Jump to content

2023 Writers + Actors Strike Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Members

They still managed to squeeze the Barbie and Oppenheimer premieres and marketing campaigns under the gun, which feels a bit icky to me, given the extension of the deadline.

I feel like both sides are fighting over the last scraps of a dying industry. The next decade is going to be rough with the exponential growth of new technologies, and a lot of careers will be obsolete (not just in Hollywood, of course). And there’s not much anyone can do about that. Many of these studios probably won’t even exist.

That’s one reason I suspect this will be a protracted fight that will speed up the inevitable. 

Edited by Faulkner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 626
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

In an interview on MSNBC Fran Drescher said she now thinks they were "duped" with the 3-day extension, that they canceled some meetings during that time & stonewalled the whole time & that she thinks they were actually just using the time to promote their summer movies. Ding, ding, ding, @Faulkner wins the prize! 

Yeah, I bet you're on to something here, too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I mentioned this earlier.  The whole rhetoric about "privileged" actors striking is an attempt to distract from the issue that the AI concerns that they are fighting for will have an effect on all areas of employment.  Why will we need human lawyers, if ChatGPT can write a C&D letter.  But, should I pay my lawyer for something that they can derive from AI?  However, by framing it as an issue that only effects the elites, the media is doing a disservice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Webmaster

The problem with AI (Artificial Intelligence) is that it can be anything. It can drive your car for you. It can order groceries or place things in your virtual cart. It can pick up your mail or correct your grammar. It can write scripts, articles, news stories, music. It can edit an image on the fly or create a new one altogether. It can do just about anything. People don't realize that it's been here for years but is only now getting ready to expand beyond basic principles. Anything that requires minimal to no human interaction to create a result can be classified as AI.

Some examples:

  • Siri
  • Alexa
  • Grammarly
  • Tesla + other manufacturers with self-driving capabilities
  • Search engines (like Google and Bing)

With all that said, I would never trust the government (congress and the senate) to make rules and regulations. Most of them only care about their own best interests and you truly can't regulate something that isn't just one thing but many things.

I expect a deal with SAG-AFTRA to come before WGA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here's an added question about this. Since SAG-AFTRA actors are prohibited from discussing their present OR past shows in interviews, does that mean, for example, during the strike Jackee Harry can ONLY discuss Days (or AW) when being interviewed by the press? I would think she would be barred from discussing her primetime career since that is part of the regular SAG-AFTRA contract, so that should apply to her like it does for everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Webmaster

Correct. She can talk about anything relating to her current job on "Days of our Lives" or any show that isn't owned/produced by a struck company. She can also talk about her time on "Another World" but not "227."

If Jackee were to appear in an upcoming episode of a TV show or movie owned/produced by a struck company, she can't do press whatsoever. No interviews, Podcasts, Vlogs, radio, etc. She could only do an interview to discuss her personal life or Days of our Lives/Another World or her support of the SAG-AFTRA strike to get the word out.

If for example, Meryl Streep were to do an interview, she would only be able to talk about her personal life (outside of acting) and the SAG-AFTRA strike and her support of it to get the word out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is all generic common sense but it's a harsh reality that I'm understanding more and more.

The circumstances leading to the Hollywood strike underscore that in America, a business is not for the shared wealth between the workers and the corporation while providing a good to the consumer. The primary goal is to make money for the owners and the steak / shareholders. The worker and sometimes the customer be damned.

Naturally, the people running the business will make more money. Too often the issue is that people on the bottom of the ladder aren't even being given enough money to be well off. 

Edited by Planet Soap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Speculation about Missy Reeves' potential evolution on basic civil rights doesn’t change my opinion of her. My view is shaped entirely by her public social media presence—which I find unpalatable—and I have no interest in learning more beyond that. I simply liked Jennifer’s hair and dress. That’s as far as my admiration goes.
    • Cheryl was gone before Lemay came back but I agree with your thinking that he would rather a character from a family he introduced to the show than a family he did not originate.  I remember reading somewhere in the early 90's probably after DS left as writer, their was an either a writer or a producer who made a comment that their intent was bring the McKinnon family back to AW.  Would have made sense for the newer viewers from the 80's.  Much like Lemay's attempt to bring the Frames back from his writing in the 70's in his 1988 return
    • DePriest left in January 1988. According to the AWHP, Rose last appeared nearly a year before in February 1987 while both Sara and Peggy appeared as late as October 1987.
    • Annie was not brought in as an antagonist for Reva. Reva wasn’t even on the canvas when Annie first appeared in late 1994. 
    • The speculation……….very entertaining. 
    • I had forgotten that several Days stars came out strong against Melissa. Good for them!
    • That would have made sense. Did all these characters get dropped when DePriest left or had they already been dropped?
    • The other issue with Missy: in June 2020, she "liked" some social media posts by Candace Owens -- things Candace said that were against Black Lives Matter.  That is described here https://tvline.com/news/melissa-reeves-racism-days-of-our-lives-instagram-controversy-2894568/ I don't know if that was ever resolved.
    • She appeared onscreen not long after Rose Livingston and Sara Montaigne, and we found out that Sara was Rose's estranged daughter. I wonder whether Peggy might have been part of that family group -- or else they were just juggling a few different potential mysteries so that they could develop whatever seemed to be getting the best response from the audience. They didn't do anything much with Rose and Sara really either. Maybe Rose would have become more prominent if Rachel and Mac had split up over Mitch, or if Sara had really flourished. In some ways I can picture Cheryl being affected by MJ's prostitution similarly to how Josie was distressed by finding out about Sharlene. But I can also see that Josie as a Frame being involved with Matthew would have different stakes for Rachel and Sharlene than Cheryl being involved with Scott. I do think the solution for Cheryl would have had to be a badder boy than Scott -- either a real bad boy who would do her wrong, or the kind of bad boy (not Chad!!!) who is essentially misunderstood and other people just don't understand. Cheryl would also have been better off with some friends her own age. Matthew and Josie benefited a bit from having other teenagers to interact with.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy