• Tygr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    163
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve been “striking” for a long time now, against junk TV in general. There’s an occasional awesome show that delivers but 95% of it is low-effort junk TV like dating, survival, cooking and other shows like it.

    I haven’t had live TV in years and it’s quite shocking to see what the average user deals with. Junk TV + ads that play 30% of the time is absolutely insane.

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      111
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      low-effort junk TV like dating, survival, cooking and other shows like it.

      … in other words, exactly the shows that don’t use actors or writers

        • reev@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know how other companies work, but I work at a company that produces a lot of reality TV shows. They definitely have writers that will lead the direction that the shows take (for example challenge ideas for a dating show or maybe bow they deliver hints to a blind customer cooking show) and they’ll have some leading questions in interviews (or even asking to phrase things for more drama if the contestants want to and they usually say yes) but you’d be surprised at how unscripted the ones we produce are.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I actually think the movies they star in and write are shit too.

        Just looking at the list of movies held up by the strike makes me weep with joy.

        Glad greedy shitbags who make nothing but garbage are fighting each other.

    • blivet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      I haven’t had live TV in years and it’s quite shocking to see what the average user deals with. Junk TV + ads that play 30% of the time is absolutely insane.

      Yeah, I’ve had the same experience. We don’t have live TV, and when we occasionally hang out with friends or family who do I’m always flabbergasted at the frequency and length of ad breaks nowadays, and similarly amazed that despite a nearly endless list of channels there never seems to be anything I actively want to watch.

      • leapingleopard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can’t believe the people that allow commercials to blare in their living rooms without diving for the remote control like the house is on fire. Is it just me? and they just continue normal conversation like it’s somehow possible to hear them.

        • lumcos@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          diving for the remote control like the house is on fire

          lol this is me, it’s not just you 😂

          Our house is generally on the quieter side. Partly because some of us are on the spectrum, and partly because we like to actually hear each other when we converse. Haven’t paid for TV in years, don’t miss it.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        My parents still have cable TV (I just got them a Roku not long ago, so fingers crossed…), and at this point I can’t stand to watch it for more than about one and a half commercial breaks. It’s hard to believe anybody willingly subjects themselves to that trash when ad-free alternatives are available.

      • timetraveller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I had one of them first TiVos, then upgraded to them expanded versions modes online for 1TB of shows. The 30-second skip button pressed six(6) times would effectively (skip) the ads. Never looked back. When I see or hear a commercial at someone’s house it rocks me like I’m in a different dimension and time.

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Personally I rarely watch TV in real time, so the only time of year I ever really see commercials is during the NFL season.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Bruce was talking about it 30 years ago when we had 57 channels and nothin’ on. It’s only gotten worse since then.

    • mmagod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      lol only 30%?

      jokes but i agree… i remember going to visit some relatives and sat and watched tv with them… i too was so shocked at how they’d sit idly thru commercials jarring into their show, slapping them in the face…

      i can’t stand it. just about anything i watch, when i watch, is commercial free

      • MyNameIsIgglePiggle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think they get that from most half hour shows are 22 minutes and hour shows only 42 minutes.

        But if course networks have been known to cut them back even further to squeeze some more ads in

      • Tygr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah. I’ll watch an occasional Gordon Ramsay here and there. I’m more referring to the baking shows, kids cooking shows and similar. But you know what I mean, replace all variants of cooking with the many variants of home improvement, how many do we need?

        • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yea there are simply too many, they’ve flooded the airways with a lot of garbage instead of a small amount of quality that reruns

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah! I’m sick of it. Not only do they want infinite money but also infinite growth.

      Literally like a cancer. Feasting on society until nothing is left.

    • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You wanna get really mad? A new practice they were trying to pull off was bring in some young good looking actors; do 3d body scans, record a bunch of voice data, and then have them allow the studios a perpetual license to use their likeness for a few thousand bucks. How evil is that?

      • lohrun@fediverse.boo
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s only a matter of time for desperate people to sell their likeness to a company doing that. If there was a company out there saying they’d pay you $3k to do a full body 3d scan, record 1 hour of voice lines, and own the rights to your image…do you know how many people would do that? (Probably a significant amount)

        Evil and awful yes, but people are desperate for cash in this economy and most people wouldn’t truly understand what they are giving up to the company

        • TendieMaster69@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Let’s hope some never become desperate, because they see through the lies and wouldn’t be doing anything for money. They’d have fun watching things break.

        • vlad@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          At this point they should just pay OpenAI to AI generate their “actors”

    • jimmyjoners@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This. I want more strikes. I’m tired of everything going to shit and the masses sit back and do nothing. I’ve gone to a few protests recently, and honestly it’s cheap therapy for me. Feels nice to actually DO something.

      • kklusz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        And what have you actually accomplished with marching and shouting? I went to quite a few BLM protests back in 2020, got tear gassed and shit along with my friends, and yet still haven’t seen anything meaningful change.

        • CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Change is slowwwww, my brother. It’s rare that an actual upheaval happens and things shift noticably overnight.

