Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Haleth]

I was attracted to Succession because of Matthew McFadyen (whom I would watch reading the phone book*) and because it was loosely based on A Lion in Winter (where you have 2 hours of the kids plotting rather than 4 years).  

(*Phone book:  Kids, go ask your grandparents what that is.)

[bluegirl147]

51 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Also its just absurd and unbelievable in some of the plot contrivances. Very soap opera feel to it

I probably would have enjoyed it more if it had leaned into more soap operaish things.  This season there were a few things speculated that would have been fun to watch that didn't happen. 

27 minutes ago, Haleth said:

I was attracted to Succession because of Matthew McFadyen

I didn't know of him before Succession and found myself liking the actor but ended up hating his character.

8 hours ago, Zella said:

because quite frankly all I know about is how annoyingly method one of the actors is on set,

That particular actor I have really liked in other roles but now any time I see him I think oh yeah him.  He doesn't seem like  he would be fun to be around.

[Gharlane]

On 5/1/2023 at 2:33 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

That sounds pretty funny. I remember liking that show as a kid but having very little memory about episode plots. Community did a flashback episode that was set up like a standard sitcom clip show. But all the clips were for things viewers had never seen before.

There was an ep of Mike Tyson Mysteries in which all the flashbacks were from the clips in the opening credits!

 

On 5/1/2023 at 4:30 PM, DoctorAtomic said:

Wasn't Brian Doyle Murray the dad? I remember him and the mother always wore bath robes. 

Brian Doyle Murray was his landlord in the second season. His real father and Elinor Donihue (Kitten on Father Knows Best) played his put-upon parents.

[peachmangosteen]

I've tried but The Bear is unwatchable.

[Irlandesa]

2 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

I've tried but The Bear is unwatchable.

How far did you get?  Because there is definitely a trial-by-fire aspect to the show that I think most people go through, even people (like me) who ended up loving it. 

I'm not suggesting you should power through as you really gotta want to but for me, powering through was worth it.  And I only did that because they all came up at once and it got such great reviews.

That said, I do think it should be released weekly at this point. 

[juno]

Nevermind.

Edited June 27, 2023 by juno

[peachmangosteen]

13 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

How far did you get?  Because there is definitely a trial-by-fire aspect to the show that I think most people go through, even people (like me) who ended up loving it. 

I'm not suggesting you should power through as you really gotta want to but for me, powering through was worth it.  And I only did that because they all came up at once and it got such great reviews.

That said, I do think it should be released weekly at this point. 

I watched 2 episodes close to when it was first released and then I tried with the third recently. I might try to power through but I don't know. I did that with Ted Lasso and I regret wasting my time.

[Blergh]

As per MSN ,guess who TBPB chose to replace the retiring Pat Sajak at the end of the season to host Wheel of Fortune? Ryan Seacrest! Yep, instead of seeking out a good host from X times thousands of possibly likable hopeful performers, IMO they chose another smarmy, obnoxious smug bore to replace Sajak! Why?!

Wasn't him souring the Dick Clark's Rockin' New Year's and even managing to somehow make the annoying Live with Kelly  even less watchable punishment enough for the viewers?! Poor Vanna White having to steel herself to have to endure another pain!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, Blergh said:

As per MSN ,guess who TBPB chose to replace the retiring Pat Sajak at the end of the season to host Wheel of Fortune? Ryan Seacrest! Yep, instead of seeking out a good host from X times thousands of possibly likable hopeful performers, IMO they chose another smarmy, obnoxious smug bore to replace Sajak! Why?!

Wasn't him souring the Dick Clark's Rockin' New Year's and even managing to somehow make the annoying Live with Kelly  even less watchable punishment enough for the viewers?! Poor Vanna White having to steel herself to have to endure another pain!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's what I want to know. He's a horrible choice to host Wheel of Fortune. Why do they keep inflicking him on us? 

[Browncoat]

15 hours ago, Blergh said:

As per MSN ,guess who TBPB chose to replace the retiring Pat Sajak at the end of the season to host Wheel of Fortune? Ryan Seacrest! Yep, instead of seeking out a good host from X times thousands of possibly likable hopeful performers, IMO they chose another smarmy, obnoxious smug bore to replace Sajak! Why?!

Wasn't him souring the Dick Clark's Rockin' New Year's and even managing to somehow make the annoying Live with Kelly  even less watchable punishment enough for the viewers?! Poor Vanna White having to steel herself to have to endure another pain!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suspect this is not an unpopular opinion!  I agree that Ryan Seacrest is just about the worst possible choice to replace Pat Sajak.

