DCU Movies

[Vakanai]

The studios were proposing some insane f’d up stuff.

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movi...234788191/amp/

“The studio’s A.I. proposal to SAG-AFTRA included scanning a background actor’s likeness for one day’s worth of pay and using their likeness forever in any form without any pay or consent.”

Yeah, that was never going to fly. They'd still have to pay that background actor for one whole day - cheaper just to have AI create an entirely new face and not pay anyone. Telling you, the guilds and unions might manage to slow this down, but that's all we can hope for. Eventually this'll just be careers replaced by AI, whether we like it or not. It's always been about paying people less, and nothing more appeals to those in charge than not having to pay anyone anymore.

[Morgoth]

So DCU will be screwed then yikes.

It's already screwed. Just like the rest of Hollywood, but DCU especially, because it hasn't even started.
Tremendeously damaged brand and lack of interest + people now choosing not go to the movies + WGA and SGA-AFTRA strike. It's a really bad moment for starting a franchise.

[Vakanai]

Honestly, while I'd love a good Superman movie, all the not-Superman-characters-casting has already made me highly suspect that this is basically going to be a GotG/TSS type of film but with Gunn's idea of who "Superman" is that I've no faith in it. I can imagine Clark being a dorkier Star-Lord and eh. So I'm just thankful we're getting MAWS and one more season of Superman & Lois.

And that's just Superman. Batman? Really glad The Batman and Joker film series already proved successful so he can't touch them, because I don't have much faith in Brave and the Bold as it stands. Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, GL? Well, I guess we got some decent odds from the animated DTV lines of seeing good versions of them before Gunn wraps everything in his umbrella.

I'd like to be more enthusiastic with this new universe vs the old one, but like with handing the keys to Snyder way back when and trying to rush their Avengers level success movie, this feels a lot like a repeat, just with a different guy in charge thinking his version will be the best thing ever. And I honestly never liked the MCU's homogeneity under Fiege, so even when this style "works" I think it's dumb. I just want superhero movies where people don't worry about if it fits in their shared universe plans or if it is "consistent" tonally with every single product they've put out before. Why do you think the only MCU film on my favorites list is the first Iron Man? No other MCU film has made the cut with me. And no DCEU film has made it on my list, period. I want movies that feel original (at least to people like me - I get it, Joker was King of Comedy and Taxi Driver - I and most other people who watched it never watched those movies!). The Dark Knight, Deadpool, Spider-Verse, Kick-Ass, Joker, Super, Logan, we'd never get these movies from the MCU and we won't get them from the DCU (and Gunn made Super!).

I don't care if the DCU has a rocky road ahead of it, because it has to earn my interest. Most superhero movie fare I find enjoyable as mindless popcorn fluff worth killing a couple hours on but I never ever rewatch them. The movies I actually love and rewatch are rare and far between. And it's not because it's hard to make films like this, but because the Marvel Method of manufacturing these movies practically on an assembly line that's become so prevalent in the past decade and a few years isn't capable of making films like this. Most of the movies on my list are R rated, not because I prefer R ratings but because R rated films are expected to make less and are budgeted so, which means studio heads are far less interested and far more hands off, giving the actual filmmakers the freedom to make films. The PG 13 films on the list of films I love tend to either be animated so again execs tend to be more hands off cause they don't take animation seriously, or they predate the MCU cookie cutter style of pumping out movies.

Anyways, big rambling post mostly just saying this - Gunn and the DCU have to earn my attention and interest, because I've been trained at this point not to expect much from them and usually look towards the way out there animated or R projects because that's where what I love typically comes from, which is the opposite of where Gunn's DCU is going to head I feel.

[Badou]

R rated superhero movies feel so played out I think. The initial spectacle of a hero in a superhero costume saying the word "****" or having all these awful digital blood splatters everywhere feels so tried. Violence in a movie needs to serve a purpose that fits with the story and it feels like for a lot of these R rated superhero projects they use the R rating as a crutch so they don't have to actually write a compelling story because they know they can lean on violence or other R rated scenes. The spectacle sometimes works for one movie, the first Deadpool movie is a good example, but then by the second they've run out of tricks and it devolves into them patching together some story just so they can string together more R rated scenes, like Deadpool 2. The Joker sequel trying to buck that trend and go for something different like a musical is at least unexpected I guess even if it might not work.

