The Business: News, Rumours, Analysis, and More

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

It is already illegal to use someone's likeness without paying them ever since back to the future 2.

The Crispin Glover lawsuit didn’t set precedent because it was settled out of court. 

[Shannon L.]

10 minutes ago, NUguy514 said:

Just as an FYI, those who don't have Twitter accounts won't be able to see her posts.

Thanks for reminding me. Basically,  it will affect others in film more than the actors to the extent that they won't need any labor at all, just producers, a few computer techs and the right software.  She warns actors if they allow a company to use their image and don't have an iron clad contract in regards to the use of that image, then they eventually won't need actors either.

[Kel Varnsen]

14 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

Thanks for reminding me. Basically,  it will affect others in film more than the actors to the extent that they won't need any labor at all, just producers, a few computer techs and the right software.  She warns actors if they allow a company to use their image and don't have an iron clad contract in regards to the use of that image, then they eventually won't need actors either.

But what does that have to do with AI? Considering effects studios can pretty much make a fake human with CG effects now.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

She warns actors if they allow a company to use their image and don't have an iron clad contract in regards to the use of that image, then they eventually won't need actors either.

This really is such a huge issue for actors particularly the ones that do not have name recognition. Without guaranteed protections from the studios secured by the union, studios can (and probably will) pressure people into signing away the rights to their likeness. If the studios had zero intention of going down that path there would be no reason for them to be so unwilling to negotiate on the issue. 

[Shannon L.]

12 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

But what does that have to do with AI? Considering effects studios can pretty much make a fake human with CG effects now.

I honestly don't know the answer.  I spent a few minutes trying to google it, but can't find an actual answer except that AI is much easier to use than CGI and my guess is that it looks and sounds better.  Justine has was on the SAG board of directors and has a degree in computer science and digital media management, so if she's sounding the alarm, I tend to trust her.

I went back to my post with her Twitter feed and it looks like it didn't link properly, so here's an article in which she discusses what she wrote:

Justine Bateman sounds the alarm over AI use in Hollywood

[absnow54]

On the subject of AI, the tool is trained using existing material. Even if an actor's direct likeness isn't used (which is a slippery slope, as we're seeing a lot of dead actors come back to life on film), footage will be scraped to train the AI to capture things like facial tics or inflection in voice to emulate different emotions. They don't even need actors to voice things anymore. Deepfakes have gotten very advanced.

[Spartan Girl]

Okay, seriously the AMPTP needs to pony up and make a deal NOW.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Spartan Girl

[mariah23]

It’s official: The Nanny calls for a strike.

Also the cast of Oppenheimer left the London premiere in solidarity.

[DearEvette]

8 minutes ago, mariah23 said:

It’s official: The Nanny calls for a strike.

Also the cast of Oppenheimer left the London premiere in solidarity.

Yeah, I have been listening to the press conference.  Fran's presser speech was very good.  She sounded mad and hurt and righteous at the same time. I was ready to go walk the lines and I am not even in the industry!  LOL.

[scarynikki12]

I won’t post it but Deadline had a video of Matt Damon talking about the strike and cut it to seem like he was Team AMPTP but they got crucified on Twitter by people pointing out the second half of the video has him giving his full support for the strike and the need to protect the working actors in particular. 

[Irlandesa]

Here's the unspooled version of her tweets.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1657476895972413440.html

20 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

But what does that have to do with AI? Considering effects studios can pretty much make a fake human with CG effects now.

 

20 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

But what does that have to do with AI? Considering effects studios can pretty much make a fake human with CG effects now.

I don't think the technology is there quite yet to believably replicate a known actor.  Yes, it can de-age but not create a whole performance from just a computer.  The same thing applies to scripts.  You can tell AI to write a sequel to a movie or a few episodes of a TV show but it just isn't quite there yet to be really good (if it'll ever be).  And all of this is based off of previously created product.  The origins of which are still hidden.  They can call it open but the process/algorithm isn't all that open.

The reason it's so important for the actors and writers to take a stand now is to put expectations in place while they still have leverage. The technology isn't there yet or the companies would already be replacing the work that isn't being done with AI.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Irlandesa

[Bastet]

3 hours ago, DearEvette said:

Yeah, I have been listening to the press conference.  Fran's presser speech was very good.  She sounded mad and hurt and righteous at the same time. I was ready to go walk the lines and I am not even in the industry!  LOL.

