-
The outcome of the first set of strikes in 2007-2008 was reality TV. The barely-scripted format with drama and overacting from non-professionals who are coaxed into creating scenes required little to no union staff involvement, proved cheap to pump out and disappointingly successful with the general public. I hate to see what will come out this time, but probably more low cost reality shows are likely. Short term the streaming networks will just increase their back catalogue and buy content in from other distributors, which will probably lead their revenue to stagnate as subscribers leave.
It can't really get worse. We are still in that period of barely scripted shows, with no real plot and lots of cliched ideas tossed out an random. The exceptions to that are just that - exceptional.I understand why writers and actors are afraid of GPT/chatbots and AI image generation. However, this is going to happen regardless of their strike. I doubt serious writers will be replaced any time by AI, because it takes genuine talent and generalised intelligence to come up with an original and gripping story.
Even if ChatGPT cannot produce originality and gripping stories its still ready to replace 90% of the script writers today.AI is very good at regurgitating ideas and tends to create short stories accurately with little adventure or surprise in them. In other words, it would probably be pretty good at writing modern episodes of the Simpsons, but it is not going to create new dramas with millions of viewers tuning in to watch. Comedy is also likely a safe area for now; AI sucks at comedy, because it requires a proper human understanding of why a joke is funny (and also context-dependent, like political or current affairs comedy).
No originality? Sucks at comedy? ChatGPT fits in perfectly with current Hollywood.For actors, there's the star factor... I don't think fake actors generated by AI would cut it. I can see a risk for extras, there is one studio already that is famous for getting their extras on set for a day but the contract assigns all rights to their image for the remainder of the shoot and CGI is used to add them into scenes as needed. So suddenly you go from having someone being paid a reasonable amount for a month's worth of shooting, getting only one or two day's pay. That's quite bad for those guys. But the major A- and B-list stars are safe for some time, no one wants to see AI Tim Cruze, they want to see human Tom Cruise because they know he's a real guy and they see him on the red carpet and on chat shows and all sorts. CGI could, with enough effort, already replace a lot of these actors, but it hasn't. That's because these actors are as much actors as they are marketing for the film.
They've been trying hard to destroy star factor for a number of years, with varying success. Things like the Marvel universe have been moderately effective at moving the focus from the actor to the character. It seems to have worked with some of them, and not with others. ChatGPT has great potential where an actor can't continue a franchise due to ill health or death. It could also be great for stories where someone has to play both an old and young version of a character. Various successful series have seen the actors pay skyrocket. Other successful series have been canned while still very popular to keep down the studio's salary bill. Actors who won't play ball contractually for sequels better watch out.
-
I can see why they are worried as with the deepfake abilities they may no longer be needed other than to provide samples for the CGI experts to use. Who holds the copyright on your image/likeness etc. even after your death?
This has been established in the past. If you want to use the likeness of Einstein for instance, you need to pay his estate money. From the Guardian (UK newspaper for those unaware);QuoteAlbert Einstein died in 1955. In article 13 of his last will and testament, he pledged that his “manuscripts, copyrights, publication rights, royalties … and all other literary property” would, upon the deaths of his secretary, Helen Dukas, and stepdaughter, Margot Einstein, pass to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an institution that Einstein cofounded in 1918.
This has been interpreted by courts and copyright lawyers to include his likeness, even though Einstein made no mention of it. It didn't make sense to copyright such a likeness at a time where the only way you could replicate it would be through makeup and a lookalike. And Einstein wasn't the kind of person who cared about celebrity or personal appearance that much. So this is an absurd outcome really, but the estate's lawyers will bankrupt you if you try to use it without paying the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Realistically, it's not an issue in the short term that an actor could be replaced by AI. Tom Cruise, for lack of a better example, would be able to sue any studio out of existence for using his living likeness. The risk is that studios create their own actors, who work essentially for free. I think these aren't going to be as successful as the A-listers because of the lack of star factor (especially considering the idea of having an AI actor appear on live television is certainly quite some time away). But it's certainly possible to imagine a future where a lot of the middle ground actors just don't exist any more. Nobody really cares who plays passenger #3 on the train, so why not replace them with AI? It's not so great for aspiring actors though, as they no longer have any chance to perform.
In a different field, this is where I see the risk of AI for programmers coming in. AI can't replace most programmers, and probably won't replace all programmers until generalised intelligence exists (which is itself an existential danger). But, it could replace a lot of junior/entry level roles. Generating test cases for an implementation for instance. This makes it ever harder for juniors to enter the field. You'd be left with a job market with not enough candidates for senior positions because there are little or no opportunities available for promotion.No originality? Sucks at comedy? ChatGPT fits in perfectly with current Hollywood.