Also I guess because the Spider-Verse movie was just PG and it felt so fresh for a superhero project that it really made me less interested in things I've already seen, like the standard R rated superhero movies. I'm at the point where I want to see something new. Probably also why the MCU feels played out as we saw it peak with Infinity War/End Game, or why I'm fine with not seeing any more multiverse stuff trying to nostalgia bait from old superhero movies. So I'd like to see a live action DCU that actually is alive that has a working Justice League that makes sense who the audience actually cares about, but I don't think DC should rush to this still, or I'd like to see a Batman movie that actually uses its large family of characters and bizarre and colorful villains and it isn't just Batman sulking and being depressed again. The Batman movie by Reeves was fine, but it felt so safe and unoriginal. The most daring thing they did in that movie was use that one Nirvana song over and over, lol.



As for the actors strike, I do hope they will be able to get better rates on their royalties for movies and shows with streaming services, that seems to be one of the big issues, but I can't imagine the studios will agree on some ban or outlawing of AI assisting on filming or writing. A studio would be dumb to stop themselves from using one of the big new emerging technologies that could save them a ton of money.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

So DCU will be screwed then yikes.

It's already screwed. Just like the rest of Hollywood, but DCU especially, because it hasn't even started.
Tremendeously damaged brand and lack of interest + people now choosing not go to the movies + WGA and SGA-AFTRA strike. It's a really bad moment for starting a franchise.

No offense, but I think ensuring that actors and writers are paid a fair living wage for their labor and aren’t replaced by machines is far more important than whether or not we get a Superman movie in 2025 or 2026.

Welp. Corporate greed will always go as far as Capitalism allows it to go. And it's give it a very long leash indeed.

And that’s why we have organized labor in this country. For moments like this.

[Last Son of Krypton]

What about the reshoots taking place?

Aquaman 2 reshoots happened at the end of June 2023 (likely something minimal unlike the reshoots of the past Summer). The film has recently wrapped editing, it's done.

Well SAG-AFTRA is officially on strike. That means the Blue Beetle actors will no longer be able to go out and promote the movie. Which was something the film desperately needed as WB has once again done a terrible job of promoting a project.

Xolo addressed it today in a video: https://www.instagram.com/p/CuqhphGN58N/

[Vakanai]

R rated superhero movies feel so played out I think. The initial spectacle of a hero in a superhero costume saying the word "****" or having all these awful digital blood splatters everywhere feels so tried.

That was never why I liked those movies. Kick-Ass, Deadpool, Super, Logan, Joker are some of my favorites is because they're good, refreshing, not the same formula as all the other films coming out of DCEU MCU Fox's X-Men etc. The only thing the R rating really had to do with it is because of lowered expectations or whatever from the executives - they meddle less. Spider-Verse is great not because it's PG either, but because once again it looks like executives haven't stepped in and left their mark all over it - probably because it's animated. If you're focused on the rating your missing the point, I only mentioned the rating as the reason I think the filmmakers were allowed to do what they want, which is why these films feel so refreshing and different.

Also disagreed - R films are no more played out then PG 13 films, which are no more played out than PG films. The rating doesn't matter, the filmmaking and ideas matter. As long as you get the right talents involved putting their own mark on these movies then they will never ever be played out because they'll always offer something unique because of the unique team behind it. It's the cookie cutter studio mandated formulaic movies that I feel are so played out, I'm tired of them. I don't care if it's R or PG, never have, give me something good and different,

[Vakanai]

No offense, but I think ensuring that actors and writers are paid a fair living wage for their labor and aren’t replaced by machines is far more important than whether or not we get a Superman movie in 2025 or 2026.

I weirdly disagree. I mean short term yes, of course. But long term AI and technology will come for everyone's jobs and I actually love that and am filled with hope because of it. Why? Because I don't want 99.9% of humanity still needing to earn a wage at all just to survive. Eventually we're going to come across a threshold where AI/tech has replaced more of the workforce than can be politically subdued and it will not have provided more jobs unlike prior epochs of tech replacing workers - AI and automation will program themselves and maintain themselves and build and fix themselves, there'll be no place for a human in all of this except for the owners to get rich. Again, not stable or feasible under current capitalism where people starve or go homeless without money, hence we will be forced to cut survival away from the wage slave system. UBI or something else, we will be forced to move on and away from "you need to work 8+ hours a day on a job you're not passionate about in order to live" model that's all we've ever known. It's going to be freeing. The goal isn't to ensure that actors or anyone else always has work forever and ever as we eternally maintain this system, the goal is to eventually get something better.

