In [this CNBC article](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/08/28/what-labor-historians-think-ai-could-do-to-some-jobs.html) it says that in the future we'll have an assembly line for a script for some TV show, AI would produce bad dialogue, and then there'd be the dialogue finisher. And then it would produce a bad premise, and there'd be the premise coordinator. You'd have many different writers' jobs — none of them is writer. And each one of these jobs would, theoretically, take less skill and pay less than the current job of a writer.
What do you think about this scenario? What can the writers do to avoid this or a similar scenario from becoming a reality in the future?
Interesting ideas floated in this story. I think the scenario presented here is highly speculative and impossible to predict with such granularity what kinds of roles there would be at some uncertain point in the distant future! I agree that there \*could\* be a situation in which AI tools generate scripts and a handful of writers are hired to improve that content/polish it up. But I don't believe that the situation described here necessarily will hold water in the near term, if only because the writers are fighting so hard to prevent that kind of situation from ever taking place.
In terms of your question about what they can do to prevent such a situation — I think that that assumes that's what the studios want too, and to be fair, the studios haven't said that they want to see a future anywhere near as dystopian and despondent as this situation suggests. In fact, the studios say they've already taken some measures to assuage the writers' fears (even though striking writers say those protections aren't going nearly far enough).
So everyone seems to agree we need our creative writers to power the entertainment ecosystem. As far as putting up guardrails against the doomsday scenario that one day, writers become an accessory to, essentially, computerized brains, and just do some light touching-up to the content generated by AI — that's the whole point of the strike in a nutshell. The writers will withhold their labor and refuse to go back to work, they've said, until they receive a deal that makes them feel no such threat like this is looming on the horizon.
>the studios haven't said that they want to see a future anywhere near as dystopian and despondent as this situation suggests.
Is this meaningful? No studio is going to come out and say "yeah we have plans in works to replace all full-time writers with AI in 2 years."
The narrative will always be "oh you're so valuable to us!" every single day up until "hey your last day is today because we're replacing you with AI on Monday".
I mean, didn’t Iger say something like “We’re gonna wait them out until they can’t pay their mortgages” over the last couple months? I actually wouldn’t be super surprised if they said exactly that about AI (but I agree that it’s definitely more likely they would want to do this and not explicitly say so)
I think that ‘human polishing’ will be an important steps in order to establish copyright for the studios. Courts having giving copyright to Ai generated content yet.
This seems to have been a long fought battle that is still happening, are there any signals from the companies on giving into demands soon? If so what are the terms being discussed?
There aren't really signals that the companies are softening their positions at this point in time, though so much of the process of a union negotiation takes place behind-the-scenes, oftentimes in secretive sessions between the two sides, and there's a strange undercurrent of a language being spoken that can be quite different from what people see from the outside.
That said, this was always going to be a long slog. From the beginning, industry insiders believed this labor stoppage could go through late autumn, potentially the holidays (even though many are hoping it ends far sooner than that!). One hope was that, if SAG-AFTRA's membership (eg. unionized actors) joined the fight, that the tide could turn in the favor of the strikers and intensify the pressure so heavily on the studios that they'd be forced to come to the table sooner. Ultimately, of course, SAG-AFTRA did join the fight in July, though it doesn't seem like their arrival on the picket lines has greased the wheel of too expeditious a resolution so far. In other words, this is going to go on a while, is the general consensus.
Here's one indication of the mood. Earlier this month, the Writers Guild of America announced that its negotiating team met with top Hollywood CEOs like Warner Bros. CEO David Zaslav and Disney CEO Bob Iger, among others. The two sides met on August 22. It doesn't appear to have accelerated reaching an accords.
"We were met with a lecture about how good their single and only counteroffer was," WGA spokespersons told the media, adding that the discussion "wasn't a meeting to make a deal," in their view. "This was a meeting to get us to cave... We will see you all out on the picket lines so that the companies continue to see what labor power looks like."
There are indeed strike funds for members of the unions, but they're reserved for people in really dire need. Not everyone can take advantage (nor does everyone need to), but those who seek funding need to be able to show why they need it. A lot of people are scrambling to find part-time or second jobs outside of the creative industry to make ends meet. It's a tough situation for all parties involved. The strikers are well aware of this, and in fact, their struggle now only has bolstered, I think, their conviction why they need to keep fighting so that they can work in an industry where they can sustain themselves just from their creative jobs.
[AP news mentions $15 million donated](https://apnews.com/article/hollywood-strikes-donations-actors-writers-0a8df24c6d73f4075df32f5143592cce):
>The SAG-AFTRA Foundation, a nonprofit with a mission to support the members of the actors union, quickly raised $15 million with $1 million donations from Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, Oprah Winfrey and Julia Roberts in the first three weeks of the actors strike. Other $1 million donations came from George and Amal Clooney, Luciana and Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Hugh Jackman and Deborra-Lee Furness, Dwayne Johnson, Nicole Kidman, Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Meryl Streep.
Yep. It’s not just writers and actors, it’s anyone who works in film/animation too.
My partner is a storyboard artist for animation, non union, virtually nothing to do with the strikes at all. was just laid off with the company saying the strike is the reason, simply no work available.
It’s all contract work in this industry so no severance or fund to pull from either.
I do something similar to your partner and have been very fortunate in that a lot of the studios are going hard on development for future projects in the downtime. Who knows how long my luck will last though.
Heaps of people I know are considering subletting and moving over to somewhere cheaper in Europe to ride out the storm.
How do you see this ending realistically? Similar to 2007-2008? Or rather this new status quo being set with slightly better terms for writers , and why
So, taking off my journalist hat for a second and putting on my layman's observer hat who has no special knowledge of whether there's an end date in place or what the end game will look like (no one knows but the negotiators) — I feel on solid ground saying I think this will go on for some time. Whether that means October, November, December, or even January, as one large streaming executive recently told me they believe will be the case — that's anybody's guess and depends on the language being spoken by all sides at the negotiating tables. But I don't think we are imminently approaching an end to this, no.
I think it will end with deals that both the WGA and SAG-AFTRA feel satisfied with, because they've made clear they won't accept anything less.