Meh, your opinion but I've watched a number of shows recently and quite enjoyed them... there's never been quite so much selection, the problem is 90% of it is crap, but the 10% that is good has never been better in my opinion. Nothing forcing you to watch the crap especially with streaming services it's just pick something good and watch it, you don't need to be aware of the politics or drama just enjoy the show.They've been trying hard to destroy star factor for a number of years, with varying success. Things like the Marvel universe have been moderately effective at moving the focus from the actor to the character. It seems to have worked with some of them, and not with others. ChatGPT has great potential where an actor can't continue a franchise due to ill health or death. It could also be great for stories where someone has to play both an old and young version of a character. Various successful series have seen the actors pay skyrocket. Other successful series have been canned while still very popular to keep down the studio's salary bill. Actors who won't play ball contractually for sequels better watch out.
Yup, the bill from the A-listers is often a huge part of the budget of a film. Even if they can't eliminate the best actors, they minimise their screen time. As in your Marvel example, Iron Man is often hidden in a suit. That's CGI and/or a lower paid stunt actor, Downey Jr. would only get paid for the scenes with his face in, and even many of those are done CGI in a studio with little or no time on set.
As for actors not playing ball for sequels, these things tend to be negotiated upfront in secret deals, so when they got Downey Jr. in for the Iron Man film, I expect they had an agreement to option N further sequels at pre-agreed price within M years. Studios aren't stupid. Actors have good agents too and wouldn't agree to any contract that obsoleted them, so no AI generated likeness for example.
This doesn't stop the estate agreeing after death. Paul Walker appeared in a Fast-Furious sequel many years after he died, they used a body double, his brother, and existing footage to recreate him. But that was agreed with the family, who I am sure got a decent payout for using his likeness. -
when everything is taken into consideration movies in cinemas are just public entertainment
that can be replaced by new types of entertainment. times change!
we new live in a flood of 24/7 entertainment from our phones to our 4K television.
meanwhile politics has entered much of hollywood in recent years destroying many beloved movie franchises.
with poor or confusing plot or story's , character deconstructions. the end result is movies that are not as entertaining
when compared to previous movies of the some franchise. even though CGI has made todays movies look amazing.
there's no getting past the obvious. much of hollywood is slowly going down the toilet of political correctness, and it shows. :'(
there are so many boxes that must be ticked before anything gets a green light nowadays.
as for why I do not see movies in public cinema since 2018, is been interrupted by others , expensive snacks and no pause button so one can go to the bathroom.
the movies I watch if any are on HDD
IMO the golden age of hollywood movies in cinemas was in the 70, 80s and 90s when Boy meets Girl the good guys win & the bad guys lost.
the average movie plot made sense back then. today hollywood has lost the plot and no amount of AI or CGI can save it. -
meanwhile politics has entered much of hollywood in recent years destroying many beloved movie franchises.
It has always been there. Its just that we are seeing it pushed into our faces a lot.
One of the things we may miss is the small budget film that does OK at the Cinema but makes a killing on DVD. Now they will just go straight to streaming, the two Extraction films are a good example. How many Sci-Fi films/shows do we know that failed when first out but ended up with a cult following a few years later. -
Tom Cruise, for lack of a better example, would be able to sue any studio out of existence for using his living likeness. The risk is that studios create their own actors, who work essentially for free. I think these aren't going to be as successful as the A-listers because of the lack of star factor
"Star factor" matters less than you think. An example is a cartoon movie like Shrek. AI actors are no different. If something jells with the audience, it doesn't really matter how it was created.
-
What do people think about the Hollywood strikes?
I think that if they did them before:
- they ruined a number of my favorite IPs
- called me racist/sexist for not liking the ruined IPs and other movies or series with all the qualities of explosive diarrhea
- shat on my childhood
- managed to insert politics into literally everything
- escalated evil marketing practices to the extreme
I might have had sympathy. Ideally, it would see the error of its ways, get fixed and went back to entertaining people. Lacking that, if it burns to the ground and others start creating watchable entertainment works as well. -
What do people think about the Hollywood strikes?
I think that if they did them before:
- they ruined a number of my favorite IPs
- called me racist/sexist for not liking the ruined IPs and other movies or series with all the qualities of explosive diarrhea
- shat on my childhood
- managed to insert politics into literally everything
- escalated evil marketing practices to the extreme
I might have had sympathy. Ideally, it would see the error of its ways, get fixed and went back to entertaining people. Lacking that, if it burns to the ground and others start creating watchable entertainment works as well.
In many cases, as a part of the promotional material, it was normal to call people racist even before they had a chance to mutter a word.
The number of IPs they have completely crapped on is amazing. Listening to some of the actors they are like some artists who spout utter bull and expect people to just accept it as the truth for example "Star Wars isn't about a fight between good and evil". I just waiting for the moment they make an announcement they are going to remake BttF as I know an Australian that will go on a major rant if that happens.