[AstridM]

15 hours ago, Blergh said:

As per MSN ,guess who TBPB chose to replace the retiring Pat Sajak at the end of the season to host Wheel of Fortune? Ryan Seacrest! Yep, instead of seeking out a good host from X times thousands of possibly likable hopeful performers, IMO they chose another smarmy, obnoxious smug bore to replace Sajak! Why?!

Wasn't him souring the Dick Clark's Rockin' New Year's and even managing to somehow make the annoying Live with Kelly  even less watchable punishment enough for the viewers?! Poor Vanna White having to steel herself to have to endure another pain!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How horrendous. I’ve always detested Ryan Seacrest. Jesus. 

[Blergh]

7 hours ago, Browncoat said:

I suspect this is not an unpopular opinion!  I agree that Ryan Seacrest is just about the worst possible choice to replace Pat Sajak.

I think Olivia Jade Giannulli  and Steven Seagal might have edged out Seacrest in the 'worst possible choice' department but I guess they either weren't asked or unavailable.

[Zella]

The idea of Seagal hosting Wheel is legitimately hilarious to me, if only because I'm not convinced he can read. 

[Haleth]

8 hours ago, Zella said:

The idea of Seagal hosting Wheel is legitimately hilarious to me, if only because I'm not convinced he can read. 

That could be a hilarious parody on SNL or something.  Maybe with Sean Connery as a contestant.

[bluegirl147]

Does Ryan Seacrest have some huge fanbase I'm unaware of?  He seems to get or is at least considered for any high profile host job.  He does Rockin New Year's Eve.  He did Live with Kelly.  And now Wheel of Fortune.  I just don't get his appeal.

[DoctorAtomic]

I think maybe because he's largely inoffensive to the older demographic that watches these shows. I don't know otherwise. I watch Game Show Network a lot, and there's a wide range of hosts that are good. 

[Irlandesa]

On 6/27/2023 at 8:38 AM, peachmangosteen said:

I watched 2 episodes close to when it was first released and then I tried with the third recently. I might try to power through but I don't know. I did that with Ted Lasso and I regret wasting my time.

Ted Lasso is one I meant to watch but now that I've read about the third season, I'm not so sure any longer. Anyway, if it was the screaming that bothered you about The Bear, it might be worth powering through.  If it was anything else, then it probably won't be.

20 hours ago, Browncoat said:

I suspect this is not an unpopular opinion!  I agree that Ryan Seacrest is just about the worst possible choice to replace Pat Sajak.

I agree that it's probably not an unpopular opinion, but my unpopular opinion is that Seacrest is absolutely the perfect replacement for  Pat Sajak if you basically want a younger Sajak with more discretion and more talent than Pat Sajak.

That doesn't mean I'm happy about the choice of Seacrest. He is a lazy choice and instead of getting someone new a shot, they're handing it to someone they know can do it.

But he absolutely can do what Sajak does--keep the show on time, pretend to look interested in the contestants but not quite pull it off....etc. In fact, he's ridiculously well-suited for the job. 

But he's a boring choice.  Especially since the Jeopardy hosting situation demonstrated that show is basically host-proof.  There were a lot of fights about who would be the best host for that show but the ratings pretty much stayed the same as long as someone competent was hosting. I'd imagine Wheel is the same.

 

[Ohiopirate02]

29 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

I agree that it's probably not an unpopular opinion, but my unpopular opinion is that Seacrest is absolutely the perfect replacement for  Pat Sajak if you basically want a younger Sajak with more discretion and more talent than Pat Sajak.

That doesn't mean I'm happy about the choice of Seacrest. He is a lazy choice and instead of getting someone new a shot, they're handing it to someone they know can do it.

But he absolutely can do what Sajak does--keep the show on time, pretend to look interested in the contestants but not quite pull it off....etc. In fact, he's ridiculously well-suited for the job. 

But he's a boring choice.  Especially since the Jeopardy hosting situation demonstrated that show is basically host-proof.  There were a lot of fights about who would be the best host for that show but the ratings pretty much stayed the same as long as someone competent was hosting. I'd imagine Wheel is the same.