          It is and always has been a long, long struggle, and there is no final victory, only temporary triumphs that must be vigorously defended, because the enemy will never stop trying to take back every inch.

          • lohrun@fediverse.boo
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Change doesn’t have to be slow and we don’t need to make more excuses for the people able to make the change. Protests outside of the US have shown how to accelerate change in the direction they want. At this point though, it appears that a lot of people have given up hope that anything will change

            • CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              And can you blame them? The opposition infrastructure is so incredibly overbuilt that it’s like trying to chip away at a wall when they keep taking away your tools.

    • CyPhD@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s even more goddamn nefarious than just destroying the planet for wealth - if some of the shit I’ve been reading is right, then AI has changed the game and this strike is our fucking chance to get ahead of the shit that these studios want to pull. In what world is it okay to pay an actor a single day’s worth of work and retain their likeness in pepertuiry using AI generation.

      I’ll admit that I’m not very knowledge on the whole workings of the AI part of it, but I do feel like every actor should have full control over their likeness and how it should be recorded and how it is applied to AI.

      • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The 1% would murder us all and replace us with AI if given the chance, never forget that. They’d be too stupid to realize that the AI bots would take them out next.

      • MBM@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        From what I heard it’s not even new technology but from ~2016, they’re just trying to push it through again but now under the guise of AI

  • ThinlySlicedGlizzy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t care how fast AI can pump out “high quality content” because I refuse to consume any of it. I really hope the strikes are successful.

    • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      If it is high quality, why do you care how it was produced?

      But it’s not the high quality content that’s threatened by AI, it’s the mediocre gargabe. It’s the endless stream of poor quality TV shows and movies which are produced not as art, but as a means of steady predictibile income for the companies involved. That’s the industry aspect of the business. This side of the business consumes most of the talent in the industry. They all know it’s not good and they all hope they will get the funding to actually work on the things they know will be high quality. I think AI will allow them to do that.

      Further more, this strike is not just about AI. I think this aspect is the one media outlets care most about and gets reported on more. The entertainment industry has suffered a major shift with streaming platforms and the movement of money from production studios to streaming platforms has left the employees behind. They’re getting less money from streaming platforms but still do the same work. That’s what the strike is about. The industry didn’t care for them when it changed.

      • R51@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        To answer your question about quality: it matters because it’s not real. The act of producing something of quality is what makes us better people. It ties into motivation to be better. Computers automating repetition doesn’t hinder that (as much, it does affect learning curves). The notion that computers be used for an output that would normally require creativity is just throwing away the essense of creation, the end product is not the only thing that benefits us. There’s no objective to why it was created, an AI writing something that evokes emotion is a party trick. All it really does is promote consumption and demoralize innovation, and ironically it hides behind innovation as the end-goal of the project. It’s just dead. One of the most beautiful things within creating something of value is the very process of creating it, having the passion and desire to do so, and the will to bring it into existence. AI is a cursed attempt at trying to replicate this process, and by lifting that kind of burden from a human inhuman.

        • MelonTheMan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree with you when it comes to AI in its current form - I wouldn’t even call it a party trick, just dumb luck. Machine learning through repetition will use existing ideas and tropes.

          However you can provide the model with unique ideas, new tropes, characters, environments, and settings. The model in its current form could generate something nearly usable (script wise) and still be a valid piece of art with some cleaning up. Just because you save time doesn’t make an idea less “good”

          In the future we could have near sentient AI that generates actual pieces of art far faster and better than a person can.

        • dimlo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          i refuse to believe AI can replace totally of the human part in the industry. Yeah some of the weak actors will be pushed out as they are not doing the job good enough, but it’s inevitable that one day technology is advanced that AI can actually replace human workforce. Like car manufacturing industry that have massive machines to assemble car parts, but also there are things only human can do. We don’t need crappy scriptwriters writing rubbish soap opera that my 10 year old daughter can write because they are no more generic than a AI churn out script. It’s like hiring a typewriter operator in 2023. Or rubbish actors that are like reading their script out with minimal effort and skills. It does not make sense.

          • dustyData@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            typewriter operator in 2023

            There’s this people called stenographers who are paid quite well, they can write hundreds of words per minute and essentially transcribe a conversation in real time. They are hired by courts to create records of the sessions, by journalists, parliaments and to transcribe subtitles for audiovisual media. They use this cool typewriter like machine called a stenotype that was invented in 1880. The thing is, they tried to replace them with speech recognition computers. They discovered they needed a human to sanitize input for the computer, essentially a person who can speak really fast and really mechanically, repeating what others said in the room, or what was said in the movie or whatever, into an oxygen-mask-like sound proof microphone. So, they still had to pay someone to be there. Many places decided they could just pay the stenographer and receive higher quality products despite the slightly higher costs. Then YouTube tried to use machine learning to auto-create closed captions. Before that they used a community contribution approach that depended on volunteers to take some time to transcribe the subs. That change to automation was such a fiasco that some big YouTube channels now advertise that they pay an actual company with humans to do the closed captions for their videos in the name of proper quality accessibility. Because automated closed caption tends to do interesting stuff and it’s even worse when they try to throw auto-translation into the mix.

