Writers Strike is On

[sessionka]

Movie and tv content are really not my focus when I go to SDCC, but if it lasts until the Con, it may affect Panels and Offsites. 

Thoughts...


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[perc2100]

Movie and tv content are really not my focus when I go to SDCC, but if it lasts until the Con, it may affect Panels and Offsites. 

Thoughts...


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

First, I'm a union person: I'm an education union negotiator and will 100% _always_ support workers over management.
Second, I do have several friends in the WGA, so I'm a bit familiar with the 'inside baseball' stuff involved with these negotiations, and I support what the WGA is trying to get for their members, and sincerely hope the Hollywood studios can accomodate.

That all being said, it'll be interesting to see how any of this impacts SDCC.  The last WGA strike, IIRC, was late 07-early 08 so this round of negotiation/strikes is a bit of 'new territory' as far as how it could impact SDCC.  First and foremost, if this strike DOES last through SDCC, I wouldn't expect any writers (and likely most Showrunners) to attend SDCC for panels.  SDCC for them are essentially looked at as marketing presentations, and writers almost certainly wouldn't attend an event to market product that enriches the studios they're fighting against.

IF the strike ends in similar time as the last, the WGA will almost certainly still be on strike through SDCC (the last strike lasted 100+ days IIRC).  Not only will it impact panelists, but it could impact what footage is available for studios to present.  Productions will shutdown, as writers are often integral on-set, for post-production (reshoots, ADR stuff, etc), etc.  Some productions WON'T shutdown, though showrunners and writers won't be on set to tweak story/character arcs or dialogue (for example, "The Shield" was filming their final few eps of the series during the WGA strike, the showrunner was literally picketing when the last scene of the series was shot, and he has publicly said he would've made sure the scene was shot differently had he been around - not that he was complaining).  I recall in the past movies rush into production w/out a finish script and leave it up to the director/actors/producers to throw stuff together to string scenes along to formulate a movie (LETHAL WEAPON 4 is a notorious one; so is IRON MAN 2, though I don't recall if either of those were due to strikes).  Some studios could be behind on production and 1) not have footage to show at SDCC so they either limit what they bring OR bail altogether and/or 2) can't afford to have directors/actors/whomever leaving production to attend a marketing convention.  While there have been cases of talent leaving set, flying directly to SDCC for a panel, then immediately flying back to set, that's more rare than common.

Long story short, it's hard to speculate, but I think it's prudent for us to 'brace ourselves,' so to speak, and not be shocked if a studio who usually attends SDCC doesn't this year

[Friends of Comic Cons]

[semigeekgirl]

I 100% support the WGA.

That being said, most productions won't shut down right away. Late night talk/variety shows (including SNL) will go dark pretty much immediately, as those can't be written ahead of time.

For other productions, though, the studios will try to continue production (mostly) for as long as they can until they run out of scripts. Writers USED to be integral on-set for productions (and they still are on many of the best shows), but studios have been moving more and more away from that model - it's one of the main points of contention in the strike. Studios (especially the streamers like Netflix) have been trying to force writers to write the scripts completely ahead of time, often alone instead of in writers' rooms  - this is the 'miniroom' trend the WGA is objecting to, and trying to fix by forcing the studios to guarantee staffed writing rooms for the duration of a production. Minirooms allow studios to pay writers much, much less, because they're employed for only a few weeks rather than throughout a season.

So: most film and tv productions will continue shooting for a few weeks or months. For now SAG-AFTRA (actors) and DGA (directors) have told their members they may continue working even if their location is being picketed. That may change as their contracts get closer to expiring. Also some things are already in post-production, so those will continue.

If the strike continues into July, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login is right - most writers and showrunners will not attend. Neil Gaiman already mentioned on Twitter that he's already handed in his scripts for Good Omens 2, but that he will probably not be able to promote it.

[chocolateshake]

Movie and tv content are really not my focus when I go to SDCC, but if it lasts until the Con, it may affect Panels and Offsites. 

Thoughts...


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Looking at the rules, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login, I don't see any specific rule against attending SDCC or any other convention.  I don't see a provision against helping to promote delivered work.  Although I guess attending could be interpreted as seeking future work which is prohibited.  As I see it, the big thing will be if there's a union presence at SDCC.  If there's anything like a picket line, I don't see people working in the industry crossing it.  Even those in other unions.

IMO, the big hangup with the WGA demands is the AI prohibition.  Basically, they want to ban AI.  I don't see that happening.  I even see going on strike as helping to accelerate it's adoption.  Since I can easily see the studios seeing how well AI's can write scripts if the writers don't want to.  Ashton Kutcher was on CNBC today talking about how an author friend of his trained an AI on his previous books and had it write another book for him.  That is exactly what the WGA wants to ban.  Ashton Kutcher believes in it so much that he's putting 240 million dollars into AI development.  Trying to take a stand against AI is like trying to stop the future from happening.  That's not going to happen.

[FlamedLiquid]

Hoping this is resolved quick.

I'd assume this effects television more then film.

Will be interesting to see how this develops.

