None of those things you mentioned really replace what premier TV/movies provide. Sure, they are good alternatives. But when premier shows come back, I'm sure people will come back in droves. Especially if there's a prolonged period without.AustinAg2K said:
If this goes well into the fall, I feel like both sides could really be screwing themselves. There a so many options out there for entertainment. A lot of people who want new content might go to YouTube, TikTok, etc. They could go to video games, or possibly even go outside to touch grass. There's a good chance a lot of people might drastically cut their time consuming Hollywood content, and they might not come back.
Writers Guild strike 2023
145,609 Views |
1612 Replies |
Last: 9 mo ago by uujm
probably just more pot smoking and pron watching in america.BowSowy said:None of those things you mentioned really replace what premier TV/movies provide. Sure, they are good alternatives. But when premier shows come back, I'm sure people will come back in droves. Especially if there's a prolonged period without.AustinAg2K said:
If this goes well into the fall, I feel like both sides could really be screwing themselves. There a so many options out there for entertainment. A lot of people who want new content might go to YouTube, TikTok, etc. They could go to video games, or possibly even go outside to touch grass. There's a good chance a lot of people might drastically cut their time consuming Hollywood content, and they might not come back.
How does anyone still believe in "free markets"? I guess the answer to that is due to unfettered Chicago School economics teaching for the past four decades. Go read Smith's The Wealth of Nations in entirety (if you can, since "free markets" have worked to erode attention spans); you'll be shocked to discover how poorly it, among many other works, has been taught.
Disappointing that so many are passively (or actively) in disagreement with you on this. Not sure how anyone can't see this mode of development won't stop at making only entertainment jobs gig-based.
Exactly. This won't stop with the entertainment industry. And it's another reason why the writers/actors feel a responsibility to strike, and to try and do something about it, because *maybe* they can set some kind of standard or template for others to follow.
You think this is partly some noble cause and not purely self preservation?
I would say 90% self preservation / 10% noble cause. These are writers and actors, after all. They can *easily* convince themselves that they're heroes, paving the way for the rest of America. And maybe that kind of delusion is what's necessary to win this thing.
God forbid they try to preserve their livelihoods, which are largely middle-class btw.
AustinAg2K said:
If this goes well into the fall, I feel like both sides could really be screwing themselves. There a so many options out there for entertainment. A lot of people who want new content might go to YouTube, TikTok, etc. They could go to video games, or possibly even go outside to touch grass. There's a good chance a lot of people might drastically cut their time consuming Hollywood content, and they might not come back.
I already have. It's partially because of having kids and the cost of going to a theater, but I haven't felt really compelled to go out and see a movie in several years. I like to watch new shows, but at the same time I have found myself rewatching a lot of things because many new shows just aren't all that appealing and don't seem very original. Andor and Beef are some of the only ones I've really felt the need to watch. Everything else has basically been, "I'll watch when I get around to it."
I don't want to say Hollywood has run out of ideas, but they're certainly not relatable to me right now.
Also, I have very little sympathy for the writers and actors. From what I understand of their demands, they essentially want to have their cake and eat it too. If you want make work provisions or guaranteed work and a steady paycheck, you can't expect to have a piece of the pie and ownership in case your project blows up and vice versa. Either you take no risk for a lower reward or you take a lot of risk for a lot of reward. You can't demand to take no risk for a lot of reward.
Capybara said:
How does anyone still believe in "free markets"? I guess the answer to that is due to unfettered Chicago School economics teaching for the past four decades. Go read Smith's The Wealth of Nations in entirety (if you can, since "free markets" have worked to erode attention spans); you'll be shocked to discover how poorly it, among many other works, has been taught.
Wtf are you doing attacking me? Do you have an actual thought on this or are you just going to point me to a classical economics book screaming "free markets are a lie!".
Studios can get the same work done without writing rooms and minimums. So why pay?
Capybara said:
God forbid they try to preserve their livelihoods, which are largely middle-class btw.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my question. Sure seems like you're ascribing some sort of malice to my question that doesn't exist.
ABATTBQ11 said:AustinAg2K said:
If this goes well into the fall, I feel like both sides could really be screwing themselves. There a so many options out there for entertainment. A lot of people who want new content might go to YouTube, TikTok, etc. They could go to video games, or possibly even go outside to touch grass. There's a good chance a lot of people might drastically cut their time consuming Hollywood content, and they might not come back.
I already have. It's partially because of having kids and the cost of going to a theater, but I haven't felt really compelled to go out and see a movie in several years. I like to watch new shows, but at the same time I have found myself rewatching a lot of things because many new shows just aren't all that appealing and don't seem very original. Andor and Beef are some of the only ones I've really felt the need to watch. Everything else has basically been, "I'll watch when I get around to it."
I don't want to say Hollywood has run out of ideas, but they're certainly not relatable to me right now.