            The point is, people tend to not understand technology and how it relates to humans, specially techbros and techies who have the most skewed biases towards tech and little sociological understanding. Nothing can be accurately predicted in that realm, and most relations that result from the appearance of new technology are usually paradoxical to common sense.

        • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s no objective to why it was created, an AI writing something that evokes emotion is a party trick.

          Then it’s not valuable. The question still stands: if something is truly valuable, does it matter how it was created? You are not answering this question, you are simply pointing out why AI in your opinion cannot produce art. My question is a bit “tongue in cheek”, of course. It cannot be truly answered without a specific example of creation. I’m asking it to prove a point: we’re dismissing something we don’t understand.

          All it really does is promote consumption and demoralize innovation

          I’d argue that this is what Hollywood already does. And as you rightly argued through your comment, it brings little artistic or creative value.

          • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            To me, it’s the same feeling as the teachers that wouldn’t accept papers written on a computer (after an age where we know how to write) because “it’s less honest”.

            I’m not good at drawing. I would love to try to make a game. Anti-AI luddites are happy that I will never produce something because I am incabable of doing something that an AI could easily accomplish.

        • dudebro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol, ok.

          I can’t wait for you to like something then change your mind when you find out it’s made by AI.

          Lol.

      • Loom In Essence@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m looking for an interaction with the artists. I do not care what an AI produces… and I don’t care what a marketing team or boardroom of producers produces. I’m looking for an artist’s vision.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then hollywood is the wrong place to look. AI can make it even worse, but hollywood has been mostly devoid of expressing artistic vision long before AI came around.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m looking for an interaction with the artists.

          How exactly are you interacting with them while sitting on your couch looking at a screen?

          This is an appeal to purity argument. You’ve invented some higher standard (that doesn’t really even make sense) with the purpose of excluding the thing you don’t like.

            • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              That it’s an entirely subjective experience and to presume that someone’s enjoyment of it means that a human had to be involved in It’s creation is such a ridiculous response.

              Have you ever seen the paintings that one chimpanzee made? They’re actually pretty nice in composition. Am I allowed to like the way they look even if no human made them?

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                So long as it’s not a glorified machine learning program designed to commit mass fraud and copyright infringement, then yes. Until then, go cry harder.

                • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m going to think back to people like you in 15 years and smile at how naive you were.

          • Loom In Essence@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The audience responds en masse by tuning in, paying up, being changed, perpetuating the ideas back into the culture through the filter of their own personality, chatting about the thing, praising or criticizing the artist.

            This is an appeal to purity argument. You’ve invented some higher standard

            Nope. It has absolutely nothing to do with “purity.” It has to do with humans doing the ancient human thing of making art. Dancing, singing, telling stories. You’re bringing in the abstraction of purity.

            Hollywood (in its crudest aspect) is already an AI algorithm for churning out trash. That’s why I tune out already. Because it is not humans telling each other stories. It is pure corporate manipulation. More AI in the hands of producer-goons just means more corporate manipulation and less humans telling each other stories.

            AI in the hands of an artist is a tool for exploring and creating. AI in the hands of corporate goons is the total opposite.

      • Knusper@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it is high quality, why do you care how it was produced?

        To me, this is comparable to fiction vs. non-fiction.

        Personally, I do already find fiction less engaging, because there’s nothing romantic about these stories. With which I’m not referring to a love story, I mean that there’s no sense of wonder of what lead to these events. It happened that way, because a writer wrote it that way.

        And yet, the one thing still tying fiction to reality is the writer. You can still wonder what life experiences they’ve made to tell this story and how they’re telling it.
        Our current narrow AIs don’t make life experiences, so you lose even that strand of meaning.

      • dudebro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah. It’ll be nice if all the drivel in Hollywood were automated.

        If you think you’re so good at what you do, then you can be what the AI learns from to improve.

        Everyone else? Well, tough tamales. This is what progress looks like and blue collar workers have been feeling it ever since the industrial revolution.

        • ramble81@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re just not going to give up this crusade are you? Going to start comparing salaries of line workers to starving kids in Africa again?

            • TheActualDevil@sffa.community
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You realize that most actors and writers are barely or not at all paid enough to live. This idea of the rich and famous actor is an edge case that you’re letting become your whole idea of them because they’re exactly that. Famous. But even you have to realize that there are countless others that will be and currently are being affected by the things their striking against. For too many years already writers have been shafted by production companies by hiring them as short term contractors to avoid paying them a fair wage or give them an option for royalties. And when literally everyone in the industry is doing that, then they have no choice if they want to get paid at all.

              And being mad because some high profile rich fuckers are participating is insane. Their participation shows just how important it is. They’ll be fine. They have millions and they’re still out there on the picket line anyway because the things the industry does and wants to make worse is bad for humans. That’s what collective action is about and it’s beautiful.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not what progress looks like, but you do you, fam. We’ll be over here on our new federated sites watching stuff made by actual human beings while Hollywood starves to death as everyone else stops watching that garbage.