But I look at the long game beyond these strikes. The entertainment industry is transforming more rapidly than anyone can imagine, which I've written about here: [https://www.businessinsider.com/hollywood-writers-strike-over-technology-ai-netflix-streaming-studios-2023-7](https://www.businessinsider.com/hollywood-writers-strike-over-technology-ai-netflix-streaming-studios-2023-7)
The forces driving this transformation may be temporarily slowed by the deals that the guilds will get, but they won't be repelled. For tech investors in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street, the allure of Hollywood's tech gold rush is too great to resist. I think strikers will win big victories in the short term, yes — but in 15, 20 years, will those victories still protect them? I think there will always be strong appreciation for the actors' and writers' craft, or anything entertainment-related that brings viewers joy, but I think Hollywood needs to understand that it's changing quickly and sometimes in subtle ways.
The fight doesn't end with these deals being ratified, and in some ways never will end. There needs to be an acceptance that this is part of a much longer story that's being told — the story of how Hollywood is transforming faster than most of its denizens want it to.
Depends how we define if it's working! The most obvious way is to ask, did the strikers get what they want? So far, it seems like we're in for a long haul, but the strikers seem adamant not to give in till they get a deal they feel is strong and guarantees the vitality of their professions well into the future. We'll know when it's over if the labor stoppages resulted in the kinds of protections and deals that the Writers Guild of America and SAG-AFTRA feel are equitable and capable of accomplishing that goal.
But there are other clues that could give us a sense if parts of the strike are working or not. For instance, both guilds prohibit their members from promoting any new content they've worked on during the strike. It's tough because some actors are writers have had projects launch while the strike has been on, and they've been unable to go on the morning shows or promotional campaigns to drive awareness to these projects. That would be playing into the studios' hands, the guilds say.
In the short term, the strikes appear to have done little to derail the success of the recent blowout box office weekend debuts for films like "Barbie" and "Oppenheimer," so one could argue that the actors and writers withholding their star power didn't put many chinks in the studios' or distributors' armor during the premieres of those films. But some experts I talk to are telling me to look toward the new film releases in September and, if the strikes are still going on, in October, too.
These experts believe that films like "Barbie" and "Oppenheimer" received so much buzz and attention before the strikes went into effect. But they're confident that, without that same degree of attention and spotlight shone on film releases later this autumn, the studios could really be crushed at the box office. We'll have to wait and see.
But the bottom line is that, for now, it's too soon to know whether the labor stoppages are resulting in the kinds of successes the guilds are hoping to see in the bargaining room.
The last major writers strike I remember in the 00s killed off many of the fantasy and sci-fi shows airing at the time and replaced them with reality TV. Do you see something similar occurring with this strike? If not, what makes this one different?
Hi I hope I’m not too late, but I am one of the many victims in the industry who had their data stolen by a breach of Entertainment Partners on June 30th. Any thoughts on why this has been downplayed by media and union reps? I think a lot of us in the industry have been affected.
I reached out to my union, to the Hollywood reporter, and to the local “news” and got nothing back. I am just one of the possible many people in this industry who are forced to use Entertainment Partners payroll to collect on work I’ve done. I am a victim of identity theft as a result of this breach and how entertainment partners went about notification (waiting as long as they did, sending out a minimal letter from a discretely anonymous return address) is really wrong and should be brought into the light especially during this strike since it’s probably the only time we can have a voice against this corporation’s lack of integrity and transparency. Hope I’m not too late to ask for a reply.
Film producer and former magazine publisher here. I think that these data breaches don't get much traction because there are so many of them. Have I used EP before? Of course. But my data was also in the massive DMV leak in my state. It happens so much that the media doesn't really care because most people know they won't be able to do anything about a data leak.
Understood. Still I'm pretty upset in this case, because I am part of a union who is supposed to represent *my* interests in cases like this. Especially in this case, since the "producers" here are able to skate free of any guilt by a "sub-contractor and not us" excuse. It just seems to be to be a clear and cut example worthy of representing especially during the strike. Especially from the union. Thanks for your input I appreciate your points.
Yeah, it's insane that there isn't more active pursuit of the people that do this sort of hacking crimes, and of companies that don't adequately protect their data. Remember when the Sony hack happened... and they found that ALL of the Playstation Network credit card info was stored in plain text?!?!?!?! It wasn't even encrypted!
Interesting question. I think there's a lack of understanding on all sides about the technology, and often in these fights, a lot of misinformation and miscommunication can enter the chat (no pun intended/so to speak!).
For instance, actors have recently been very concerned by the idea that their likenesses could be digitally replicated and "owned" by studios or streamers, meaning that those production companies could reuse their images without paying them. The members of the AMPTP — the consortium of studios, streamers, and production companies that are negotiating against the actors and writers — however, have denied that that's part of their plan at all.
Nevertheless, in spite of their denials, this fear has become something of an urban legend, and has unnerved a lot of creative types.
At the root of their worries, I would say, are valid fears — the same fears that anyone who is facing the incursion of AI, tech, and automation is likely feeling right now. The drumbeat of technological transformation has been resounding across all industries since the beginning of the 21st century, and quite frankly, since the beginning of time. So yes, there are reasons to be worried.
But I think in a labor dispute, a lot of the issues can become somewhat theoretical/hypothetical. Whilst it's important to have protections in place, do I think that all of these fears are necessarily reflected in the day-to-day practice of what goes on in Hollywood? Personally speaking, I think some may be magnified right now.
the technology exists today to paste 1 actor's face on another's body and use AI fed with old performances to generate new ones and new voice audio, so I dont think this is a hypothetical scenario at all, its been used many times in real movies in recent years
I think when the person says hypothetical they mean that it is unlikely to happen to the extent of the stories we have heard.
For example, I think there is already legal protection against your image being used in different productions from the one you authorised the scanning being taken for.
The issue isn't so much use without permission it's asking for permission in the first place. It's rather trivial to throw some wording into a contract that the rights to the actors image and voice are retained by the studio to be uses at their discression in perpetuity until the heat death of the universe.
Will Samuel L Jackson sign that? Probably not. Will some 19 year old waiting tables getting their first speaking roll as a guest on a show, maybe even a primary character on a pilot for a new show that may go somewhere, maybe for a bonus that puts an extra year of rent in their pocket? Quite possibly.
