I’ve been “striking” for a long time now, against junk TV in general. There’s an occasional awesome show that delivers but 95% of it is low-effort junk TV like dating, survival, cooking and other shows like it.
I haven’t had live TV in years and it’s quite shocking to see what the average user deals with. Junk TV + ads that play 30% of the time is absolutely insane.
low-effort junk TV like dating, survival, cooking and other shows like it.
… in other words, exactly the shows that don’t use actors or writers
Huh. When you put it that way…
I haven’t had live TV in years and it’s quite shocking to see what the average user deals with. Junk TV + ads that play 30% of the time is absolutely insane.
Yeah, I’ve had the same experience. We don’t have live TV, and when we occasionally hang out with friends or family who do I’m always flabbergasted at the frequency and length of ad breaks nowadays, and similarly amazed that despite a nearly endless list of channels there never seems to be anything I actively want to watch.
I can’t believe the people that allow commercials to blare in their living rooms without diving for the remote control like the house is on fire. Is it just me? and they just continue normal conversation like it’s somehow possible to hear them.
diving for the remote control like the house is on fire
lol this is me, it’s not just you 😂
Our house is generally on the quieter side. Partly because some of us are on the spectrum, and partly because we like to actually hear each other when we converse. Haven’t paid for TV in years, don’t miss it.
sometimes its nice to have background noise.
most of the time though im with you though.
My parents still have cable TV (I just got them a Roku not long ago, so fingers crossed…), and at this point I can’t stand to watch it for more than about one and a half commercial breaks. It’s hard to believe anybody willingly subjects themselves to that trash when ad-free alternatives are available.
I had one of them first TiVos, then upgraded to them expanded versions modes online for 1TB of shows. The 30-second skip button pressed six(6) times would effectively (skip) the ads. Never looked back. When I see or hear a commercial at someone’s house it rocks me like I’m in a different dimension and time.
Personally I rarely watch TV in real time, so the only time of year I ever really see commercials is during the NFL season.
nfl redzone is the only way i can watch most of the sunday games anymore. going back to the regular broadcast just feels so slow and outdated.
You do you, my friend. I love the regular broadcasts.
Bruce was talking about it 30 years ago when we had 57 channels and nothin’ on. It’s only gotten worse since then.
deleted by creator
You forgot animated sitcom that either lasts 6 episodes or 16 seasons
lol only 30%?
jokes but i agree… i remember going to visit some relatives and sat and watched tv with them… i too was so shocked at how they’d sit idly thru commercials jarring into their show, slapping them in the face…
i can’t stand it. just about anything i watch, when i watch, is commercial free
I think they get that from most half hour shows are 22 minutes and hour shows only 42 minutes.
But if course networks have been known to cut them back even further to squeeze some more ads in
Hey now! Some of us like the cooking shows lol
Yeah. I’ll watch an occasional Gordon Ramsay here and there. I’m more referring to the baking shows, kids cooking shows and similar. But you know what I mean, replace all variants of cooking with the many variants of home improvement, how many do we need?
Yea there are simply too many, they’ve flooded the airways with a lot of garbage instead of a small amount of quality that reruns
Even the most high effort shows have so much useless digression and pointless characters that are developed and killed off in a single episode.
Lol get fucked Hollywood
UNION STRONG ✊
Good. More please. Hold these cucks accountable.
Destroying the planet for infinite wealth.
Yeah! I’m sick of it. Not only do they want infinite money but also infinite growth.
Literally like a cancer. Feasting on society until nothing is left.
You wanna get really mad? A new practice they were trying to pull off was bring in some young good looking actors; do 3d body scans, record a bunch of voice data, and then have them allow the studios a perpetual license to use their likeness for a few thousand bucks. How evil is that?
Removed by mod
This. I want more strikes. I’m tired of everything going to shit and the masses sit back and do nothing. I’ve gone to a few protests recently, and honestly it’s cheap therapy for me. Feels nice to actually DO something.
And what have you actually accomplished with marching and shouting? I went to quite a few BLM protests back in 2020, got tear gassed and shit along with my friends, and yet still haven’t seen anything meaningful change.
Change is slowwwww, my brother. It’s rare that an actual upheaval happens and things shift noticably overnight.
It is and always has been a long, long struggle, and there is no final victory, only temporary triumphs that must be vigorously defended, because the enemy will never stop trying to take back every inch.
I think it’s even more goddamn nefarious than just destroying the planet for wealth - if some of the shit I’ve been reading is right, then AI has changed the game and this strike is our fucking chance to get ahead of the shit that these studios want to pull. In what world is it okay to pay an actor a single day’s worth of work and retain their likeness in pepertuiry using AI generation.
I’ll admit that I’m not very knowledge on the whole workings of the AI part of it, but I do feel like every actor should have full control over their likeness and how it should be recorded and how it is applied to AI.
The 1% would murder us all and replace us with AI if given the chance, never forget that. They’d be too stupid to realize that the AI bots would take them out next.
