Actors join Writers on strike

Do people seriously want AI written movies? The amount of regurgitating the same **** is bad enough as it is, using tools that are literally regurgitating an amalgamation of whats already out there is going to make it a million times worse.
No, I think it'll be awful. I can appreciate great performances from actors and real stunts, rather than CGI. But I think the majority don't see it like this (Avatar and Avatar 2 being a case in point). Ultimately money talks, and if AI can churn out commercially safe product then that'll be what happens at the expense of everything else.
 
God no, what would be the most likely change in the short-term whilst AI is in its infancy would, I think, be as Pawnless Endgame mentioned - AI comes up with the core idea, humans then "polish" the idea to make it useable - and I think thats possibly valid for most things which needs to be done as "written language" (rather than improv/off the cuff/live etc) so not just TV/Film scripts but song lyrics, news articles, academic work, clerical work etc.

As over used but funny as the meme is - I welcome our AI overlords :D
That could lead to an issue with copyright. The AI could spit out a plot from some obscure media. If some recognises it, that’s an expensive lawsuit.
 
That could lead to an issue with copyright. The AI could spit out a plot from some obscure media. If some recognises it, that’s an expensive lawsuit.

There's copyright issues with human written stuff all the time so it's not like it'd be much different than now, no matter who/what wrote it. The opposite would be the interesting case to argue - "who legally owns AI created material?" - is the people who made the AI, the AI itself, the people who asked the AI to create something, the people who looked over and edited the AI work etc etc. That one could be a legal minefield!
 
There's copyright issues with human written stuff all the time so it's not like it'd be much different than now, no matter who/what wrote it. The opposite would be the interesting case to argue - "who legally owns AI created material?" - is the people who made the AI, the AI itself, the people who asked the AI to create something, the people who looked over and edited the AI work etc etc. That one could be a legal minefield!
Not sure about writing but for AI images they have no copyright protection. There is a potential that this will follow suit.
 
This is probably a good thing for the general consumer. A purge is coming. Writers who never earned their jobs will be cut loose. The state of new movies and TV shows are a joke.

What’s the difference in AI copy and pasting than the current crop of hacks?
 
AI is a very small part of the standoff, apparaently. It's just these days those 2 letters drive a media frenzy, and are so badly understood!

This article covers some of the other sticking points, predictably, mainly related to money (like most strikes).



rp2000
 
Bit of a worry for everyone employed in the industry, if there's no new content there's no work, companies will start laying people off as they'll have no cash flow. VFX house near my work has gone bankrupt and others are laying people off.
 
Bit of a worry for everyone employed in the industry, if there's no new content there's no work, companies will start laying people off as they'll have no cash flow. VFX house near my work has gone bankrupt and others are laying people off.
I’d imagine VFX artists will be the first to suffer - well maybe after freelance production crew :(

So many people in here talk like this is happening elsewhere, but the film and HETV industry is massive in the uk; https://www.bfi.org.uk/news/officia...£6.27 billion film,production spend in the UK

Yeah it’s “Hollywood” money coming in for a lot of that, but it’s providing jobs and livelihoods for so many people.

I’ve heard rumours at my place that the higher ups are planning for this to last quite a few months which really is not good news.
 
Interested to read a lot about the paltry residuals for streaming; https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/jul/17/actors-strike-streaming-1-cent-paycheque

However on the flipside - what were these actors paid upfront for their work? I can't imagine it'd be low figures. I know a lot of us complain "I don't get residuals in my job" and that's true. But they are there to cover actors in leaner times so I fully understand they need to get something meaningful. It's just strange you can read a story like that^ and it not mention their actual salary for a role :confused:
 
Of course. But the same point stands. Surely these people get paid pretty well when actually working on a show/film, they don't do it for free.