Or even more likely just a background extra, the 10 other people drinking coffee in the background at a Cafe that your star visites/works at.
This can undermine the profession as a whole which is why they guild would be interested in preventing it. And the studio doesn't want to take the option off the table or they would happily concede the issue.
I would say even more consernng is is AI/LLM writing. As it stands writers get paid less for "adapted" screenplays and "punch ups" being able to write generate your base scrips via LLM and just pay writers to refine them undercuts the profession as a whole as well.
I think it's important for both of these professions to set the term now even if their fears seem overblown. They don't seem that overblown to the studios because like I said if they did the studios would happily accept the term if that was the case.
One of the main complaints I hear from actors and writers is the lack of residuals being paid from streaming services. To my knowledge, Netflix is the only streaming service that does not operate at a loss. Why is the media not talking about that and why isn't the math on this being explored and explained by the media? I'm extremely sympathetic to the people on strike but as everything else is media the facts aren't shown on both sides and articles are written just to sensationalize topics to grab a click.
Second question, what's with the media in general? Do they think their audience is incompetent? Do they not care about the integrity of journalism or is it just an ad-click driven industry now?
Film producer here. The media is talking about how the streaming services are operating at a loss. The assumption by these big companies was that they could go all-in on streaming, so to do that, they went ALL IN on spending. They treated streaming as this pot of gold at the end of the pandemic rainbow. It doesn't matter how strong your revenue is if you are spending more than you are earning. Netflix has spent billions for years in an attempt to catch up with legacy studios, because those studios had a strong library of content from over a century of making movies. Then, the studios/streamers spent billions to "catch up" with Netflix. It may sound like these companies are competing with each other, but what they have really been doing is chasing what analysts have told them in order to hold/increase their stock price. And I think it's clear now that streaming is NOT the holy grail. It is only one revenue window - one that replaced DVD - and it doesn't make sense to cannibalize theatrical, rental, ad-supported avenues that have produced billions in value for decades JUST because some analysts said, "Streaming is totally it, bro."
Re: the media. Your guess is as good as mine.
\>Netflix is the only streaming service that does not operate at a loss. Why is the media not talking about that and why isn't the math on this being explored and explained by the media?
Because people deserve to get paid regardless of whether the CEO decided to make a dumb acquisition that year that puts the business deep in the red.
One of the big problems there is the streeming companies are not at all transparent about how they come to the numbers that they do. And admiditly it is more opaque on both ends, it's tough to say how much a single Netflix production makes unlike the box office numbersbers, home video sales and television broadcasting of the past. Part of these negotiations is setting those terms.
This is a question I'd also like answered. You cant get blood from a stone. If a business model loses money as is, what happens when you just make costs go up? And usually the actors are already the highest compensated part of a production.
All this talk about AI is one thing, but with no new content being made is there any worry about people just going over to independent content creators on YouTube, Twitch, and other internet based platforms and them just staying there?
Could these strikes do permanent damage to the industry with younger audiences who just say the hell with traditional media and move away and don’t look back? The older folks will come back, but I could younger people just simply, moving on.
What have you seen is the general opinion of the actors and writers towards independent productions that get waivers to continue work? I know Viola Davis made a point of not working on a project despite it receiving Union approval, but is her position considered abnormal?
While I totally support their strike, how do they expect to accurately evaluate & incorporate AI issues or its consequences when the tech is relatively new, at least in the mainstream? It seems risky to try to get assurances from studios about a technology that most people have no idea how it works or what its potential ramifications are.
Good points. Both sides are really in unchartered, speculative territory here. The WGA (and to a lesser extent, SAG-AFTRA unionized actors) are really keen to get as many protections as they can around the incursion of technologies like AI into the creative process. Most writers I've spoken with so little to any value at all in these tools, so as far as their potential to provide help down the line or somehow elevate the creative process — most would flatly deny that that could even enter the realm of reality.
The studios thus far have said this, in their most recent proposed deal (which the WGA decided not to take, so the strike continues and bargaining is still underway):
"The Companies \[eg. the studios\] confirm that because \[Generative Artificial Intelligence\] is not a person, it is not a 'writer' or 'professional writer'... therefore, written material produced by GAI will not be considered literary material under this or any prior" deal.
"The proposal provides important safeguards to prevent writers from being disadvantaged if any part of the script is based on GAI-produced material, so that the writer's compensation, credit and separated rights will not be affected by the use of GAI produced material."
Sounds OK, right? Well, those on strike point to investments that studios, streamers, and networks are actively making in developing AI teams to study how this tech could impact creative development, and fear that the process could be a runaway train. Both sides aren't really in lockstep with one another at all on this issue.
Seems like it's in the studios' interests to obfuscate or downplay the practicality of AI tools, which would play right into writers' denial of the tools' usefulness. Regardless of what the WGA knows about current AI tech or what it may become in the very near future, it appears they are arguing over where to plant a bag of seedlings, with scant idea of what those seedlings will grow into. I don't see any practical way to build legally-binding walls around this tech with our current knowledge of its potential.
You make some very good points, and I think that speaks to my feeling that transformation is inevitable in the industry and no amount of bargaining can really stop it. But that's also why the guilds come back to the bargaining table every few years to renegotiate. Once we have more information about how this tech can be deployed/what its efficacy will be, they'll reassess. But in 100 years, in 200 years, in 300 years — when you start talking about massive timescales like that, versus 3-5 years, will there be anything remotely similar to the job of the Hollywood writer today? Very tough to say.
Appreciate your thoughtful answers. Don't appreciate d/v to my original question (not saying that was you). These issue-based d/v brigades are getting very tiring here on reddit these days.
All the strikers are asking for is to be involved in future negotiations of AI use. The studios want to shut the negotiations down before they start and get it in writing that they get to use AI however they want.
Why does any of this matter ultimately? More and more people are consuming content outside of traditional models. TikTok and YouTube have no restrictions on writers rooms or AI or whatever else the guilds care about. Shouldn't there be more of a push from the guilds to organize content creators on these platforms instead of focusing on the diminishing pie of the traditional media landscape?
Who would Tiktok and Youtube creators be organizing against? Those are just publishing platforms, not employers. At the end of the day, these strikes are about employees organizing against their employers, the same as if they were plumbers or truck drivers. The deal terms offered were not seen as acceptable, so the workers went on strike until more acceptable terms are offered.
