Hollywood Actors Strike Ends With a Deal That Will Impact AI and Streaming For Decades (wired.com) 76
Angela Watercutter and Will Bedingfield report via Wired: After 118 days on the picket lines, the longest such strike in Hollywood's history, the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists has reached a deal with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. Both sides were mum about the terms of the deal Wednesday night, but it comes following a long struggle over the use of artificial intelligence on actors' performances and actors' demands for residual payments for shows and films that play on streaming services. A committee from SAG, which represents thousands of film and television actors, approved the agreement Wednesday. The strike itself, which has featured pickets outside the offices of Netflix, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, and others, will end Thursday morning. It's expected that the tentative deal will head to the union's national board to be approved on Friday.
Undeniably, this is a huge milestone for Hollywood, a $130 billion-plus industry that has all but ground to halt this year, as both the Writers Guild of America and SAG dug in their heels over fair wages and the use of AI in their work. WGA members went on strike in May; SAG walked off the job in July, the first time the industry had faced a dual work stoppage since 1960. The WGA strike ended in September with a historic deal that put up guardrails to protect writers from AI encroaching on their work. As this year's negotiations between SAG and AMPTP dragged on, generative AI became the major sticking point. Back in July, studios claimed they offered a "groundbreaking AI proposal that protects actors' digital likenesses." SAG countered that the proposal stipulated background performers could be scanned, paid for the day, and then turned into digital characters that studios could use "for the rest of eternity." (AMPTP disputed this.)
The issue was volleyed back and forth until last weekend, when SAG reviewed the studios' "last, best, and final" offer and rejected it, claiming "there are several essential items on which we still do not have an agreement, including AI. A follow-up story in The Hollywood Reporter revealed that the AMPTP proposal sought to allow studios to pay for AI scans of what are known as Schedule F performers and, following the actors' death, allow studios to use the scans without the consent of the estate or SAG. Schedule F performers include anyone who makes more than the minimum rate for TV series regulars or feature films. The guild wanted compensation for reuse of the scans, along with consent. On Tuesday, the studios reportedly agreed to adjust the AI language in their proposal, a move that seems to have been the tipping point. Even though the terms of the tentative deal reached Thursday are unclear, it's hard to imagine the actors didn't get at least some of the AI protections they were seeking.
Undeniably, this is a huge milestone for Hollywood, a $130 billion-plus industry that has all but ground to halt this year, as both the Writers Guild of America and SAG dug in their heels over fair wages and the use of AI in their work. WGA members went on strike in May; SAG walked off the job in July, the first time the industry had faced a dual work stoppage since 1960. The WGA strike ended in September with a historic deal that put up guardrails to protect writers from AI encroaching on their work. As this year's negotiations between SAG and AMPTP dragged on, generative AI became the major sticking point. Back in July, studios claimed they offered a "groundbreaking AI proposal that protects actors' digital likenesses." SAG countered that the proposal stipulated background performers could be scanned, paid for the day, and then turned into digital characters that studios could use "for the rest of eternity." (AMPTP disputed this.)
The issue was volleyed back and forth until last weekend, when SAG reviewed the studios' "last, best, and final" offer and rejected it, claiming "there are several essential items on which we still do not have an agreement, including AI. A follow-up story in The Hollywood Reporter revealed that the AMPTP proposal sought to allow studios to pay for AI scans of what are known as Schedule F performers and, following the actors' death, allow studios to use the scans without the consent of the estate or SAG. Schedule F performers include anyone who makes more than the minimum rate for TV series regulars or feature films. The guild wanted compensation for reuse of the scans, along with consent. On Tuesday, the studios reportedly agreed to adjust the AI language in their proposal, a move that seems to have been the tipping point. Even though the terms of the tentative deal reached Thursday are unclear, it's hard to imagine the actors didn't get at least some of the AI protections they were seeking.
didn't realise they wern't writing... (Score:1, Troll)
probably says a lot about the crap they wrote....
Re: (Score:2)
"woke-fied life action rehashs" not an accurate description, but does spotlight the problem. Disney making the live-actions was always a money grab, and the changes made to them, often made less and less sense. "Remastering" the original films with a new animation pipeline (eg like a Pixar film, or like Stephen Silver's styles (Kim Possible/Scooby Doo Mystery Inc), would have been the better effort. The "New" Ducktales should of told them exactly what their customers want (eg interesting art styles, not li
Re:didn't realise they wern't writing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Game of Thrones went to crap because GRRM was not producing at the rate needed, so the producers brought in writers who were doing crap work.