I don’t care how fast AI can pump out “high quality content” because I refuse to consume any of it. I really hope the strikes are successful.
If it is high quality, why do you care how it was produced?
But it’s not the high quality content that’s threatened by AI, it’s the mediocre gargabe. It’s the endless stream of poor quality TV shows and movies which are produced not as art, but as a means of steady predictibile income for the companies involved. That’s the industry aspect of the business. This side of the business consumes most of the talent in the industry. They all know it’s not good and they all hope they will get the funding to actually work on the things they know will be high quality. I think AI will allow them to do that.
Further more, this strike is not just about AI. I think this aspect is the one media outlets care most about and gets reported on more. The entertainment industry has suffered a major shift with streaming platforms and the movement of money from production studios to streaming platforms has left the employees behind. They’re getting less money from streaming platforms but still do the same work. That’s what the strike is about. The industry didn’t care for them when it changed.
To answer your question about quality: it matters because it’s not real. The act of producing something of quality is what makes us better people. It ties into motivation to be better. Computers automating repetition doesn’t hinder that (as much, it does affect learning curves). The notion that computers be used for an output that would normally require creativity is just throwing away the essense of creation, the end product is not the only thing that benefits us. There’s no objective to why it was created, an AI writing something that evokes emotion is a party trick. All it really does is promote consumption and demoralize innovation, and ironically it hides behind innovation as the end-goal of the project. It’s just dead. One of the most beautiful things within creating something of value is the very process of creating it, having the passion and desire to do so, and the will to bring it into existence. AI is a cursed attempt at trying to replicate this process, and by lifting that kind of burden from a human inhuman.
I agree with you when it comes to AI in its current form - I wouldn’t even call it a party trick, just dumb luck. Machine learning through repetition will use existing ideas and tropes.
However you can provide the model with unique ideas, new tropes, characters, environments, and settings. The model in its current form could generate something nearly usable (script wise) and still be a valid piece of art with some cleaning up. Just because you save time doesn’t make an idea less “good”
In the future we could have near sentient AI that generates actual pieces of art far faster and better than a person can.
i refuse to believe AI can replace totally of the human part in the industry. Yeah some of the weak actors will be pushed out as they are not doing the job good enough, but it’s inevitable that one day technology is advanced that AI can actually replace human workforce. Like car manufacturing industry that have massive machines to assemble car parts, but also there are things only human can do. We don’t need crappy scriptwriters writing rubbish soap opera that my 10 year old daughter can write because they are no more generic than a AI churn out script. It’s like hiring a typewriter operator in 2023. Or rubbish actors that are like reading their script out with minimal effort and skills. It does not make sense.
typewriter operator in 2023
There’s this people called stenographers who are paid quite well, they can write hundreds of words per minute and essentially transcribe a conversation in real time. They are hired by courts to create records of the sessions, by journalists, parliaments and to transcribe subtitles for audiovisual media. They use this cool typewriter like machine called a stenotype that was invented in 1880. The thing is, they tried to replace them with speech recognition computers. They discovered they needed a human to sanitize input for the computer, essentially a person who can speak really fast and really mechanically, repeating what others said in the room, or what was said in the movie or whatever, into an oxygen-mask-like sound proof microphone. So, they still had to pay someone to be there. Many places decided they could just pay the stenographer and receive higher quality products despite the slightly higher costs. Then YouTube tried to use machine learning to auto-create closed captions. Before that they used a community contribution approach that depended on volunteers to take some time to transcribe the subs. That change to automation was such a fiasco that some big YouTube channels now advertise that they pay an actual company with humans to do the closed captions for their videos in the name of proper quality accessibility. Because automated closed caption tends to do interesting stuff and it’s even worse when they try to throw auto-translation into the mix.
The point is, people tend to not understand technology and how it relates to humans, specially techbros and techies who have the most skewed biases towards tech and little sociological understanding. Nothing can be accurately predicted in that realm, and most relations that result from the appearance of new technology are usually paradoxical to common sense.
There’s no objective to why it was created, an AI writing something that evokes emotion is a party trick.
Then it’s not valuable. The question still stands: if something is truly valuable, does it matter how it was created? You are not answering this question, you are simply pointing out why AI in your opinion cannot produce art. My question is a bit “tongue in cheek”, of course. It cannot be truly answered without a specific example of creation. I’m asking it to prove a point: we’re dismissing something we don’t understand.
All it really does is promote consumption and demoralize innovation
I’d argue that this is what Hollywood already does. And as you rightly argued through your comment, it brings little artistic or creative value.
To me, it’s the same feeling as the teachers that wouldn’t accept papers written on a computer (after an age where we know how to write) because “it’s less honest”.
I’m not good at drawing. I would love to try to make a game. Anti-AI luddites are happy that I will never produce something because I am incabable of doing something that an AI could easily accomplish.
Lol, ok.
I can’t wait for you to like something then change your mind when you find out it’s made by AI.
Lol.
I’m looking for an interaction with the artists. I do not care what an AI produces… and I don’t care what a marketing team or boardroom of producers produces. I’m looking for an artist’s vision.
