|
The big challenge I see for the unions here is there's just so much stuff they have to address. It's not just getting more money, though that's important and can't be discarded- it's also the AI bullshit and writers room sizes and what happens when the studio decides to put your work in limbo. And like you have to fight for all of it, because all of that's part of how the studios are trying to gently caress them over. You can't give on any of it. They've got a lot of support and that's very good and I wish them luck, because even when the studios do finally agree to talks this is gonna be ugly.
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
Vegetable posted:I thought the sticking point of negotiations was AI-generated content, not residual for actual work done. Are they stuck on both? Whenever there's a big contract like this there are a lot of clauses you have to fight over, and while AI was apparently where negotiations fell apart entirely it doesn't sound like they were particularly close on anything else. That's the thing, there's a lot that's slanted against actors and writers and so on, to the point where the fields have gone from "hard to make a living in" to "virtually impossible to make a living in." (This is also why, I suspect, we're hearing the nepotism debate more- the problem isn't just that you need the connections, it's that you need to come from money of some kind to be able to afford a career in the arts unless you're very lucky/insanely clever/somehow do not require sleep/etc.) So anyway that's why they've got a lot to fight about. And I can't really see them being able to sacrifice anything and get a good result- like, if they give on AI that's gonna gently caress them over, if they don't get a better residuals situation you still have nobody making any money, etc. Even if they get the AMPTP back to the table in a reasonable amount of time it's gonna take a LOT of talking.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2023 08:35
|
|
|
Tree Reformat posted:If streaming is a bad deal for the people who create the shows (it is), then the only sustainable path is killing streaming as financially viable and morally acceptable. I mean to me that just says that the way studios transitioned to streaming was messed up, not that it was going to be inherently bad for writers/actors/etc. And this isn't entirely new. When television first became viable and broadcast networks realized how big it was gonna be, they basically forced everyone who was working on radio comedies and dramas and such to either switch to TV or not have a job anymore. This wasn't something the talent wanted, the actors liked doing radio and many writers worked better in that medium than TV (Arch Oboler was the big example, Lights Out! was huge but he couldn't transition and instead moved to directing low-budget films.) The way the studios moved to streaming- leading to the gutting of TV as we knew it and the virtual death of physical media- was very hastily thought out and they were able to get away with a lot, like keeping the numbers mostly internal so you don't even know how bad you're getting screwed on residuals. There was the 2007 WGA strike but they didn't have as much support as now and they had to cede a lot of ground, and that's the last bite at the apple anyone really got until now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2023 21:47
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:I wonder if the best outcome here is basically the YouTube model. The rightsholder of a show splits ad revenue and subscription revenue with the streaming service in some predetermined ratio. The more eyeballs the show gets, the more money everyone makes. Thing is, the studio is the rightsholder 99% of the time because they're where the money comes from. It's all work for hire for the talent; writers and directors and actors don't own the shows they work on. And okay, yeah, movies and TV shows are expensive, your average director or screenwriter doesn't have that kinda cash, they kinda do need outside investors and those investors do have some legal right to try and make their investment back. And the other problem is that more views for a show don't necessarily mean more subscription revenue, and so subscription-only services (i.e. ones without ads) can't just look at how many views something gets, but have to work out whether that translates to more people subscribing. This is why you see a lot of shows being pulled not to be written off and buried forever, but moved to FAST (free ad-supported television) services like Tubi or Freevee. There you DO get money directly in proportion to how many people are watching. But, well, how are you gonna keep them down on the farm after they've seen Paris? Audiences are used to being able to pay a fee every month or so to be able to watch whatever, without it being interrupted by commercials. We're not going to be as enthusiastic about streaming if everything gets interrupted every 10 minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2023 22:03
|
|
|
Narcissus1916 posted:First, this is an awesome thread! I've learned so much from y'all. I think it works for more niche stuff. Like, the Criterion Channel is probably in a good spot, they have a relatively small catalog of well-presented classic films and supplementary material and they curate the poo poo out of it- every month stuff rotates in and out, and they tell you what's leaving at the end of the month and that can be an incentive to catch it before it leaves. (It's honestly how I make my decisions about what to watch there.) Shudder's likely doing okay, they do horror movies and like a few other things but mostly horror. You go there when you wanna see a scary movie because they've got a good selection of 'em. What happened was twofold- every major studio wanted their own service (even if due to vagaries of corporate structure they still have to license stuff from themselves and they don't keep everything exclusive), AND they wanted a whole bunch of originals because Netflix started the ball rolling there. And also Apple wanted in because why the gently caress not. I think everyone observing realized the bubble could not sustain itself but nobody was gonna back down.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
Yeah, historically companies never like to disclose any more of their business than they legally have to.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2023 03:51
|
|
|
I imagine they have to report the overall revenue from the service, though Hollywood Accounting is a thing. What they don’t have to report is how much people are actually using the service they pay for.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2023 05:00
|
|
|