The Witcher, well, apparently the writers decided to fuck that up all on their own and thus, well, we lost interest during season 2.
Once again, not 'woke'.
There is a metric butt load of great works that COULD be turned into movies, shows, or series, but apparently the powers that control Hollywierd are not interested in great works, but rather only guaranteed cash, no risk whatsoever. I do agree that the current trend seems to be to take some work that is in the public domain, or already owned and then re-write it to make it more 'relevant' to today's mores, personally, I find this objectionable. I prefer to see the world, warts and all.
But that's me, seems most people want to pretend that today's most accepting and 'woke' mores and ethics are the way things have always been and are the only 'correct' ones... I wonder what they'll be pushing in 200 years?
Re: didn't realise they wern't writing... (Score:2)
Squid Game is in part a critique of capitalism, so... super duper woke.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the 'woke crap'...
Woke has no definition, it's just something they throw out as an insult to anything they either don't like or can't understand or comprehend.
Re: (Score:2)
Good job misunderstanding (Score:5, Informative)
probably says a lot about the crap they wrote....
WAG strike ended LAST MONTH and SAG is an entirely different guild, but ok....
Re: Good job misunderstanding (Score:2)
I get that the only allowed thing to do here is agree with whatever the union demands, but fuck residuals IMO. That just makes stuff you've already seen before more expensive to see again so that the actors can keep getting paid in perpetuity for work they've already done and don't even own and never owned to begin with. More to the point, they don't even give a fuck about residuals for the people who do all of the heavy lifting in production and have the most thankless parts of the job while actors literal
Re: Good job misunderstanding (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: didn't realise they wern't writing... (Score:3)
Can someone please translate for me? This just sounds like we'll be getting our AI generated movies from Chinese studios now. (Or other non-actor's guild studios.)
Well, good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently the studios finally realized that SAG-AFTRA wasn't going to budge on the issue of "free forever" digital zombies, and caved. Undoubtedly, the movie-going/TV-watching public's overwhelming support for the actors' position on the use of their likenesses and voices "in perpetuity" helped convince them.
But I suspect it was the thought of all that lovely money they weren't making that ultimately turned the tide ...
Re:Well, good. (Score:5, Informative)
Only 7% of SAG-AFTRA actors and performers earn $80,000 or more a year, and only 14% of SAG-AFTRA members make at least $26,470 annually to qualify for SAG-AFTRA health plan coverage. The rest are struggling paycheck to paycheck, working 2 or more side jobs.
Re:Well, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most actors are part-time. No part-time job is going to be enough to survive on. It's the nature of the job unless they get steady roles. It's a similar deal with writers and musicians. It's not like a studio can be expected to pay a nobody 60k per year for a month of work in a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I comment on that or any other terms of work beyond take home pay?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Okay, maybe not salaried, but they could offer a percentage on album sales or movie revenue.
It's not that the money isn't there, it's that the job is low skill enough that staff can be easily replaced. The value of their work is completely disconnected from the value it generates for the employer.
Re: (Score:2)
Most actors are part-time. No part-time job is going to be enough to survive on. It's the nature of the job unless they get steady roles. It's a similar deal with writers and musicians. It's not like a studio can be expected to pay a nobody 60k per year for a month of work in a year.
The fact that most actors, writers and musicians are part time is part of the problem. The quality of workmanship in these professions is hurting because of the part time nature of the industry. I wouldn't be as good at my job if I only did it 4 months per year.
Re:Well, good. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd wager most of the part-time actors exert their professions (let's be real, passion) elsewhere for free, or even at a cost to them - think volunteer community productions, improv clubs, or simply taking lessons on their dime to improve their acting. Seriously have you ever met a "professional" musician, no matter how underpaid (think the people that get a gig once a month with their bands), that doesn't play music the rest of the time, for fun, for themselves? If you were a programmer paid 4 months / yr but worked voluntarily on open source stuff the rest of the time, I don't think you'd suck as a programmer.
Re: (Score:2)
Most actors are part-time. No part-time job is going to be enough to survive on.
Maybe that's something society should strive towards.
Re: (Score:2)
Most actors are part-time. No part-time job is going to be enough to survive on. It's the nature of the job unless they get steady roles. It's a similar deal with writers and musicians. It's not like a studio can be expected to pay a nobody 60k per year for a month of work in a year.
If you're a musician you can work a regular job and do gigs on the weekend.
