
The strike is over, but the struggle is just beginning. Unlike the Auto Workers Union, it is MUCH more difficult to draw a line from a labor contract to what an individual members of the Writer’s Guild of America is paid. Just the use of “Union” vs. “Guild” tells you that these two groups have a different relationship to their work. One is a group of manual laborers, and one represents artists. Artists who want to continue to control their rights over a product, even after the product is sold.
Artists tend to have more rights than “workers”. Just like other artists, WGA members want higher pay if their work (say, a movie) generates more revenue. Sequels or a translation into another format (a book or a cartoon), might lead to more payments, or certainly more negotiations. Whether you will get what you ask for depends on seniority, the track record of your previous work, and what other writers get paid for. The new contract helps writers get a little more than they had before.
More than negotiating for new rights, the strike was about not losing existing rights… to AIs. Sure, we’ve all heard about the coming wave of Artificial Intelligence. These software systems can learn (this is what machine learning means). Then the AI can imitate what they have learned. An AI can write, draw in any style, or create the words and music for a new song. One AI can draw an oil painting of a bluebird in the style of Piccaso. Or it can read a script aloud, in the voice of your choice. Not impressed?
Sir David Attenborough is one of the best-known narrators of nature documentaries. Search YouTube and you will find endless works narrated by the highly recognizable voice of Attenborough. However, some videos are narrated by an AI. Consider the Morgan Freeman image above. It is not Morgan Freeman. Instead, it is a “deep fake”, a mere imitation of the original,. An AI created this visual and vocal doppelganger. In just a few years we could have movies that are written, acted, voiced, and edited by AIs. Early attempts will probably be less than Oscar-worthy. Still, few movies, broadcast series, or streaming content have ever been high art. What matters for the screenwriters’ strike is that Hollywood can turn out most of their content with less human labor, and (soon?) with virtually no union workers.
For the moment let’s forget movies or series that have hundreds of millions of dollars to play with. Instead, consider the average project that Netflix makes. Like a series from Korea or an Anime from Japan. Notice how many Netflix choices are from Asia? That’s because there is a huge catalog of content in these countries that is virtually unknown in the US.
Netflix can select materials based on local popularity. (Hey, aren’t we all just the same at heart?) Then they buy the rights for close to nothing. However, you still need English-speaking voice actors, since Americans hate reading sub-titles. AI translation is already pretty good. Dubbing, however, means you must also match the movement of the actor’s mouth and expressions. As you saw with the Morgan Freeman example. AIs are almost there!
So, Hollywood writers and actors are justifiably nervous. What will come as a huge surprise to Hollywood is that the “suits” should be even more worried than the “talent”. Today, the process of choosing foreign content to dub or redevelop into English-based content is handled by highly paid individuals. However, an AI can. or will soon be able to, more accurately identify the right content and quantify its potential for domestic market penetration and the resulting profit. Hollywood “suits” are about to be an endangered species. Strange… I don’t hear any wailing or weeping from my readers.
However, independent movie creators (or wannabe creators) are often the writer, director, actor, and post-production department. Ever since the earliest days of videotape, these creators have been able to take on more roles and produce more independent content for less. Taking advantage of the latest technology, the first Halloween movie cost just $300,000 in 1978, and spawned six decades of movies and sequels. In 1994, the Kevin Smith film “Clerks” cost less than $30,000, but generated over $4 million, while the 2004 film “Open Water” cost only $120,000 and made $55 million.
AIs WILL be able to will be able to do more of the work traditionally performed by Hollywood workers. If this drives down the cost of independent films, and possibly improves the quality of indie movies. Independents will love it, but union members will hate it. However, if these creators only need to scrape together a few thousand dollars, instead of hundreds of thousands of dollars, a lot more movies could be created… even if it doesn’t create new jobs. For those of us who are mere consumers of content, is the AI revolution a good thing or a bad thing?
Good or bad, the rise of new technology is inevitable. In the early 80s the first 4-track tapes system arrived. Artists could build a music studios for a fraction of the cost of old-tech studios. Of course, poor but creative artists soon learned how to “sample” beloved musical snippets from previous geneations of artists, and incorporate it into new works. The original artists, however, thought that this was less a “tribute” to their art than outright theft of copyrighted materials. Tributes are nice… royalties are niceer.
AI’s integration into Hollywood culture could hurt writers, actors, and other talent. But it could also help independents and others who work outside of the mainstream of Hollywood. And, more content, whoever makes that content, might benefit all consumers.
What do you think? Do you think that the growing role of AI in Hollywood is a good thing? Everyone would like t oknow what you think… assuming that YOU are not an AI.