          Or we will campaign the federal government to ban the tech outright and your lazy shill ass will have to actually do something useful to make a living.

          • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            We’ll be over here on our new federated sites watching stuff made by actual human beings

            slowly puts away stable diffusion community subscriptions

            I, too, got mad at the creation of the personal computer and lobbied congress to ban them because they aren’t as real as my subjective interpretation of reality, work, and honesty.

    • DreamButt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      honestly we need legislation that protects artists who use their art as a means to live

      • dudebro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        41
        ·
        1 year ago

        No we don’t. They can do something else.

        It’s called the free market, baby.

        Blue collar workers have been finding new ways to make money ever since the industrial revolution. Don’t be a Luddite.

        If these people still want to make art, nobody is stopping them. They just have to get a real job too, like everyone else.

        It’s okay. I think they can survive and still lead a higher quality of life than the vast majority of people on the planet.

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          They just have to get a real job too, like everyone else.

          Would you mind expanding on what a “real” vs “fake” job is? I disagree with the premise entirely but i am not taking you with a loaded question, i am honestly curious about what that means to you (and by extension what other people who use that term might mean)

          • dudebro@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Jobs that are necessary for the survival of our species.

            Jobs that people don’t do for fun. They do it because it needs to get done.

            People will still act even if they don’t get paid for it. Will they, deliver food just for the fun of it? No, I didn’t think so.

        • wuddupdude@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The free market kind of sucks at making art and I think it’s okay and good for the government to subsidize it.

        • Nine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is one way to view it. However due to everyone, in including blue collar workers, having their lively hoods threatened by AI we need to ask the question if were okay, as a society, for there to be more jobs eliminated than created. Are we okay with the current ways and (some would say the illusion of) the free market controlling everything? Are we okay with letting people suffer needlessly? Would you be okay with looking into the eyes of someone you know and saying “too bad that’s the free market baby!” Because it’s starting with the arts but it’s not stopping there. It’s only a matter of time before it will not need many warm bodies to do things. The knowledge works are next on the list and it won’t be long after that where manual labors will be impacted. This is all WAY before we even hit AGI.

          I’m not saying that AI taking jobs is a bad thing. I think it is an amazing thing but we need to start embracing it as an opportunity for things to be more Star Trek and less dystopian hellscape. That means changing this mindset that a lot of us have and start asking ourselves how do we want the world to look in 100 or even 500 years from now.

          HTH

      • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        But why? I feel like people are twisting their arguments against AI. Or they are being twisted against.

        Why does an actor care where there lines come from? We live in a world where The Room was written and released, but AI content is going to be the end of media? People aren’t that special. Our thoights aren’t that special. We don’t have souls. We’re just thinking machines, and nothing we create is more unique than something that we created creates.

        • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But why? …

          Because this is about enshitification of life for studio exec profits. It’s not really about where a machine can or should be a part of creative works, but HOW they are being used.

          Nearly very industry in which LLMs are being used in the latest hype wave, it’s not being used to improve anything but concentration of wealth in the hands of a dwindling number of individuals by worsening product quality and real ability of any of humanity, outside of those of hereditary wealth, to be get by.

    • TheCraiggers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      because I refuse to consume any of it

      I guarantee you already have and didn’t notice.

      There’s a philosophical argument to be made for sure, and I’d probably even agree with you. But the reality is that the technology is here, and it’ll be used in pursuit of the almighty buck.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s what makes it especially insidious. We want entertainment made by people, for people, not by AIs for corporations and their pockets.

        • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m fine with AI content. It’s going to make making media so much easier for people who aren’t inherently artistic but have a vision they want to show.

          • Loom In Essence@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There are already teams of humans ready to do all that stuff. AI adds nothing there. The non-artistic person with a vision can already collaborate with skilled artists.

            But more importantly, we are not worried about artists using AI as a tool. We are worried about corporate goons using AI to fire all creative staff and generate manipulative trash.

            • Kale@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The first company that debuts an entirely AI film will be a game changer, since it’s training set will be all the greats/popular films from Godfather, Taxi Driver, Jurassic Park, Star Wars, Inglorious Bastards, and Parasite.

              Then everyone will want to get in on the game and we’ll see a huge number of AI films. To be noticable and unique, a certain amount of hallucinating will be allowed. After a couple more years, you’ll see model collapse as the film AIs are now using other AI output as their training input.

              AI systems need a steady “diet” of human created material to continue to create material that is relevant and interesting to humans.

              Robert Evans has a great episode on “behind the bastards” about AI and children’s books. The majority of Kindle published children’s books and coloring books are AI generated. There are Kindle books on how to make hundreds of AI children’s books a month using AI tools, including how to write the prompt for the AI input.

            • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Okay so instead of me just working on a fun product for free in my own time, I have to pay someone a fair wage as if this is a commercial product I’m producing?