Everyone I know in SAG-AFTRA (not that I know a ton) was for Membership First in the last election, very much not in favor of electing Drescher and continuing the Unite for Strength slate that had spent years giving away the store to the studios, and from my outside perspective I completely agreed they did way too much capitulating.  Union leadership can't fuck up on AI they way they did on streaming; they have to get ahead of this.

So I was pleasantly surprised by her speech (but, of course, I understand the remaining wariness about what the union leadership will actually do as the strike gets going).

[Trini]

I'm wondering how long this double-strike will last. This isn't good for the industry overall , obviously, but I'm guessing they won't work things out for another month; hopefully not much longer than that.

[DearEvette]

So did you all see what the AMPTP were proposing for AI?  According to SAG, the AMPTP came to the table and their proposal for AI was for it to be codified that background actors could come in for one day's work (be paid for one day) and have their likenesses scanned.  That likeness would then be owned by the company and could be used by the company in any project, any capacity, in perpetuity without any additional consent or compensation.

They would further be able to feed all collected acting images into generative AI so it could learn and they could use these generated AI actors in whatever they want.

Sounds creepy as hell.

[Kel Varnsen]

9 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

So did you all see what the AMPTP were proposing for AI?  According to SAG, the AMPTP came to the table and their proposal for AI was for it to be codified that background actors could come in for one day's work (be paid for one day) and have their likenesses scanned.  That likeness would then be owned by the company and could be used by the company in any project, any capacity, in perpetuity without any additional consent or compensation.

The whole story behind that raises some questions for me about that though. I think you could do that without AI so it makes me think that they are using AI as a scary buzzword.

Also I get that they don't want any kind of contract precedent kind of thing set, but background actors aren't usually covered by the same collective agreement that regular actors are, are they?

Edited July 14, 2023 by Kel Varnsen

[Spartan Girl]

4 hours ago, Trini said:

I'm wondering how long this double-strike will last. This isn't good for the industry overall , obviously, but I'm guessing they won't work things out for another month; hopefully not much longer than that.

And that’s what pisses me off. All those executives whining about how disruptive it’s going to be when they have the power to end all this by giving a fair deal and their dragging their feet because of their greed.

[DearEvette]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

The whole story behind that raises some questions for me about that though. I think you could do that without AI so it makes me think that they are using AI as a scary buzzword.

Also I get that they don't want any kind of contract precedent kind of thing set, but background actors aren't usually covered by the same collective agreement that regular actors are, are they?

I think the more alarming part isn't AI but the 'in perpetuity thing.'  It is one thing to be given rights within a specific body of work to manipulate an actor's likeness and voice.  Copyright has its own set of very specific laws that some of that is likely governed under wrt to that specific piece of work.

But 'owning' the likeness and voice of an actor to put them in anything ever that you want where they can't object is a dystopian.  What is to stop them from putting them in something incredibly explicit or have them endorsing a product or candidate that is personally repugnant to the actor?

At any rate, as I mentioned above contract language is very specific.  For instance, to a layman special effects can mean anything 'artificial' but technology wise, VFX and CGI are two different things.  And if you stipulate one thing in writing you need to be aware of what it is you are stipulating.  And AI is still an emergent technology with capabilities we may not yet be aware of.  One of the reasons some early broadcast or cable shows are not available for streaming or even available in DVD format because of the contracts for music rights were written before the advent of DVDs and streaming so the language doesn't cover those media.  And now in order to do that they have to either remove the music or renegotiate.  And decide which one is more expensive to so.

And one of the reasons WGA is striking again is because of what streaming has evolved into and in ways they could not predict back when they struck in 2007 which is now to their detriment. 

It also just sounds like based on what both WGA and SAG are saying is that the AMPTP are just not willing to even negotiate at all.  According to several sources apparently, certain studio heads have what amounts to a siege mentality where they were actually willing to sit, do nothing and hope the lack of pay/loss of income would result in the writers losing their homes etc.  so they'd come crawling back.  All that seems to have done is mage them angrier and more resolute.

re: Background actors.  I do not believe that day players and extras need to be in SAG to work as extras, but quite a few might be.  And I think if your plan is to be a working actor then you will need to eventually be in SAG.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I think you could do that without AI so it makes me think that they are using AI as a scary buzzword.