If you're an actor you're expected to work full-time when you get a gig. That means any other job you have needs to be super flexible, which is why waiting tables is such a stereotypical actor job. And for people who make it to the lowest rung of "full time" actors they work enough to make even a side gig tough, but not enough to comfortably pay rent. I don't think there's a lot of people working software dev in SAG.
Of course the roo
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine that. workers trying to secure enough money to survive. Only 7% of SAG-AFTRA actors and performers earn $80,000 or more a year, and only 14% of SAG-AFTRA members make at least $26,470 annually to qualify for SAG-AFTRA health plan coverage. The rest are struggling paycheck to paycheck, working 2 or more side jobs.
Well then, they should probably except that Hollywood is not for them and get a real job. Most people are nowhere as talented as their Mommy told them they were. Time to grow up and move on.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Well, good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't kid yourself, SAG-AFTRA is as greedy as the studios. Everyone is out to grab as much as they can.
Everyone is greedy. Disney is mostly just answering to all the upper middle class investors in Vanguard mutual funds, who is the largest shareholder of Disney. Disney has provided about $110 billion of stock increases and $40 billion in dividends over the past 20 years. That is nearly 100x more than they pay to their top executives over the same period.
This isn't just the greed of executives, actors, and writers, it is the greed of shareholders who want to see their 401ks increase. The only reason your 401k has been growing faster than the economy for a century is because the 500 richest US companies have been hollowing out main street and exploiting emerging markets for a century. The party can only last as long as they can keep finding more people to exploit, and after that ends you'll see 2-5% average yearly stock market gains become the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, good. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well, good. (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been just thinking about it and saw your post. It's definitely a very profitable option that will be used at some point. I have no doubts about it.
Not to mention all the "resurrected" film stars of the past. Their images and popularity will get exploited. Monroe, Wayne, Bogart, Hepburn... and the list goes on and on. What's stopping them from using them? The tech is still almost there, not quite there, but its development is being pushed lately and soon you're gonna see shows with AI actors advertised as a great, new novelty thing. Profit. It's always about the profit. Everything is about the profit. We've turned a completely Ferengi-like society.
Re: (Score:2)
What's stopping them from using them?
A market to sell it to.
.. a spectacle ..
Its one thing when the resurrection is a marvel
Sticking Bogart into a series of movies doesnt make it consumable all by itself because nobody gives a fuck. Nobody is begging for Bogart movies.
The area where this will take off in movies is resurrecting famous people that werent actors, such as singers, painters, scientists, world leaders...
Movies, when looking for "actors", will use fake people that are better actors and more charismatic than all possible real
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you personally don't care for a thing, that does not mean that everyone else holds that same opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
1) "I introduced her to Humphrey Bogart 10 years ago..." You know Mr. Bogart?!
2) And you were able to reanimate his dead body?!!
3) "My wife, 26 years my junior in age..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is about the profit. We've turned a completely Ferengi-like society.
When weren't we? The Ferengi are basically the 20th century humans of the Star Trek universe. I don't see anyone complaining about excessive profit when they retire with a $1-2 million 401k balance. Roughly 75% of the growth of your retirement funds comes from the greedy exploitative measure of corporate executives, with the other 25% coming from standard GDP growth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
The main concern was background actors. Once their performance is captured it could have been duplicated endlessly in different productions, swapping out costumes and faces. Why bother hiring a room full of actors when you can just re-use some digital ones? No need to get them all costumed up, on set, quiet so you can record the main character's dialogue etc. Just an empty room with the protagonists, crowd to be filled in later.
People don't realize how much digital has affected the props and sets departments already. Check out this VFX reel for the show Mindhunter: https://youtu.be/Di4Byf1EzRE [youtu.be]
So much work that would have gone into making a show set in the 70s is now done digitally in post-production, rather than as practical effects.
Re: Well, good. (Score:3)
Because regardless of how good VFX are there will always be the problem with the uncanny valley. Cheap budget films will always find the cheapest possible option, but larger operations literally have millions in funding to not make a crap movie. It has always looked better when an actor does the stunts or green screens arenâ(TM)t used.
Re: (Score:3)
It has always looked better when an actor does the stunts or green screens aren't used.
Emphasis on the word "has". The studios and actors had so much conflict on AI because they both feel this won't be true much longer.
Re: (Score:3)
You say this like it's a bad thing.
Even though extras get paid breadcrumbs, the costs of using them is incredibly high due to all of the work required to prep and manage them. Replacing them with CGI, when tastefully done, would greatly improve efficiency on the set. It would be the film equivalent of getting rid of the secretarial pool and giving executives computers.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is fair enough, as long as the people whose likenesses and motion captured performances that are used get paid fairly for it.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked a few shows where the crowd was mostly cardboard cutouts, or the same people being moved over and over to different seats, then pasted in post. It's been going on since forever; digital just made it a lot easier.
