False. Beauty leads to attraction. Attraction leads to procreation. Procreation leads to human life.ABATTBQ11 said:
Arts aren't vital to human life. There. I said it
Writers Guild strike 2023
145,613 Views |
1612 Replies |
Last: 9 mo ago by uujm
Basically the only reason AI hasn’t taken all the jobs in Hollywood already is because producers haven’t figured out a way to sexually assault it yet
— Nick Mullen (@nycguidovoice) May 10, 2023
project much?schmidthead said:
Figures… someone else is paying for you to pursue this dream. I'm not even jealous, I'm blessed that way too!
Because TCTTS is one of the very few who is actually making it on their own.Chipotlemonger said:
Yea I'm not sure how schmidthead made that leap in thinking
This place is polluted with "money from home".
Go to any apartment complex and you'll find a bunch of folks under 35 who are supported by inheritance, alimony, money from mom, grandma, etc.
In my second apartment, we had this really weird chick who was moving to Florida. I spoke with her dad who was a well to do guy from Connecticut who was moving to West Palm Beach.
He told me that if he was going to have to pay for her to live, since the NY Film Academy didn't work out, he might as well move her to someplace less expensive and where he could keep a closer eye on her. So, she got her own apartment in West Palm Beach.
In addition to the kid from Arkansas who relied on a check from mom every month, I had a friend whose shiny new F-150 had Louisiana plates. Because the real owner was his grandma.
And all the stage mom Doctor's wives and future child star kids are all being supported by money from home.
So, it's not an unrealistic assumption at all. In fact, it's pretty common.
Are you talking about LA or Brooklyn?
Yes.tysker said:
Are you talking about LA or Brooklyn?
New York Film Academy in Burbank.tysker said:
Are you talking about LA or Brooklyn?
Also, Emerson isn't just in Boston, it's in Burbank too.
I've got a parent peer who is an Emerson Professor who regularly goes off the rails on FB.
Guy was pretty normal before social media. Back when you had to attend City Council meetings in person and wait your turn to be heard.
Now thats pretty funny. Terrible. but funny
A really great (and quick) convo that lays it all out so clearly. This whole thing is such a no-brainer, which makes it all the more maddening that it's even come to a strike…
New pod: Is the life of a TV writer really so bad? With “Monster Showrunner” @KenTremendous. Listen! https://t.co/jBG9kffV8Z
— Matthew Belloni (@MattBelloni) May 11, 2023
Excellent interview with @AoDespair
— Dan Przygoda (@dprzygoda) May 12, 2023
He gets to the core of all the issues the writers are standing up for https://t.co/yQ0maakrJ8
Moisture is the essence of wetness, and wetness is the essence of beauty.maroon barchetta said:
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I think they can be successful in squeezing out more money and a little more stability. But the AI train is happening. It is only going to improve, it's going to do it quickly, and there is going to be a lot more capability there that people can't really wrap their mind around right now
Agreed. The WGA's stubbornness on AI isn't going to get them anywhere. I think, at best, they can potentially ensure that AI can't be the sole author of a a screenplay - in other words, an actual writer has to be credited with a final pass - but to seek and outright ban of AI from the process altogether is incredibly shortsighted. If the WGA can give that up, and in exchange the AMPTP can agree to eliminate mini-rooms, maybe they can finally get somewhere…
I'm concerned that an AI could generate more content that I will never watch
I'm pretty sure AI is already good enough to outperform a lot of these people….
Madmarttigan said:
I'm pretty sure AI is already good enough to outperform a lot of these people….
The irony of some of these folks criticizing the lack of art/creativity from AI while churning out awful sequels and reboots is pretty thick
To be clear, it's the *studios* who are forcing the lack of creativity via sequels, remakes, adaptations, etc. It's not the writers. The writers are merely taking the jobs available to them. There are literally hundreds of phenomenal original screenplays out there going unmade because the studios are unwilling to take chances on them. If the writers had their way, trust me, there would be WAY more original material being produced.