It can’t be done without AI. Artificial Intelligence in and of itself isn’t the problem. It is being used in Hollywood right now all the time. As @DearEvette says it is more a concern over how studios will use the technology. Right now actors are willing to work in conjunction with AI but are afraid that it will ultimately be used to exploit them and eliminate them altogether. 

3 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Also I get that they don't want any kind of contract precedent kind of thing set, but background actors aren't usually covered by the same collective agreement that regular actors are, are they?

Background actors can be part of SAG. Working three days as a background actor on a union production qualifies someone to join SAG. 

[NUguy514]

3 hours ago, DearEvette said:

re: Background actors.  I do not believe that day players and extras need to be in SAG to work as extras, but quite a few might be.  And I think if your plan is to be a working actor then you will need to eventually be in SAG.

Your entire post was fabulous, @DearEvette, and I can speak to this particular part a bit.

I'm in SAG (I actually really work in education and have never done anything of note as an actor, but I was a Theatre major in college), and there are certainly both union and non-union actors who work background.  If you are in SAG and work as a background actor, you are indeed covered by the same union rules that Brad Pitt and Nicole Kidman are covered by; pay scale is obviously different for background, but maximum number of allowable work hours is the same.  Non-union background actors are not covered by those same rules and can be, and are, heavily exploited by producers because of it.  And yes, if you want any type of acting career in the US, you do need to be in SAG; allowing yourself to be paid for one day's work and signing your likeness away forever won't be the way to effectuate that, but that's sure as hell what these sacks of shit producers are hoping will happen.

As it turns out, I do have a few feelings around this.

Edited July 15, 2023 by NUguy514

[DearEvette]

If nothing else, the strike is an educating me on a lot of things. 

So many actors are pulling back the curtain, so to speak, on the economics of being a working actor.  And I am not talking about the Tom Cruises and Julia Robertses and not even the newbie or background actor. But the  regulars on tv shows that have nice runs or supporting in fairly well known movies. They aren't getting headline articles written about them or are even top five on the call sheet sometimes and you may not even be able to quickly recall their names,  but they are the 'Hey It's That Guy!' type actor that you see in movies or tv shows all the time. 

DB Woodside has a nice series of tweets where he talks about the economics of living in LA but working in Canada and how little assistance actors get to find a living situation.   Michelle Hurd has a nice interview video about how the industry has changed wrt to the concept of an actor's quote.  Or the fact that acting is the one of the few jobs where years or seniority in the field don't translate to a higher  basic quote. 

Honestly this brings that whole Geoffrey Owens (from the Cosby show) working at Trader Joe's (where he qualified for health insurance) into perspective.

Others have also talked about shady Hollywood accounting practices where part of the actor's salary comes from profit of the film, but they don't see that part of the money because the studios claim that the films actually lose money year over year, so there is never a profit.  John Cusak has tweeted about this.  Also how actors have had to sue to get their share. Going back to Jame Garner and the Rockford Files.  Also the entire cast of My Big Fat Greek Wedding (minus Nia Vardalos) had to sue because the studio said the film did not turn a profit (it was made for less than $6 million but made over $350 million, mind you).

And finally, I learned about Tree Law.  Which has been a fun rabbit hole to go down. Apparently Universal brutally trimmed back a bunch of ficus trees (honestly those trees look like someone took a hacksaw to them) where SAG/WGA was striking to lessen the shade cover.  That opened a can of worms because there are laws about who, what, and when trees owned by the city can be trimmed.

[scarynikki12]

10 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

And finally, I learned about Tree Law.  Which has been a fun rabbit hole to go down. Apparently Universal brutally trimmed back a bunch of ficus trees (honestly those trees look like someone took a hacksaw to them) where SAG/WGA was striking to lessen the shade cover.  That opened a can of worms because there are laws about who, what, and when trees owned by the city can be trimmed.

