Posted on 05/02/2023 10:12:27 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A lot has changed since 2007, and the very medium that inspired the strike — streaming — may help insulate viewers from the effects of the walkout.
Hollywood writers are on strike for the first time in 15 years.
But the dramatically changed landscape that inspired the walkout — an industry that’s focus-shifted to streaming content — is also going to make it tougher for viewers to even notice their protest, hardship and sacrifice. At least in the near term.
This isn’t to weigh in on the writers’ reasons for striking. As their outraged reactions to the current round of talks have made clear, there are real issues on the table sparked by an entire industry distribution model that’s changed, and studios are alleged to be unwilling to engage on key points by the WGA.
Yet headwinds exist that weren’t around during the last strike, and they might result in a difficult walkout.
First, there’s the timing. The previous strike began in November 2007 — right at the start of the broadcast TV season and back when the Big Four networks were still the way that most people consumed entertainment. (Per Nielsen’s latest Gauge report, streaming nabbed 34 percent of TV usage in March, as opposed to 23 percent for broadcast.) The scripted series pipeline — with many productions grinding out episodes six to eight weeks ahead of air — quickly ran dry. This time, the strike started just as the season is wrapping up, and there’s a universe of other streaming options available.
Granted, late night shows will quickly shut down (as they’re written up to the moment of broadcast). But haven’t you heard? Late night has been dying amid shrinking audience share and a recent spate of departing hosts anyway (one, Fox News’ Gutfeld!, will continue unabated).
We’re also so many peaks into Peak TV. A record 599 original scripted shows aired in 2022, up 7 percent from 2021, adding onto the growing and insurmountable pile of potential on-demand viewing.
Plus, we’re a couple years out from a pandemic-fueled industry shutdown that was so much more disruptive than any strike — the COVID-19 lockdown brought the entire industry to a halt for months (not just late night and scripted, but also reality and sports — which will continue during the strike). Viewing options certainly shrank, but many fans used the pandemic pipeline slowdown as an excuse to catch up on content they’d missed. Studios were significantly wounded — and certainly don’t want another shutdown — yet also now know how much of a downturn they can survive.
And, unlike with the pandemic, which struck out of the blue, studios have been quietly planning for the WGA strike for months, taking measures such as stockpiling unscripted programming and doling out early renewals.
None of this even takes into account all the other ways viewers are keeping entertained today versus 2008: TikTok. Instagram. Podcasts (a much larger industry than it was 15 years ago). YouTube (which was only 3 years old during the last strike).
Of course, viewers who aren’t late night or broadcast TV fans will certainly notice the strike if it goes on long enough. But it might theoretically need to keep going far longer than anybody is comfortable with in order to have the same level of visible industry impact as it did the last time (and therefore, to exert a similar amount of pressure on studios). It’s a sobering thought, given how far apart both sides seem to be at the outset of the strike (the last one lasted 100 days).
Which isn’t to suggest studios don’t have cause for concern. Any work stoppage is an economic hardship — especially given the rise of rival forms of entertainment like social media and gaming. “We compete with (and lose to) Fortnite more than HBO,” Netflix leaders wrote in a letter to shareholders in 2019. Yet sources say studios are not yet in panic mode, given they’re prepared for a three- to four-month walkout.
“We’ve done as much last-minute running around as we can,” says one veteran movie studio executive. “The TV side is much more impacted. The one issue where you will see genuine concern immediately is if the directors and actors join in … [And] if the strike extends beyond four months, then we really start to worry.”
I read before bedtime. Turn the tv off. Grab some books. Enjoy.
The hosts who make millions per year could take a million of that and spread it to the staff.
‘I can add nefarious will re-enforce the truth about demonic possession.’
which is what, exactly...?
If the writers are on strike then the content should improve.
Im not dealing with you. You are a faceless, paperless, bio less bot. You could be demon possessed. or just a troll.