The WGA's picket lines are working. Here's a list of all the TV shows and movies that have been affected by the strike... including Marvel's WONDER MAN, which suspended production this week.https://t.co/w3sF6wl7xU pic.twitter.com/UamQb24Z77
— Jeff Sneider (@TheInSneider) May 12, 2023
They pretty much explain this during the series Entourage.TCTTS said:
To be clear, it's the *studios* who are forcing the lack of creativity via sequels, remakes, adaptations, etc. It's not the writers. The writers are merely taking the jobs available to them. There are literally hundreds of phenomenal original screenplays out there going unmade because the studios are unwilling to take chances on them. If the writers had their way, trust me, there would be WAY more original material being produced.
The studio wants Aquaman 2, doesn't matter if Vince is in it.
Meanwhile, Vince wants Medelln or Smoke Jumpers.
In an era where 50% of the characters in TV ads and on TV are Black, there's a reason they haven't remade "Sanford & Son", or "The Jeffersons".DannyDuberstein said:Madmarttigan said:
I'm pretty sure AI is already good enough to outperform a lot of these people….
The irony of some of these folks criticizing the lack of art/creativity from AI while churning out awful sequels and reboots is pretty thick
UPDATE: This year's Tonys won't be televised on June 11 after the Writers Guild of America denied a request for a strike waiver from the show's producers. https://t.co/JNE0iOLqoD
— Variety (@Variety) May 13, 2023
This is a bummer. Many Broadway shows rely on Tonys exposure for ticket boosts. Was hoping their waiver would be granted.
TCTTS said:
To be clear, it's the *studios* who are forcing the lack of creativity via sequels, remakes, adaptations, etc. It's not the writers. The writers are merely taking the jobs available to them. There are literally hundreds of phenomenal original screenplays out there going unmade because the studios are unwilling to take chances on them. If the writers had their way, trust me, there would be WAY more original material being produced.
That's not the studios fault. Its the studios money and they bear the risk. How many of those phenomenal original screenplays are going to make enough money to pay rent? Will writers be willing to cover production costs out of their own pockets if their screenplay doesn't cover the total costs of production?
With movies, TV, YouTube, books, and podcasts, there's already more content than most of us can consume. So its not about more (or more original ideas because AI can so that) its about more of what the consumer wants.
So again the problem the writers have isn't with the studios but with the consumers of their products and, if the WGA 'wins,' its the consumers that will pay higher costs.
tysker said:TCTTS said:
To be clear, it's the *studios* who are forcing the lack of creativity via sequels, remakes, adaptations, etc. It's not the writers. The writers are merely taking the jobs available to them. There are literally hundreds of phenomenal original screenplays out there going unmade because the studios are unwilling to take chances on them. If the writers had their way, trust me, there would be WAY more original material being produced.
That's not the studios fault. Its the studios money and they bear the risk. How many of those phenomenal original screenplays are going to make enough money to pay rent? Will writers be willing to cover production costs out of their own pockets if their screenplay doesn't cover the total costs of production?
With movies, TV, YouTube, books, and podcasts, there's already more content than most of us can consume. So its not about more (or more original ideas because AI can so that) its about more of what the consumer wants.
So again the problem the writers have isn't with the studios but with the consumers of their products and, if the WGA 'wins,' its the consumers that will pay higher costs.
Hollywood somehow excelled - for decades - with a healthy mix of original and "name brand" movies, especially in the blockbuster category... Alien. Raiders of the Lost Ark. E.T. Back to the Future. Top Gun. RoboCop. Die Hard. True Lies. Speed. Bad Boys. Twister. Independence Day. The Rock. Men in Black. Titanic. Armageddon. Saving Private Ryan. The Matrix. The Bourne Identity. Avatar... mixed with franchise fare like... 007, Batman, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Mission: Impossible, the occasional Marvel title, etc. While many of the aforementioned originals then went on to spur franchises in and of themselves.
It was *Hollywood* who then became more and more risk adverse, training audiences to essentially only accept superhero movies and other rebooted IP - mixed with the occasional Christopher Nolan entry every couple of years - as basically our only blockbuster diet. They all but killed the movie the star - a form of "IP" in and of itself - and instead made the brand/nostalgia king, allowing hardly any new franchises to bloom, save for a John Wick here or there.
