243
Hollywood strikes to cost US economy $5 billion-plus amid lost wages, film delays
(finance.yahoo.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
243 points (90.6% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
12 readers
2 users here now
General discussion about movies and TV shows.
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain
[spoilers]in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:
::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::
Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!
Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [[email protected]](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)
Related communities: [email protected] [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The amount the studios are losing from the strike could have paid for the WGA/ SAG requests easily, which makes the studios holding out feel even more ridiculous; but I think it's not about the money for them.
I think they want to send the message that they hold the power, not the workers, to disincentivize/demoralize future strikers. On top of that, I think they are salivating at the thought of never paying a "creative" again; and AI writers rooms and owning the likeness rights of every extra they ever use would certainly make it easy for them.
The studios are dreaming of the day they can ask a computer to generate Iron Man 7, and it'll spit out the script, generate CGI acting (including a rubbery PS3 looking RDJ), and it won't ever need to touch human hands.
The studios want to frame the strike about money (and that is certainly a big issue), but this could very well be a strike for the future of Hollywood's "soul"; which is why I think the studio heads are willing to take such a bath to keep it going
The thing the studios don't seem to appreciate about this is that once they can have an AI generate Iron Man 7, so can any other schlub; you can say you want to watch a movie where Iron Man enters a mini-golf tournament with Genghis Khan and the 1927 New York Yankees and it'll make one for you.
There are 3 possible outcomes, basically:
AI is never more than a curiosity as far as movie making and this whole argument was pointless;
AI gets good enough to replace a lot of the capital-incentive grunt work of movie making, like VFX, but not high-level creative work like writing / directing / production design, so making AAA movies gets cheaper and the big studios lose power while indie studios gain more;
AI gets as good at making movies as humans are, in which case we don't need studios at all.
None of these are good for them; the status quo is actually the least bad outcome. The real game, I suspect, is that they hope that they can convince writers that AI is a big enough threat to a) make concessions in other areas to stop it and b) be grateful they're still employed at all; a world where AI actually replaces creative talent on films is a world where we don't need studios at all anymore.
Don't give them any ideas LOL.
Overall, I think you're completely correct. So far consumer LLMs cannot come close to anything a human writer can create, but I'm concerned that Hollywood would gladly take the hit on quality to save on writers. I hope the strikes succeed in preventing AI from entering the writing and acting space, but hopefully they don't need to make concessions to prevent it.
As an aside, if everyone could create their own movies with AI, I wonder if studios would simply become IP holding companies (more than they already are). Anyone could make Lethal Weapon 5, but only the studio with the likeness rights (and training data) of Rob McElhenney would be able to have it look like the original actors are present.