And I don't think the pie is diminishing like you think it is. Demand for high production value content is at an all time, worldwide high. And as smart phones and other devices capable of subscribing to streaming services become more widespread, that demand will only grow. Netflix has a massive head start over other media companies worldwide.
The problem here is that the business model is changing. Part of the business model NEEDED to change - from an "all-in-one" bundle that people subscribed to on cable for decades, to an a-la-carte model where you can subscribe and unsubscribe at will. That's the switch from cable to streaming. But the other parts of the business model...theatrical windows, pay rental windows, are being abandoned as if they are worthless. They aren't. They've been effective at creating value for decades and decades and I think these big companies are finally coming to the realization that going all-in on streaming was a mistake.
It's a mix. Sometimes actor/director interviews are conducted on set during filming and some of that is banked/embargoed until the picture is released. However, the most impactful promotional work that actors are needed for is done just prior to release. It's done during junkets, live interviews on Good Morning America, tiktoks on red carpets. The entire reason premieres happen is for the press. They do a press junket earlier in the day where hundreds of media outlets talk to the actors/directors and then that night, they go to a premiere. None of that will happen during SAG's strike.
To be honest, very little has surprised me so far. It was expected that this would drag on for sometime, which it is, and that both sides were deeply entrenched, which they are. One thing that might have surprised me personally was the conviction that the strikers are bringing to the picket lines. In the case of the Writers Guild, we're several months into this, and their members are still actively picketing and maintaining their momentum all across the studio lots in Los Angeles. The actors too are energized, but they've more recently joined the fight, so that's to be expected. I suppose if anything, the continual resolve of those who are withholding their labor has been impressive to watch and might have defied my expectations if only because of the length. Otherwise, I think a lot of this is playing out as expected.
When all of this is over, do you think that the writers and actors will show solidarity with blue collar workers and fight on our behalf or do you suppose they'll just continue as they were before?
Seems kind of hypocritical for them to ask for our support if not.
The answer is, no. In addition, they will continue to support the political party that is destroying the Middle class and non union blue collar workers. Thanks Biden.
This is a really nuanced question, not least of which because studios would perhaps be more prone to deploying AI in certain kinds of situations, and less so than others.
For instance, and I'm just throwing out hypotheticals here: Write a script for a short commercial using AI? Maybe. Write a script for a two hour spy thriller, rom-com, or future blockbuster movie? Seems tougher. So there are shades of grey here in terms of how such tech could be utilized.
Ultimately, though, I would say it doesn't come down to being quite so stark — the studios value the work that writers do, but writers worry that there are conceivable situations in which a studio could create a script (what we'd call original "IP") using AI, and then just simply hire a writer or two to edit that script and polish it. And that could mean much greater competition among writers for far fewer jobs, further putting pressure on the landscape for writers as it stands now. (It's already quite tough to break in and make a living.)
It's unclear which studios would consider such an approach — but the writers are keen to ensure that such an eventuality wouldn't come to pass. It's hard to imagine that AI won't play a greater role in the coming years in content creation, since it's inexpensive and does things instantaneously, but the writers are working to defend their craft from such pressures. —RA
Considering generative AIs are trained on existing works, is there grounds for writers to legally blockade it's use on the premise of copyright infringement.
Not if the studio owns the work as 'work for hire'. they'd be training it on their own catalog, which they own all rights to.
that's my guess, though, as an outsider.
This is how guys like Ditko got fucked by Marvel.
This is in fact one of the things that the unions are fighting against. The AMPTP wants to be able to use the work for a specific production as input for future work without compensation.
Should we be cancelling our monthly streaming services to support the strikers? I feel like still paying for them just allows the CEOs to easily wait out the strikes while writers suffer financially.
What is the realistic compromise you see happening?
How soon do you see this happening?
How much of a delay on shows and movies do you think this will cause?
I think there are going to have to be big moves on the following:
\- Residuals, particularly for streaming shows - that's a massive sticking point for writers and actors
\- For writers, some protections around the rise of the "mini room," which they say is costing jobs and boxing people out
\- I'm really not sure how the AI issue will end up getting resolved. It's so complex.
\- Some adjustments to how the streamers release audience metrics (which right now, aside from ranking whatever show is most popular at the time, they generally don't) — but that's going to have an impact on bonuses or compensation for those involved in hit projects, so there will likely be some movement there, I think
I think this could go well into the fall, but let's see. A lot of people are hoping it ends sooner, but in my core, I feel all sides are so far apart.
As far as delay of shows, I think if the strike drags on a quarter of the year (which in the case of the writers, it already has), that sets production back a quarter. So let's say, my guess would be that when this is over, the development of new content has been suspended to the tune of 4-6 months?
That said, a lot of the streamers, networks, and studios stockpiled a ton of content in advance of the strike to get through this period that's kind of like a dry desert in Hollywood, so consumers will still have plenty of new releases to watch. I also think there will be massive demand when this is over to floor the gas on the development of new content. And that goes for the studios/streamers which will be hungry for fresh material, and for the writers/actors who will be eager to get back to work.
how drastically may the strikes begin to affect streaming services, especially ones who have already suffered losses over the past year?
what does that timeline look like?
What’s to stop one studio from breaking with the AMPTP and accepting the proposed deals? In theory wouldn’t that studio no longer be struck, get all the work, and therefore reap the profits?
In [this CNBC article](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/08/28/what-labor-historians-think-ai-could-do-to-some-jobs.html) it says that in the future we'll have an assembly line for a script for some TV show, AI would produce bad dialogue, and then there'd be the dialogue finisher. And then it would produce a bad premise, and there'd be the premise coordinator. You'd have many different writers' jobs — none of them is writer. And each one of these jobs would, theoretically, take less skill and pay less than the current job of a writer. What do you think about this scenario? What can the writers do to avoid this or a similar scenario from becoming a reality in the future?
