In terms of immediate financial impact, I think you’re probably quite right. In terms of long-term career effects, though, I think Sitnam has a point. Being able to use at least some of your enforced unemployment time to produce material you can potentially use in future is different from the options unemployed actors have available. (On the other hand, I suppose actors can be broadening their repertoire by working on, e.g., accent development or physical skills like dancing or fighting, or even do some limited virtual workshopping of future productions along the lines of Staged.)
There’s also the issue that for young actors in particular, especially when female, a crucial career stage may have a much shorter shelf life than its counterpart for a writer. Losing six months’ worth of professional activity in one’s early twenties can become a non-negligible career disadvantage.
…writers often go months between gigs. And recently, due to the deliberate efforts from the studios to marginalise writers, some are going years without a work. The one thing they all had plenty of was time. The writers weren’t “still working” in any real sense of the word “work”.
The studios are closing down all training opportunities for young writers, especially in TV. The Showrunner almost always comes from the writers room and the Showrunner runs the production. They learn the ropes by being on set. By working in post-production. But the rise of the “mini-room” and hiring-then-firing writers after “brainstorming sessions” means that there are a generation of writers who have never even set-foot-on-set.
Add to that the exit this year of Karen Horne (DEI at Warner Bros), Jeanell English (VP Inclusion at AMPAS), Verna Myers (Netflix head of inclusion), LaTondra Newtown (chief diversity officer at Disney), and Joanna Abeyie (BBC’s creative diversity director) the trajectory of the studios should be quite clear. If you are young, if you are female, if you are Black or brown or come from a marginalised background, then it doesn’t matter if you are an actor or a writer, the opportunities are closing.
I don’t mean it lightly when I say that the film and television industry are facing an existential crisis. The old-school Hollywood mogul has gone and what we’ve got in their place are a bunch of corporate vultures, tech-bros, anti-woke-culture billionaires, who don’t care about anything other than the bottom line. Even Bob Iger, who grew up in the system and used to understand what it was all about has gone the way of the dinosaur. They are going to burn Hollywood down.
The “shelf-life” of actors is certainly a thing to be worried about. However, those actors are under greater threat from the moves by the studios to care less about diversity and inclusion and from AI and the lack of residual payments and the move to the Hollywood “gig economy” than six months of a strike will ever do.
Naturally the unions are unhappy and I don’t blame them. That’s a lot of money that could support actors, writers, and other real people instead of algorithms.
If I were in Netflix’s shoes I’d be diverting serious money into AI as well in order to understand and be prepared for whatever happens.
It might be nothing and a total dead-end or something that will be a game-changer.
Either way it is a challenge that requires funding to address and if 900k is what it costs to avoid a dead-end or exploit the potential then it is money well-spent.
I don’t think the $900,000 AI experts that Netflix is hiring has anything to do with the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes. I don’t think they think that person can replace a writer or actor anytime soon. They may be more useful in helping to improve the suggestions of what to watch or other stuff like that.
It is a sensible move on Netflix’s part though and I wouldn’t imagine it’ll just limited to one area (either content generation or user experience) but it’ll be as wide a brief as the AI landscape itself.
As evidenced by Bill Cosby playing “Mother” in Mother, Jugs & Speed rather than Gene Hackman. Hackman had been offered the role first but turned it down; he had been working practically continuously since The Poseidon Adventure and didn’t want such a large role.
My source is a radio interview from several years ago, either with Hackman himself or someone who had been involved with MJ&S.
Oh, completely concur, this is why I support the choice to strike. I was just hairsplitting with CaveMike over the minutiae of how the concomitant disadvantages of a strike may arguably affect actors differently from writers.
It’s sensible to hire someone. But I’m not sure about the amount being paid. There’s a whole lot of overpromising in the AI space right now, particularly by those who want large salaries.
The main reason that people dislike it is that Netflix is pushing this idea that they’re hurting for money, needing to do all these unpopular things, yet they have this much money to throw around. They’re one of those who is deliberately hiding their viewing figures to avoid paying fair residuals.
Users would probably be happier if they spent more money on shows than worrying about the algorithm. I don’t know anyone who dropped Netflix because they couldn’t find anything to watch.
I’m not sure what claims Netflix is making about “hurting for money” but they had $1.8 billion in operating income in the second quarter, and they’re spending $17 billion on content this year. So they’re far from broke.
And most if not tech companies are spending big on AI talent, as are companies not normally considered tech companies.
Right, because Stranger Things is a typical Netflix show. It’s not the single most expensive show on the platform.
Not that it has much to do with the argument I made, even in that particular paragraph. They’re putting money into something that isn’t currently the main issue that Netflix has.
I’m a Netflix user and I’m not particulalry bothered about them making lots of new shows. Make less but make them good. Populate the service with lots of good classic stuff that’s already been made.
If AI can make better suggestions to Netflix about what their platform should carry then that seems like money well spent.
As I said elsewhere. The strike could continue for years and not affect me at all (indeed, such a disruption might be a good thing for me the consumer)
Netflix has been heavily invested in AI/ML forever – certainly before they created their own studio. They launched a $1M prize in 2006 when they were primarily DVD-based. The company was thought of as a tech company, hence their inclusion in the FAANG acronym.
Not that Netflix is in the right on this strike; just that these AI roles would exist regardless.
(at myself for the mistake). That’s even worse! Thanks.