 

Yeah, Ryan is the correct choice for Pat's replacement even if he is the boring one.  TPTB who own Wheel have no intention of reinventing it, they want continuity and Ryan provides it.  The longtime Wheel Watchers will continue to tune in come September 2024 with Ryan as a host, and that was the #1 priority in the search for a new host.  

[Mabinogia]

6 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

TPTB who own Wheel have no intention of reinventing it, they want continuity and Ryan provides it.

I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere about reinventing the wheel. lol

For me, Ryan is the same level of blandly annoying that Pat was so he seems the perfect replacement for a show I haven't watched in ages and don't plan to watch any time in the future, so it could just be that I don't care. I just hate that Ryan is getting yet another job for being bland. It is very aggravating where there are so many better looking, more personable, smarter, funnier, more engaging people who could host things. 

[Blergh]

13 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

Does Ryan Seacrest have some huge fanbase I'm unaware of?  He seems to get or is at least considered for any high profile host job.  He does Rockin New Year's Eve.  He did Live with Kelly.  And now Wheel of Fortune.  I just don't get his appeal.

I've never met anyone who's admitted to liking him so maybe the Hidden Tribe of Kardashian and Progressive Flo Fans  have taken him under their aegis!

[Ohiopirate02]

On 6/29/2023 at 5:28 PM, Mabinogia said:

I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere about reinventing the wheel. lol

Yep, the pun was intended.

[proserpina65]

On 6/29/2023 at 11:46 PM, Blergh said:

I've never met anyone who's admitted to liking him so maybe the Hidden Tribe of Kardashian and Progressive Flo Fans  have taken him under their aegis!

Hey now,  plenty of us enjoy the Progressive commercials while hating the Kartrashians and being completely indifferent to Ryan Seacrest. 

[BlueSkies]

Edie Falco's accent on The Sopranos is kinda annoying really.

 

On the other hand though I sort of like Fran Drescher's accent on The Nanny 

 

Which leads me to think it's more Carmella's character I'm not the biggest fan of.  

[Kel Varnsen]

8 hours ago, BlueSkies said:

Which leads me to think it's more Carmella's character I'm not the biggest fan of.  

Wasn't that the whole point of the character? She is a pretty terrible person so I am not sure she is supposed to have many fans. But Edie Falco plays the character pretty perfectly. Then again I am not sure there are any characters on the show people are supposed to like. 

[Gharlane]

I couldn't care less about the writers (and actors?) going on strike. Most of the stuff they produce is garbage, so I think they're overpayed as it is. 

[Crashcourse]

I don't care about the strike either.   

If they have to do tv reruns to fill in the time slots, I'm fine watching Breaking Bad again.  Throw in Sopranos, Justified, and a few others that I liked and I'm ok.

I haven't been to the movies in four years, but I can wait for John Wick: Chapter 4 to come to tv.  

[JustHereForFood]

I don't particularly care either and I don't take anyone's side in this. From my selfish perspective, I already have a lot of TV to catch up on, so that doesn't bother me and I don't really care what people do with their jobs, as long as it's not strikes that cause real damage to innocent people, like doctors, people blocking roads, etc.

[partofme]

A lot of what is on tv and in the movies may be crap but I support unions and striking in all industries.  You may think the writers and actors are overpaid but look at what the CEO’s make and try not to be sick.  

[AstridM]

55 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

I don't particularly care either and I don't take anyone's side in this. From my selfish perspective, I already have a lot of TV to catch up on, so that doesn't bother me and I don't really care what people do with their jobs, as long as it's not strikes that cause real damage to innocent people, like doctors, people blocking roads, etc.

Doctors?

1 minute ago, partofme said:

A lot of what is on tv and in the movies may be crap but I support unions and striking in all industries.  You may think the writers and actors are overpaid but look at what the CEO’s make and try not to be sick.  

[tribeca]

What other jobs does the actor/writers strike effect?

[Shannon L.]

10 minutes ago, tribeca said:

What other jobs does the actor/writers strike effect?

The entire crew from directors all the way down to production assistants and probably few more jobs on top of that. If the writers aren't making new material, then eventually, there will be nothing to film.  If the actors aren't working, then no one is working.

[Annber03]

There's also the fact that there's many actors involved in this strike who AREN'T among those getting paid millions of dollars, who actually are working class actors who need to take second jobs (or third jobs) to supplement their income. The media will likely focus most of its attention on the speeches made by the big actors, of course, because they're more prominent and thus will naturally get most of the attention, but most actors in this strike are not among that elite group, and having the big name, well-paid actors out there fighting alongside and on behalf of them will do a lot more to hopefully scare the corporate execs into giving in to their demands.