But yeah, that's long term. Short term I'm with you - as long as we live in a "bills need to be paid or we don't eat and lose the house" society then these people getting a fair living wage is more important then any movie. But eventually I do want AI replacing everyone, because I want to live in a better future centered on humans following their passions via hobbies and such instead of one where we spend a huge swath of our lives working away to make other people wealthy.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

As for the actors strike, I do hope they will be able to get better rates on their royalties for movies and shows with streaming services, that seems to be one of the big issues, but I can't imagine the studios will agree on some ban or outlawing of AI assisting on filming or writing. A studio would be dumb to stop themselves from using one of the big new emerging technologies that could save them a ton of money.

I know that this thread isn’t really meant to be about the strike. But this is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues at play here. It’s really not about saving a few bucks with a new technology when we’re talking about hoarding actors’ likenesses to use for the rest of eternity without informing or compensating them for said use; robbing actors and writers of the ability to build equity in their careers; and denying them avenues to even start a career in the first place.

For context, imagine a studio wants to cast Marlon Brando as the lead in a new film, despite the fact that Brando has been dead for almost 20 years. So to get around the being dead thing, they pay his estate a very reduced rate to scan his likeness and then pay some poor struggling actor pennies to walk through the part but have Brando’s face scanned over his in post. Theoretically, everyone is getting paid so it’s all on the up and up, right? Except not really. Because (1) you’re debasing Marlon Brando’s memory by just using his face in whatever and (2) that other actor is getting paid, sure, but again it’s pennies compared to what he would be getting and it’s also robbing him of the chance to build equity in HIS career because it’s not HIS face that’s being seen. It’s the face of a guy who has been dead for 2 decades.

So imagine an entertainment industry that’s essentially frozen in place where no new stories are actually told and no new talent is ever discovered. And for what? So that the CEO of Netflix or MGM can get a fourth yacht?

It’s also just a quality control issue. Here’s the thing: AI-written scripts are bad. Very bad. And they will likely stay that way because no matter what you do, AI cannot experience anything or live a life or do any of the things you need to do to be a good writer. So if you farm out writing jobs to AI, you’re essentially just signing up for a decline in the quality of the product.

[Badou]

That was never why I liked those movies. Kick-Ass, Deadpool, Super, Logan, Joker are some of my favorites is because they're good, refreshing, not the same formula as all the other films coming out of DCEU MCU Fox's X-Men etc. The only thing the R rating really had to do with it is because of lowered expectations or whatever from the executives - they meddle less. Spider-Verse is great not because it's PG either, but because once again it looks like executives haven't stepped in and left their mark all over it - probably because it's animated. If you're focused on the rating your missing the point, I only mentioned the rating as the reason I think the filmmakers were allowed to do what they want, which is why these films feel so refreshing and different.

Also disagreed - R films are no more played out then PG 13 films, which are no more played out than PG films. The rating doesn't matter, the filmmaking and ideas matter. As long as you get the right talents involved putting their own mark on these movies then they will never ever be played out because they'll always offer something unique because of the unique team behind it. It's the cookie cutter studio mandated formulaic movies that I feel are so played out, I'm tired of them. I don't care if it's R or PG, never have, give me something good and different,

But what makes R movies rated R is the language, violence, or sex. With some R rated superhero projects I feel like they use those things as a crutch over needing to tell actual stories. This feels common in sequels of R rated superhero movies as the shock or surprise of it in the first movie is enough to carry it but that wears off by the second. We've just gotten so many R rated superhero stuff that I don't think it is unique or interesting anymore I guess. And I was mainly just talking about R rated superhero movies that I feel are played out not R rated movies in general. I just don't think there is anything unique about them anymore and it creates this weird situation where some people now can't enjoy superhero stuff unless it is dark and gritty where the costumes are stripped of any color. It feels like R rated superhero stuff tends to lean away from the more fanciful aspects of comics in favor of grounded stuff or shock value, and I think that is limiting.

But I think it also comes down to preferences. No one is exactly wrong for liking R rated superhero stuff more than non R. I think at their core superheroes are still children's characters and I think the Spider-Verse movie really shined a light on that aspect. It isn't a story that would have worked if it was made to be more "adult". With some R, or borderline R, rated superhero stuff there is this embarrassment that you can feel from creators who are working with children's superheroes, but with something like a Spider-Verse it felt like it really embraced that aspect and felt like it had more freedom to explore the property more. You also have a situation where the project is sometimes aided by having a lower rating. Bruce Timm is a good example of this. Because of the limitations of working within a children's cartoon he had to find unique and clever solutions to tell the stories he wanted with his animated shows, but with his more recent stuff that he had more freedom on his work didn't feel as well crafted. Sometimes limitations raise the quality of the work, but obviously this is a case by case basis.

