|
Gonna point out that beyond just writers and actors AI has the potential to put like 90% of everyone out of work (as the execs so gloat) and places like OpenAI literally have in their mission statement to automate all economically valuable work (in those words) so if they don't put in a blow against AI right now they are not going to get another chance
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Gonna point out that beyond just writers and actors AI has the potential to put like 90% of everyone out of work (as the execs so gloat) and places like OpenAI literally have in their mission statement to automate all economically valuable work (in those words) so if they don't put in a blow against AI right now they are not going to get another chance And what exactly is their plan when there's literally no jobs anywhere? (Aside from being kindly escorted to a guillotine by billions of unemployed people?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 23:10
|
|
|
fart blood posted:And what exactly is their plan when there's literally no jobs anywhere? (Aside from being kindly escorted to a guillotine by billions of unemployed people?) Why do you think Musk and Bezos are spending millions of dollars in tax payer money to get commercial space rockets working reliably? We stay here on a dying planet working for them and they live in space or on the moon where robots clothe them, and feed them, and compose their smooth jazz.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 23:23
|
|
|
ONE YEAR LATER posted:Why do you think Musk and Bezos are spending millions of dollars in tax payer money to get commercial space rockets working reliably? We stay here on a dying planet working for them and they live in space or on the moon where robots clothe them, and feed them, and compose their smooth jazz. That sounds like a very dumb plan that won't work and billionaires might be total morons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 23:24
|
|
|
Rich people not being the geniuses the purport themselves to be?! Well now I've heard everything!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
fart blood posted:And what exactly is their plan when there's literally no jobs anywhere? (Aside from being kindly escorted to a guillotine by billions of unemployed people?) Beyond what was said, why do you think police and surveillance budgets have been blooming recently? To keep us safe, I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
fart blood posted:That sounds like a very dumb plan that won't work and billionaires might be total morons. That plan also isn't the plan and living in space and other planets would be completely lovely, the kind of thing relegated to poor people. The more likely situation is they will simply use their stolen wealth to insulate themselves from the worst of climate disaster, and once automation gets to the point there are billions of unemployed people desperate enough to rebel, it's completely trivial to find ways to kill us or have us kill one another in a way they can also profit from in the process.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
I'm not gonna say they're worrying over nothing but I also feel like the Verge article is kinda... vague? Like they don't seem to get to the point of what the major loophole is, and there's a lot of very non-committal writing in the text. Like yeah of course the studios will try to get away with as much as they can but I'm not sure what the language would need to be to stop them. (Apart from "No AI at all" and that gets into questions of what even is this AI crap.) Also it may be worth pointing out there's a certain... instability in the AI tech sector nowadays, and while it's not exactly the same as the crypto and NFT bubbles it's still a case where there is not actually as much gold in them thar hills as was first assumed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 02:24
|
|
|
This seems to be the crux of the concern raised by the article but like... can they not do that already. There's nothing in the rulebook that says a studio can't use CGI to change your hair or makeup or clothing in post right now. https://twitter.com/JustineBateman/status/1723505847601651989
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 03:03
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:That plan also isn't the plan and living in space and other planets would be completely lovely, the kind of thing relegated to poor people. That also feels like a dumb plan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:This seems to be the crux of the concern raised by the article but like... can they not do that already. There's nothing in the rulebook that says a studio can't use CGI to change your hair or makeup or clothing in post right now. It happens all the time. In Sin City they made Elijah Wood’s face wider. I think even avengers infinity war had actors act in front a blue screen not really telling them who they were interacting with Even Avatar 2 did a thing (that I remember) where they replaced the entire body of Spider. I don’t know if they ask the actors if it’s okay. I think it’s just expected that once the film is edited they make changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 04:55
|
|
|
ONE YEAR LATER posted:Why do you think Musk and Bezos are spending millions of dollars in tax payer money to get commercial space rockets working reliably? We stay here on a dying planet working for them and they live in space or on the moon where robots clothe them, and feed them, and compose their smooth jazz. Even living on a dying polluted earth is way more viable and comfortable than putting yourself in space for any amount of time I don’t think this is even a real thing that the ultra wealthy are working towards. They’re all building compounds in New Zealand
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 05:13
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I think even avengers infinity war had actors act in front a blue screen not really telling them who they were interacting with Yeah, Brie Larson specifically complained about this, though at the time she argued that it was out of a need to protect Endgame from being spoiled. She's an excellent actor too, and it's terrible to see actors struggling in a sea of green or blue without anything to react to. (see also: Ian McKellan on The Hobbit)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 05:19