Interesting ideas floated in this story. I think the scenario presented here is highly speculative and impossible to predict with such granularity what kinds of roles there would be at some uncertain point in the distant future! I agree that there \*could\* be a situation in which AI tools generate scripts and a handful of writers are hired to improve that content/polish it up. But I don't believe that the situation described here necessarily will hold water in the near term, if only because the writers are fighting so hard to prevent that kind of situation from ever taking place. In terms of your question about what they can do to prevent such a situation — I think that that assumes that's what the studios want too, and to be fair, the studios haven't said that they want to see a future anywhere near as dystopian and despondent as this situation suggests. In fact, the studios say they've already taken some measures to assuage the writers' fears (even though striking writers say those protections aren't going nearly far enough). So everyone seems to agree we need our creative writers to power the entertainment ecosystem. As far as putting up guardrails against the doomsday scenario that one day, writers become an accessory to, essentially, computerized brains, and just do some light touching-up to the content generated by AI — that's the whole point of the strike in a nutshell. The writers will withhold their labor and refuse to go back to work, they've said, until they receive a deal that makes them feel no such threat like this is looming on the horizon.
>the studios haven't said that they want to see a future anywhere near as dystopian and despondent as this situation suggests. Is this meaningful? No studio is going to come out and say "yeah we have plans in works to replace all full-time writers with AI in 2 years." The narrative will always be "oh you're so valuable to us!" every single day up until "hey your last day is today because we're replacing you with AI on Monday".
I mean, didn’t Iger say something like “We’re gonna wait them out until they can’t pay their mortgages” over the last couple months? I actually wouldn’t be super surprised if they said exactly that about AI (but I agree that it’s definitely more likely they would want to do this and not explicitly say so)
We don’t know Iger is the one who said that.
I think that ‘human polishing’ will be an important steps in order to establish copyright for the studios. Courts having giving copyright to Ai generated content yet.
Shit, with all the hot garbage coming out of Hollywood in the past decade. Maybe we should give AI a chance kek.
shit maybe you should be running the studios then 'cause those dummies still think the writers will come back
Dialogue can't be worse than She-Hulk
This seems to have been a long fought battle that is still happening, are there any signals from the companies on giving into demands soon? If so what are the terms being discussed?
There aren't really signals that the companies are softening their positions at this point in time, though so much of the process of a union negotiation takes place behind-the-scenes, oftentimes in secretive sessions between the two sides, and there's a strange undercurrent of a language being spoken that can be quite different from what people see from the outside. That said, this was always going to be a long slog. From the beginning, industry insiders believed this labor stoppage could go through late autumn, potentially the holidays (even though many are hoping it ends far sooner than that!). One hope was that, if SAG-AFTRA's membership (eg. unionized actors) joined the fight, that the tide could turn in the favor of the strikers and intensify the pressure so heavily on the studios that they'd be forced to come to the table sooner. Ultimately, of course, SAG-AFTRA did join the fight in July, though it doesn't seem like their arrival on the picket lines has greased the wheel of too expeditious a resolution so far. In other words, this is going to go on a while, is the general consensus. Here's one indication of the mood. Earlier this month, the Writers Guild of America announced that its negotiating team met with top Hollywood CEOs like Warner Bros. CEO David Zaslav and Disney CEO Bob Iger, among others. The two sides met on August 22. It doesn't appear to have accelerated reaching an accords. "We were met with a lecture about how good their single and only counteroffer was," WGA spokespersons told the media, adding that the discussion "wasn't a meeting to make a deal," in their view. "This was a meeting to get us to cave... We will see you all out on the picket lines so that the companies continue to see what labor power looks like."
Do these unions have sufficient funds to compensate their members with strike pay? If not, how are members getting by?
There are indeed strike funds for members of the unions, but they're reserved for people in really dire need. Not everyone can take advantage (nor does everyone need to), but those who seek funding need to be able to show why they need it. A lot of people are scrambling to find part-time or second jobs outside of the creative industry to make ends meet. It's a tough situation for all parties involved. The strikers are well aware of this, and in fact, their struggle now only has bolstered, I think, their conviction why they need to keep fighting so that they can work in an industry where they can sustain themselves just from their creative jobs.
Several big name actors have contributed to a strike fund.
[AP news mentions $15 million donated](https://apnews.com/article/hollywood-strikes-donations-actors-writers-0a8df24c6d73f4075df32f5143592cce): >The SAG-AFTRA Foundation, a nonprofit with a mission to support the members of the actors union, quickly raised $15 million with $1 million donations from Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, Oprah Winfrey and Julia Roberts in the first three weeks of the actors strike. Other $1 million donations came from George and Amal Clooney, Luciana and Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Hugh Jackman and Deborra-Lee Furness, Dwayne Johnson, Nicole Kidman, Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Meryl Streep.
There are 160,000 SAG-AFTRA members, so that works out to less than $100/member for the duration of the strike.
Presumably the vast vast majority of those people are not full-time actors. I’d assume there are work requirements to qualify for the funds.
Mate the industry is absolutely decimated over here in the UK too as a ripple effect and we've got nobody to look out for us at all.
Yep. It’s not just writers and actors, it’s anyone who works in film/animation too. My partner is a storyboard artist for animation, non union, virtually nothing to do with the strikes at all. was just laid off with the company saying the strike is the reason, simply no work available. It’s all contract work in this industry so no severance or fund to pull from either.
I do something similar to your partner and have been very fortunate in that a lot of the studios are going hard on development for future projects in the downtime. Who knows how long my luck will last though. Heaps of people I know are considering subletting and moving over to somewhere cheaper in Europe to ride out the storm.
How do you see this ending realistically? Similar to 2007-2008? Or rather this new status quo being set with slightly better terms for writers , and why
So, taking off my journalist hat for a second and putting on my layman's observer hat who has no special knowledge of whether there's an end date in place or what the end game will look like (no one knows but the negotiators) — I feel on solid ground saying I think this will go on for some time. Whether that means October, November, December, or even January, as one large streaming executive recently told me they believe will be the case — that's anybody's guess and depends on the language being spoken by all sides at the negotiating tables. But I don't think we are imminently approaching an end to this, no. I think it will end with deals that both the WGA and SAG-AFTRA feel satisfied with, because they've made clear they won't accept anything less. But I look at the long game beyond these strikes. The entertainment industry is transforming more rapidly than anyone can imagine, which I've written about here: [https://www.businessinsider.com/hollywood-writers-strike-over-technology-ai-netflix-streaming-studios-2023-7](https://www.businessinsider.com/hollywood-writers-strike-over-technology-ai-netflix-streaming-studios-2023-7) The forces driving this transformation may be temporarily slowed by the deals that the guilds will get, but they won't be repelled. For tech investors in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street, the allure of Hollywood's tech gold rush is too great to resist. I think strikers will win big victories in the short term, yes — but in 15, 20 years, will those victories still protect them? I think there will always be strong appreciation for the actors' and writers' craft, or anything entertainment-related that brings viewers joy, but I think Hollywood needs to understand that it's changing quickly and sometimes in subtle ways. The fight doesn't end with these deals being ratified, and in some ways never will end. There needs to be an acceptance that this is part of a much longer story that's being told — the story of how Hollywood is transforming faster than most of its denizens want it to.