              There’s several people in this thread arguing we should outright ban the use, instead of coming up with ways to protect artists without artificially limiting AI.

              • Loom In Essence@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I have to pay someone a fair wage as if this is a commercial product I’m producing?

                There’s several people in this thread arguing we should outright ban the use,

                I didn’t see anyone ITT making that argument, and anyway this whole debate is specifically and explicitly about hollywood goons using AI to churn out trash without paying the talent. It’s not about some broke artist using AI to bring his vision to life. As I already said. It’s beyond straw man to treat that as the position that’s being criticized

        • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, we need human writers! I don’t think AI can turn great books into shitty movies as well as actual writers. AI scripts sound like a real gain, IMO.

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Questions for everybody else:

            1. Who actually thinks like this?

            2. Why are big Lemmy instances allowing obvious shills to concern troll and forum slide on their servers?

            • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Well, for one, I think like this. And given the upvote, at least one other person does as well. And six others disagree. Which is fine with me, by the way, people can disagree and be civilized about it.

              As for “obvious shills and trolls” - just because I like the technology and dislike current writers, I’m a troll? With thinking like this you should perhaps go live in a totalitarian state, cause that’s how they roll - “you’re either with us or you’re bad”.

              Can you pretty please let me have my opinion?

              • Loom In Essence@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why do you expect AI to write better scripts than “current writers”? Do you believe than humans are incapable of good writing, and we need AI to finally make the first good art to ever exist?

                • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Not first good art, no, there are many great movies. It’s usually when people who are famous enough to do whatever are the directors (Tarantino, Nolan). But the usual crap? All the unimaginative movies and TV shows? Botching good books by not understanding the source material at all? That’s most of the writers and that’s who I think should be replaced by AI. We were doing a presentation on capabilities of AI recently and one sentence my colleague came up with sums it up: AI is not some super smart thing, it’s like millions of average people who can think really fast.

    • Victor Gnarly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I do too hope the strikes are successful. That said, you’ve likely already been consuming generative technology for some time now. Disney alone has nearly a decade of research into it already. Advanced VFX applications use all sorts of generative tech too. When I was working in LA we referenced public data all the time. I know it’s gotten a huge spotlight on it given private AI capitalizing/evangelizing it all but the very real threat of digital scabs taking people’s jobs needs the biggest spotlight right now. I do think the tables will turn if nothing good can come out of Hollywood and those artists begin weaponizing that same tech against the execs. I see what studios are doing as no different than impersonation & identity theft by using this tech to limit working hours to skirt union protections.

    • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I hope there is some kind of “label” that comes out of this like the Surgeon General’s cigarette warning. “This movie is 87% AI generated” so I won’t have to bother thinking about whether to skip it. Fuck lazy & greedy movie makers. They’d giveup their immortal soul for $3.50

    • JeffCraig@citizensgaming.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are many issues besides AI stuff that are causing this strike.

      Yes, with the quick emergence of AI in all industries, we do need strong workers rights agreements and laws to address it, but AI isn’t really the primary issue.

      People pick positions in these arguments that are too stringent and not realistic. There will be places where AI is useful in this industry. The union just needs to make sure AI isn’t abused in order to completely replace certain types of laborers.

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I understand your desire to support the SAG-AFTRA strikes, but I think you’re wrong to say that you’ll refuse to consume any AI-generated content.

      First of all, it’s not clear that AI-generated content will be of lower quality than human-generated content. In fact, there are already AI-generated images and videos that are indistinguishable from human-made ones. As AI technology continues to develop, it’s likely that AI-generated content will become even more sophisticated.

      Second, even if AI-generated content is of lower quality, it’s still possible that it will be enjoyable to some people. There are many people who enjoy watching low-budget movies or reading self-published books. Just because something is not created by a professional does not mean that it cannot be entertaining.

      Finally, boycotting AI-generated content will not actually help the SAG-AFTRA strikes. The strikes are about ensuring that actors and writers are fairly compensated for their work. Boycotting AI-generated content will not affect the studios’ bottom line, so it will not put any pressure on them to reach a fair agreement with the unions.

      I think a better way to support the SAG-AFTRA strikes is to donate to the unions or to spread awareness about the issue. You can also write to your elected officials and urge them to support legislation that protects the rights of actors and writers.

      I hope you’ll reconsider your position on AI-generated content. It’s possible that this technology could have a positive impact on the entertainment industry, and it’s important to keep an open mind about its potential.

    • dudebro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’ll be funny when we start watching stuff and can’t tell what is AI and what isn’t.

      I fully expect people like you to like something and then hate it after you find out it was made by AI.

      Lol.

      • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s funny to me because all these people are saying exactly what everyone used to say about mobile phones, about the internet, about computers… I know so many people who railed against the internet saying they’d never use it and that computers only make things more difficult - now they’re all yelling on Facebook about how the evil corporations they work for aren’t letting them work from home lol

        AI will keep getting better and the way people use it will continue to evolve, there will be truly great things made by obsessive outsiders which speak to people in ways nothing has… Just like with every minor technical or social Innovation in art. Many of the giants of the old era will vanish and many new greats will grow and start to stagnate into conformity…

        I’m excited for the future and all the interesting things it brings, we can’t just stop creativity and progress because some affluent performers want guarantees of stability which just don’t exist in reality

  • reksas@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Fuck hollywood.