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:This seems to be the crux of the concern raised by the article but like... can they not do that already. There's nothing in the rulebook that says a studio can't use CGI to change your hair or makeup or clothing in post right now. I think from reading the tweet thread the specific fear was that they could do things like decide your character would look better if they were smiling more, if they were posed differently or if they read the line just a little happier, and hey let's let the AI punch it up and see. I mean, basically unironically the Tim and Eric Bedtime Stories about the watch ad. I think. They could gently caress up your line read or acting and ruin your chance of using the footage/reference for other roles. Or just get seen as a bad actor through no fault of your own. At least if you're talking to a tennis ball on a stick you have some idea of what you're doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 05:28
|
|
|
The first half of that thread is bananas. Actors basically never get to choose their own hair, makeup, wardrobe, or blocking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 05:38
|
|
|
Edit I think I misunderstood you
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 05:42
|
|
|
Keanu specifically has it written into his contracts that they can't change his performance in post. Although I assume actors with less pull probably can't get that in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 06:01
|
|
|
Parakeet vs. Phone posted:I think from reading the tweet thread the specific fear was that they could do things like decide your character would look better if they were smiling more, if they were posed differently or if they read the line just a little happier, and hey let's let the AI punch it up and see. The director/producer can do this to an actor at any time while filming and the actor is made to read whatever terrible lines a writer can come up with. It's such a super super super edge case. Changing things on an A-lister will run up against whatever provisions they have in excess of the boilerplate SAG contract. Changing things on a B-lister or below would be much more expensive (for now) than just reshooting them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 06:08
|
|
|
I mean you can ruin an actor's performance just by choosing the worst takes, that's just editing. That said, it's a valid concern but it's not quite the same as people being outright replaced with AI which was the major fear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 06:16
|
|
|
Here's a perfectly legal thing that I've watched happen. A very good actress who's been in and led some very high profile projects was cast as the #4 in a big tv show for 8 months of filming. In the middle of month 5, the studio replaces her with a different actress playing a somewhat different version of the same character. Spending five months in another state on a project your face will never be in absolutely hurts your future casting potential way more than making your smile 23% larger or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 06:30
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:Here's a perfectly legal thing that I've watched happen. This Dune? (Sisterhood or whatever it's called now)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 06:34
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:The first half of that thread is bananas. Actors basically never get to choose their own hair, makeup, wardrobe, or blocking. Yeah that thread from Justine Bateman (who I don't know and don't bear any ill will towards) is quite over the top. Changing an actor's performance in post happens all the time in every single film ever made. That is literally what editing is. For AI ruining the film and television the much bigger risk is not from inside the industry, but from outside the studios. It's however many independent production companies or tech companies that aren't bound by the AMPTP contracts at all who will make the first entirely AI starring films. Now maybe the studios will band together and try to shut out those interlopers from traditional distribution channels, but they can't stop anyone from putting it on Youtube or what have you, which is where the majority the audience for a totally AI movie probably is anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 07:15
|
|
|
I guess I need to clarify my joke about rich people living in space. It was a joke. They all clearly plan to live on super boats that sail the seas, avoiding mega hurricanes and taking advantage of the non-existent tax laws of international waters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 10:55
|
|
|
tanglewood1420 posted:Yeah that thread from Justine Bateman (who I don't know and don't bear any ill will towards) is quite over the top.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 11:34
|
|
|
"It's a deLorean Michael, what could it cost? $88?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 14:08
|
|
|
I love all my children equally *Earlier that day* I don't care for Joey
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 14:35
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:This seems to be the crux of the concern raised by the article but like... can they not do that already. There's nothing in the rulebook that says a studio can't use CGI to change your hair or makeup or clothing in post right now. Yeah this is common practice in vfx. I think people are freaking out a bit too much about how digi doubles are used because now the word "AI" is being attached to them. It's not AI, its just other complex technology that is involved with the very opaque and misunderstood vfx industry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 18:42
|
|
|
https://x.com/discussingfilm/status/1729924204441555017?s=61&t=-vp9P7i8Kl2W3uKiLPEWrA Zaslav continues to demonstrate that absolutely nothing has been learned from the backlash.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
He’s such a loving dipshit
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:https://x.com/discussingfilm/status/1729924204441555017?s=61&t=-vp9P7i8Kl2W3uKiLPEWrA I mean there is no need to, nobody is threatening his position right now and the shareholders seem to approve.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
Jesus Christ. Took courage to decide to steal from tax payers rather than do our business.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:Jesus Christ. Took courage to decide to steal from tax payers rather than do our business. What they did doesn't change how much tax WBD pays overall, just when they pay it. It's not taking from taxpayers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 20:22
|
|
|
If it's not changing how much tax they pay then why are they loving doing it
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 20:36
