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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
Albert 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.
No originality? Sucks at comedy? ChatGPT fits in perfectly with current Hollywood.
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.
meanwhile politics has entered much of hollywood in recent years destroying many beloved movie franchises.
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
What do people think about the Hollywood strikes?
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.
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:
IPs
BttF
What the heck do they mean?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?
I'm not familure with some of the initialisations used above:
IPs
BttF
What the heck do they mean?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?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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
One of my local cinema's
https://therexberkhamsted.com/
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.
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 don't know what the solution is to this really,