-
I'm not familure with some of the initialisations used above:
IPs
BttF
What the heck do they mean? -
I'm not familure with some of the initialisations used above:
An engineer who doesn't know at least 2 meanings of IP, one of which clearly doesn't apply, while the other almost certainly does?
IPs
BttF
What the heck do they mean?
-
The only one I know of is Intellectual Property. I didn't think it was engineering related, as the post is about cinema. Please enlighten me.I'm not familure with some of the initialisations used above:
An engineer who doesn't know at least 2 meanings of IP, one of which clearly doesn't apply, while the other almost certainly does?
IPs
BttF
What the heck do they mean? -
Yes, that's the one. The very very obvious one. The properties the movie industry used to spend a fortune building value in, but has been trashing for the last few years.
The only one I know of is Intellectual Property. I didn't think it was engineering related, as the post is about cinema. Please enlighten me.I'm not familure with some of the initialisations used above:
An engineer who doesn't know at least 2 meanings of IP, one of which clearly doesn't apply, while the other almost certainly does?
IPs
BttF
What the heck do they mean?
-
It just didn't make sense to me in that context "they ruined a number of my favorite IPs", hence why I asked the question.
-
It just didn't make sense to me in that context "they ruined a number of my favorite IPs", hence why I asked the question.
IP is intellectual property. Outside of engineering this can refer to books, stories, franchises, comics, trademarks, whole blocks of content...QuoteI just waiting for the moment they make an announcement they are going to remake BttF as I know an Australian that will go on a major rant if that happens.
If you are in the market for a delightful rant on the topic of movies and are okay with a drunken Scotsman rather than a sober Australian, may I recommend the Critical Drinker? -
I know that. The statement just sounded a little vague and triggered a parsing error. Oh I've just realised, going by the flag, English is probably not your first language, so sorry, for not taking that into account.It just didn't make sense to me in that context "they ruined a number of my favorite IPs", hence why I asked the question.
IP is intellectual property. Outside of engineering this can refer to books, stories, franchises, comics, trademarks...
Anyway, one thing which has struck me recently is how out of touch the mainstream media are with the general population, certainly in the UK. It becomes obvious when reading the YouTube comments to news videos from the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 etc. especially, when they're about a politics. They might be talking about how far-right or x-phobic something is, yet most of the comments are people saying they can't see the problem and the journalists are talking rubbish. I doubt the country has swung far-right. It's more likely the mainstream media have gone in the other direction. I suspect the same is true of the film industry. -
Anyway, one thing which has struck me recently is how out of touch the mainstream media are with the general population, certainly in the UK. It becomes obvious when reading the YouTube comments to news videos from the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 etc. especially, when they're about a politics. They might be talking about how far-right or x-phobic something is, yet most of the comments are people saying they can't see the problem and the journalists are talking rubbish. I doubt the country has swung far-right. It's more likely the mainstream media have gone in the other direction. I suspect the same is true of the film industry.
Indeed. It mainly conveys ideas/ideology of a very small minority. Not quite new though, it's been ongoing for a few years already.
While there are reasons for that, the "interesting" part is how companies, the business model of which normally relies on a large number of people liking the content they produce, manage to survive in spite of pleasing only a small minority and annoying the majority. *That* is concerning. That's when the "market" doesn't really decide anymore, and this should mean this is not a free market anymore. Just a thought.
-
I doubt the country has swung far-right. It's more likely the mainstream media have gone in the other direction. I suspect the same is true of the film industry.
-
I'm not familure with some of the initialisations used above:
IPs
BttF
What the heck do they mean?
Sorry I like my MLA a bit too much.
IP Intellectual Property. In this case things such as Star Wars and Indiana Joned.
Great Scott! I could explain the BttF one but I'm driving at 88mph and I am OUTATIME.
Hail Drinker! But Critical Doggo is better in my opinion. -
Barbieheimer collected $235.5 million combined in North America during their opening weekend. Considering the average movie ticket price of $10.45, this means that approximately 22 million people, which accounts for 6% of the population in the US and Canada, went to see the movies last weekend.
-
One of my local cinema's
https://therexberkhamsted.com/
Just realized that one of the Big Malls still has them inside but smaller malls just became stalls for clothing's
https://www.smcinema.com/Browsing/
I think I would go to the cinemas for Visuals & Sound (Imax) But if it was like "Barbieheimer", i'll just wait it out till my fav "store" has it
-
What threw me was they haven't ruined their IP, they still have the old films and they could make good news ones based on them, if they kept politics out, hence the question. In hindsight, it was me being a little pedantic, since everyone else got the point.I'm not familure with some of the initialisations used above:
IPs
BttF
What the heck do they mean?
Sorry I like my MLA a bit too much.