Tree law Twitter has been so much fun. As soon as the pictures first showed up tons of people were “tree law violation!” and now the city of LA is investigating. Universal flat out admitted to cutting them down, claiming it was routine trimming which sparked arborists to point out trimming happens in the winter not the summer when the trees are actively growing, so I imagine the question is more about the fine they’ll pay than any whodunnit. 

[Bastet]

18 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

Apparently Universal brutally trimmed back a bunch of ficus trees (honestly those trees look like someone took a hacksaw to them) where SAG/WGA was striking to lessen the shade cover.

Here's the before and after of the trees:

The city maintains the trees, but businesses can obtain a permit to have trimming done by a private company, so it should be easy to check whether they got a permit.  Even if they did, the point remains they removed the little bit of shade to be found when we're having temperatures from 85-95 degrees in L.A. these days.

[scarynikki12]

So much fun!

[Irlandesa]

2 hours ago, DearEvette said:

That opened a can of worms because there are laws about who, what, and when trees owned by the city can be trimmed.

Tree law is such a fun area of law to read about because it's not just about city trees but personal trees.  On reddit, there are tons of stories about neighbor disputes that led to one neighbor cutting down another's trees not knowing about tree law and the massive fines they incurred.

Unfortunately, while the fines are significant for regular folks, it probably will be nothing to Universal.

[P2C2E]

A fine is a price.

[Spartan Girl]

At what point do you think the studios are going to give up this juvenile shit and go back to the negotiating table?

[proserpina65]

15 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

At what point do you think the studios are going to give up this juvenile shit and go back to the negotiating table?

When it starts to cost them serious money, I imagine.

[Ohiopirate02]

2 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

When it starts to cost them serious money, I imagine.

They will eventually get pressure from outside sources.  The strikes continuing indefinitely will hurt the overall economy in LA, and will also hurt the other rich movers and shakers there.  Think landlords and real estate tycoons.  Houses are going to be sitting empty or selling for hundreds of thousands under asking price.  Local small businesses will shut down and stop paying rent.  

[Spartan Girl]

22 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

When it starts to cost them serious money, I imagine.

Warner Bros considering delaying Dune 2 and others til 2024

Really? So it's cheaper to delay releases that are probably going to be big box office hits than to make a deal? I fail to see the logic in this.

Either way, I've had damn well enough of this bullshit. Start negotiating with WGA/SAG and end this strike NOW.

 

 

[DearEvette]

 

22 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

They will eventually get pressure from outside sources.  The strikes continuing indefinitely will hurt the overall economy in LA, and will also hurt the other rich movers and shakers there.  Think landlords and real estate tycoons.  Houses are going to be sitting empty or selling for hundreds of thousands under asking price.  Local small businesses will shut down and stop paying rent.  

Not just real estate. 

There are so many places affected with the kibosh on promotion -- venues, food workers, florists.  Even the fashion industry since big stars can't wear your pretty clothes on the non-existent red carpets.

Award shows.  I'd be flabbergasted if this went on through the end of the year, but if it does... Award season gets into full swing starting Jan-Feb.  It will already potentially affect the Emmys since that one is coming up.

And then as @Spartan Girl posted above, we get to delaying releases.  How many films are in the can ready to go?  How long can they delay releases?  Theaters were hard hit by Covid and are just now starting to see some returns, this would definitely hurt them.

One thing I think is cool that I am hearing is about Comic-Con.  I mean yeah some people are kinda bummed they won't be seeing the big stars in Hall H.  But a LOT of what I am hearing is that people are not fussed and that the lack of stars makes it feel more what it used to be  -- an actual convention for comic book nerds.

[Guest]

On 7/20/2023 at 12:34 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

They will eventually get pressure from outside sources. 

Yep. Including other companies. Advertisers aren’t going to be happy paying for tv and streaming ads if there isn’t any new content to bring in viewers. 

13 hours ago, DearEvette said:

I'd be flabbergasted if this went on through the end of the year, but if it does... Award season gets into full swing starting Jan-Feb.  It will already potentially affect the Emmys since that one is coming up.

Same. I can’t see them being willing to write off award season or the entire tv season.

15 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Warner Bros considering delaying Dune 2 and others til 2024

This would be a really good thing for The Marvels. 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Really? So it's cheaper to delay releases that are probably going to be big box office hits than to make a deal? I fail to see the logic in this.