Also, I have very little sympathy for the writers and actors. From what I understand of their demands, they essentially want to have their cake and eat it too. If you want make work provisions or guaranteed work and a steady paycheck, you can't expect to have a piece of the pie and ownership in case your project blows up and vice versa. Either you take no risk for a lower reward or you take a lot of risk for a lot of reward. You can't demand to take no risk for a lot of reward.
"Ownership" hasn't been part of the negotiations in any way, shape, or form. I've been racking my brain, and I don't even know what you could be mistaking or referring to. The writers and actors want fair wages and common sense protections. That's it. No one's asking for "a piece of the pie and ownership in case their project blows up." Honestly, given the circumstances, I don't even know how that would work.
Over the past few years the studios have unilaterally changed the business model, by leaps and bounds, and are now saying that they don't want to change the writers and actors contracts to reflect it. They want to keep them in the world of the '70s while the studios are living in 2023. All the writers and actors are saying in return is, "Fine. Then at least allow us to make a livable wage under these new conditions." And the studios won't even grant them that much.
Legal Custodian said:Capybara said:
How does anyone still believe in "free markets"? I guess the answer to that is due to unfettered Chicago School economics teaching for the past four decades. Go read Smith's The Wealth of Nations in entirety (if you can, since "free markets" have worked to erode attention spans); you'll be shocked to discover how poorly it, among many other works, has been taught.
Wtf are you doing attacking me? Do you have an actual thought on this or are you just going to point me to a classical economics book screaming "free markets are a lie!".
Studios can get the same work done without writing rooms and minimums. So why pay?
You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. They CAN'T get the same work done, and that's why this whole thing is falling apart.
Sea Speed said:Capybara said:
God forbid they try to preserve their livelihoods, which are largely middle-class btw.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my question. Sure seems like you're ascribing some sort of malice to my question that doesn't exist.
Seems way too personally affected by this.
Hell, all I said was that I didn't think I agreed with the writers for wanting keep their writing rooms and minimums because the market is dictating something else. And he got all pissy.
Some people man, some people.
You have two different classes of studios.
— Dean Hacker (@dhacker615) July 13, 2023
One has a need for theatrical revenue and the other doesn't. Netflix, Apple, and Amazon will come back to the table somewhere between next year and never.
Warners, Disney, Universal, Paramount and the rest will want to do something.
really funny that the writers and actors guilds are on strike because, among other things, studios just really really really do not want to put on paper how many people actually watch streaming shows lol
— largest rodent (@capybaroness) July 13, 2023
TCTTS said:Legal Custodian said:Capybara said:
How does anyone still believe in "free markets"? I guess the answer to that is due to unfettered Chicago School economics teaching for the past four decades. Go read Smith's The Wealth of Nations in entirety (if you can, since "free markets" have worked to erode attention spans); you'll be shocked to discover how poorly it, among many other works, has been taught.
Wtf are you doing attacking me? Do you have an actual thought on this or are you just going to point me to a classical economics book screaming "free markets are a lie!".
Studios can get the same work done without writing rooms and minimums. So why pay?
You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. They CAN'T get the same work done, and that's why this whole thing is falling apart.
You've already said that studios have been reducing the amount of writers on set and in the room for the past few years and it has worked for them.
The writing guilds are not just "aww shucks, we just want a fair raise." They're wanting to dictate how many writers are required to be on set, in the room, working on a script, how many days theyre required to be there whether necessary or not. That's not just a fair pay scale.
I get and fully support the battle on AI. And I understand their willingness to fight for their survival in the room. But it has clearly already been shifting to a gig profession for the past 5 years (accelerated by COVID).
American movies are largely terrible because of how conservative (at minimum, fiscally) its financiers are. This has been decades in the making; those like George Lucas have practically begged for this particular theatrical/streaming incongruity to manifest, even if his movies are better than the superhero slop doled out for the past decade. You, like many others, have been pushed into TV (an inferior medium by its nature, though directors like Lynch are creative enough to make us forget this; Twin Peaks The Return was the best American "visual art" of 2017) not only because of a change in lifestyle. This has further incentivized theaters to let their infrastructure wither everywhere outside of their premium formats.
I don't like being so cynical about this, but how could you not be so when late-era Friedkin, Schrader and Malick are better than even the best young American filmmakers in the Safdies, Ari Aster, Jordan Peele, and Robert Eggers? Those between these groups, like Tony Gilroy, who, if he primarily were able to be a film auteur would be as widely-known as PTA, Wes Anderson, the Coens, etc., should be working in the superior medium most often.
I'm too lazy to find it and link it, but everyone should look up Will Tavlin's piece ("Digital Rocks" iirc) in nplusone, even if his academic digital-reactionary prose is nauseating.