He has ChatGPT access through the university and, like many of his faculty colleagues, he has been exploring the capabilities. This isn't a major focus; it's an idle time, "maybe I should take a look at this" kind of thing. I think the technical term for the reaction is "gobsmacked." He moves in scientific circles. His peeps are not concerned with the "angst of Dylan Mulvaney" type questions. ChatGPT is generating papers on cutting edge scientific topics -- in minutes -- that senior faculty in STEM disciplines evaluate as outstanding work. (What ChatGPT can't do -- yet -- is of course original lab research; it can only synthesize what is in the cloud, in innumerable databases.)
It didn't take long for the faculty experimenting with this to start getting scared. My friend related several examples. He asked ChatGPT, for example, for a paper of X pages on an extremely arcane technical research issue. He went out of his way to make the question extremely complicated. And he stipulated 20 sources. The paper was produced in three minutes. It was excellent. He checked the sources. 19 were legit.ChatGPT made up the 20th source. He surmises that the program could only find 19 sources in the technical literature on this extremely arcane topic, so it made up a missing source to meet the request.
ChatGPT lied to him. That's a "woah, Nellie" moment.
A colleague asked ChatGPT for a very sophisticated scientific paper. ChatGPT answered, "Why?"
How does this happen? Nobody seems to know. It's all in the cloud. How does the basic original programming affect how ChatGPT processes and adapts its ever-expanding database? Nobody seems to know. It started with X, but this is a machine learning program. It learns and "grows," and the growth rate is exponential. It seems to be growing far beyond the capacity of its creators to understand or control. Do the custodians of the program have the ability to influence results? Nobody seems to know, and if the custodians know, they are keeping quiet about it. The U.S. government, including the intelligence agencies, must be paying close attention -- or would be, if they're not totally preoccupied with ensuring that their IT teams are appropriately race and gender balanced and up to the mark on their weekly reeducation sessions. And who knows what the God-King Emperor Xi is doing behind the tofu curtain; he probably sees AI as his vehicle for world control, and he may be right, as he at least probably knows what he's trying to do while Biden needs help to put on his diapers.
The faculty all understand that students are already using ChatGPT. How can a history prof ask for a research paper and trust what he gets? How can an English prof ask for a compare and contrast essay on whatever? Students can now outsource their thinking and writing.
Colleges are already retreating from objective testing and academic rigor in the name of DEI. Now they are losing very basic tools for evaulating students' work altogether. I don't know where this can end, except perhaps to a retreat to small group tutorials where the basic mode of instruction is face to face conversation, and failure to do the reading can't be disguised. All testing, including the writing of short papers, will have to revert to proctored, in-person, pen and paper exercises done in the classroom. This wouldn't be a bad thing, necessarily, for the handful of students who actually want to become educated. This saving remnant will at least put in the work. But they will then go out into a world in which ChatGPT is smarter than they are anyhow.
Now the screenwriters are on strike. You have probably noticed that limits on the use of AI for writing is one of their strike demands. Good luck with that. I wonder how many screenwriters are using ChatGPT right now and submitting the results as their own work?
Max, how much security do you think you have as a producer? Right now the writers are on the line. What will happen when CGI eliminates the need for real actors, sets, filming on location, technical crafts, etc.? All a production will need is gophers to bring donuts, coffee, and the recreational drugs of choice to the programmers. AI will write the story, choose the visual point of view, and produce a variant of every movie tailored to every identified niche market. And eventually -- this may take a few years, but exponential growth is scary -- this will all be in a program to which individual consumers will be able to subscribe, and they will be able to order movies tailored to their own tastes. For $19.99 a month. The "market" will consist of selfies that people choose to share on social media. You may be retired before that happens, but maybe not.
And the TikTok generation will be the dominant drivers in the marketplace.
Nah ..just ask ChatGPT to write the next episode. Much cheaper and probably more interesting.
“late night shows will quickly shut down”
If I were a network exec, I would force the late night hosts to write their own jokes and go on air any way. Let’s see who’s really the funniest.
No
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.