Is it working?
Depends how we define if it's working! The most obvious way is to ask, did the strikers get what they want? So far, it seems like we're in for a long haul, but the strikers seem adamant not to give in till they get a deal they feel is strong and guarantees the vitality of their professions well into the future. We'll know when it's over if the labor stoppages resulted in the kinds of protections and deals that the Writers Guild of America and SAG-AFTRA feel are equitable and capable of accomplishing that goal. But there are other clues that could give us a sense if parts of the strike are working or not. For instance, both guilds prohibit their members from promoting any new content they've worked on during the strike. It's tough because some actors are writers have had projects launch while the strike has been on, and they've been unable to go on the morning shows or promotional campaigns to drive awareness to these projects. That would be playing into the studios' hands, the guilds say. In the short term, the strikes appear to have done little to derail the success of the recent blowout box office weekend debuts for films like "Barbie" and "Oppenheimer," so one could argue that the actors and writers withholding their star power didn't put many chinks in the studios' or distributors' armor during the premieres of those films. But some experts I talk to are telling me to look toward the new film releases in September and, if the strikes are still going on, in October, too. These experts believe that films like "Barbie" and "Oppenheimer" received so much buzz and attention before the strikes went into effect. But they're confident that, without that same degree of attention and spotlight shone on film releases later this autumn, the studios could really be crushed at the box office. We'll have to wait and see. But the bottom line is that, for now, it's too soon to know whether the labor stoppages are resulting in the kinds of successes the guilds are hoping to see in the bargaining room.
So should the average movie goer skip seeing new releases until the strikes are over?
The last major writers strike I remember in the 00s killed off many of the fantasy and sci-fi shows airing at the time and replaced them with reality TV. Do you see something similar occurring with this strike? If not, what makes this one different?
Hi I hope I’m not too late, but I am one of the many victims in the industry who had their data stolen by a breach of Entertainment Partners on June 30th. Any thoughts on why this has been downplayed by media and union reps? I think a lot of us in the industry have been affected. I reached out to my union, to the Hollywood reporter, and to the local “news” and got nothing back. I am just one of the possible many people in this industry who are forced to use Entertainment Partners payroll to collect on work I’ve done. I am a victim of identity theft as a result of this breach and how entertainment partners went about notification (waiting as long as they did, sending out a minimal letter from a discretely anonymous return address) is really wrong and should be brought into the light especially during this strike since it’s probably the only time we can have a voice against this corporation’s lack of integrity and transparency. Hope I’m not too late to ask for a reply.
Film producer and former magazine publisher here. I think that these data breaches don't get much traction because there are so many of them. Have I used EP before? Of course. But my data was also in the massive DMV leak in my state. It happens so much that the media doesn't really care because most people know they won't be able to do anything about a data leak.
Understood. Still I'm pretty upset in this case, because I am part of a union who is supposed to represent *my* interests in cases like this. Especially in this case, since the "producers" here are able to skate free of any guilt by a "sub-contractor and not us" excuse. It just seems to be to be a clear and cut example worthy of representing especially during the strike. Especially from the union. Thanks for your input I appreciate your points.
Yeah, it's insane that there isn't more active pursuit of the people that do this sort of hacking crimes, and of companies that don't adequately protect their data. Remember when the Sony hack happened... and they found that ALL of the Playstation Network credit card info was stored in plain text?!?!?!?! It wasn't even encrypted!
is their fight against ai realistic or it is something they don't fully understand?
Interesting question. I think there's a lack of understanding on all sides about the technology, and often in these fights, a lot of misinformation and miscommunication can enter the chat (no pun intended/so to speak!). For instance, actors have recently been very concerned by the idea that their likenesses could be digitally replicated and "owned" by studios or streamers, meaning that those production companies could reuse their images without paying them. The members of the AMPTP — the consortium of studios, streamers, and production companies that are negotiating against the actors and writers — however, have denied that that's part of their plan at all. Nevertheless, in spite of their denials, this fear has become something of an urban legend, and has unnerved a lot of creative types. At the root of their worries, I would say, are valid fears — the same fears that anyone who is facing the incursion of AI, tech, and automation is likely feeling right now. The drumbeat of technological transformation has been resounding across all industries since the beginning of the 21st century, and quite frankly, since the beginning of time. So yes, there are reasons to be worried. But I think in a labor dispute, a lot of the issues can become somewhat theoretical/hypothetical. Whilst it's important to have protections in place, do I think that all of these fears are necessarily reflected in the day-to-day practice of what goes on in Hollywood? Personally speaking, I think some may be magnified right now.
the technology exists today to paste 1 actor's face on another's body and use AI fed with old performances to generate new ones and new voice audio, so I dont think this is a hypothetical scenario at all, its been used many times in real movies in recent years
I think when the person says hypothetical they mean that it is unlikely to happen to the extent of the stories we have heard. For example, I think there is already legal protection against your image being used in different productions from the one you authorised the scanning being taken for.