    This would be good opportunity for people to start new film studios and such, founded on more equal profit sharing. Let greedy pieces of shit shrivel and die without labor to exploit. There is no negotiating with those kinds of people as they will just try to find ways to force and manipulate people to do what they want.

  • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best possible outcome. No one wants that AI generated shit while actors and behind the scenes people make starvation wages.

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        So if we’re going to have AI replacing Actors, Animators, VAs, Writers and everything there’s going to be a lot less people to pay and ticket prices will go down by 90% right?

        The whole population will benefit from AI and not just people who already make way too much money like it happened with pretty much every other technological innovation right?

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just like WallStreet, the ultimate goal is to also replace audiences entirely with AI sentient viewers. That way they can create millions of viewers who will be pre-primed to want to watch the same pieces of media several hundred times. They can even view the movie at 500% speed so they can do so in a shorter timespan than meat viewers. OpenAI will be the first company to offer culturally insensitive and politically neutral 100% synthetic audiences to feed your Hollywood releases. For just cents per 1 million viewers/hour you too can release a blockbuster. This includes Twitch and YouTube audiences!

        • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The whole population will benefit from AI and not just people who already make way too much money like it happened with pretty much every other technological innovation right?

          Humanity benefited from the invention of the printing press. Humanity benefited from the industrial revolution. Humanity benefited from the invention of computers. Humanity will benefit from AI too, greatly so. This is not what is up for debate. Some people made fortunes from it, but does that matter when you compare it to how much good it brought about?

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Did it really benefit that much from it though? We can now be infinitely more productive while working, but are still required to work the same work week and have the same purchasing power, if not less in some countries. And the products made with that work cost pretty much the same, even though it costs much less to produce them.

            Very rarely a technological innovation actually ended up improving common people’s quality of life, and the ones that did were due to being improving of the end product in nature.

            AI doesn’t improve the end product (rather, currently it worsens it), it just improves the efficiency. And like with the Industrial Revolution, people will get paid the same, will have to work the same amount of time, and their end products will cost the same. CEOs will benefit from it and no one else, if history says anything.

              • Syrc@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Just from a quick Google search. Skip to the end if you want raw hour comparison.

                I’ll gladly accept a huge AI implementation if it means cutting even 20% of current working hours while keeping the same salary, but I’m really skeptical on that.

                • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s not what I’m debating. What about healthcare? What about acces to education? What about infant death rates? What about travel? What about not having to worry about starvation? Clean water directly into your home? Hot water too? Electricity? Have these not improved the quality of life greatly? You must not know history if you think your average peasant was living a better life preindustrialisation.

                  I’m not sure what work you’re doing at the moment but you seem pretty burned out by it. Maybe it’s time for a change

        • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          So your argument isn’t against AI, it’s against studios. Or your argument is against us, and our complacency when it comes to corporate or profit overreach.

          I don’t see how you could take that as an argument against AI in general. Stanley Yelnatz wasn’t wrong for looking for the shorter shovel.

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, just like my gripe is mainly with school shooters rather than with guns, and with crazy billionaires rather than with social media.

            But since you can’t realistically regulate the users to a healthy level, you have to regulate the tool. Because, just like those other two things, the benefit it brings to regular people is minuscule compared to the harm it can do.

        • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bro you are waaaaayyyyy overly optimistic on who AI is gonna benefit :) . It won’t be the 99% in the end.

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That was sarcasm, I thought the “Right? Right?” was enough to give it away lol

        • dudebro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Err… no. I just don’t agree with what the crowd is saying in this regard.

          Don’t they have an agenda?

  • Clown_Tempura@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow it’s almost like people’s tolerance for ruthless exploitation isn’t infinite. Hollywood’s disgusting parasitic grifters can get fucked.

  • Pokethat@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I honestly don’t know how I feel. Most content feels like ‘consume our product/content and give us monthly fee’ instead of nice shows and movies. Everything seems to have a point where it pulls me out and I find myself questioning if I’m crazy or if everything feels like shit.

    There are some amazing gems, but for years it feels like Hollywood has cared less and less about making cool and engaging media and are instead of focusing on manipulating people.

    I’m sure the problem is coming from the top, but writers and actors have been pretty shit too

    • Jordan_the_hutt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that’s in part due to nepotism. It seems like everyone who’s successfully in entertainment is the child or grandchild of someone else who was successful in entertainment. The same is true for the music industry and its starting to become true in the AAA gaming industry.

      When people start to get those jobs because of their family connections rather than their ability everything goes downhill. The most obvious example outside of entertainment is politics.

      • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re worried about the 1%, this is about the 99% behind the scenes, doing supporting roles, building sets, etc . Don’t let movie execs take your eyes off the prize, that’s what they want.