I know that this thread isn’t really meant to be about the strike. But this is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues at play here. It’s really not about saving a few bucks with a new technology when we’re talking about hoarding actors’ likenesses to use for the rest of eternity without informing or compensating them for said use; robbing actors and writers of the ability to build equity in their careers; and denying them avenues to even start a career in the first place.

For context, imagine a studio wants to cast Marlon Brando as the lead in a new film, despite the fact that Brando has been dead for almost 20 years. So to get around the being dead thing, they pay his estate a very reduced rate to scan his likeness and then pay some poor struggling actor pennies to walk through the part but have Brando’s face scanned over his in post. Theoretically, everyone is getting paid so it’s all on the up and up, right? Except not really. Because (1) you’re debasing Marlon Brando’s memory by just using his face in whatever and (2) that other actor is getting paid, sure, but again it’s pennies compared to what he would be getting and it’s also robbing him of the chance to build equity in HIS career because it’s not HIS face that’s being seen. It’s the face of a guy who has been dead for 2 decades.

So imagine an entertainment industry that’s essentially frozen in place where no new stories are actually told and no new talent is ever discovered. And for what? So that the CEO of Netflix or MGM can get a fourth yacht?

It’s also just a quality control issue. Here’s the thing: AI-written scripts are bad. Very bad. And they will likely stay that way because no matter what you do, AI cannot experience anything or live a life or do any of the things you need to do to be a good writer. So if you farm out writing jobs to AI, you’re essentially just signing up for a decline in the quality of the product.

But in that example Marlon Brando's estate has to agree to any deal before they can just use his likeness. A studio just can't use it on their own accord. Unless the studio is trying to find ways around that which is scummy. So if they don't like the compensation they can reject it, and the rates that are offered will probably depend on the demand of the actors' likeness. I mean we don't really even know if audiences will even want to see old actors reanimated with AI in movies. I think it will be something that is more of a novelty than a new standard. Like the 3D hologram concerts of deceased singers and performers. Whether or not this debases the performer I guess is subjective. We'll never know what deceased performers would want, but at least current and future ones can make a choice I guess.

But it is up to current and future actors, along with their agents and union, to not sign any contract that doesn't give them more control and proper compensation for their AI likeness. I think a lot of that falls under name, image, and likeness copyright laws, but I dunno for sure. So I do think it is important and actors should be concerned about it, but I think there are other layers that get a bit more complicated. Like use of the actor's AI voice. An actor can sign up to do the voice for an animated movie, but wouldn't even need to show up and read lines. They would basically just be getting paid for marketing. The AI voice could be manipulated to fit any scene needed, or another example is that if an actor needs to do some ADR they might not be needed as their AI voice can be used instead. Then in the future there are cases where if something happens and an actor is unavailable rather than shutting down the whole production for a certain amount of time they could use a stand in and the AI likeness of the actor without needing to shut things down. There are just so many applications of this new technology that I can't imagine any studio would agree to outlaw it.

As for the actor that is doing the motion performance for the AI I don't think that is any different than what stunt doubles or other body doubles already are. They are paid for a specific job. I mean we already see this in video games or animated movies. In many cases it isn't the voice actor that is doing all, or sometimes any, of the motion capture. They are just other people that no one knows the name of and no one has cared about them until this point.

Thinking a bit more broadly on things I do think we are already in a bit of a frozen era of entertainment. Most of what we get are based on already existing IPs, sequels/prequels, or remakes. Music has kind of stalled into just being commercial pop or rap, fashion hasn't really change much at all in over a decade, and everyone just reacts to the same things on their social media. Life now isn't really that dissimilar to what life was like in the early 2010s.

Right now AI scripts aren't that good, but that might not be the case in 10, 15, or 20 years from now. This technology is in its infancy. I think it is likely that in a few decades AI will probably be able to write scrips that are on par with decent professional writers. They won't be the best of the best, but they will be good enough. In the short terms AI scrips would probably be better at producing things that require more volume. So like episodes of something like Law & Order, and then just have an actual person or two clean up the scrips for them rather than needing a whole writing team.

[skyvolt2000]

Those companies would rather see people starve on the streets than pay them fair wages. The Disney CEO seriously went on record to say the writers and actors are not being "realistic", while he pays himself $25 million a year and deplatforms his company's shows and movies to stop paying residuals. Good luck trying to get anything done with over 12,000 writers and 160,000 actors on strike. Hopefully now they will be forced to listen.