Blaming this on the writers and consumers - and not greedy, risk-averse studios - is such a cop out. Are the former two completely innocent? Of course not. But it's the studios who are far more to blame.
TCTTS said:tysker said:TCTTS said:
To be clear, it's the *studios* who are forcing the lack of creativity via sequels, remakes, adaptations, etc. It's not the writers. The writers are merely taking the jobs available to them. There are literally hundreds of phenomenal original screenplays out there going unmade because the studios are unwilling to take chances on them. If the writers had their way, trust me, there would be WAY more original material being produced.
That's not the studios fault. Its the studios money and they bear the risk. How many of those phenomenal original screenplays are going to make enough money to pay rent? Will writers be willing to cover production costs out of their own pockets if their screenplay doesn't cover the total costs of production?
With movies, TV, YouTube, books, and podcasts, there's already more content than most of us can consume. So its not about more (or more original ideas because AI can so that) its about more of what the consumer wants.
So again the problem the writers have isn't with the studios but with the consumers of their products and, if the WGA 'wins,' its the consumers that will pay higher costs.
Hollywood somehow excelled - for decades - with a healthy mix of original and "name brand" movies, especially in the blockbuster category... Alien. Raiders of the Lost Ark. E.T. Back to the Future. Top Gun. RoboCop. Die Hard. True Lies. Speed. Bad Boys. Twister. Independence Day. The Rock. Men in Black. Titanic. Armageddon. Saving Private Ryan. The Matrix. The Bourne Identity. Avatar... mixed with franchise fare like... 007, Batman, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Mission: Impossible, the occasional Marvel title, etc. While many of the aforementioned originals then went on to spur franchises in and of themselves.
It was *Hollywood* who then became more and more risk adverse, training audiences to essentially only accept superhero movies and other rebooted IP - mixed with the occasional Christopher Nolan entry every couple of years - as basically our only blockbuster diet. They all but killed the movie the star - a form of "IP" in and of itself - and instead made the brand/nostalgia king, allowing hardly any new franchises to bloom, save for a John Wick here or there.
Blaming this on the writers and consumers - and not greedy, risk-averse studios - is such a cop out. Are the former two completely innocent? Of course not. But it's the studios who are far more to blame.
You're argument is that writers and consumers are dumb and poor decision makers because studios made them that way? Do the writers have any skin in this game? We consumers do with our time and money. I spent like $90 (tix, food, beer, tip at alamo drafthouse) to take my kids to see the Super Mario Bros movie. They probably would have been just as happy staying at home and watching YouTube. Will that price decrease if the WGA gets their way? Will the writing be 'more original?'
Your contempt for the average person (read: elitism) is showing. I like dumb retreads and sequels. I also like most everything Ive seem from A24. I know when its really good and know when its really bad bit most everything in that middle 80% or so, frankly, is kinda the same. I'm sure you're aware that we are in a golden age of TV and with that there is a lot of dog**** out there. Will the writers take that away and make CSI: Toledo 'more original?' I don't buy it.
I have no idea what you're even talking about with your "elitism" nonsense. You're just putting all sorts of words in my mouth at this point, and completely missing my point. I clicked on your profile, though, saw where you spend most of your time on this site, and once again, it makes perfect sense why you're singling me out/picking this fight. In other words, we're done here.
You claimed, "it was *Hollywood* who then became more and more risk adverse, training audiences to essentially only accept superhero movies and other rebooted IP" which I read as 'studios have trained its audience to accept lower quality products' as if we don't have agency. We liked dumb stuff when it was nothing but musicals or westerns or legal procedurals. Its not clear the WGA concessions will remedy this in a non-broadcast, non-cable streaming world.
Listen to the Mike Schur podcast you posted above shows they are trying to capture the old ways in a new media environment. We had this same problem on Wall Street during the financial crisis. Lots of lost institutional knowledge that was high cost labor which was replaced by technology, ultimately for the betterment of consumers.
Listen to the Mike Schur podcast you posted above shows they are trying to capture the old ways in a new media environment. We had this same problem on Wall Street during the financial crisis. Lots of lost institutional knowledge that was high cost labor which was replaced by technology, ultimately for the betterment of consumers.