Then hollywood is the wrong place to look. AI can make it even worse, but hollywood has been mostly devoid of expressing artistic vision long before AI came around.
I’m looking for an interaction with the artists.
How exactly are you interacting with them while sitting on your couch looking at a screen?
This is an appeal to purity argument. You’ve invented some higher standard (that doesn’t really even make sense) with the purpose of excluding the thing you don’t like.
Do you understand how art works at all?
That it’s an entirely subjective experience and to presume that someone’s enjoyment of it means that a human had to be involved in It’s creation is such a ridiculous response.
Have you ever seen the paintings that one chimpanzee made? They’re actually pretty nice in composition. Am I allowed to like the way they look even if no human made them?
So long as it’s not a glorified machine learning program designed to commit mass fraud and copyright infringement, then yes. Until then, go cry harder.
I’m going to think back to people like you in 15 years and smile at how naive you were.
not wanting to see things you don’t like. In art.
The audience responds en masse by tuning in, paying up, being changed, perpetuating the ideas back into the culture through the filter of their own personality, chatting about the thing, praising or criticizing the artist.
This is an appeal to purity argument. You’ve invented some higher standard
Nope. It has absolutely nothing to do with “purity.” It has to do with humans doing the ancient human thing of making art. Dancing, singing, telling stories. You’re bringing in the abstraction of purity.
Hollywood (in its crudest aspect) is already an AI algorithm for churning out trash. That’s why I tune out already. Because it is not humans telling each other stories. It is pure corporate manipulation. More AI in the hands of producer-goons just means more corporate manipulation and less humans telling each other stories.
AI in the hands of an artist is a tool for exploring and creating. AI in the hands of corporate goons is the total opposite.
Yeah. It’ll be nice if all the drivel in Hollywood were automated.
If you think you’re so good at what you do, then you can be what the AI learns from to improve.
Everyone else? Well, tough tamales. This is what progress looks like and blue collar workers have been feeling it ever since the industrial revolution.
You’re just not going to give up this crusade are you? Going to start comparing salaries of line workers to starving kids in Africa again?
What crusade?
These people don’t need more money, plain and simple.
deleted by creator
That’s not what progress looks like, but you do you, fam. We’ll be over here on our new federated sites watching stuff made by actual human beings while Hollywood starves to death as everyone else stops watching that garbage.
Or we will campaign the federal government to ban the tech outright and your lazy shill ass will have to actually do something useful to make a living.
We’ll be over here on our new federated sites watching stuff made by actual human beings
slowly puts away stable diffusion community subscriptions
I, too, got mad at the creation of the personal computer and lobbied congress to ban them because they aren’t as real as my subjective interpretation of reality, work, and honesty.
Removed by mod
honestly we need legislation that protects artists who use their art as a means to live
No we don’t. They can do something else.
It’s called the free market, baby.
Blue collar workers have been finding new ways to make money ever since the industrial revolution. Don’t be a Luddite.
If these people still want to make art, nobody is stopping them. They just have to get a real job too, like everyone else.
It’s okay. I think they can survive and still lead a higher quality of life than the vast majority of people on the planet.
They just have to get a real job too, like everyone else.
Would you mind expanding on what a “real” vs “fake” job is? I disagree with the premise entirely but i am not taking you with a loaded question, i am honestly curious about what that means to you (and by extension what other people who use that term might mean)
Jobs that are necessary for the survival of our species.
Jobs that people don’t do for fun. They do it because it needs to get done.
People will still act even if they don’t get paid for it. Will they, deliver food just for the fun of it? No, I didn’t think so.
So like, North Korea. Just a bunch of farmers and the military. I’d rather live in a world with joy and innovation.
There’s no such thing as a job necessary for the survival of the human race. The only thing jobs protect is the economic system, which doesn’t care about the human race.
Lol EVERYTHING we do is necessary for our survival, because of the fact that it’s humans doing it.
Removed by mod
That is one way to view it. However due to everyone, in including blue collar workers, having their lively hoods threatened by AI we need to ask the question if were okay, as a society, for there to be more jobs eliminated than created. Are we okay with the current ways and (some would say the illusion of) the free market controlling everything? Are we okay with letting people suffer needlessly? Would you be okay with looking into the eyes of someone you know and saying “too bad that’s the free market baby!” Because it’s starting with the arts but it’s not stopping there. It’s only a matter of time before it will not need many warm bodies to do things. The knowledge works are next on the list and it won’t be long after that where manual labors will be impacted. This is all WAY before we even hit AGI.
I’m not saying that AI taking jobs is a bad thing. I think it is an amazing thing but we need to start embracing it as an opportunity for things to be more Star Trek and less dystopian hellscape. That means changing this mindset that a lot of us have and start asking ourselves how do we want the world to look in 100 or even 500 years from now.
HTH
The free market kind of sucks at making art and I think it’s okay and good for the government to subsidize it.
You sound like a copypasta genertor
I saw a great strike sign- “I refuse to memorize lines written by a machine.”