Not when you can buy shows and movies from overseas.

And remember a certain show was NOT under union rules when it came on in 1993. In fact some of the shows that spawned from it were not union and it cost one of the shows it's lead.
The show? Power Rangers.

And lets not forget how many unaired or never finished airing shows these studios have.

“The studio’s A.I. proposal to SAG-AFTRA included scanning a background actor’s likeness for one day’s worth of pay and using their likeness forever in any form without any pay or consent.”

Easy to stop that-folks don't watch the shows.


Once upon a time these studios hired these folks to only work for them.
Why not go back to that? Get a set of actors and actresses that only work for you and produce your own stuff.

There are ways to cut costs.
If I greenlight a show-it needs a beginning middle and end. No more shows ending on cliffhangers if they don't know if they are not coming back.
Do we really need 22 episode seasons? Split that into 2 seasons. NBC did it with TNBC.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I weirdly disagree. I mean short term yes, of course. But long term AI and technology will come for everyone's jobs and I actually love that and am filled with hope because of it. Why? Because I don't want 99.9% of humanity still needing to earn a wage at all just to survive. Eventually we're going to come across a threshold where AI/tech has replaced more of the workforce than can be politically subdued and it will not have provided more jobs unlike prior epochs of tech replacing workers - AI and automation will program themselves and maintain themselves and build and fix themselves, there'll be no place for a human in all of this except for the owners to get rich. Again, not stable or feasible under current capitalism where people starve or go homeless without money, hence we will be forced to cut survival away from the wage slave system. UBI or something else, we will be forced to move on and away from "you need to work 8+ hours a day on a job you're not passionate about in order to live" model that's all we've ever known. It's going to be freeing. The goal isn't to ensure that actors or anyone else always has work forever and ever as we eternally maintain this system, the goal is to eventually get something better.

I'm sorry. So...you want a system where nobody works for a living? Look, I'm just as likely as the next guy to point out that capitalism has its very serious flaws and unfettered capitalism is awful and shouldn't be the end-goal. But neither should unfettered communism. We do need to maintain something called the economy for the good of our society. And yeah, there is poverty in capitalist systems but that is also why we need robust social safety nets and why our economy has never really been a pure capitalist economy.

I don't think the end goal of civilization should be the space station from Wall-E where everyone is a bunch of fatted calves who have robots do everything for them. People actually do want to...contribute to society. That's why actors are actors. Nobody goes into acting because they think it's lucrative. Most actors don't make a living just by acting. They go into it because of love for their craft and the want to make their living doing that. Hence the strike.

But that's a whole separate debate.

But yeah, that's long term. Short term I'm with you - as long as we live in a "bills need to be paid or we don't eat and lose the house" society then these people getting a fair living wage is more important then any movie. But eventually I do want AI replacing everyone, because I want to live in a better future centered on humans following their passions via hobbies and such instead of one where we spend a huge swath of our lives working away to make other people wealthy.

Well at least we got there.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

But what makes R movies rated R is the language, violence, or sex. With some R rated superhero projects I feel like they use those things as a crutch over needing to tell actual stories. This feels common in sequels of R rated superhero movies as the shock or surprise of it in the first movie is enough to carry it but that wears off by the second. We've just gotten so many R rated superhero stuff that I don't think it is unique or interesting anymore I guess. And I was mainly just talking about R rated superhero movies that I feel are played out not R rated movies in general. I just don't think there is anything unique about them anymore and it creates this weird situation where some people now can't enjoy superhero stuff unless it is dark and gritty where the costumes are stripped of any color. It feels like R rated superhero stuff tends to lean away from the more fanciful aspects of comics in favor of grounded stuff or shock value, and I think that is limiting.

But I think it also comes down to preferences. No one is exactly wrong for liking R rated superhero stuff more than non R. I think at their core superheroes are still children's characters and I think the Spider-Verse movie really shined a light on that aspect. It isn't a story that would have worked if it was made to be more "adult". With some R, or borderline R, rated superhero stuff there is this embarrassment that you can feel from creators who are working with children's superheroes, but with something like a Spider-Verse it felt like it really embraced that aspect and felt like it had more freedom to explore the property more. You also have a situation where the project is sometimes aided by having a lower rating. Bruce Timm is a good example of this. Because of the limitations of working within a children's cartoon he had to find unique and clever solutions to tell the stories he wanted with his animated shows, but with his more recent stuff that he had more freedom on his work didn't feel as well crafted. Sometimes limitations raise the quality of the work, but obviously this is a case by case basis.