And writers by and large don't get paid tons of money, either. 

7 hours ago, Gharlane said:

I couldn't care less about the writers (and actors?) going on strike. Most of the stuff they produce is garbage, so I think they're overpayed as it is. 

I mean, maybe they'd be able to produce better quality product if they were actually getting paid and treated well enough to do so. Besides that, I know a lot of people think that writers have full control over the storylines on shows, but they don't. If a storyline turns out crappy, it isn't automatically the writers' fault, or at least, it's not solely on them much of the time. 

There's also the fact that money isn't the only thing these writers and actors are striking over. There's the AI issues involved, there's poor working conditions, there's the fact that so many of these corporate people are reneging on contracts in shady ways to avoid having to pay people what they deserve or to honor any other terms of those contracts that aren't pay-related, and so on and so forth. Even if this won't affect one's personal viewing habits, they should still care about this on a general level in terms of what corporations are and aren't allowed to get away with in regards to their workers. 

And when you've got corporate executives making billions of dollars trying to find excuses as to why they just can't possibly cough up any money to pay their writers and actors what they're worth, when you've got execs being quoted as saying that they want writers to start losing their homes and struggling to get by before they even consider ending this strike...yeah. Fuck them. That alone should be more than enough reason for the writers and actors to get as much support as they need. 

[Bastet]

26 minutes ago, partofme said:

A lot of what is on tv and in the movies may be crap but I support unions and striking in all industries.  You may think the writers and actors are overpaid but look at what the CEO’s make and try not to be sick.

Yep, it's like complaining about athletes' big salaries.  First, just like with actors, many of them don't make big bucks.  Second, the studios (and team/league owners) pay the big salaries they do because that's a fraction of the income those actors and athletes generate for them.  If AMPTP agreed to the WGA and SAG-AFTRA's terms, the extra money they'd pay the writers and actors would constitute a paltry two percent of the studios' annual revenue.

[partofme]

10 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

There's also the fact that there's many actors involved in this strike who AREN'T among those getting paid millions of dollars, who actually are working class actors who need to take second jobs (or third jobs) to supplement their income. The media will likely focus most of its attention on the speeches made by the big actors, of course, because they're more prominent and thus will naturally get most of the attention, but most actors in this strike are not among that elite group, and having the big name, well-paid actors out there fighting alongside and on behalf of them will do a lot more to hopefully scare the corporate execs into giving in to their demands.

And writers by and large don't get paid tons of money, either. 

Thank you for saying this, I wanted to but you did it more eloquently than I ever could have.  
 

I can’t imagine ever siding with a corporation. 

[Kel Varnsen]

45 minutes ago, partofme said:

A lot of what is on tv and in the movies may be crap but I support unions and striking in all industries.  You may think the writers and actors are overpaid but look at what the CEO’s make and try not to be sick.  

The big reason I have a hard time caring about the actors strike is that unlike a lot of other unions I am familiar with, actors are allowed to negotiate their own contact above and beyond the collective agreement. So if you are say a teacher, or a nurse an electrician in a factory your employment contract is the collective agreement. But if you are an actor and you want to negotiate more you are allowed to do that. So if an actor wants more pay or better residuals there is nothing stopping them from negotiation those things on their own.

[partofme]

4 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

The big reason I have a hard time caring about the actors strike is that unlike a lot of other unions I am familiar with, actors are allowed to negotiate their own contact above and beyond the collective agreement. So if you are say a teacher, or a nurse an electrician in a factory your employment contract is the collective agreement. But if you are an actor and you want to negotiate more you are allowed to do that. So if an actor wants more pay or better residuals there is nothing stopping them from negotiation those things on their own.

I’ve never had a union job, but I wish I did.  I hate having to negotiate my salary,  corporations make us do this to screw workers over, we don’t know what the job is worth or what we’re worth and we often end up getting paid less than colleagues who do the same thing.   Just because someone is an actor and doesn’t work a corporate job doesn’t sound to me like a good reason they should have to individually negotiate their compensation  

 

 

[DoctorAtomic]

I'm in a non union state; we got cost of living raises frozen during covid. My productivity went up too, so I would have gotten a merit raise. No way that happens if we're in a union. 