But why? I feel like people are twisting their arguments against AI. Or they are being twisted against.
Why does an actor care where there lines come from? We live in a world where The Room was written and released, but AI content is going to be the end of media? People aren’t that special. Our thoights aren’t that special. We don’t have souls. We’re just thinking machines, and nothing we create is more unique than something that we created creates.
But why? …
Because this is about enshitification of life for studio exec profits. It’s not really about where a machine can or should be a part of creative works, but HOW they are being used.
Nearly very industry in which LLMs are being used in the latest hype wave, it’s not being used to improve anything but concentration of wealth in the hands of a dwindling number of individuals by worsening product quality and real ability of any of humanity, outside of those of hereditary wealth, to be get by.
because I refuse to consume any of it
I guarantee you already have and didn’t notice.
There’s a philosophical argument to be made for sure, and I’d probably even agree with you. But the reality is that the technology is here, and it’ll be used in pursuit of the almighty buck.
That’s what makes it especially insidious. We want entertainment made by people, for people, not by AIs for corporations and their pockets.
I’m fine with AI content. It’s going to make making media so much easier for people who aren’t inherently artistic but have a vision they want to show.
There are already teams of humans ready to do all that stuff. AI adds nothing there. The non-artistic person with a vision can already collaborate with skilled artists.
But more importantly, we are not worried about artists using AI as a tool. We are worried about corporate goons using AI to fire all creative staff and generate manipulative trash.
The first company that debuts an entirely AI film will be a game changer, since it’s training set will be all the greats/popular films from Godfather, Taxi Driver, Jurassic Park, Star Wars, Inglorious Bastards, and Parasite.
Then everyone will want to get in on the game and we’ll see a huge number of AI films. To be noticable and unique, a certain amount of hallucinating will be allowed. After a couple more years, you’ll see model collapse as the film AIs are now using other AI output as their training input.
AI systems need a steady “diet” of human created material to continue to create material that is relevant and interesting to humans.
Robert Evans has a great episode on “behind the bastards” about AI and children’s books. The majority of Kindle published children’s books and coloring books are AI generated. There are Kindle books on how to make hundreds of AI children’s books a month using AI tools, including how to write the prompt for the AI input.
Okay so instead of me just working on a fun product for free in my own time, I have to pay someone a fair wage as if this is a commercial product I’m producing?
There’s several people in this thread arguing we should outright ban the use, instead of coming up with ways to protect artists without artificially limiting AI.
I have to pay someone a fair wage as if this is a commercial product I’m producing?
There’s several people in this thread arguing we should outright ban the use,
I didn’t see anyone ITT making that argument, and anyway this whole debate is specifically and explicitly about hollywood goons using AI to churn out trash without paying the talent. It’s not about some broke artist using AI to bring his vision to life. As I already said. It’s beyond straw man to treat that as the position that’s being criticized
Stop being lazy and learn how to make your own shit. You aren’t entitled to other people’s skills.
He says on a computer instead of hiring a postal worker to deliver his message.
In my own words instead of having ChatGPT do your thinking for you, the way you do
I would prefer AI content.
I hope there is some kind of “label” that comes out of this like the Surgeon General’s cigarette warning. “This movie is 87% AI generated” so I won’t have to bother thinking about whether to skip it. Fuck lazy & greedy movie makers. They’d giveup their immortal soul for $3.50
I do too hope the strikes are successful. That said, you’ve likely already been consuming generative technology for some time now. Disney alone has nearly a decade of research into it already. Advanced VFX applications use all sorts of generative tech too. When I was working in LA we referenced public data all the time. I know it’s gotten a huge spotlight on it given private AI capitalizing/evangelizing it all but the very real threat of digital scabs taking people’s jobs needs the biggest spotlight right now. I do think the tables will turn if nothing good can come out of Hollywood and those artists begin weaponizing that same tech against the execs. I see what studios are doing as no different than impersonation & identity theft by using this tech to limit working hours to skirt union protections.
It’ll be funny when we start watching stuff and can’t tell what is AI and what isn’t.
I fully expect people like you to like something and then hate it after you find out it was made by AI.
Lol.
It’s funny to me because all these people are saying exactly what everyone used to say about mobile phones, about the internet, about computers… I know so many people who railed against the internet saying they’d never use it and that computers only make things more difficult - now they’re all yelling on Facebook about how the evil corporations they work for aren’t letting them work from home lol
AI will keep getting better and the way people use it will continue to evolve, there will be truly great things made by obsessive outsiders which speak to people in ways nothing has… Just like with every minor technical or social Innovation in art. Many of the giants of the old era will vanish and many new greats will grow and start to stagnate into conformity…
I’m excited for the future and all the interesting things it brings, we can’t just stop creativity and progress because some affluent performers want guarantees of stability which just don’t exist in reality
Fuck hollywood.
This would be good opportunity for people to start new film studios and such, founded on more equal profit sharing. Let greedy pieces of shit shrivel and die without labor to exploit. There is no negotiating with those kinds of people as they will just try to find ways to force and manipulate people to do what they want.