But it's the way it works, they get paid up front and then they get paid based on how successful it is. Where as now they're cutting the latter bit out and pocketing it themselves, or removing shows/films from streaming to avoid paying them. Imagine if they suddenly stopped giving tips to waiters aren't started pocketing them, would you be saying well it's fine they get a wage anyway? And no they aren't paid pretty well, the top end is but that is not who you should focus on. Saying Tom Cruise is paid well therefore complaints are silly is ignoring the lower end that is struggling to pay rent and put food on the table.
 
But it's the way it works, they get paid up front and then they get paid based on how successful it is. Where as now they're cutting the latter bit out and pocketing it themselves, or removing shows/films from streaming to avoid paying them. Imagine if they suddenly stopped giving tips to waiters aren't started pocketing them, would you be saying well it's fine they get a wage anyway? And no they aren't paid pretty well, the top end is but that is not who you should focus on. Saying Tom Cruise is paid well therefore complaints are silly is ignoring the lower end that is struggling to pay rent and put food on the table.
Perhaps my post (quoting the Guardian article) wasn't clear. Or you're misunderstanding it. I'm well aware we shouldn't focus on the top-end of talent, I support the strike. I just find it strange that the Guardian wrote a whole article on it without mentioning "base" payments (I don't know what they're called). The way it was written makes out none of these people were paid anything apart from their residuals and that they're on the breadline. Whereas in my experience in the industry I know companies like Netflix especially pay heaps more than their competitors (both staff and freelance crew). The Guardian was making out these people are on the breadline when I doubt that is the case. It's just a weird article.
 
Irrespective of what your job is, if you're having to rely on limited residuals rather than via a wage to "survive" and its not enough, then the hard adult decision would be either to move to a different but better paid job in the same sphere, change job types completely (as hard as that would be), work more than 1 job (again, hard) or live with it and quit complaining (as it'd be your decision to remain).

People should know what their wages will be when they work and I personally find the idea of "relying" of some unknown, variable amount of cash from past work to be an extremely bad financial decision and I wonder if this current situation could be considered "the chickens coming home to roost" for a lot of folks who are having to make hard adult decisions for the first time and not enjoying it, as I doubt many people working one or more minimum wage jobs in the US to support their family really care about what they perceive as "rich people whining", when objectively that isn't really the case here.
 
But it's the way it works, they get paid up front and then they get paid based on how successful it is. Where as now they're cutting the latter bit out and pocketing it themselves, or removing shows/films from streaming to avoid paying them. Imagine if they suddenly stopped giving tips to waiters aren't started pocketing them, would you be saying well it's fine they get a wage anyway? And no they aren't paid pretty well, the top end is but that is not who you should focus on. Saying Tom Cruise is paid well therefore complaints are silly is ignoring the lower end that is struggling to pay rent and put food on the table.
from googling one of the bit parts in Orange is the new black for 3 episodes was getting paid 900$ a day


How much are these people getting paid in their normal jobs? minimum wage in america seems to be anywhere from 7 to 17$

seems like a good wage for someone who was basically playing an extra


Residuals are just a bonus at these levels
 
Last edited:
from googling one of the bit parts in Orange is the new black for 3 episodes was getting paid 900$ a day


How much are these people getting paid in their normal jobs? minimum wage in america seems to be anywhere from 7 to 17$

seems like a good wage for someone who was basically playing an extra


Residuals are just a bonus at these levels
Except that you might not be getting those jobs very often and then trying to live off very low wages jobs in some of the most expensive places in the country.

Something like 80-90% of actors earn under 25k a year from acting in the US*, and residuals are for many pretty much what helps them survive between jobs, whilst the industry needs that large pool of actors otherwise you get 80's "Downunder" syndrome where you recognise half the extras in every Aussie show from being on every other show, or like in the UK when you'd recognise someone as being in The Bill one week, Casualty the next, and London's Burning if they got the triple in the 80's here.