To be relevant, my UO might be that I don't care how lost the strike lasts, even if there's no new show coming around for a while. The union blew it in the last contract (not really their fault) on streaming residuals and lost out on a boatload. I don't think AI poses the threat that it's being made out to be, but I get them not wanting to let it go either. 

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

The big reason I have a hard time caring about the actors strike is that unlike a lot of other unions I am familiar with, actors are allowed to negotiate their own contact above and beyond the collective agreement. So if you are say a teacher, or a nurse an electrician in a factory your employment contract is the collective agreement. But if you are an actor and you want to negotiate more you are allowed to do that. So if an actor wants more pay or better residuals there is nothing stopping them from negotiation those things on their own.

You can still negotiate in union environments.  It's a bit more regimented, but it's not uncommon for the initial offer to be lower than a person's experience and education and for negotiations to begin to be placed at a different rank.  For both acting and other union environments, the intent is to establish a baseline basic working wage for those who don't have the leverage to negotiate. 

But one thing different about other union environments is once you have a job you are constantly working unless you mess it up.  For acting and writing, that's not the case.  

And that's the other aspect of this strike.  It's also about healthcare.  As a SAG-AFTRA union member, they are required to work an X amount of hours to be able to qualify for health care.  The companies' desire to be able to use someone's image in perpetuity reduces the number of hours available for the lower-end actors.  So not only would they be underpaid, they'd lose access to health care.

I care about AI (because I don't think it'll stop with Hollywood.)  And I care about unions.

However, I'd be lying if I didn't say the thing I really want the most out of this is for companies to release actual viewing numbers they want to keep so secret.  It's either ridiculous and the creatives are being underpaid.  Or, as I suspect, it's not what it's cracked up to be and the value of all of these services is essentially Ponzi-scheme like and nowhere near their valuation.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Irlandesa

[Annber03]

Just saw this article over at TV Line - one of the actors from the show "Bob Hearts Abishola" explains in detail why this strike is happening, and touches on some of the very things being discussed here:

https://tvline.com/news/sag-strike-explained-video-gina-yashere-bob-hearts-abishola-1235015065/

[kathyk24]

4 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I'm in a non union state; we got cost of living raises frozen during covid. My productivity went up too, so I would have gotten a merit raise. No way that happens if we're in a union. 

To be relevant, my UO might be that I don't care how lost the strike lasts, even if there's no new show coming around for a while. The union blew it in the last contract (not really their fault) on streaming residuals and lost out on a boatload. I don't think AI poses the threat that it's being made out to be, but I get them not wanting to let it go either. 

I don't think you can blame the unions regarding streaming. Nobody knew how important streaming was going to be. Disney Plus and Peacock didn't exist five years ago, Netflix used to be a DVD by mail service. You can't blame people for being unable to see into the future.

[Zella]

I was reading somebody on Twitter talking about how their hopes for the outcome of this strike was that there'd be more of a rise in independent filmmaking afterward, in much the same way there was in the 60s after the last joint SAG and WAG strike. 

And so to that end, I'd love for the end result of all this to be more newer movies that aren't a tentpole movie, aren't part of a cinematic universe where I feel like I need to keep track of them with a spreadsheet, aren't part of a film series, aren't a remake or redux or revamp or rewhatever, aren't seemingly solely powered by special effects and bloated screenplays. If you enjoy those things, all the power to you, but I tend to be pretty bored with most newer movies. I'm not saying I've not enjoyed some of the newer movies I've watched or that no movies that fit the parameters I've outlines are being made, but I feel like the ones I've liked are few and far between for quite a while now. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Zella

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, kathyk24 said:

I don't think you can blame the unions regarding streaming. Nobody knew how important streaming was going to be. Disney Plus and Peacock didn't exist five years ago, Netflix used to be a DVD by mail service. You can't blame people for being unable to see into the future.

The last contract was signed three years ago, and plenty of the membership knew their union leadership was giving away too much by not getting ahead of streaming rights before it snowballed (it was one of the big pushes from the Membership First coalition; existing leadership had capitulated to the studios too much for years, and falling down on streaming was the latest example).  There's thus even more pressure now from members about AI, and hopefully they'll get better results from their leaders this time. 

[DoctorAtomic]

10 hours ago, kathyk24 said:

I don't think you can blame the unions regarding streaming. Nobody knew how important streaming was going to be.

I did say 'not really their fault', but it's fair criticism that they gave up any residuals from streaming though. Even if it wasn't big big big, you think you'd still want something from it. 