It’s ironic that Hollywood was created by filmmakers and actors who got tired of being exploited by investors and cinemas alike.
It’s the circle of
liiiiiifecapitalism.“Money makes the world go around…”
“Greed is good”
Making money is fine, but at what cost?
How’s that capitalism?
People dislike a greedy business.
Start a humble competing business.
Greedy business falls in line or fails.
Competing business now free to push profits, becoming greedy business.
People dislike a greedy business.People dislike a greedy business. Start a humble competing business. Greedy business lowers prices to crush competition, or buys it outright. People continue to dislike a greedy business.
Wut? Are you 13 years old or something?
Actually, they moved to Hollywood so they wouldn’t be under Edison’s camera patents.
They should call it “United Artists”!
And… Jeff Bezos already owns it.
Ribbit
Charlie Chaplin did a similar thing - United Artists. Then it got sold to MGM. and so on
This is the best possible outcome. No one wants that AI generated shit while actors and behind the scenes people make starvation wages.
Removed by mod
So if we’re going to have AI replacing Actors, Animators, VAs, Writers and everything there’s going to be a lot less people to pay and ticket prices will go down by 90% right?
The whole population will benefit from AI and not just people who already make way too much money like it happened with pretty much every other technological innovation right?
Dont listem to them, they are trolling
Just like WallStreet, the ultimate goal is to also replace audiences entirely with AI sentient viewers. That way they can create millions of viewers who will be pre-primed to want to watch the same pieces of media several hundred times. They can even view the movie at 500% speed so they can do so in a shorter timespan than meat viewers. OpenAI will be the first company to offer culturally insensitive and politically neutral 100% synthetic audiences to feed your Hollywood releases. For just cents per 1 million viewers/hour you too can release a blockbuster. This includes Twitch and YouTube audiences!
Bro you are waaaaayyyyy overly optimistic on who AI is gonna benefit :) . It won’t be the 99% in the end.
That was sarcasm, I thought the “Right? Right?” was enough to give it away lol
The whole population will benefit from AI and not just people who already make way too much money like it happened with pretty much every other technological innovation right?
Humanity benefited from the invention of the printing press. Humanity benefited from the industrial revolution. Humanity benefited from the invention of computers. Humanity will benefit from AI too, greatly so. This is not what is up for debate. Some people made fortunes from it, but does that matter when you compare it to how much good it brought about?
Did it really benefit that much from it though? We can now be infinitely more productive while working, but are still required to work the same work week and have the same purchasing power, if not less in some countries. And the products made with that work cost pretty much the same, even though it costs much less to produce them.
Very rarely a technological innovation actually ended up improving common people’s quality of life, and the ones that did were due to being improving of the end product in nature.
AI doesn’t improve the end product (rather, currently it worsens it), it just improves the efficiency. And like with the Industrial Revolution, people will get paid the same, will have to work the same amount of time, and their end products will cost the same. CEOs will benefit from it and no one else, if history says anything.
You probably don’t know history.
Just from a quick Google search. Skip to the end if you want raw hour comparison.
I’ll gladly accept a huge AI implementation if it means cutting even 20% of current working hours while keeping the same salary, but I’m really skeptical on that.
That’s not what I’m debating. What about healthcare? What about acces to education? What about infant death rates? What about travel? What about not having to worry about starvation? Clean water directly into your home? Hot water too? Electricity? Have these not improved the quality of life greatly? You must not know history if you think your average peasant was living a better life preindustrialisation.
I’m not sure what work you’re doing at the moment but you seem pretty burned out by it. Maybe it’s time for a change
So your argument isn’t against AI, it’s against studios. Or your argument is against us, and our complacency when it comes to corporate or profit overreach.
I don’t see how you could take that as an argument against AI in general. Stanley Yelnatz wasn’t wrong for looking for the shorter shovel.
Sure, just like my gripe is mainly with school shooters rather than with guns, and with crazy billionaires rather than with social media.
But since you can’t realistically regulate the users to a healthy level, you have to regulate the tool. Because, just like those other two things, the benefit it brings to regular people is minuscule compared to the harm it can do.
You have a serious agenda huh champ
Err… no. I just don’t agree with what the crowd is saying in this regard.
Don’t they have an agenda?
deleted by creator
Wow it’s almost like people’s tolerance for ruthless exploitation isn’t infinite. Hollywood’s disgusting parasitic grifters can get fucked.
I honestly don’t know how I feel. Most content feels like ‘consume our product/content and give us monthly fee’ instead of nice shows and movies. Everything seems to have a point where it pulls me out and I find myself questioning if I’m crazy or if everything feels like shit.
There are some amazing gems, but for years it feels like Hollywood has cared less and less about making cool and engaging media and are instead of focusing on manipulating people.
I’m sure the problem is coming from the top, but writers and actors have been pretty shit too
I think that’s in part due to nepotism. It seems like everyone who’s successfully in entertainment is the child or grandchild of someone else who was successful in entertainment. The same is true for the music industry and its starting to become true in the AAA gaming industry.
