 0.01% of economic elites? Really your employers will take your potential salary and a police robot will shove you into your assigned living pod, with no penny to your name (be happy gosh darn you), and you'll have nothing else to do but to watch AI generated VR pablum (while you're eating your greyish brown jelly block made out of processed dead cockroaches).

And as for AI, I seriously don't know how that's going to be resolved. Because the writers I think can be replaced. And the actors too.

It could start to happen within only 5 to 10 years, but the push back against it by a inevitably horrified viewing public (see how fucking creepy AI generated fake adverts are) would make the bitching over CGI back in the 90s and 00s seem pathetically quaint (or it'll be the new self-driving car; a working prototype, but far too many niggling kinks and legal/ethical hurdles for it to be universally employed for many, many years, if ever).

 

[bdub76]

US business is a fatally flawed, woefully outdated organisational system that has been visibly harming America since the 1990s or 2000s, due to increasingly lax regulations and the historical error of the US courts granting companies individual personhood, not an immutable law of the fucking Universe.

Automation and AI destroying the need for people's input to maximise shareholder value (but corporations needing people's input to exist in the medium to long run) seems to be an unsolvable paradox for present day Capitalism, an aged system left in place by corrupt, arrogant vested interests and US ultra elites.

And I thought we were all in one big game of Monopoly.

Star Trek's reality makes far more sense for the masses.

 

[TedShatner10]

Star Trek's reality makes far more sense for the masses.

It does now in light of how dysfunctional and irrational the Public Limited Company model is....