|
If you ignore all ethics and morals (so pretend you're C-suite) it makes some sense:if you have to pay royalties for every use of an AI model of an actor, why would you want to use one, as it's hardly saving you any money? They're willfully ignorant that that's a feature, not a bug, it's meant to deter the studios from doing it.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 12:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
That is particularly ghoulish
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 14:12
|
|
|
“Just think: going forward, we can have Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, etc. in every single movie we ever make from now on!” 5 years later “How come no one wants to see all these films with the exact same actors any more?”
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:“Just think: going forward, we can have Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, etc. in every single movie we ever make from now on!” An entire series of movies and TV shows made explicitly to please that one dork with a YouTube channel who broke down weeping in euphoria at the sight of Mark Hamill's CGI homunculus mowing down a hallway full of other CGI poo poo with a lightsaber in the Mandalorian. Can't wait.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 18:46
|
|
|
I know people in my workplace who said they had a similarly euphoric reaction to that scene. I reacted the way I did seeing a de-aged Carrie Fisher in Rogue One "uuuugh, why didn't you just cast a lookalike?" Not to mention the weirdness with cgi Peter Cushing as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
I had zero problems with the Rogue One Carrie Fisher. Recognized her immediately, got the point of the whole movie, thought it worked great. The Peter Cushing on the other hand, ugh, I wondered throughout the movie why this cartoon vaguely alien dude was treated like somebody with history. And I know Cushing by sight better than 99% of the damned audience, having seen many a Hammer horror movie in my time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
Aces High posted:I know people in my workplace who said they had a similarly euphoric reaction to that scene. I reacted the way I did seeing a de-aged Carrie Fisher in Rogue One "uuuugh, why didn't you just cast a lookalike?" Not to mention the weirdness with cgi Peter Cushing as well. I re-watched Doctor Sleep the other night and turns out you can do very well with casting folks who resemble the original actors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:36
|
|
|
The Peter Cushing CGI is especially galling because when he was alive, he was very particular about his likeness usage, wouldn't allow any action figures of his character to be made. Guess what happened as soon as he died?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
Aces High posted:I know people in my workplace who said they had a similarly euphoric reaction to that scene. I reacted the way I did seeing a de-aged Carrie Fisher in Rogue One "uuuugh, why didn't you just cast a lookalike?" Not to mention the weirdness with cgi Peter Cushing as well. Fisher, Cushing, and Robert Kardashian of all people being puppeted from beyonds the grave with bad CG for different gross purposes really grossed me out. Felt like some kind of universal barrier or agreement had been desecrated. Death was the end of work, you needn't consider at all the ideas of labour or compensation once you pass. For me even without believing in any kind of soul or afterlife or persistence beyond the body, it still just seems spiritually wrong somehow. The soul and afterlife rules I'm most familiar with also make it a disturbing proposition. But some people don't seem bothered at all or actively enjoy it. Maybe if ancient Sumerians had the technology and we grew up with ancient-scans popping in on Seinfeld and Sesame Street I wouldn't think twice about it. For now I'm weirded out by the idea of differentiating living/dead/fake performances in a show.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
Using Cushing in particular always struck as insidious even at the time, because Tarkin is not the kind of character that people get really sentimentally attached to even if he has a special place in Star Wars, so it was the perfect test subject without stirring up a lot of controversy
mycot fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
Tree Reformat posted:The Peter Cushing CGI is especially galling because when he was alive, he was very particular about his likeness usage, wouldn't allow any action figures of his character to be made. I don't like cgi people but cushing died in 1994 so I'd say that a 22 year gap isn't 'as soon as he died'
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
ONE YEAR LATER posted:I don't like cgi people but cushing died in 1994 so I'd say that a 22 year gap isn't 'as soon as he died' They made Tarkin figures for the Special Edition mania.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:Fisher, Cushing, and Robert Kardashian of all people being puppeted from beyonds the grave with bad CG for different gross purposes really grossed me out. Fisher died like two weeks after Rogue One came out. They didn't set out to digital recreate a dead person when they included Leia in the film. Now her appearance in RoS is another story, but even that was mostly footage from Force Awakens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
mycot posted:Using Cushing in particular always struck as insidious even at the time, because Tarkin is not the kind of character that people get really sentimentally attached to even if he has a special place in Star Wars, so it was the perfect test subject without stirring up a lot of controversy Cushing was also quite vocal about how much he enjoyed making Star Wars and how disappointment he was that they killed off Tarkin at the end of A New Hope so that he couldn't keep showing up in the sequels. So CGI Tarkin in Rogue One also comes with an undercurrent of "oh well Cushing would have done this anyway if he was still alive, so..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:An entire series of movies and TV shows made explicitly to please that one dork with a YouTube channel who broke down weeping in euphoria at the sight of Mark Hamill's CGI homunculus mowing down a hallway full of other CGI poo poo with a lightsaber in the Mandalorian. The difference is that Hamill was alive to consent to that scene (and presumably was paid?). It would have been better to recast ( sebasation stan!) but whatever. Tarkin was a travesty as is what the studios are wanting to do with their scans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 21:14