One big shift in business over the years is that boards keep promising big guaranteed money, golden parachutes, the like to any perceived successful executive- it’s almost never promotion from within anymore, it’s “we gotta get this guy! He’s the best! He’ll change everything for the better!” Like Zaslav made money for Discovery so naturally he’s a cinch to run the movie/TV studio too, give him everything he asks for, don’t risk someone else poaching him. Plus high end income taxes are lower than corporate taxes so the most efficient use of a company’s money is just to give it to yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2023 01:57
|
|
|
Yeah he’s walking it back because he realized it was playing badly.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
Yeah they’ve publicized the ones that were obviously “you’ll get nothing and like it!” So this seems to indicate there’s some actual movement.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2023 02:22
|
|
|
I know for sure it was reported that Netflix were big holdouts, at least when it came to SAG. Like the AMPTP's entire purpose seems to be to prevent studios from striking separate deals. Does it do anything when the guilds aren't negotiating?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2023 22:14
|
|
|
SLICK GOKU BABY posted:Does seem the WGA isn't as concerned about promoting work. The Always Sunny podcast kept going during the writers strike, but once the actors strike started, they had to stop making podcasts promoting Always Sunny. For actors promoting work is part of their contract, so if they’re on strike that’s something they have to deny the studios as well as their main work of acting. Screenwriters occasionally get asked for quotes or interviews but it’s not considered as big a part of the job.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2023 22:04
|
|
|
Yeah up until now wasn’t Netflix the least willing to concede things?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2023 23:24
|
|
|
To me it’s more that they have the most to fear from the unions’ demands, because their business model is entirely dependent on the black box of streaming. (And as mentioned they don’t want unions in other countries getting ideas because they’re trying to push into foreign markets more, having effectively reached saturation in the US.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2023 00:58
|
|
|
fart blood posted:I don’t know why the WGA and SAG don’t just negotiate interim agreements with the weakest members of the AMPTP and isolate the assholest assholes of the bunch. That’s why the AMPTP exists. In the 1960 WGA strike Universal made a deal first and forced the hand of the rest of the studios (and that’s why residuals exist at all), they’re not letting that happen again. Like the entire organization is basically just a cartel of business owners. Should be illegal, but this is America.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2023 01:34
|
|
|
One other thing was that John Oliver, who was still on TDS at the time, was here on a work visa and so would actually be deported if he went on strike. So that put him in a rough position.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2023 00:08
|
|
|
Yeah WGA would have to vote though I imagine the union leadership wouldn’t put forward an agreement they expect to be rejected. And a WGA deal would be a useful baseline for SAG- ie “You were willing to give this to them so it shouldn’t be hard to do the same for us”- but there are probably some specific points of contention that’d still have to be hammered out so I wouldn’t imagine a second deal immediately after.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2023 02:49
|
|
|
Dawgstar posted:The Variety article's headline was telling with its 'best and final offer.' Final is debatable and 'best' would be 'all of the WGA's easily met demands.' Apparently that's legal jargon? Like "Last Best Final Offer" means you're prepared for the other side to sign it, not that they'll blow everything up if you don't.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2023 02:14
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:Conventional wisdom is that a SAG deal should be hot on the heels of this one, since they get to point to everything the WGA is getting and go "see, that, give us that" and also the AMPTP is clearly in a concessions-giving mood and there's no point bringing back the writers if you still can't loving shoot anything. Also the end of the fiscal quarter is approaching (Oct 1? Close to that) so they may want to just finally get going rather than sacrifice the whole rest of the year.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
Snowy posted:Seriously though, the NYTimes is saying the writers begin going back to work on Wednesday. The sooner the better so I can get back to work eventually, but why are they supposedly going to cross the SAG lines now? I must be missing something I imagine most of those writers are not working on set. I’m not sure how many offices are being picketed, SAG is more concerned with filming not taking place.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2023 03:57
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:That seems reasonable. Of course until studios start using loopholes to "hire" writers who only write with AI and then quietly phase out anyone who doesn't, but that's an exploitive creeping bridge to cross in the future, I guess. That doesn't seem like it'd be much of a help since said writers would still have to receive WGA scale.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2023 09:00
|
|
|
cartoons123 posted:I’ll be the (slight) disagreer, I think the fact that I saw a fair amount of DGA members on Twitter complain about the lovely deal they got has me thinking (hoping?) it’s just a lot of lovely leadership at top. Yeah there has been some grumbling that DGA leadership were pretty unilateral in taking a deal.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2023 23:23
|
|
|
I honestly wonder if losing the fight with the WGA is what’s making them dig in their heels now. Just pure corncobbing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2023 19:53
|
|
|
Isn’t LBFO a legal thing? Like it means they’re ready to sign it and be done, but SAG rejecting it would just mean back to the drawing board.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:I think this is confirmation bias. I've seen the ones about him 'admitting the writers were right and deserved better ' just as prominently and that makes him sounds sympathetic if a bit condescending. Though at the same time that's basically him admitting he and the rest of the AMPTP wasted time and money trying to starve out the opposition instead of staying at the table.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2023 00:02
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
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
|
|