It's not lower quality product, it's lower risk product. Hollywood studios know they can make money by resurrecting IP for sequels or creating blockbuster tried and true superhero content and we will go in droves to see it.
His point is that writers haven't all of a sudden lost the talent to develop interesting and original IP, or that consumers don't want it. His point is the studios fully understand that they don't need to take any risk on "out of the box", standout material. And he's right, all of that is now being pushed to television/streaming, which is really ground zero for the strike, in my opinion.
His point is that writers haven't all of a sudden lost the talent to develop interesting and original IP, or that consumers don't want it. His point is the studios fully understand that they don't need to take any risk on "out of the box", standout material. And he's right, all of that is now being pushed to television/streaming, which is really ground zero for the strike, in my opinion.
No where did I say "lower quality products." I thought it was beyond obvious that we were having a discussion about original vs. non-original entertainment. But like so many of these guys, who actively look to be upset/offended, he had put words in my mouth to get there.
It was always about low risk product. Media companies lose lots of money. Losing cable and broadcast TV money to streaming has completely changed the game for all aspects of the industry and, I would argue, made even harder for studios to be consistently profitable.
I think it was Ethan Hawke who once mentioned he would do one movie for the money and the next one for the 'art.' But that model is only sustainable if the money-making movie is really, really profitable.
Again listening to the Mike Schur podcast, it's discussed that there are more writers then ever before and there are more opportunities for more diverse writing than ever before. The Guild is trying to hold on to the old ways when clearly the industry, purpose of the the job, and even the need for the job is changing. If the WGA receives everything they want, who will pay the cost? Will studios and media companies, which already lose lots of money, pass it on to consumers?
I think it was Ethan Hawke who once mentioned he would do one movie for the money and the next one for the 'art.' But that model is only sustainable if the money-making movie is really, really profitable.
Again listening to the Mike Schur podcast, it's discussed that there are more writers then ever before and there are more opportunities for more diverse writing than ever before. The Guild is trying to hold on to the old ways when clearly the industry, purpose of the the job, and even the need for the job is changing. If the WGA receives everything they want, who will pay the cost? Will studios and media companies, which already lose lots of money, pass it on to consumers?
Dude. Read the thread. Every one of your "concerns" has been answered and addressed dozens of times, across numerous posts, tweets, and linked articles. Put simply, what the writers are asking for amounts to 3% of the studios' current profits, if that. Profits the studios *are* currently seeing, hand over fist. The "problem" is that the studios/streamers aren't meeting Wall Street's growth expectations, not that the studios aren't making all kinds of money. Yes, some studios are doing better than others, but overall, they absolutely have the money to pay the writers what they're asking, without passing that cost on to consumers. You're telling me that Amazon, Apple, Disney, Netflix, Sony, Warner Bros Discovery, etc are losing "lots" of money? Seriously?
I'll trust you on the profitably of studios but in my experience historically they lose money and need to expand or merge with larger media companies to stay afloat long term. Guessing public demand for content out over the next 12-24 months is such a hard thing to do. Even Lions Gate only had $16 million in net income with over $1 billion in revenue last year.
Eta: they also use lots of debt, which was fine in a ZIRP environment
The problem, I believe, the studio side was a loss leader for so long that the larger media companies still don't know how to handle that side business especially given the decreases in revenue seen in streaming and linear television. Disney and Apple and Amazon can lose millions on the studio arm and offset it with other sources. Disney is/was the master of this with its diversity into parks, toys, etc and Universal has done well there as well. Paramount like Viacom before it is probably dead money
Eta: they also use lots of debt, which was fine in a ZIRP environment
The problem, I believe, the studio side was a loss leader for so long that the larger media companies still don't know how to handle that side business especially given the decreases in revenue seen in streaming and linear television. Disney and Apple and Amazon can lose millions on the studio arm and offset it with other sources. Disney is/was the master of this with its diversity into parks, toys, etc and Universal has done well there as well. Paramount like Viacom before it is probably dead money
Quality writers must be easy to find if they can pay them minimum wages.