|
|
|
Dawgstar posted:I re-watched Doctor Sleep the other night and turns out you can do very well with casting folks who resemble the original actors. The Luke thing was extra dumb because if you look at the stand in he looks a ton like young Mark Hamill already. Nobody would have complained if it was just him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
Tree Reformat posted:The Peter Cushing CGI is especially galling because when he was alive, he was very particular about his likeness usage, wouldn't allow any action figures of his character to be made. What SAG-AFTRA is asking for here wouldn't have changed the Cushing situation. The current legal status quo is "the studios can't use your likeness without agreement from you or your estate". Obviously, Lucasfilm had to get permission from Cushing's estate and pay them to use him in Rogue One. That'd be perfectly consistent with SAG-AFTRA's ask. What the actors are asking for is to prevent studios from making a certain kind of agreement: they want to prevent studios from doing AI recreations on a "pay once, re-use forever" model. They want to prevent studios from presenting people with contracts saying "if we scan and pay you now, we can re-use this in perpetuity even after you're dead". Instead, they want to force studios to go only with "pay every time you re-use the likeness". They're not taking a stand against the concept of AI recreation of dead people, just disagreeing over the compensation model.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:Fisher died like two weeks after Rogue One came out. They didn't set out to digital recreate a dead person when they included Leia in the film. Ah I didn't see it till later and thought that was why they did bad CGI instead of any less bad option. Cushing then was the soft knock with the Robert Kardashian showing you needn't have any pretense of decency or reservation at all of who you puppet or what you make them say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 21:43
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:What the actors are asking for is to prevent studios from making a certain kind of agreement: they want to prevent studios from doing AI recreations on a "pay once, re-use forever" model. They want to prevent studios from presenting people with contracts saying "if we scan and pay you now, we can re-use this in perpetuity even after you're dead". Instead, they want to force studios to go only with "pay every time you re-use the likeness". They're not taking a stand against the concept of AI recreation of dead people, just disagreeing over the compensation model. The studios must have insane internal numbers about what doing this will net them, because everyone else hates it at a primal level. No one wants this poo poo and they are hinging negotiations on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 21:51
|
|
|
This is loving monstrous. Keep working after you're dead, peasants. Your corporate overlords demand it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:What SAG-AFTRA is asking for here wouldn't have changed the Cushing situation. The current legal status quo is "the studios can't use your likeness without agreement from you or your estate". Obviously, Lucasfilm had to get permission from Cushing's estate and pay them to use him in Rogue One. That'd be perfectly consistent with SAG-AFTRA's ask.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
The Finn posted:The studios must have insane internal numbers about what doing this will net them, because everyone else hates it at a primal level. No one wants this poo poo and they are hinging negotiations on it. Well, the actors are the ones hinging negotiations on it. The studios are broadly fine with the legal status quo, SAG-AFTRA are the ones coming in with demands. I think that comes from a (probably well founded!) fear that audiences would be broadly fine with this poo poo. Vegetable posted:Couldn't the studios just accept a pay-as-you-use model then offer miserly contracts for likeness reuse? Because that's functionally identical to pay-once-use-forever. I assume SAG-AFTRA wants to have a say in what the minimum rate for likeness reuse would be, but I haven't seen that anywhere. I think SAG-AFTRA sees this as a very big threat to acting as a profession. I'm speculating here, obviously nobody is putting out numbers and motivations in public, but I think one possible point of the minimums could be not just to ensure that someone is getting paid something for likeness rights, but to make the minimum fee so high that it might not be worth it for the studios to use the technology widely. Put in a set of rules regulating how much Peter Cushing's estate gets paid every time he's used, but don't make it affordable for studios to produce lost seasons of 8 Simple Rules starring a resurrected animatronic John Ritter. Those might be really high, like 0.75x the per-episode minimum for a real actor (or maybe even higher? idk).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:26
|
|
|
Well the deadline article I just read was giddy that the studios have backed off the AI demands, and settled on an 8% pay hike and a cut of streaming profits. Until I hear it from SAG, I am still skeptical. EDit: Article here https://deadline.com/2023/11/actors-strike-deal-close-ai-1235595961
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:30
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:Well the deadline article I just read was giddy that the studios have backed off the AI demands, and settled on an 8% pay hike and a cut of streaming profits. Until I hear it from SAG, I am still skeptical. I don't see a cut in streaming profits in there, unless I'm misreading. This was one of the big bits that the AMPTP and SAG-AFTRA were apart on a couple of weeks ago. The AMPTP was offering something like it offered the writers: if your show or movie is Very Successful, you get a one-time bonus. SAG-AFTRA was asking for a percentage of every streaming subscription. This article seems to include the first, but not the second?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:37
|
|
|
Sir Laurence Olivier was the villain in "Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow" and he had been dead for fifteen years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:38
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:Well the deadline article I just read was giddy that the studios have backed off the AI demands, and settled on an 8% pay hike and a cut of streaming profits. Until I hear it from SAG, I am still skeptical. The breakthrough: “are you loving ghouls kidding right now?”