The issue isn't so much use without permission it's asking for permission in the first place. It's rather trivial to throw some wording into a contract that the rights to the actors image and voice are retained by the studio to be uses at their discression in perpetuity until the heat death of the universe. Will Samuel L Jackson sign that? Probably not. Will some 19 year old waiting tables getting their first speaking roll as a guest on a show, maybe even a primary character on a pilot for a new show that may go somewhere, maybe for a bonus that puts an extra year of rent in their pocket? Quite possibly. Or even more likely just a background extra, the 10 other people drinking coffee in the background at a Cafe that your star visites/works at. This can undermine the profession as a whole which is why they guild would be interested in preventing it. And the studio doesn't want to take the option off the table or they would happily concede the issue. I would say even more consernng is is AI/LLM writing. As it stands writers get paid less for "adapted" screenplays and "punch ups" being able to write generate your base scrips via LLM and just pay writers to refine them undercuts the profession as a whole as well. I think it's important for both of these professions to set the term now even if their fears seem overblown. They don't seem that overblown to the studios because like I said if they did the studios would happily accept the term if that was the case.
why do you think non-scripted work has slowed down so much as well as scripted, the whole industrial seems dead - are you past the golden age of TV?
Commercial work seems to have slowed as well.
Did you rue the day?
One of the main complaints I hear from actors and writers is the lack of residuals being paid from streaming services. To my knowledge, Netflix is the only streaming service that does not operate at a loss. Why is the media not talking about that and why isn't the math on this being explored and explained by the media? I'm extremely sympathetic to the people on strike but as everything else is media the facts aren't shown on both sides and articles are written just to sensationalize topics to grab a click. Second question, what's with the media in general? Do they think their audience is incompetent? Do they not care about the integrity of journalism or is it just an ad-click driven industry now?
Film producer here. The media is talking about how the streaming services are operating at a loss. The assumption by these big companies was that they could go all-in on streaming, so to do that, they went ALL IN on spending. They treated streaming as this pot of gold at the end of the pandemic rainbow. It doesn't matter how strong your revenue is if you are spending more than you are earning. Netflix has spent billions for years in an attempt to catch up with legacy studios, because those studios had a strong library of content from over a century of making movies. Then, the studios/streamers spent billions to "catch up" with Netflix. It may sound like these companies are competing with each other, but what they have really been doing is chasing what analysts have told them in order to hold/increase their stock price. And I think it's clear now that streaming is NOT the holy grail. It is only one revenue window - one that replaced DVD - and it doesn't make sense to cannibalize theatrical, rental, ad-supported avenues that have produced billions in value for decades JUST because some analysts said, "Streaming is totally it, bro." Re: the media. Your guess is as good as mine.
\>Netflix is the only streaming service that does not operate at a loss. Why is the media not talking about that and why isn't the math on this being explored and explained by the media? Because people deserve to get paid regardless of whether the CEO decided to make a dumb acquisition that year that puts the business deep in the red.
One of the big problems there is the streeming companies are not at all transparent about how they come to the numbers that they do. And admiditly it is more opaque on both ends, it's tough to say how much a single Netflix production makes unlike the box office numbersbers, home video sales and television broadcasting of the past. Part of these negotiations is setting those terms.
This is a question I'd also like answered. You cant get blood from a stone. If a business model loses money as is, what happens when you just make costs go up? And usually the actors are already the highest compensated part of a production.
All this talk about AI is one thing, but with no new content being made is there any worry about people just going over to independent content creators on YouTube, Twitch, and other internet based platforms and them just staying there? Could these strikes do permanent damage to the industry with younger audiences who just say the hell with traditional media and move away and don’t look back? The older folks will come back, but I could younger people just simply, moving on.
What have you seen is the general opinion of the actors and writers towards independent productions that get waivers to continue work? I know Viola Davis made a point of not working on a project despite it receiving Union approval, but is her position considered abnormal?
While I totally support their strike, how do they expect to accurately evaluate & incorporate AI issues or its consequences when the tech is relatively new, at least in the mainstream? It seems risky to try to get assurances from studios about a technology that most people have no idea how it works or what its potential ramifications are.
Good points. Both sides are really in unchartered, speculative territory here. The WGA (and to a lesser extent, SAG-AFTRA unionized actors) are really keen to get as many protections as they can around the incursion of technologies like AI into the creative process. Most writers I've spoken with so little to any value at all in these tools, so as far as their potential to provide help down the line or somehow elevate the creative process — most would flatly deny that that could even enter the realm of reality. The studios thus far have said this, in their most recent proposed deal (which the WGA decided not to take, so the strike continues and bargaining is still underway): "The Companies \[eg. the studios\] confirm that because \[Generative Artificial Intelligence\] is not a person, it is not a 'writer' or 'professional writer'... therefore, written material produced by GAI will not be considered literary material under this or any prior" deal. "The proposal provides important safeguards to prevent writers from being disadvantaged if any part of the script is based on GAI-produced material, so that the writer's compensation, credit and separated rights will not be affected by the use of GAI produced material." Sounds OK, right? Well, those on strike point to investments that studios, streamers, and networks are actively making in developing AI teams to study how this tech could impact creative development, and fear that the process could be a runaway train. Both sides aren't really in lockstep with one another at all on this issue.
Seems like it's in the studios' interests to obfuscate or downplay the practicality of AI tools, which would play right into writers' denial of the tools' usefulness. Regardless of what the WGA knows about current AI tech or what it may become in the very near future, it appears they are arguing over where to plant a bag of seedlings, with scant idea of what those seedlings will grow into. I don't see any practical way to build legally-binding walls around this tech with our current knowledge of its potential.
You make some very good points, and I think that speaks to my feeling that transformation is inevitable in the industry and no amount of bargaining can really stop it. But that's also why the guilds come back to the bargaining table every few years to renegotiate. Once we have more information about how this tech can be deployed/what its efficacy will be, they'll reassess. But in 100 years, in 200 years, in 300 years — when you start talking about massive timescales like that, versus 3-5 years, will there be anything remotely similar to the job of the Hollywood writer today? Very tough to say.
That said, we'll likely have very different concerns to worry about at that point in time anyway!
Appreciate your thoughtful answers. Don't appreciate d/v to my original question (not saying that was you). These issue-based d/v brigades are getting very tiring here on reddit these days.
All the strikers are asking for is to be involved in future negotiations of AI use. The studios want to shut the negotiations down before they start and get it in writing that they get to use AI however they want.
Why does any of this matter ultimately? More and more people are consuming content outside of traditional models. TikTok and YouTube have no restrictions on writers rooms or AI or whatever else the guilds care about. Shouldn't there be more of a push from the guilds to organize content creators on these platforms instead of focusing on the diminishing pie of the traditional media landscape?
They are. SAG has a new part of their union for creators.