TCTTS said:
Dude. Read the thread. Every one of your "concerns" has been answered and addressed dozens of times, across numerous posts, tweets, and linked articles. Put simply, what the writers are asking for amounts to 3% of the studios' current profits, if that. Profits the studios *are* currently seeing, hand over fist. The "problem" is that the studios/streamers aren't meeting Wall Street's growth expectations, not that the studios aren't making all kinds of money. Yes, some studios are doing better than others, but overall, they absolutely have the money to pay the writers what they're asking, without passing that cost on to consumers. You're telling me that Amazon, Apple, Disney, Netflix, Sony, Warner Bros Discovery, etc are losing "lots" of money? Seriously?
Wages are also subject to supply and demand. If there is an oversupply of writers, it drives wages down. The percentage of profit or revenue that the wages compromise is irrelevant. If the writers accept the job at the offered salary, then that's the market rate.
For high demand roles companies have to bid against each other for talent causing wages rise. And the talent will turn down offers all the time. Is this possible with the Union?
Now that they are striking, the media companies will have to pay more, like any other field you have to find the price the workers will accept. Why didn't they strike sooner?
I don't know how this works with a union that probably reduces individual freedoms and ability to work or set their own wage. They have to resort to these strikes to get paid. Can individual writers negotiate their own compensation or is it a set rate once they join the guild?
bmks270 said:TCTTS said:
Dude. Read the thread. Every one of your "concerns" has been answered and addressed dozens of times, across numerous posts, tweets, and linked articles. Put simply, what the writers are asking for amounts to 3% of the studios' current profits, if that. Profits the studios *are* currently seeing, hand over fist. The "problem" is that the studios/streamers aren't meeting Wall Street's growth expectations, not that the studios aren't making all kinds of money. Yes, some studios are doing better than others, but overall, they absolutely have the money to pay the writers what they're asking, without passing that cost on to consumers. You're telling me that Amazon, Apple, Disney, Netflix, Sony, Warner Bros Discovery, etc are losing "lots" of money? Seriously?
Wages are also subject to supply and demand. If there is an oversupply of writers, it drives wages down. The percentage of profit or revenue that the wages compromise is irrelevant. If the writers accept the job at the offered salary, then that's the market rate.
The wages were the one thing the WGA and the AMPTP basically agreed on. I think the settled on like a 4% increase or something like that. That said, once again, it's not the wages themselves that are the big holdup, it's other factors like the elimination of "mini rooms" and establishing a minimum number of writers on shows, for the duration of a show's run.
For high demand roles companies have to bid against each other for talent causing wages rise. And the talent will turn down offers all the time. Is this possible with the Union?
Yes. That happens all the time.
Now that they are striking, the media companies will have to pay more, like any other field you have to find the price the workers will accept. Why didn't they strike sooner?
The WGA negotiates a new contract with the AMPTP every three years. The last negotiations were scheduled to take place in May 2020, but because of the pandemic both sides decided to kick the can down the road to 2023. The contract was up May 1, 2023, so the WGA took a vote, and with 97% membership approval, decided to go strike then.
I don't know how this works with a union that probably reduces individual freedoms and ability to work or set their own wage. They have to resort to these strikes to get paid. Can individual writers negotiate their own compensation or is it a set rate once they join the guild?
All the WGA does is ensure MINIMUM rates/payments. There is no "set rate," only set minimums and set payment schedules that the studios can't go below and must adhere to. Otherwise, writers can earn as much as their services can demand.
Again, this has all been discussed ad nauseam here, and is information that is easily found in about 10 seconds via Google.
Featured Stories
See All
Texas A&M adds former Washington CB Jordan Shaw via transfer portal
by Ryan Brauninger
29:54
1d ago
6.3k
Paint prowess propels No. 13 Aggies to dominant 80-60 win over Texas
by Olin Buchanan
14:50
8h ago
2.8k
15:25
15h ago
3.8k
In-Home Visit: Portal haul reaches 12 with Onyedim & Shaw additions
by TexAgs Recruiting
5 Thoughts: No. 13 Texas A&M 80, Texas 60
by Luke Evangelist