    • PsiOc@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m interested to see how Hollywood evolves post strike. Hoping that this will allow Writers and Actors more agency when making their products rather than having to conform to whatever shitty money grubbing practices that the Execs usually force on them

      • doublenut@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh boy at this point most of them are just fighting for their jobs, not even worried about actually making the work they want to be. If thats the kind of change you want to see in Hollywood, its gotta come from the consumer.

        • 5in1k@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hopefully the number of bombs this year is the message the consumer needed to send.

      • Victor Gnarly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Gonna offer my two cents as someone who entered the industry during the last writer’s strike. You’ll see some interesting creative divergence as said creatives crave expression and reach out to new venues like YouTube for the first time. It was one of many changes to the industry at that (and now this) time. I use generative tech because it’s part of this exploration of the taboo. Back then, YouTube was the taboo because it was effectively working for free and with no insurance or protection by comparison to a stable studio gig. Take away the studio gig, anything and everything could be opportunity for change and especially so the longer this goes on tbf.

      • Mikina@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is one of the reasons why I strongly believe that if you want to do any kind of art and are passionate for it, you should never make your income depend on it. It’s why even though I’ve studied Masters in game development and was always passionate about games, I work as a Red Teamer in cybersecurity instead, and then work on my games as a hobby.

        And especially if we’re talking about games, where you can just get a regular IT job as a programmer that pays more than you will ever make (assuming you don’t get to work on a AAA project, but the you basically have zero agency about the game and are still just a code monkey), the best course of action (which I regret not doing, but my classmate did and is a lot better for it) is to just take advantage of the fact that IT pays comfortably, but instead of just making more money just work parttime for a “regular” pay, and use the free time for your projects.

        But every time an art becomes business, it will inevitably suffer for it. There are rare cases of small indie studios getting lucky to be able to uphold their vision and still earn enough to afford paying their employees comfortably, but sooner or later you get into a point where you just have to start considering stuff around marketing that’s totally unrelated to the art in itself, but usually forces you to compromise your vision

        I’m actually pretty glad that generative AIs will probably really soon replace most of the artists required for mass production of such big budget commercial titles - because then the only option of someone who wants to do that kind of art will be a smaller indie studio or a hobby project, which may not be as successful and will probably end up as a niche, but it will also mean that a lot less artists end up with their passion sucked out and destroyed by execs forcing them to do shitty generic money grubbing stuff - because that will be done by AIs, and keep on being as generic as it is now.

    • solstice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve barely even noticed this writers strike because I’ve hardly even bothered to watch any new Hollywood movies or TV shows in literally years. Everything I have seen recently has been complete garbage. So I find myself watching older shows again and again, more YouTube content, educational and history stuff like that…heck, I’ve been following some modern film critics like Red Letter Media and just watch their commentary vs the real thing, and it’s usually much more entertaining.

      I think Hollywood is going to use this opportunity to replace the writers with AI. If it works great, if it doesn’t work, nobody will notice or care.

      • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I subscribed to Britbox and find the writing and acting of much higher quality. Plus, the stories are generally more interesting with more feeling. I mainly watch that, watchTCM, and certain YouTube channels.

      • LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Other than the nightly shows, you won’t be seeing the impacts of these strikes for months. Films and shows take a lot of time to go from inception to finished product. For movies I wouldn’t be surprised if the impact doesn’t happen until next year.

        • evatronic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          To wit – we’re just now, seeing the tail-end of a lot of the COVID-19 shutdowns percolate up through the delayed releases and shortened seasons for a bunch of shows, and most of those shutdowns were gosh, almost 2 years ago now.

    • dudebro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Everything is shit. Quality is down and prices are up.

      People gladly have been lowering their standards for years so those profiting off of them can make even more money.

      Most actors are awful these days. Like, look at Chris Pratt lmao. That guy is terrible but very popular among children and manchildren.

      We don’t have this generations’ Tom Hanks yet.

      The only way to watch live action stuff that isn’t kiddie-bullshit is to watch things in other languages. They still have integrity and aren’t just loading their actors up on cocaine to cover up bad acting.

      • Dogs_cant_look_up@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is probably the worst take I’ve ever heard. It’s actually amazing how much i disagree with almost everything you’ve written here.

        And, Tom Hanks is still acting, Tom Hanks is literally this generations Tom Hanks.

        There’s so much excellent acting and directing in the world at the moment i just can’t fathom how you have come to your conclusions.

        • dudebro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m sorry, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

          Hope you like the new marvel movie coming out.

          • FatCrab@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, only marvel movies come out now. Everything else is actually banned at the moment. Christ, your takes are fucking awful.

      • funkless@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Banshees of Inisherin? The Whale? Everything Everywhere All At Once? Succession? The Bear?

        There’s loads of great acting out there. Maybe the issue is you’re buying tickets to Chris Pratt instead of other things?