It's worth noting that that is likely for a speaking extra, not for a non speaking one, and the latter out number the former by a huge margin.
It's also worth noting that out of that $900 a day the actors will be paying their agent 10% as standard, paying taxes, paying for their own healthcare etc (remember this is the US and if you don't earn enough to get the SAG healthcare), hopefully putting money aside for retirement, paying to get to and from auditions etc and spending time practicing for that audition. From what I've read it can take several days of an actors time, unpaid to get one paid role and that role might be at ~$900 a day for the time they spend on set, but they can easily spend several times that just getting it. Then you've got the roles they spend time/money trying to get but don't.

And to give you an idea of how much worse it's got under current streaming contracts than it used to be, there was a guy who was an extra in Pitch Perfect pointing out that for his "Singing extra" role he got paid several thousand dollars, then his first residual check when the DVD's came out covered his first term (or was it year?) of accommodation at University, current contracts were written based on the idea that Streaming was an extra and would promote the TV or physical release and thus the residuals are far smaller and with no independent oversight - so there is no way to tell if a Netflix or WB show has been seen by a million people in a week or 100k unless the streamer is making a big thing about it.
Then there is the thing where the streaming services (looking at WB especially) have basically decided to just blackhole productions of entire films and series, which means that any plan by the people working on it to hope for residuals to help bring in an income long term is utterly destroyed, meanwhile the execs who get paid far more and with no risk keep getting a payrise and bonuses for "saving money" on residuals. Not to mention the blackholing also means that actors work isn't seen, so they've spent potentially months working on something and there is nothing to show to future clients and no chance a casting director will see them in it and think "that's who I want for my next show".

So yeah, you might get a nice daily rate, but you might only get that for 20-30 days a year with several times that spent trying to get roles,** unless you're a regular on a show and even then you're probably not working in acting more days than you are unless you're main cast. IIRC the old ambition of many more aware actors in the US wasn't to be a huge name, but to get a part as a regular (even as small reoccurring speaking part) in a show that ran for several seasons and got into syndication and reruns, as that was the true way to any form of financial stability for the vast majority of actors.

Screen Writers are in an even worse way, because their work tends to be even more sporadic and whilst it usually pays out far more per job than an actor, that is for far more time spent on it and potentially months or years after they've done the work, I've seen so many jokes from Writers about the strike basically saying "yeah 3+ months without a paycheck from writing is the norm, the system has trained us to cope with this"
WB save £100m due to writers strike delaying flops :cry:

And then probably paying even more when they finally start production up again :D
I honestly don't think the WB exec who made the comment about they money they were "saving" had a clue about what happens to the income for the company when the stuff they've got ready to go is all used up, or if he was joking or bluffing hard. I remember the last writers strike and it took something like a year or more for things to get back to something like normal as it threw everything out of sync, and IIRC nearly caused one of the studios to go bust due to the disruption to their income.


*It might be a lower amount of money and a higher percentage don't make it, but the actors etc know because of the SAG dues, and you need that ~25k earned to pay enough into SAG to be fully covered by it's benefits (the key one being healthcare).

**There is a reason for the stereotype of the jobbing actor working in things like bars, and it's because that's the sort of work that lets you fit it in around unpaid auditions and prep time.
 
Last edited:
This is quite possibly an accelerator.

If AI is going to take these jobs.. It will.
No amount of striking is going to stop it.
As with everything, in our capitalist model, if AI can do it nearly as well for what is effectively free.. Its going to happen.


You're literally talking about a film being able to be made in under a day if AI can do it all.

And it will cost? Pretty much 0!


It could come very very quickly.


I totally understand the fear. But if its gonna happen.. Its gonna happen.

Was interesting to see several people suing AI companies including actors, it is a losing battle really as even if AI isn't trained on their material directly if it is trained on enough general information eventually it can be guided to the same results.

Interesting how many people don't understand both how capable but also how limited current and medium term AI is/will be and it isn't something you can really regulate, even if you shackle the big companies or nation states there is nothing to prevent individuals chipping away at it.
 
Back
Top Bottom