When people start to get those jobs because of their family connections rather than their ability everything goes downhill. The most obvious example outside of entertainment is politics.
You’re worried about the 1%, this is about the 99% behind the scenes, doing supporting roles, building sets, etc . Don’t let movie execs take your eyes off the prize, that’s what they want.
Actors and writers use what they’re fed, this is 99% on movie execs.
I’ve barely even noticed this writers strike because I’ve hardly even bothered to watch any new Hollywood movies or TV shows in literally years. Everything I have seen recently has been complete garbage. So I find myself watching older shows again and again, more YouTube content, educational and history stuff like that…heck, I’ve been following some modern film critics like Red Letter Media and just watch their commentary vs the real thing, and it’s usually much more entertaining.
I think Hollywood is going to use this opportunity to replace the writers with AI. If it works great, if it doesn’t work, nobody will notice or care.
I subscribed to Britbox and find the writing and acting of much higher quality. Plus, the stories are generally more interesting with more feeling. I mainly watch that, watchTCM, and certain YouTube channels.
Other than the nightly shows, you won’t be seeing the impacts of these strikes for months. Films and shows take a lot of time to go from inception to finished product. For movies I wouldn’t be surprised if the impact doesn’t happen until next year.
To wit – we’re just now, seeing the tail-end of a lot of the COVID-19 shutdowns percolate up through the delayed releases and shortened seasons for a bunch of shows, and most of those shutdowns were gosh, almost 2 years ago now.
Everything is shit. Quality is down and prices are up.
People gladly have been lowering their standards for years so those profiting off of them can make even more money.
Most actors are awful these days. Like, look at Chris Pratt lmao. That guy is terrible but very popular among children and manchildren.
We don’t have this generations’ Tom Hanks yet.
The only way to watch live action stuff that isn’t kiddie-bullshit is to watch things in other languages. They still have integrity and aren’t just loading their actors up on cocaine to cover up bad acting.
This is probably the worst take I’ve ever heard. It’s actually amazing how much i disagree with almost everything you’ve written here.
And, Tom Hanks is still acting, Tom Hanks is literally this generations Tom Hanks.
There’s so much excellent acting and directing in the world at the moment i just can’t fathom how you have come to your conclusions.
I’m sorry, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.
Hope you like the new marvel movie coming out.
Yes, only marvel movies come out now. Everything else is actually banned at the moment. Christ, your takes are fucking awful.
Banshees of Inisherin? The Whale? Everything Everywhere All At Once? Succession? The Bear?
There’s loads of great acting out there. Maybe the issue is you’re buying tickets to Chris Pratt instead of other things?
Removed by mod
The big name movies now are so cringeworthy and require zero thought on the part of the viewer. I’d be almost embarrassed to go watch them. The worst part is that I used to watch them because there was just nothing else to see, until one day I was so bored that I walked out of the theatre. To my surprise, I was even approached and given a refund by the manager without asking… maybe they watched it too and understood the pain.
You are equating “big name” with quality. That has almost never been true since movie blockbusters became a thing. Go ask any movie history buff/expert. You are very wrong if you think blockbusters were some kind of artsy tear jerkering, mind bending, raved over by critics products. They’ve almost always been formulaic.
But are those the things that get marketing? I’m with you on loving that content, but none of the main theatres in my area (a city of 7 million) even show them. A couple will put them into the standard screen theatres at oddball times to fulfill their contracts, but the good content is in the local dollar theatres where, of course, the movie gets less traffic.
I think what they’re saying is that the movies that you’re “supposed” to watch are things like those god awful Harry Potter prequels (literally any fanfic amateur could have written them better), the ten thousandth Marvel movie (seriously, just stop), or those Adam-Sandler style low effort white trash movies that run solely on the recognition of the probably male and supposedly “so talented” lead actor.
When most people pick movies to watch in a theatre it’s typically based on which movie no one will object to. So it needs a bit of action, a bit of romance, a bit of comedy… It also needs to have brand/actor recognition. So you get Marvel. There’s nothing wrong with this, but it’s a different market from the one you’re in.
But are those the things that get marketing? I’m with you on loving that content, but none of the main theatres in my area (a city of 7 million) even show them. A couple will put them into the standard screen theatres at oddball times to fulfill their contracts, but the good content is in the local dollar theatres where, of course, the movie gets less traffic.
I think what they’re saying is that the movies that you’re “supposed” to watch are things like those god awful Harry Potter prequels (literally any fanfic amateur could have written them better), the ten thousandth Marvel movie (seriously, just stop), or those Adam-Sandler style low effort white trash movies that run solely on the recognition of the probably male and supposedly “so talented” lead actor.
Chris Pratt is definitely not a great actor, he’s mediocre at best. However, he’s in tons of blockbuster movies so that’s why he’s popular, not necessarily because people think he’s talented.