Re: (Score:2)
With the tech as it stands the character could be generated from scratch and then there is no actor to pay.
Sounds like a solved engineering problem.
I mean seriously, extras? Like literally, the background wallpaper? Who cares.
Re: Well, good. (Score:2)
But then who will they pay millions to do a movie to? Lol....
Re:Well, good. (Score:5, Interesting)
With the tech as it stands the character could be generated from scratch and then there is no actor to pay. Would also solve the problem when actors are bored with the role or get too old to do another sequel.
It's going to be quite interesting when a celebrity-worshiping public is clamoring for somethings autograph in the future. Who gets the credit for creating that movie star from scratch? I mean, are we going to list the programmers as the real "stars" or what?
It'll also get really interesting when a "digital likeness" ends up doing nude scenes (or far more risque) in the future sequels, going against the human who refused to do so. How many times are we finding music artists arguing in courts over songs that sound too familiar? I see the same thing happening with actors and actresses fighting against a digital likeness doing or saying things on screen they would never agree to. Not sure how we would ever warp the concept of defamation to dismiss that.
Superhero movies is a good example even James bond. The writers though need to do better the movies lately mostly suck. and are not worth the admission price.
I think there's an easier answer to that. Fire the Woke department that created "mostly suck".
Re: Well, good. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hatsune Miku is doing pretty good, being a real person is not required.
I guess that's how we'll legally starve millions of humans then, since being a real human requires ongoing maintenance provided by human employment. That whole pain-in-the-ass humans needing to eat thing.
Hatsune Miku is modeled after a 16-year old girl. Go figure there's already porn that exists abusing that character that certainly wouldn't be legal for a 16-year old human to engage in. Welcome to the hardcore future of digital personas.
Re: (Score:2)
We've had actorless movies for decades. They go by various names from "cartoons" to "CGI". Heck, we've even perfected mixing CGI and live action
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can only hope it works out that way, but in fact it will continue to be a struggle, with the side that has the deepest pockets and the most concentrated decision making winning in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
But I suspect it was the thought of all that lovely money they weren't making that ultimately turned the tide ...
I suspect the studios found some language which made the actors happy for now but gave enough wiggle room for studios to use AI to their hearts content.
Re: Well, good. (Score:2)
Dumb takes (Score:4, Interesting)
"Movies bad today! Clearly it writers fault!"
Nah. Movies bad today because they'll pay stupid amounts of money for a familiar face for a poster but hate paying money for scripts from a skilled storytellers so much they'll settle for worse, making the best writing from older decades more impressive and the writing from "young-and-something-to-prove-(and-cheap)" appearing on Big Brand Franchise more often. And their inexperience shows (accommodating to trend chasing executive demands for shit like quippy dialogue where grown adults talk like Buffy The Vampire Slayer teens).
Blaming writers who'll get paid fuck all in a time of absurd budgets and profits and massive amounts of money thrown at LLMs trying to make their profession redundant is a giant self-own. The talent just decide "fuck it", get a pen name and start writing novels instead and the writing sucks because Big Brand Franchise cheapskated so hard it was brought to you by the interns and the B team.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stick a chick in it and make her gay.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, gay people exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dumb takes (Score:5, Insightful)
"Movies bad today! Clearly it writers fault!"
Nah. Movies bad today because they'll pay stupid amounts of money for a familiar face for a poster but hate paying money for scripts from a skilled storytellers so much they'll settle for worse, making the best writing from older decades more impressive and the writing from "young-and-something-to-prove-(and-cheap)" appearing on Big Brand Franchise more often. And their inexperience shows (accommodating to trend chasing executive demands for shit like quippy dialogue where grown adults talk like Buffy The Vampire Slayer teens).
Blaming writers who'll get paid fuck all in a time of absurd budgets and profits and massive amounts of money thrown at LLMs trying to make their profession redundant is a giant self-own. The talent just decide "fuck it", get a pen name and start writing novels instead and the writing sucks because Big Brand Franchise cheapskated so hard it was brought to you by the interns and the B team.