A content creator I follow posted that they were offered thousands to do promotion during the strike. I’ve seen others saying the same thing. It’s crazy what they are offering to get people to cross the picket line but won’t even negotiate with the unions. 

[starri]

Anyone else pretty sure that Hollywood is going to learn all of the wrong lessons from Barbie's success?  You know, rather than a unique, cleverly written movie, just assume that people just want movies based on toys?

[mariah23]

54 minutes ago, starri said:

Anyone else pretty sure that Hollywood is going to learn all of the wrong lessons from Barbie's success?  You know, rather than a unique, cleverly written movie, just assume that people just want movies based on toys?

Already starting the countdown for the (enter toy here) movie 🙄

[Anduin]

4 hours ago, starri said:

Anyone else pretty sure that Hollywood is going to learn all of the wrong lessons from Barbie's success?  You know, rather than a unique, cleverly written movie, just assume that people just want movies based on toys?

Even before it was released, there was a report about the studios planning more toy-inspired movies. But then He-Man got shelved. Who bloody knows. But you aren't wrong.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, starri said:

Anyone else pretty sure that Hollywood is going to learn all of the wrong lessons from Barbie's success?  You know, rather than a unique, cleverly written movie, just assume that people just want movies based on toys?

After “Barbie,” Mattel Is Raiding Its Entire Toybox

Quote

Meanwhile, Mattel has amassed a long slate of other projects. Daniel Kaluuya, for example, has agreed to produce a feature about Barney, the purple dinosaur. Thirteen more films have been publicly announced, including movies about He-Man and Polly Pocket; forty-five are in development. (Some of the projects have an ouroboros quality. Tom Hanks is supposed to star in “Major Matt Mason,” which will be based on an astronaut action figure that has been largely forgotten, except for the fact that it helped inspire Buzz Lightyear—one of the protagonists of Pixar’s “Toy Story” franchise.)

 

1 hour ago, Anduin said:

 But then He-Man got shelved. Who bloody knows. But you aren't wrong.

Netflix backed out of the He-Man movie but Mattel is still trying to make it happen. 

[Anduin]

18 minutes ago, Dani said:

After “Barbie,” Mattel Is Raiding Its Entire Toybox

 

Netflix backed out of the He-Man movie but Mattel is still trying to make it happen. 

Yes, that's probably the article I read.

Someone on IO9, I think, complained that He-Man, Transformers, GI Joe etc are all for the nostalgia of generation X, but there isn't exactly a young and fresh audience who is that interested. Indeed, as a member of GX, I'm not that interested either.

Admittedly, I can be won over by a good trailer. I don't know I want these things until I do. But that's a lot of money for the studios to shell out without a promise of return.

[supposebly]

This member of Gen X is rolling her eyes. I could not care less about movies based on toys. 

[Kel Varnsen]

On 7/19/2023 at 2:00 PM, DearEvette said:

Others have also talked about shady Hollywood accounting practices where part of the actor's salary comes from profit of the film, but they don't see that part of the money because the studios claim that the films actually lose money year over year, so there is never a profit.  John Cusak has tweeted about this.  Also how actors have had to sue to get their share. Going back to Jame Garner and the Rockford Files.  Also the entire cast of My Big Fat Greek Wedding (minus Nia Vardalos) had to sue because the studio said the film did not turn a profit (it was made for less than $6 million but made over $350 million, mind you).

My Big Fat Greek Wedding came out in 2002. Who the hell at that point would have though it was a smart move to take percentage of a movies profits? Even I have known for a long time that you always get percentage of revenue not profits, and I am just some guy. There are stories about the actors from Star Wars from 1977 not getting money for the exact same reason. How the hell did professional Hollywood people like agents or managers 20+ years later not know it was a bad idea?

[kiddo82]

Not based on a toy but all this conversation about the success of Barbie giving studios the wrong idea reminded me of this.  I know this is satire, but I could 100% see this actually happening.

Studios/Theaters are already getting it wrong with Saw Patrol.  (Catchy name though.)  The Barbemheimer thing works because a. It's a novelty, b. These would be two highly anticipated movies with known stars and creators even without the meme, and c. The target demo isn't as vastly different as seems at first glance.  Barbie is probably is more accessible to teens and general audiences than Oppenheimer but both can appeal to adults and are event movies for cinephiles.  I don't know what the Venn diagram for Saw X and Paw Patrol would look like.  I don't want to either.