IP Intellectual Property. In this case things such as Star Wars and Indiana Joned.
Great Scott! I could explain the BttF one but I'm driving at 88mph and I am OUTATIME.
Hail Drinker! But Critical Doggo is better in my opinion.
-
Barbieheimer collected $235.5 million combined in North America during their opening weekend. Considering the average movie ticket price of $10.45, this means that approximately 22 million people, which accounts for 6% of the population in the US and Canada, went to see the movies last weekend.
Probably even more. Cinemas usually keep around 15-25% of the ticket price at the early stage. After the first month or so, they can keep upwards of 50%.
I've always wondered how things like this are audited. I've never seen a movie studio bloke counting the people in the cinema, but I guess it must happen.Indeed. It mainly conveys ideas/ideology of a very small minority. Not quite new though, it's been ongoing for a few years already.
While there are reasons for that, the "interesting" part is how companies, the business model of which normally relies on a large number of people liking the content they produce, manage to survive in spite of pleasing only a small minority and annoying the majority. *That* is concerning. That's when the "market" doesn't really decide anymore, and this should mean this is not a free market anymore. Just a thought.
I think you're underestimating the size of the "minority" based on the bubble you hang out with - you will tend to hang out with people who sympathise with your views - otherwise they would be less likely to be in your bubble. My sister is pretty into the "far left" of things (I consider myself left of centre but I've been told believing capitalism is a good thing puts me on the right wing so who knows.) She's got a fairly large bubble of friends on social networks and in person and when they get talking about things it's clear a lot of people are more left wing than I thought I was. -
I think you're underestimating the size of the "minority" based on the bubble you hang out with - you will tend to hang out with people who sympathise with your views - otherwise they would be less likely to be in your bubble. My sister is pretty into the "far left" of things (I consider myself left of centre but I've been told believing capitalism is a good thing puts me on the right wing so who knows.) She's got a fairly large bubble of friends on social networks and in person and when they get talking about things it's clear a lot of people are more left wing than I thought I was.
That's what I used to think, but as per my previous comment, seeing the comments to news videos (BBC, Channel Four ITV, not Fox GBNews) has made me reconsider. It's possible people who post YouTube comments tend to be right-wing, but I don't see why that would be the case.
I woudn't say it's even accurate to say everything has shifed leftwards. Econmically, the media has shifted right, most likely down to the failure of planned ecconomies, where ever they've been tried. Socially speaking, there's been a definite leftward trend, which is apparent in cinima and is very much out of step with the public. If that wasn't the case, then films pushing socially progressive ideas wouldn't have been such huges flops. -
I think you're underestimating the size of the "minority" based on the bubble you hang out with - you will tend to hang out with people who sympathise with your views - otherwise they would be less likely to be in your bubble. My sister is pretty into the "far left" of things (I consider myself left of centre but I've been told believing capitalism is a good thing puts me on the right wing so who knows.) She's got a fairly large bubble of friends on social networks and in person and when they get talking about things it's clear a lot of people are more left wing than I thought I was.
That's what I used to think, but as per my previous comment, seeing the comments to news videos (BBC, Channel Four ITV, not Fox GBNews) has made me reconsider. It's possible people who post YouTube comments tend to be right-wing, but I don't see why that would be the case.
I woudn't say it's even accurate to say everything has shifed leftwards. Econmically, the media has shifted right, most likely down to the failure of planned ecconomies, where ever they've been tried. Socially speaking, there's been a definite leftward trend, which is apparent in cinima and is very much out of step with the public. If that wasn't the case, then films pushing socially progressive ideas wouldn't have been such huges flops.
I'm sure a huge amount of the comments on news websites, YouTube et al are bots - on both sides of the spectrum. For the few that aren't bots, you have to realise that the people who take time to comment on things are the most 'outraged'. The news websites also moderate comments on there, and moderators may well remove comments that don't align with the website's bias. The centre which just doesn't really care (and for whom politicians target because they tend to swing one way or another) isn't the kind to debate politics online so you'll rarely hear from them; and you're unlikely to see a Just Stop Oil supporter posting on the Daily Mail's website.
I don't know what the solution is to this really, if you want to get as little bias as possible in understanding what people think then take a look at surveys that cover the whole political spectrum, and websites that aggregate this and take predicting things accurately as part of their reputation. For instance, for whatever you think of Nate Silver, his 538 polls model has usually been pretty close to being on the money for US election results (I believe they called the most recent senate election within a few percent, they predicted Biden and Trump's wins respectively, as well as Obama's 2012 run, with decent accuracy.) -
I don't know what the solution is to this really,
Read more than one source of news - but choose sources that aren't so far from your own viewpoint that they'll just make you angry.
I get my Left leaning news from the BBC, and my Right leaning news from the Telegraph.