          • pineapplefriedrice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The big name movies now are so cringeworthy and require zero thought on the part of the viewer. I’d be almost embarrassed to go watch them. The worst part is that I used to watch them because there was just nothing else to see, until one day I was so bored that I walked out of the theatre. To my surprise, I was even approached and given a refund by the manager without asking… maybe they watched it too and understood the pain.

            • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You are equating “big name” with quality. That has almost never been true since movie blockbusters became a thing. Go ask any movie history buff/expert. You are very wrong if you think blockbusters were some kind of artsy tear jerkering, mind bending, raved over by critics products. They’ve almost always been formulaic.

              • TheActualDevil@sffa.community
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                But the first blockbuster movie is an arthouse masterpiece that really makes you look deep within yourself and wonder how big a shark could actually be.

                Jaws. It was Jaws.

        • pineapplefriedrice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          But are those the things that get marketing? I’m with you on loving that content, but none of the main theatres in my area (a city of 7 million) even show them. A couple will put them into the standard screen theatres at oddball times to fulfill their contracts, but the good content is in the local dollar theatres where, of course, the movie gets less traffic.

          I think what they’re saying is that the movies that you’re “supposed” to watch are things like those god awful Harry Potter prequels (literally any fanfic amateur could have written them better), the ten thousandth Marvel movie (seriously, just stop), or those Adam-Sandler style low effort white trash movies that run solely on the recognition of the probably male and supposedly “so talented” lead actor.

          • tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            When most people pick movies to watch in a theatre it’s typically based on which movie no one will object to. So it needs a bit of action, a bit of romance, a bit of comedy… It also needs to have brand/actor recognition. So you get Marvel. There’s nothing wrong with this, but it’s a different market from the one you’re in.

        • pineapplefriedrice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But are those the things that get marketing? I’m with you on loving that content, but none of the main theatres in my area (a city of 7 million) even show them. A couple will put them into the standard screen theatres at oddball times to fulfill their contracts, but the good content is in the local dollar theatres where, of course, the movie gets less traffic.

          I think what they’re saying is that the movies that you’re “supposed” to watch are things like those god awful Harry Potter prequels (literally any fanfic amateur could have written them better), the ten thousandth Marvel movie (seriously, just stop), or those Adam-Sandler style low effort white trash movies that run solely on the recognition of the probably male and supposedly “so talented” lead actor.

      • bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Chris Pratt is definitely not a great actor, he’s mediocre at best. However, he’s in tons of blockbuster movies so that’s why he’s popular, not necessarily because people think he’s talented.

        The other stuff you said is just nonsense. There are tons of great, well written, acted, and directed movies. You just have to look outside the mainstream/blockbuster releases. If you only focus on the big releases from major studios like Disney, then yeah you’ll think that it’s nothing but shallow garbage. But there’s way more content nowadays, so it’s harder to sift thru the massive diluge of content out there.

      • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        As a gen X I can tell you that quality is not down and that you have tunnel vision. Go watch some 80s/90s shows lmao. Most are garbage, with only a few gems. It has definitely gotten better as competition increased.

        • evatronic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s a bit of a point there, though. As summarized by Futurama,

          Fry: Married? Jenny can’t get married.

          Leela: Why not? It’s clever, it’s unexpected.

          Fry: But that’s not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared.

          Hollywood caters to what people want. What people want is often not “good”.

        • Kale@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We remember the good movies and forget the schlock. We remember 1976 as “Taxi Driver” and not “The Gumball Rally”.

      • Snekeyes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Um. So watch other languages. They have integrity and.no coke. Cause coke actors… they are low paid and have to stay up and beat their bodies down to get paid.

        Got it. This is fascinating fabrications Your imaginations almost rivals your thoughts.

  • Millie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What’s it going to take to actually do something about these ultra-rich leeches literally destroying our planet and everything good on it to inflate a number in a bank somewhere? How do we actually build up the initiative to stop it?

    All our other problems seem largely centered around our inability to appropriately respond to extreme greed. Not only in actually actively stopping it, but in even identifying it or being able to properly censure it in the first place. The moment you start talking about the rich being the cause of our problems, there’s a section of society that starts tuning you out. I definitely feel like as things get worse people are starting to catch on, but even once we’re there, where do we go?

    If we actually get to the point of agreeing that excessive wealth is inherently misanthropic and should be a crime in and of itself, how do we make it a crime while so much power sits in the hands of those who’d be on the losing end of that decision?

    I hope the WGA and SAG can spark a change in people’s consciousness around labor. I’d honestly love to see a lot more interviews and independent podcasts coming from the picket lines. If there’s anyone who can convince Americans to fight for the value of their labor, it’s the people write and play the parts in the stories they love.

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you still have the bird app or some other method, send your support of solidarity to your favorite actors. They will definitely appreciate it.

  • EmperorHenry@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m glad more and more workers are realizing the power they have over the industries they’re working in.

    Without the workers, the businesses have nothing. We really need to have a serious revolution before they replace all jobs with AI robots.

  • Open@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is $25,000 per annum a living wage LA? To think that these are getting so little is nuts.