Edited July 24, 2023 by kiddo82

[Anduin]

2 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

 I don't know what the Venn diagram for Saw X and Paw Patrol would look like.  I don't want to either.

Adults who have kids can still like horror movies. I don't have kids and don't like horror, but surely there are some out there.

[absnow54]

11 hours ago, Anduin said:

Adults who have kids can still like horror movies. I don't have kids and don't like horror, but surely there are some out there.

Yeah, but I'm not going to double feature Paw Patrol and Saw with my kids. The juxtaposition of the two series is funny, but not many people would actually follow up on watching the Paw Patrol movie, unless their kids made them. 

13 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

I don't know what the Venn diagram for Saw X and Paw Patrol would look like.  I don't want to either.

My kids barely got into Paw Patrol, but even just the handful of episodes we watched was enough for me. The Venn diagram of Saw and Paw Patrol fans, to me, are those who like to both watch and experience torture. 

Edited July 24, 2023 by absnow54

[Guest]

18 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

Studios/Theaters are already getting it wrong with Saw Patrol. 

I disagree. Not because I think people are actually going to do a Paw Patrol/Saw X double feature. I don’t think the studios expect that to happen. The catchy name and meme potential if it catches on is the point. Just like Barbie and Oppenheimer benefited far more than the publicity than the number of people who actually watche both in the same day. It’s easy marketing.

[kiddo82]

I hear you that no publicity is bad publicity especially if it's free.  That said, I'm not giving the studios any credit that there was any thought put into the creation of Saw Patrol beyond "it worked for Barbemheimer" without any consideration as to the nuances of why Barbemheimer was successful in the first place.

Edited July 24, 2023 by kiddo82

[Jaded]

 

[starri]

On 7/23/2023 at 12:50 PM, starri said:

Anyone else pretty sure that Hollywood is going to learn all of the wrong lessons from Barbie's success?  You know, rather than a unique, cleverly written movie, just assume that people just want movies based on toys?

Called it.

Leaving aside the fact that Greta Gerwig is a better creator than Lena Dunham by the factor of approximately infinity, the former also had 60+ years of social commentary and the developments of second- and third-wave feminism to draw from when crafting a story about Barbie.

What the hell is there to say about Polly Pocket?

[Trini]

3 hours ago, Jaded said:

 

 

Where's the facepalm reaction button when you need one??

The studios need to get it together and soon, because without writers and performers they will have NOTHING.

[Spartan Girl]

59 minutes ago, starri said:

Called it.

Leaving aside the fact that Greta Gerwig is a better creator than Lena Dunham by the factor of approximately infinity, the former also had 60+ years of social commentary and the developments of second- and third-wave feminism to draw from when crafting a story about Barbie.

What the hell is there to say about Polly Pocket?

 

15 minutes ago, Trini said:

Where's the facepalm reaction button when you need one??

I know you were referring to the strike deadlock, but this deserves a facepalm reaction too.

Back to the strike, these studio CEOS are BEYOND contempt at this point. MAKE. THE. FUCKING. DEAL.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, starri said:

Called it.

Leaving aside the fact that Greta Gerwig is a better creator than Lena Dunham by the factor of approximately infinity, the former also had 60+ years of social commentary and the developments of second- and third-wave feminism to draw from when crafting a story about Barbie.

What the hell is there to say about Polly Pocket?

 

I think it’s actually worse because the slate of Mattel toy based movies were actually planned before Barbie was a success. I can’t believe they were able to find partners for so many of them. Maybe MGM had to sign on to the Polly Pocket movie to get the American Girl movie which has a lot more potential. The Uno movie is the biggest head scratcher for me. 

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

The Uno movie is the biggest head scratcher for me. 

UNO?!  Clue is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I enjoyed playing Uno, but how in the hell does that particular game remotely translate to a film?!  Clue was a very long time getting made, with multiple writers dropping out, because they couldn't figure out how the hell to make a script out of a board game.  And that game had locations, objects, and, you know, characters.  Uno is a deck of cards!