I know this is going to stun some people around here but Hollywood has more and bigger 'problems' than just liberal tendencies, wokeness and political opinions that don't overlap one to one with those of the MAGA-verse. One of the big problems that Hollywood has is that some of those who can't direct, can't act and can't write become studio executives. This enables these substandard talents to meddle in the work of those who very much can direct, can act and can write. Because these studio executives make frequent use of these meddling superpowers to inject their substandard ideas on directing, acting and writing into the movie making process it results in really bad movies. This is why Hollywood types talk about 'creative control' so much and whether it should reside with the talented directors/actors/writers or with the failed creative talents in the studio executive class. If you have issues with directors/actors/writers being in creative control, think of it this way: Would you want a highly trained talented brain surgeon who makes up his own mind about the best way to proceed performing your brain surgery or would you want a surgeon who takes instructions on how to operate on your brain from a guy in accounting? With people of such a low talent level in charge of the Hollywood studios it should not surprise anybody that the only quality movies to come out of that place are ones where directors/actors/writers made agreements with the studios to be left completely alone on one project if they direct or star in or write for half a dozen of the trainwrecks presided over by the studio executive class.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the big problems that Hollywood has is that some of those who can't direct, can't act and can't write become studio executives.
No, the problem is Hollywood has people who cannot perform as studio executives become studio executives. You don't need to be a good director, writer, or actor to be a good executive; they are completely different skill sets. The vast majority of good directors, writers, and actors would be horrible studio executives. A good studio executive is simply someone who either knows not to meddle or is good at selectively meddling. A director with no guardrails often is just as bad as a meddling executive.
Re: Dumb takes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood has no problems, the profit machine goes brrr... The movies that come out are mostly shit, but the industry hasnt been about the movies for a long time. Its about advertising campaigns and merchandising. And it works because people are bored and just looking for some brainrot to spend time on.
If the quality of Hollywood movies matters to you just praise your lucky stars that Ben Shapiro wasn't even good enough to make it into the studio executive class because if he had those movies would be even worse. On the flip side, he did make it into the political pundit and cool children's philosopher business where he can do far more damage. This also says a lot about just how depressingly low the bar is to getting into the political pundit business.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Hollywood has a very short list of names that get 100% creative control without meddling.
Re: (Score:2)
"Movies bad today! Clearly it writers fault!"
Nah. Movies bad today because they'll pay stupid amounts of money for a familiar face for a poster but hate paying money for scripts from a skilled storytellers so much they'll settle for worse, making the best writing from older decades more impressive and the writing from "young-and-something-to-prove-(and-cheap)" appearing on Big Brand Franchise more often. And their inexperience shows (accommodating to trend chasing executive demands for shit like quippy dialogue where grown adults talk like Buffy The Vampire Slayer teens).
Blaming writers who'll get paid fuck all in a time of absurd budgets and profits and massive amounts of money thrown at LLMs trying to make their profession redundant is a giant self-own. The talent just decide "fuck it", get a pen name and start writing novels instead and the writing sucks because Big Brand Franchise cheapskated so hard it was brought to you by the interns and the B team.
You're not entirely wrong, but you also missed the part where even terrific initial scripts have to get workshopped and re-written by large masses of people so that everything appeals to the largest/widest possible audience and doesn't offend anyone, even tangentially or incidentally. It's a great way to make bland, regurgitated goo, but not a great way to get anything fresh, interesting, or provocative, all things that typically get associated with the greater works of fiction and film.
This 80's movie (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0... [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And you know what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: And you know what? (Score:2)
Re: And you know what? (Score:2)
The fall schedule for most of the big TV networks was filled with crappy reality TV and game shows. It certainly had at least some impact this season.
Pay the background actors for a day? (Score:2)
$130 Billion is that all? Is it past its prime? (Score:1)
Elon Musk is supposed to be worth $228 billion, Bernard Assault is supposed to be worth $164 billion, Jeff Bezos $150 Billion. 3 people worth more than the whole of the Hollywood film industry.
I suppose Hollywood seems bigger than it really is because it's part of entertainment which gets more attention than something like say the frozen food industry.
And, I get the feeling that Hollywood is somehow past its prime as a force in American life and culture. Whether that's because of a decline in the quality
No, it wont (Score:2)
It just means that ALL the movies and TV series will be produced in Canada instead of only half.
In other news... other nations celebrate decision (Score:1)
As they will fill the gap.
A Pyrrhic Victory (Score:2)
Actors have only protected themselves for a relatively short period. As technology improves, the production process will go entirely synthetic.
It started with CGI backgrounds, then costume correction. Then some directors started using computers to change an actor's actual performance, adjusting facial expressions. But motion and voice couldn't be done. But hey, need a crowd? LotR just used some novel crowd generation software to make an orc army. That can be done now! No large groups of background a