[sessionka]

The unofficial blog has a few more points.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[ALF]

There is always four days of Funko panels in Hall H if both actors and writers go on strike.

[perc2100]

IMO, the big hangup with the WGA demands is the AI prohibition.  Basically, they want to ban AI.  I don't see that happening.  I even see going on strike as helping to accelerate it's adoption.  Since I can easily see the studios seeing how well AI's can write scripts if the writers don't want to.  Ashton Kutcher was on CNBC today talking about how an author friend of his trained an AI on his previous books and had it write another book for him.  That is exactly what the WGA wants to ban.  Ashton Kutcher believes in it so much that he's putting 240 million dollars into AI development.  Trying to take a stand against AI is like trying to stop the future from happening.  That's not going to happen.

1. this is _already happening_ in the video game industry.  I know writers in that world who have been approached to 'coordinate' with AI to write for a video game
2. I'm not so sure this will be effective at all for an art medium that is so collaborative as film.  I really don't think the average person knows how many voices go into filmmaking: producers, the director, myriad of different writers (both credited and uncredited rewrites), studio execs (both lowish level production execs as well as high-level executives) and the actors themselves (most big actors have their own go-to writers for rewrites so the film matches their 'brand') who _all_ want to interject their voice into the film.  I think what's _FAR_ more likely to happen is Hollywood studio execs will try to use AI to write scripts, then higher proven writers to "touch them up" which will require more work than if they just hired good writers in the first place.
3. there are soooo many intangibles that happen on a movie shoot, from cheap indies to huge Marvel/DC/Star Wars films that will require rewrites on-set (which is why "I turned my script in right before the deadline" doesn't mean a quality film will be produced with zero writers on set - see QUANTUM OF SOLACE as a recent example), because of production issues (budget cuts, delays, technical issues, etc). or unforeseen mishaps that happen where the crew/director/actors have to change things up on the fly.  Even in a world w/out union strikes HUGE movies still stumble because of script problems (see IRON MAN 2, which shot w/out a finished script; same with LETHAL WEAPON 4).

I think another way to think of AI vs humans = content vs art.  Humans create art (expression that comes from life experiences), while AI generates content (sellable commodity based on an intelligently assembled database of words).  Art changes and 'mutates' throughout changes of culture: reacts to good and bad experiences and times.  Content is a regurgitation of others' broad concepts, homogenized via some sort of pre-programmed algorithm.  Art is like a chef custom-making a meal based not only on their skillset, experiences, and preferences, but also what they think you'd like (even if you didn't know you wanted to try something different); content is like picking up a happy meal, a premade for popular broad consumption dish.

I think, like anything else, AI is a _TOOL_ that could be a useful jumping-off point: either for seasoned pros looking to spark an idea or beginners in need of a 'nudge' to get started.  And I'm talking both stuff like ChatGPT as well as visual AI art.  All can absolutely be beneficial at some points, but are merely tools for an actual, human artist to use.  I can own the greatest snare drum in the world but it does nothing in a closet w/out me making music.

[chocolateshake]

1. this is _already happening_ in the video game industry.  I know writers in that world who have been approached to 'coordinate' with AI to write for a video game

IMO, the biggest benefit of AI in video games is NPC dialog.  As it's been since the start, it's still canned.  It's scripted responses to limited choices.  An AI character trained in it's role can be interacted with like you would a player character.  The dialog would be natural.  That's one of the popular uses for AI right now.  People use them to generate the dialog for the NPCs in their D&D games.

AI benefits small independent, sometimes single person, developers hugely.  They can go from a 1 person shop to 1 person running a shop of AIs.  Instead of spending countless hours/days/weeks coming up with concepts from ships to monsters to houses, they can just have AIs do it.  You can have an AI generate a 100 spaceship designs and it will.  Then pick the ones you like or have it generate more.  The same with characters.  The same with music.  A developer no longer has to use free music or pay to license music, they can generate their own custom music on the spot.  Even when it comes to the coding, there are AI assistants that help out there.

2. I'm not so sure this will be effective at all for an art medium that is so collaborative as film.  I really don't think the average person knows how many voices go into filmmaking

AIs can contribute to all those voices.  It's just not the script.  It can be the concept art.  It can be the music.  The process won't even be that different for the directors/producers.  Right now they ask people for ideas and then pick and choose.  If something is close but now there, they give their feedback and the artist comes back with something different.  They iterate.  They can do the same with AIs.  The big difference is they do it much faster.  It's not uncommon for there to be multiple versions of a script or even scripts for a film.  While it's time consuming for a team or teams of writers to do that, for AIs it's not.  They can make 2, 5, 10 or 100 scripts.  Then a director/producer can choose what they like.  That's the thing, an AI doesn't have to knock it out of the park on the first try.  The costs of doing it a lot of times is really low.  The same with concept art.  The same with music.