Back to TV, I can't help but notice that even the best scripts are weighed down by writers who are incentivized to spend time on Twitter at al. Even Succession's dialogue gets embarrassing too often. To be fair, I haven't watched tons of the recently best-reviewed stuff (Hacks, The Bear, Barry, Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, Severance, Better Call Saul, etc.), though who has? How could we know? There's no reliable way to know anymore. To close, maybe I'm not the best one to review/analyze TV since it's largely made for older people who are in their homes more often (no shade; this is what happens to Americans as they age), but it's clearly wounded as well.
I don't blame anyone, whether alone or in a group, who just wants to watch (or better yet play) sports, fish, paint, get high and walk around, game, have their brain destroyed by TikTok, etc. instead of watching any of this, whether at home or in a theater. It must be painful to be someone in his/her 40s and up who fondly remembers driving to a theater on a whim decades ago, expecting to at least be surprised by something showing. I guess this is what happens when creating art, instead of just entertainment (which can be great, don't get me wrong), is actively discouraged by studios. Oh well.
I don't like being so cynical about this, but how could you not be so when late-era Friedkin, Schrader and Malick are better than even the best young American filmmakers in the Safdies, Ari Aster, Jordan Peele, and Robert Eggers? Those between these groups, like Tony Gilroy, who, if he primarily were able to be a film auteur would be as widely-known as PTA, Wes Anderson, the Coens, etc., should be working in the superior medium most often.
I'm too lazy to find it and link it, but everyone should look up Will Tavlin's piece ("Digital Rocks" iirc) in nplusone, even if his academic digital-reactionary prose is nauseating.
Back to TV, I can't help but notice that even the best scripts are weighed down by writers who are incentivized to spend time on Twitter at al. Even Succession's dialogue gets embarrassing too often. To be fair, I haven't watched tons of the recently best-reviewed stuff (Hacks, The Bear, Barry, Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, Severance, Better Call Saul, etc.), though who has? How could we know? There's no reliable way to know anymore. To close, maybe I'm not the best one to review/analyze TV since it's largely made for older people who are in their homes more often (no shade; this is what happens to Americans as they age), but it's clearly wounded as well.
I don't blame anyone, whether alone or in a group, who just wants to watch (or better yet play) sports, fish, paint, get high and walk around, game, have their brain destroyed by TikTok, etc. instead of watching any of this, whether at home or in a theater. It must be painful to be someone in his/her 40s and up who fondly remembers driving to a theater on a whim decades ago, expecting to at least be surprised by something showing. I guess this is what happens when creating art, instead of just entertainment (which can be great, don't get me wrong), is actively discouraged by studios. Oh well.
What'd you mean by self-preservation? Sure, these people aren't "noble foot soldiers of the proletariat" or whatever, but why should they not want to preserve their current way of paying their bills?
Legal Custodian said:TCTTS said:Legal Custodian said:Capybara said:
How does anyone still believe in "free markets"? I guess the answer to that is due to unfettered Chicago School economics teaching for the past four decades. Go read Smith's The Wealth of Nations in entirety (if you can, since "free markets" have worked to erode attention spans); you'll be shocked to discover how poorly it, among many other works, has been taught.
Wtf are you doing attacking me? Do you have an actual thought on this or are you just going to point me to a classical economics book screaming "free markets are a lie!".
Studios can get the same work done without writing rooms and minimums. So why pay?
You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. They CAN'T get the same work done, and that's why this whole thing is falling apart.
You've already said that studios have been reducing the amount of writers on set and in the room for the past few years and it has worked for them.
The writing guilds are not just "aww shucks, we just want a fair raise." They're wanting to dictate how many writers are required to be on set, in the room, working on a script, how many days theyre required to be there whether necessary or not. That's not just a fair pay scale.
I get and fully support the battle on AI. And I understand their willingness to fight for their survival in the room. But it has clearly already been shifting to a gig profession for the past 5 years (accelerated by COVID).
Your argument is that studios can get the same work done without writing rooms and without writing room minimums.
But the very fact that the writers finally had enough, eventually refused to participate in mini-rooms, and went on strike because of mini-rooms, directly contradicts your argument.
The studios can't get the same work done because the *work* deemed the model unsustainable. The writers didn't strike because they're greedy, they went on strike because they literally couldn't keep working under those conditions. It's a model that simply doesn't afford them - or anyone - enough money to make a livable wage.
Meanwhile, there are no replacements waiting in the wings. No scabs, no AI. Neither of them can do the work at anywhere near the quality, therefore the work stops outright. Therefore, the model is broken.
Are the writers asking for *too many* guaranteed writers in a room? No doubt. But that's negotiating 101. You start higher than you want, hoping to meet in a tenable middle. The writers knew they'd eventually settle on lower minimums. The problem was, the studios offered NO minimums in return. They didn't even budge, and now here we are.