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:38
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I don't see a cut in streaming profits in there, unless I'm misreading. "a 100% raise in performance compensation bonuses for big-budget streaming series and movies that meet certain thresholds. The guild is said to have “issues” with those benchmarks, seeing them as too high to be meaningful to many of their members." That's part of the ironing out, whatever the profit-sharing levels the studios are offering are pretty high. I guess if you take this article at face value, it's not a traditional "cut" of streaming profits across the board.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:"a 100% raise in performance compensation bonuses for big-budget streaming series and movies that meet certain thresholds. The guild is said to have “issues” with those benchmarks, seeing them as too high to be meaningful to many of their members." Yeah, that's what the WGA got. It's not really a cut of profits in the way that SAG-AFTRA was asking for, where "when streamers make more money, actors make more money". It's actually a pretty janky mechanism designed to specifically insulate the streamers from having to share profits and can lead to weird situations like "if a *different* show or movie on the streamer is successful and drives a lot of sign-ups, people on *your* movie can get paid less".
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:41
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Yeah, that's what the WGA got. It's not really a cut of profits in the way that SAG-AFTRA was asking for, where "when streamers make more money, actors make more money". It's actually a pretty janky mechanism designed to specifically insulate the streamers from having to share profits and can lead to weird situations like "if a *different* show or movie on the streamer is successful and drives a lot of sign-ups, people on *your* movie can get paid less". Hollywood accounting, who doesn't love it?! Now they get to fudge streaming numbers AND box office numbers! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:44
|
|
|
I don’t think even the studios meaningfully know whether their projects are turning a streaming profit. It’s a whole science to attribute subscription revenues to specific pieces of content.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
bestfinalofferFINALabjal56qagh(1).pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 00:56
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:I don’t think even the studios meaningfully know whether their projects are turning a streaming profit. It’s a whole science to attribute subscription revenues to specific pieces of content.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 01:08
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Considering how unbelievably dumb the people are who run these studios, I agree See: Paramount+ cancelling Star Trek: Prodigy thinking they could zero out a loving Star Trek show for a tax kickback only to realize there were a lot of Star Trek fans out there who got suddenly, vocally mad about what they did and P+ going "Uuuuh poo poo, what now?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 01:19
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Considering how unbelievably dumb the people are who run these studios, I agree It's genuinely a "get a bunch of applied math PhDs together and they might be able to come up with a guess that they're not confident of after a few months"-level problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 01:30
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:See: Paramount+ cancelling Star Trek: Prodigy thinking they could zero out a loving Star Trek show for a tax kickback only to realize there were a lot of Star Trek fans out there who got suddenly, vocally mad about what they did and P+ going "Uuuuh poo poo, what now?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 23:45
|
|
|
https://deadline.com/2023/11/actors-strike-deal-deadline-studios-ultimatum-1235597493/
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 01:38
|
|
|
Not a fan of how that article glosses over the gross AI demands and the meaninglessness of those pay increases. Also the way amto trying to spin it like "ooh sagaftra won you really made us come all the way over to you by giving you everything we wanted" is so lovely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 01:47
|
|
|
Back to work, everyone: https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/sag-aftra-tentative-deal-historic-strike-1235771894/
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
Yesssssssssssssss, bring me the shows
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
So who caved on AI, the actors or the studios?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 02:00
|
|