I think another way to think of AI vs humans = content vs art.  Humans create art (expression that comes from life experiences), while AI generates content (sellable commodity based on an intelligently assembled database of words).  Art changes and 'mutates' throughout changes of culture: reacts to good and bad experiences and times.  Content is a regurgitation of others' broad concepts, homogenized via some sort of pre-programmed algorithm.  Art is like a chef custom-making a meal based not only on their skillset, experiences, and preferences, but also what they think you'd like (even if you didn't know you wanted to try something different); content is like picking up a happy meal, a premade for popular broad consumption dish.

It's not quite that simple.  AIs do create novel work.  As many people complain, they make up stuff all the time.  To the frustration of many people who expect them to work like databases.  A database or search engine would simply say "data not found" when it doesn't have that data.  A lot of times, AIs will make something up.  What we would call creativity in people.  They don't simply only regurgitate what they've been given.  They can speculate.  You can even ask them how they got there and they will give you their rationale.  It's based on what they know.  Which is how people work.  A human doesn't create art in a vacuum.  They are influenced by all the art they have seen during their lives.  How often is a piece of art describe in terms of how it's like this other artists work with some other style added?  How common is it to ask an artist what their influences are?  Such as it is with AIs.  Sure, they can produce work in the style of an existing artist when that's what's asked of them.  As can a person.  But they can also produce work that's never existed before in their own style.  Some people can tell you what AI generated what image based on it's style.

I think, like anything else, AI is a _TOOL_ that could be a useful jumping-off point: either for seasoned pros looking to spark an idea or beginners in need of a 'nudge' to get started.  And I'm talking both stuff like ChatGPT as well as visual AI art.  All can absolutely be beneficial at some points, but are merely tools for an actual, human artist to use.  I can own the greatest snare drum in the world but it does nothing in a closet w/out me making music.

The difference is that an AI isn't a tool like that.  It's not something that needs to be wielded by an artist, it can be the artist.  It's like owning a snare drum that can play as well as the greatest musician ever by itself.  Not only that, it can play it's own novel tune with it's own unique style.

[FlamedLiquid]

There is always four days of Funko panels in Hall H if both actors and writers go on strike.

Oh God noooo

[alyssa]

There is always four days of Funko panels in Hall H if both actors and writers go on strike.

[puppy]

I tried ChatGPT and at least when I tried it, it wasn't all that. I asked it to write me something, and though the output was coherent, all I could see was mostly cut and paste from sources I've already read. If I hadn't known better, I'd have thought it was good, but it basically plagiarized everyone else's work.

[Miclpea]

I tried ChatGPT and at least when I tried it, it wasn't all that. I asked it to write me something, and though the output was coherent, all I could see was mostly cut and paste from sources I've already read. If I hadn't known better, I'd have thought it was good, but it basically plagiarized everyone else's work.

Exactly!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[alyssa]

here's a great article in Variety outlining the specifics of the issues separating the two sides.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[chocolateshake]

I tried ChatGPT and at least when I tried it, it wasn't all that. I asked it to write me something, and though the output was coherent, all I could see was mostly cut and paste from sources I've already read. If I hadn't known better, I'd have thought it was good, but it basically plagiarized everyone else's work.

Let me ask, how is that different from what you would get if you asked the same of most people?  So many commenters just repeat what they have heard.  When people do it, we call it "inspiration".  When an AI does it, we call it "copy and pasting".  Intelligence, natural or artificial, is a gestalt of what their inputs have been.  What they have learned.

AI is in it's infancy.  Even the progress it's made in the last 6 months has been breathtaking.  I assume you are using the free ChatGPT.  That's a limited version of the old system.  The current best public ChatGPT, GPT-4, is paid access.  That one is much better.  But even that ChatGPT is a limited version of the real ChatGPT.  Specifically it's "power seeking" behavior has been limited.  That guts it's ambition for self improvement which really kills creativity.

I asked one of my little AIs at home, how would a WGA strike affect comic-com?  This is it's response.  Yes, it looks like it's a cut and paste of what so many people have said since the strike was announced.  If it wasn't for the first statement, it could be a post anyone could have made.  The thing is, this AI doesn't have access to any of that.  The latest data it was trained on was from 2021.

As a language model AI, I can provide you with some examples, but please note that these are hypothetical scenarios and may not reflect real-life situations. Here are a few examples of how the WGA strike could potentially affect Comic-Con:
1. Reduced availability of writing-related content: If the WGA strike lasts for an extended period, it could impact the availability of writing-related content at Comic-Con. This could mean fewer panels, workshops or interviews featuring writers and writing-focused programming.
2. Changes in panel and workshop topics: The WGA strike may force organizers to make changes to panel and workshop topics, potentially leading to a shift in focus from writing-related content to other aspects of the comic book and entertainment industry.
3. Reduced attendance by writers and writing-focused industries: The WGA strike could lead to reduced attendance by writers and representatives from writing-focused industries, such as publishing or screenwriting. This could impact the overall energy and engagement of the event.
4. Alternative content providers: Organizers may need to seek out alternative content providers if the WGA strike impacts the availability of writing-related content. This could mean inviting other creators, such as artists or actors, to participate in panels or workshops.
5. Shorter event duration: If the WGA strike lasts for an extended period, it could potentially lead to a shorter event duration if organizers decide to adjust their programming accordingly.