Then why are the studios putting the squeeze on these writers if it's going to destroy the business model?TCTTS said:Legal Custodian said:Capybara said:
How does anyone still believe in "free markets"? I guess the answer to that is due to unfettered Chicago School economics teaching for the past four decades. Go read Smith's The Wealth of Nations in entirety (if you can, since "free markets" have worked to erode attention spans); you'll be shocked to discover how poorly it, among many other works, has been taught.
Wtf are you doing attacking me? Do you have an actual thought on this or are you just going to point me to a classical economics book screaming "free markets are a lie!".
Studios can get the same work done without writing rooms and minimums. So why pay?
You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. They CAN'T get the same work done, and that's why this whole thing is falling apart.
Nah. Why on Earth would I choose to work in entertainment atm? I just know several people affected by this who are already beginning to feel the crunch and hate that I've seen maybe three good (new) movies in theaters since the pandemic began.
Quarterly growth. All these people care about is quarterly growth. Not a single one of them gives a sh*t about the landscape years from now. They just think AI will solve it then. So why not grind the hell out of the writers now, and by the time they're eventually ground to dust, they won't need them anymore.
I used my personal money to pay for my own on-set assistants for all of Station Eleven so they wouldn’t be split between multiple producers (impossible job) and so other EPs and Directors could have an assistant. https://t.co/7BLGfPXUJM
— Strikerick Somerville (@patrickerville) July 13, 2023
Capybara said:
What'd you mean by self-preservation? Sure, these people aren't "noble foot soldiers of the proletariat" or whatever, but why should they not want to preserve their current way of paying their bills?
Did you even read the statement i was responding to? You're arguing against points I didn't make, nor even try to make.
Yeah, they want to preserve their ability to write scripts with others with guarantees, instead of becoming the equivalent of Uber and Lyft drivers, DoorDash delivery drivers, Fiverr workers, etc. If this profession further moves to the latter mode, then everything will be written by the most boring people to ever exist, or LLM trained on previous scripts with adjustments by the former.
Last four comments in posts about Mark Wahlberg and Sound of Freedom. Embarrassing. Way more than me taking even five seconds to find this out.
Capybara said:
Yeah, they want to preserve their ability to write scripts with others with guarantees, instead of becoming the equivalent of Uber and Lyft drivers, DoorDash delivery drivers, Fiverr workers, etc. If this profession further moves to the latter mode, then everything will be written by the most boring people to ever exist, or LLM trained on previous scripts with adjustments by the former.
And at least Uber and Lyft drivers can work/make money whenever they want. There's no one telling them they can only work two weeks at a time, and no one ensuring that those two-week gigs are highly competitive/far and few between. I would also add that everything will be written not just by the most boring people, but mostly by trust fund kids and the like, the only ones who will be able to afford to do so. If people think scripts are sh*tty and Hollywood is pretentious now, just wait...
Studio heads are morons who don't understand things as simple as training. That, and yeah, free markets have never existed. Sorry?
Right, those are the types I was referring to. Like, do your thing and chill if you're in that position, but why burden anyone else with your sh/t writing?
Anyone who knows or cares about what Mark Wahlberg has been up to lately is worse off for it. Same with that movie tbh.
the writers and actors don't like being replaced by Artificial intelligence systems which can do their jobs for them at less costmavsfan4ever said:
Can someone give a quick/shirt summary of what the actors are asking for? I'm assuming more money, but why do they think they are entitled to more money if the market doesn't dictate paying them more? I read the tweet or lost saying that big tech has made the writing rooms smaller, etc but why should they have to keep writing rooms at a certain size if they can put out good content with fewer writers?
Not trying to be argumentative, just asking genuine questions. I've read the last couple pages of this thread but honestly don't know much at all about the positions of either side in the strike/negotiations.
and the backup actors may have their faces scanned and just put into background scenes for the next ten years without needing a human
technology can destroy much of Hollywood, and they are trying to fight against it. not sure what happens with the rest of the society- does Hollywood support truck drivers putting in regulations so they never lose their jobs to automated trucks?
Taylor Sheridan LITERALLY stated that Hollywood studios tried to force multiple writers on him and he told them to F off and he did it himself.TCTTS said:Legal Custodian said:Capybara said:
How does anyone still believe in "free markets"? I guess the answer to that is due to unfettered Chicago School economics teaching for the past four decades. Go read Smith's The Wealth of Nations in entirety (if you can, since "free markets" have worked to erode attention spans); you'll be shocked to discover how poorly it, among many other works, has been taught.
Wtf are you doing attacking me? Do you have an actual thought on this or are you just going to point me to a classical economics book screaming "free markets are a lie!".
Studios can get the same work done without writing rooms and minimums. So why pay?
You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. They CAN'T get the same work done, and that's why this whole thing is falling apart.
so you are not correct.
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