Legal Custodian said:
I'm curious your thoughts how this strike is both similar and different than the one in 2006?
Both from what the writers and/or actors are wanting as well as the overall environment that either benefits or detracts from both sides.
One example is the fact that streaming old shows is prevalent now that wasn't around in the mid-2000s. I have to think that reduces the pressure of incoming revenue for the studios would need for new shows or movies. Thoughts?
The biggest difference is the fact that Big Tech (Amazon, Apple, Netflix) is now part of the AMPTP, and their attitude is basically that they don't have to play by the same rules as the traditional studios. At the same time cord cutting is in full effect, Big Tech has forced so many new norms (shorter TV seasons, way smaller writer rooms, etc) that it's broken the industry to the point where the vast majority of writers can't earn a living writing any more. It's essentially become a gig economy, one that simply isn't sustainable, both for writers, but also eventually the studios themselves (which they stupidly either don't realize or refuse to care about, since it won't affect them for another few years).
The other big difference is of course the emergence of AI. Studios want to be able to be able to replace both writers and actors with computers (to a certain extent, not all the way), while writers and actors want at least *some* protections in that regard.
As for the streaming of old shows, that's not really a factor in any of this because what primarily feeds audience growth for streaming is new content, not so much old content. Sure, the streamers could last a couple months, but once the new content spigot is turned off, old libraries just won't be enough to retain all of its users, much less grow users. And there's nothing these streamers fear more than their quarterly user numbers dropping.