|
|
|
YggiDee posted:If it's not changing how much tax they pay then why are they loving doing it it's all about them quarterly/yearly reports dawg
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 20:37
|
|
|
They're already getting cuts along the way, continually fight for their rates to be lowered, taxpayers end up subsidizing underpaid workforces in myriad ways, and this move also lets them avoid paying workers who would be putting that money back into the economy rather than investment gambler games. I've misunderstood how this tax trick works, but it does still sound like robbing from the future while shortchanging the present on top of the standard corporate/investor thievery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 20:42
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:it's all about them quarterly/yearly reports dawg And Dave needs them at a certain level to get his 200 million compensation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:They're already getting cuts along the way, continually fight for their rates to be lowered, taxpayers end up subsidizing underpaid workforces in myriad ways, and this move also lets them avoid paying workers who would be putting that money back into the economy rather than investment gambler games. Kind of, WB was never going to release the movie even if there wasn't a tax break involved. Releasing their movies day and date during the pandemic pissed off a lot of Hollywood and Zaslev went on an rear end kissing apology tour where he promised HBO would cut back drastically on their direct to streaming production.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
My read of the situation was that the shelved projects were meant for streaming which would drive subscriptions and under the old model pre-Strike effectively could be replayed for free due to Hollywood math making it impossible for those owed residuals to determine what those rates should be. The new regime had a choice given they did not believe in streaming only projects and non-Ad supported Video on Demand shows. They could pony up additional dollars to fund a marketing campaign or shelve the project and write off as a loss today with an eye towards releasing it at some future date after “additional editing time”. The cast and crew got their money and that money would have been pushed into the economy already. The only thing that WB is doing is limiting any residual payments which, as noted above, are functionally nothing. And in all honesty probably still in the rounding error range post strikes. Which sucks. It also makes it less likely that talented artists will be willing to work with companies that do this to going forward however that’s a tomorrow problem not a today problem from the fuckers in the C-Suites. Then you have the whole “muddies the new DCU” thing that is happening over at WB post reset. The powers that be there don’t seem like they give a gently caress pissing off anyone at the moment. Which now that the boom on comic movies is finally over is quite fitting to relaunch into a market that is less interested then ever in the product.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
YggiDee posted:If it's not changing how much tax they pay then why are they loving doing it Well, the idea that they're cancelling movies because of the tax implications I think is largely an internet invention. It gets a lot of hate-clicks, so people keep implying it, but it's not what anyone involved has actually ever said. That DiscussingFilms tweet above, they say that Zaslav talked about "scrapping films for tax write-offs". If you click through to the source of the quote, Zaslav is just talking about scrapping the project, there's no mention or context about tax write-offs. DiscussingFilms is a clickbait account, and they just made that part up to juice their engagement numbers. And it worked! (The tweet's got 1.4 million views! They're a paid blue check that gets paid more the more their tweets are viewed! They're deliberately trying to game the system by phrasing things in the most incendiary way possible, the way that gets people the most righteously mad, because they make money off angering you!) For something like Coyote vs Acme, it's likely that WBD just looked at the marketing expense for the movie and decided "we're not confident enough in this movie to spend another 70-100 million marketing it". They're looking at the pile of money they'd have to spend to release the movie and deciding "eh, not worth it". That does have weird tax implications for the money they already spent. Businesses never pay taxes on expenses. The way it works is you take all your revenue, you subtract all your expenses, and what's leftover is the profit, and you pay taxes on the profit only. Tax accounting for movies is weird, and you're not allowed to count your expenses as you actually incur them. If you spend 100 million dollars on a movie, you're not allowed to count all of that as an expense while you're actually making the movie. Instead, you're supposed to only start counting those expenses once the movie is out. If you cancel the movie altogether, though, you get to count those expenses against the quarter in which you've canceled the movie. That doesn't change your overall tax situation, you would have been able to use those expenses to lower your tax bill by the same amount whenever you counted them, but when you cancel a movie the tax bill gets lowered right away. It's a weird consequence of accounting, but it's not extra movie that studios gets for canceling the movie. But again, the reporting has never been that the movies have been canceled because of the tax implications. It doesn't actually make sense to set a bunch of money on fire in order to recover 20% of the money you set on fire on your tax bill. You're still down 80% of the money! Burning money is bad for business. Deadline's reporting on Coyote vs Acme said that WBD canceled the movie and that the cancelation had an impact on the tax bill, not that they canceled the movie because the cancelation had an impact on the tax bill. What they actually gave as a reason was that the cost to release the movie theatrically was too high!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
In the meantime, Bob Iger has found the silver bullet to solve all of Disney's woes: https://twitter.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1729969014397456435 Throwing all of their POC and LGBT+ creators under the bus and going back to pandering to straight white males to try and win back the love of insane chuds!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 22:28
|
|