 

[Zella]

10 hours ago, Bastet said:

The last contract was signed three years ago, and plenty of the membership knew their union leadership was giving away too much by not getting ahead of streaming rights before it snowballed (it was one of the big pushes from the Membership First coalition; existing leadership had capitulated to the studios too much for years, and falling down on streaming was the latest example).  There's thus even more pressure now from members about AI, and hopefully they'll get better results from their leaders this time. 

Yeah if you did a contract in 2010 and didn't understand the implications of streaming, I get that. I was a latecomer to streaming services, and I signed up for my first one in 2013. But in 2020? 

[Kel Varnsen]

18 hours ago, partofme said:

I’ve never had a union job, but I wish I did.  I hate having to negotiate my salary,  corporations make us do this to screw workers over, we don’t know what the job is worth or what we’re worth and we often end up getting paid less than colleagues who do the same thing.   Just because someone is an actor and doesn’t work a corporate job doesn’t sound to me like a good reason they should have to individually negotiate their compensation  

 

 

But that is the other thing about being an actor. You don't actually have to do your own negotiating yourself, because that is what you pay your agent for. My understanding is that Hollywood rules mean you have to have an agent doing that work for you. I remember reading the War for Late Night book and every time Jay Leno's Tonight Show contract came up for renewal he always accepted what they offered (because he didn't spend that money anyways) but he still had to have an agent. Since he didn't think it was worth it to have an agent for his TV work collecting a percentage of his salary (since it is not like he needed someone out getting him other roles), his agent that booked his stand up shows would sign this contract for him as a favour.

[scarynikki12]

The full list of SAG’s proposals to AMPTP was released yesterday and, among the previously known parts like residual updates, the one that’s been making the rounds is a proposal that the studios pay an increased fine for late payment of work. The AMPTP rejected the idea while acknowledging their common practice of paying three months late.

To be clear: the studios routinely pay three months late for completed work, including whatever the existing fine is, and don’t want to change this practice. I can only assume the three months is how long it takes them to cook the books so they get their millions while claiming to have no profit.

[Mabinogia]

Hollywood strikes are always weird to me. Not weird in unnecessary or even bad, but weird in that, with most unions, the workers are kind of on the same level but with Hollywood you've got a bunch of millionaires on strike next to a bunch of people who have to hold several jobs just to make ends meet. Unfortunately, media tends to focus on the "familiar faces" which are the millionaire celebs.

The thing that worries me is that they are striking, in part, because of the fear of being replaced by AI but the way tv/movies are going, it all feels like it's written by AI and they are making huge profits, so Hollywood might just decide they don't really need writers anymore. And while the big millionaire stars will always get work, the ones they are supposedly striking for, who barely make money acting, will probably just get replaced by CGI. 

Something has to change, and I hope the strike has a positive outcome but my interest in the entertainment world has dwindled enough that there are maybe 2 shows I'm worried about surviving the strike. 

[scarynikki12]

Hollywood knows they need writers but the fear is they’ll use AI to pump out the initial script and then hire a writer to do a rewrite to make it sound authentic. They wouldn’t have to pay as much for a rewrite as they would for a writers room or an individual’s completed script. 

[DoctorAtomic]

I still don't think AI is there, but using AI to output a spec script is a reasonable argument. On the other side, leasing one's likeness to use with AI is also a legitimate point because you don't really know what fair market value is. Even if you're an actor that wants to do it, there's not really any guardrails. Would you license it forever? Or maybe only 10 years? 

James Earl Jones already worked out a deal to use his voice for Darth Vader posthumously. It's not like there's going to be a decline in interest for Vader. 

I'm blown away that The Nanny is leading the strike. 

Perhaps there should be a thread devoted to the strike since there seems to have been considerable interest and discussion over the past week. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by DoctorAtomic

[Kel Varnsen]

47 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

The thing that worries me is that they are striking, in part, because of the fear of being replaced by AI but the way tv/movies are going, it all feels like it's written by AI and they are making huge profits, so Hollywood might just decide they don't really need writers anymore. And while the big millionaire stars will always get work, the ones they are supposedly striking for, who barely make money acting, will probably just get replaced by CGI. 

When it comes to the whole AI thing, it just seems like people trying to stop technology from eliminating jobs has never worked in the history of the world. If it did Hollywood would still employ an army of accounting clerks in suspenders and those little green visors, keeping track of expenses and revenue on big leger books. Now it is like a handful of people who know how to use Excel.