The other stuff you said is just nonsense. There are tons of great, well written, acted, and directed movies. You just have to look outside the mainstream/blockbuster releases. If you only focus on the big releases from major studios like Disney, then yeah you’ll think that it’s nothing but shallow garbage. But there’s way more content nowadays, so it’s harder to sift thru the massive diluge of content out there.
Removed by mod
As a gen X I can tell you that quality is not down and that you have tunnel vision. Go watch some 80s/90s shows lmao. Most are garbage, with only a few gems. It has definitely gotten better as competition increased.
There’s a bit of a point there, though. As summarized by Futurama,
Fry: Married? Jenny can’t get married.
Leela: Why not? It’s clever, it’s unexpected.
Fry: But that’s not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared.
Hollywood caters to what people want. What people want is often not “good”.
We remember the good movies and forget the schlock. We remember 1976 as “Taxi Driver” and not “The Gumball Rally”.
Um. So watch other languages. They have integrity and.no coke. Cause coke actors… they are low paid and have to stay up and beat their bodies down to get paid.
Got it. This is fascinating fabrications Your imaginations almost rivals your thoughts.
Removed by mod
What’s it going to take to actually do something about these ultra-rich leeches literally destroying our planet and everything good on it to inflate a number in a bank somewhere? How do we actually build up the initiative to stop it?
All our other problems seem largely centered around our inability to appropriately respond to extreme greed. Not only in actually actively stopping it, but in even identifying it or being able to properly censure it in the first place. The moment you start talking about the rich being the cause of our problems, there’s a section of society that starts tuning you out. I definitely feel like as things get worse people are starting to catch on, but even once we’re there, where do we go?
If we actually get to the point of agreeing that excessive wealth is inherently misanthropic and should be a crime in and of itself, how do we make it a crime while so much power sits in the hands of those who’d be on the losing end of that decision?
I hope the WGA and SAG can spark a change in people’s consciousness around labor. I’d honestly love to see a lot more interviews and independent podcasts coming from the picket lines. If there’s anyone who can convince Americans to fight for the value of their labor, it’s the people write and play the parts in the stories they love.
The fact that most people will reflexively reject and wilt at the idea of a wealth cap, or at least enforceablely taxing every dollar made above a certain amount at 99%, is a testament to the many decades of often-subtle propaganda that makes people think that modern western capitalism is the only way. As well as the continuing de-funding of public education and making colleges less accessible.
And another part of the problem (and IMO one of the biggest ones) is that the propaganda is only their first line of defense. If the rich and ultra powerful feel actually threatened, they don’t have to rely on soft power. See Epstein’s fate as well as the Panama papers reporter.
I want to add on some quick math. Some people will look at this and scoff, saying that actors are millionaires and are more similar to these billionaire leeches than to us. A billion isn’t a number you can easily wrap your head around – I have trouble putting it into the correct perspective and scale, and I’m an engineer. It’s really difficult. So to try and show exactly how much money we’re talking here, I’m going to use time:
- 35k seconds, 9.7 hours
- 70k seconds, 19.4 hours
- 100k seconds, 1.16 days
- 250k seconds, 2.9 days
- 1m seconds, 11.6 days
- 10m seconds, 115.7 days
- 100m seconds, 3.2 years
- 1b seconds, 31.7 years
I haven’t even lived for 1 billion seconds yet, and I’m 28! Even an actor who’s racked up $100m over a successful career is closer to $0 than they are to $1b. Now arguably I’d say $100m is at the point where it needs to be treated similarly to $1b, but even so. The average working adult is closer to an actor in terms of wealth than these disgusting hoarders.
In reality, every dollar isn’t equal, and what this analysis doesn’t take into account is the amount leftover after all necessities are paid for, which is the reason why someone making $35k is not living like a millionaire. The point here is, a billion is incredibly big. It’s unfathomable. Unless the person protesting is a billionaire, they’re on your side against the leeches and absurdly wealthy.
(I suspect this is why actors tend liberal and billionaires tend conservative.)
What’s it going to take to do something about these ultra rich assholes
Let’s be honest the only answer is [redacted], they effectively own the government in the US and it’s not much better in Europe
Not all revolutions require blood, but I feel like capitalism is going to fight real hard to stay around. Even though that’s exactly what needs to go
We need enough people to agree on both a vehicle and a direction.
-
There are a lot of people dissatisfied with the current government(s) but don’t agree how to create change; be it through the current system, major modifications to the current system, or even more severe changes.
-
There are a lot of people who don’t want wide spread poverty/suffering, but don’t agree on how that problem should be dealt with; be it through universal income, massive public projects, or wealth taxation and better competition regulations.
IMO we need a new digital/decentralized/open-source/transparent ‘social media platform’ that can replace the current easily manipulated electoral systems.
We need ideas & policies to be independently actionable from the partisan politics that afaic specifically exist to mitigate change and maintain the influence of money in policy.
Not sure if this is directly applicable but there’s the concept of dual power, where you can organize a bottom up power structure that takes some power from the regular government without needing to either submit to it or outright overthrow it. With that said it has only ever been successful in cases where the government is incredibly unstable to begin with.