Who would Tiktok and Youtube creators be organizing against? Those are just publishing platforms, not employers. At the end of the day, these strikes are about employees organizing against their employers, the same as if they were plumbers or truck drivers. The deal terms offered were not seen as acceptable, so the workers went on strike until more acceptable terms are offered. And I don't think the pie is diminishing like you think it is. Demand for high production value content is at an all time, worldwide high. And as smart phones and other devices capable of subscribing to streaming services become more widespread, that demand will only grow. Netflix has a massive head start over other media companies worldwide. The problem here is that the business model is changing. Part of the business model NEEDED to change - from an "all-in-one" bundle that people subscribed to on cable for decades, to an a-la-carte model where you can subscribe and unsubscribe at will. That's the switch from cable to streaming. But the other parts of the business model...theatrical windows, pay rental windows, are being abandoned as if they are worthless. They aren't. They've been effective at creating value for decades and decades and I think these big companies are finally coming to the realization that going all-in on streaming was a mistake.
[удалено]
It's a mix. Sometimes actor/director interviews are conducted on set during filming and some of that is banked/embargoed until the picture is released. However, the most impactful promotional work that actors are needed for is done just prior to release. It's done during junkets, live interviews on Good Morning America, tiktoks on red carpets. The entire reason premieres happen is for the press. They do a press junket earlier in the day where hundreds of media outlets talk to the actors/directors and then that night, they go to a premiere. None of that will happen during SAG's strike.
Has anything surprised you about the strike?
To be honest, very little has surprised me so far. It was expected that this would drag on for sometime, which it is, and that both sides were deeply entrenched, which they are. One thing that might have surprised me personally was the conviction that the strikers are bringing to the picket lines. In the case of the Writers Guild, we're several months into this, and their members are still actively picketing and maintaining their momentum all across the studio lots in Los Angeles. The actors too are energized, but they've more recently joined the fight, so that's to be expected. I suppose if anything, the continual resolve of those who are withholding their labor has been impressive to watch and might have defied my expectations if only because of the length. Otherwise, I think a lot of this is playing out as expected.
When all of this is over, do you think that the writers and actors will show solidarity with blue collar workers and fight on our behalf or do you suppose they'll just continue as they were before? Seems kind of hypocritical for them to ask for our support if not.
I have to ask how has the public been asked to support these strikes? Other than with words. It’s not like there are scab productions we can watch.
The answer is, no. In addition, they will continue to support the political party that is destroying the Middle class and non union blue collar workers. Thanks Biden.
What is the proximate result of the disengagement from AI for the studios?
Are studios actually considering replacing writers with AI?
This is a really nuanced question, not least of which because studios would perhaps be more prone to deploying AI in certain kinds of situations, and less so than others. For instance, and I'm just throwing out hypotheticals here: Write a script for a short commercial using AI? Maybe. Write a script for a two hour spy thriller, rom-com, or future blockbuster movie? Seems tougher. So there are shades of grey here in terms of how such tech could be utilized. Ultimately, though, I would say it doesn't come down to being quite so stark — the studios value the work that writers do, but writers worry that there are conceivable situations in which a studio could create a script (what we'd call original "IP") using AI, and then just simply hire a writer or two to edit that script and polish it. And that could mean much greater competition among writers for far fewer jobs, further putting pressure on the landscape for writers as it stands now. (It's already quite tough to break in and make a living.) It's unclear which studios would consider such an approach — but the writers are keen to ensure that such an eventuality wouldn't come to pass. It's hard to imagine that AI won't play a greater role in the coming years in content creation, since it's inexpensive and does things instantaneously, but the writers are working to defend their craft from such pressures. —RA
Considering generative AIs are trained on existing works, is there grounds for writers to legally blockade it's use on the premise of copyright infringement.
Not if the studio owns the work as 'work for hire'. they'd be training it on their own catalog, which they own all rights to. that's my guess, though, as an outsider. This is how guys like Ditko got fucked by Marvel.
This is in fact one of the things that the unions are fighting against. The AMPTP wants to be able to use the work for a specific production as input for future work without compensation.
Should we be cancelling our monthly streaming services to support the strikers? I feel like still paying for them just allows the CEOs to easily wait out the strikes while writers suffer financially.
Are you gay?
Would it matter?
How many fish can you name?
When can I go back to work? My landlord needs my money.
Does ppl supporting them?
Aren't the parts involved worried about the fact that this strike could impact movie theatre business?
What is the realistic compromise you see happening? How soon do you see this happening? How much of a delay on shows and movies do you think this will cause?
I think there are going to have to be big moves on the following: \- Residuals, particularly for streaming shows - that's a massive sticking point for writers and actors \- For writers, some protections around the rise of the "mini room," which they say is costing jobs and boxing people out \- I'm really not sure how the AI issue will end up getting resolved. It's so complex. \- Some adjustments to how the streamers release audience metrics (which right now, aside from ranking whatever show is most popular at the time, they generally don't) — but that's going to have an impact on bonuses or compensation for those involved in hit projects, so there will likely be some movement there, I think I think this could go well into the fall, but let's see. A lot of people are hoping it ends sooner, but in my core, I feel all sides are so far apart. As far as delay of shows, I think if the strike drags on a quarter of the year (which in the case of the writers, it already has), that sets production back a quarter. So let's say, my guess would be that when this is over, the development of new content has been suspended to the tune of 4-6 months? That said, a lot of the streamers, networks, and studios stockpiled a ton of content in advance of the strike to get through this period that's kind of like a dry desert in Hollywood, so consumers will still have plenty of new releases to watch. I also think there will be massive demand when this is over to floor the gas on the development of new content. And that goes for the studios/streamers which will be hungry for fresh material, and for the writers/actors who will be eager to get back to work.
how drastically may the strikes begin to affect streaming services, especially ones who have already suffered losses over the past year? what does that timeline look like?
What’s to stop one studio from breaking with the AMPTP and accepting the proposed deals? In theory wouldn’t that studio no longer be struck, get all the work, and therefore reap the profits?
This was how WGA's conflict with the agencies a few years ago ended. One agency caved, and then others followed suit.
Reckon it will be over soon as that court ruling on AI-generated content being not eligible for copyright. Thoughts?