I agree that that we do need something like a collective action platform so people can coordinate much better than they currently do. Also something that you didn’t directly mention but I think you imply is that there doesn’t need to be complete agreement before action is taken because there are alot of valid disagreements on how to move forward but there are also alot of agreements as well that are ignored in public conversation because we take those points as a default.
I’ve been working on something similar to this on my own time (which you can see in my post history) but honestly we won’t move forward if we don’t actively start working together properly.
-
Robin Hood Rebellion. Start taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
That’s a really good question. Part of the problem, of course, is that the game is rigged: consider how difficult it is to buy food that doesn’t feed the Nestle war chest.
As a society, I think there are moves in the right direction - I just stumbled across something called Community Wealth Building, which is very cool, for example.
But as a private individual? That’s harder. I’d love it if there were an Amazon equivalent out there that sourced exclusively from worker owned co-ops, or at least unionized businesses, but as it is, I’m coming up dry…
The moment you start talking about the rich being the cause of our problems, there’s a section of society that starts tuning you out.
That’s because this is an insane claim.
If we actually get to the point of agreeing that excessive wealth is inherently misanthropic and should be a crime in and of itself
This is a massive “If.” I could probably never be convinced that one person’s wealth is inherently detrimental to someone else’s well-being.
These are very extreme views. I support the Hollywood strike, my buddy is a union leader (as were both my parents), and I’m a reliably Democrat voter, and I couldn’t disagree more with what you’ve said above.
That’s because this is an insane claim.
Consider that they have the power to massively improve everyone’s lives but are choosing not to.
Perhaps they didn’t personally cause and create some of those problems, but they are still the only ones with the power to make the necessary changes, so the continuation of those problems is indeed their doing.
In what way does the logistics revolution spurred by Amazon’s growth not massively benefit every person who buys anything in the US? You’re seriously suggesting with a straight face, that Microsoft hasn’t saved literally hundreds of millions of lives just in database tech alone?
You’re talking out of your ass here man. Hell, you’re putting billionaires on par with running a government which is simply absurd.
It’s not on rich people to save the fucking world, though Bill Gates has personally done more for the world than most governments ever have. It’s on voters to pass policies that provide them better lives. That’s the point of democracy
Are you serious lmao
You think billionaires have no influence on government? Please
I think you don’t understand how government functions in any real way at all
If you still have the bird app or some other method, send your support of solidarity to your favorite actors. They will definitely appreciate it.
Oh hi barbie
Hi there! Sorry, no movie promotions, I’m on strike.
What about my favorite studios ?
I’m… not sure?
Fuck the studios. Go union!
Glad you guys are fighting so hard to make more money while children go without food and water.
History really does repeat itself and that’s why these problems never get solved.
Well you can’t solve em for sure. All you are is hot air.
Ok.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, I’m on strike.
Good thing you have the excess to be able to strike!
Despair is the enemy of progress.
If you insist on being so cynical and hateful that you reject people who are trying to improve society somewhat, then I think you should leave.
No, I’m not being cynical.
I’m arguing in favor of reducing the disparity in wealth. You’re arguing in favor of exacerbating it.
This is why history continues to repeat itself.
So between actors and giant movie studios, you definitely prefer the giant movie studio makes more money while the human beings make less?
I’m glad more and more workers are realizing the power they have over the industries they’re working in.
Without the workers, the businesses have nothing. We really need to have a serious revolution before they replace all jobs with AI robots.
deleted by creator
Burn Hollywood burn, taking down Tinseltown
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground
meh
Is $25,000 per annum a living wage LA? To think that these are getting so little is nuts.
deleted by creator
I imagine that’s poverty in any state
“Low income”, as defined by the state, is anything below $70,650 in Los Angeles county.
Good question! I looked up the poverty line in LA specifically. And here are the results:
Persons in Family Household - Poverty Guideline (annually): 1 person - $14,580 / 2 persons - $19,720 / 3 persons - $24,860
This is a very quick look for an answer. I don’t fully understand the results.
The long and short of it is $25,000/year is over the poverty line for a single person household but barely over the poverty line for a 2 person household. It is the poverty line for a household of 3 or more people.
It is unclear how this factors in housing, and if it includes owning property and renting. A 3 person household is generally considered to be two adults and a child or dependant. Livable, depends on what you considered livable. If owning a house and starting a family is part of having a libable life, I would say they are probably not earning a livable wage.
Source: Californial Department of Public Health https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DOA/Pages/OA_ADAP_Federal_Poverty_Guideline_Chart.aspx
Edit formatting
That chart looks like it uses the federal poverty line. A sweeping guideline to cover all of the US.
Not even close
Hollywood is dead anyway. They just make superhero movies for china now
They’ve been making alternate versions of every movie for china since 2008. Especially disney. Disney is such a cuck to china that they declared all the winnie the pooh characters as public domain to appease Ping.
好萊塢沒有死。
deleted by creator
jejeje
Good, I hope more join in and walk until Hollywood caves…They won’t like this negative attention. 😁