But in that example Marlon Brando's estate has to agree to any deal before they can just use his likeness. A studio just can't use it on their own accord. Unless the studio is trying to find ways around that which is scummy. So if they don't like the compensation they can reject it, and the rates that are offered will probably depend on the demand of the actors' likeness. I mean we don't really even know if audiences will even want to see old actors reanimated with AI in movies. I think it will be something that is more of a novelty than a new standard. Like the 3D hologram concerts of deceased singers and performers. Whether or not this debases the performer I guess is subjective. We'll never know what deceased performers would want, but at least current and future ones can make a choice I guess.

But it is up to current and future actors, along with their agents and union, to not sign any contract that doesn't give them more control and proper compensation for their AI likeness. I think a lot of that falls under name, image, and likeness copyright laws, but I dunno for sure. So I do think it is important and actors should be concerned about it, but I think there are other layers that get a bit more complicated. Like use of the actor's AI voice. An actor can sign up to do the voice for an animated movie, but wouldn't even need to show up and read lines. They would basically just be getting paid for marketing. The AI voice could be manipulated to fit any scene needed, or another example is that if an actor needs to do some ADR they might not be needed as their AI voice can be used instead. Then in the future there are cases where if something happens and an actor is unavailable rather than shutting down the whole production for a certain amount of time they could use a stand in and the AI likeness of the actor without needing to shut things down. There are just so many applications of this new technology that I can't imagine any studio would agree to outlaw it.

As for the actor that is doing the motion performance for the AI I don't think that is any different than what stunt doubles or other body doubles already are. They are paid for a specific job. I mean we already see this in video games or animated movies. In many cases it isn't the voice actor that is doing all, or sometimes any, of the motion capture. They are just other people that no one knows the name of and no one has cared about them until this point.

Thinking a bit more broadly on things I do think we are already in a bit of a frozen era of entertainment. Most of what we get are based on already existing IPs, sequels/prequels, or remakes. Music has kind of stalled into just being commercial pop or rap, fashion hasn't really change much at all in over a decade, and everyone just reacts to the same things on their social media. Life now isn't really that dissimilar to what life was like in the early 2010s.

Right now AI scripts aren't that good, but that might not be the case in 10, 15, or 20 years from now. This technology is in its infancy. I think it is likely that in a few decades AI will probably be able to write scrips that are on par with decent professional writers. They won't be the best of the best, but they will be good enough. In the short terms AI scrips would probably be better at producing things that require more volume. So like episodes of something like Law & Order, and then just have an actual person or two clean up the scrips for them rather than needing a whole writing team.

Again, you seem to miss the point that actors act because they want to act. They don't want to be paid to JUST market a film. Where is the fun in that?? The fun of being an actor is in bringing what you bring to a character or scene. That is the entire reason people become actors. And they would therefore rather NOT have anyone else HIJACK THEIR LIKENESS OR THEIR VOICE to do that for them. ESPECIALLY without your consent or even compensating them.

You are literally describing the nightmare scenario for all actors. And its a reasonable thing to be afraid of and its not UNreasonable that actors are now striking in part over it. Because it is a threat to the very ability to make a living as an actor. If studios can short-change an actor and convince them to sell their likeness, then they have no reason to ever hire that actor again. And given the fact that actors AND writers are the backbones of this industry and the people who make the content that these Hollywood CEOS make tens to hundreds of millions of dollars off of, you better believe they will withhold their labor until the studios cave. These studios would not even exist without the labor of these creatives. And now that two major unions are on strike, these Hollywood execs should be afraid. We cannot afford to give an inch on this issue and if they think otherwise, that's just painfully naive. Because guess who is more replaceable than actors and writers? Uh CEOs. ChatGPT can do David Zaslav's job a lot easier than it can do Matt Damon's.

And no, it's not the same as stunt doubles and body doubles. What a painfully ignorant thing to say. For one, those doubles are still human and secondly, uh the main actor is still the one actually ACTING out the scenes? Are you somehow under the impression that actors ONLY perform stunts for a living?? Do you ONLY watch action films?

Maybe you do if you think we're "frozen" already, since you know, we still are coming off of a boom and golden age in quality television and film written by writers. AI could not have written something like Succession or The Bear or The Last of Us or Big Little Lies or The Flight Attendant or The White Lotus or Everything Everywhere All at Once or Past Lives or literally any good film or TV show. It just couldn't have. Projects like that are not within its grasp. Because the whole draw of those projects come from how relatable and human they are. That is what makes a good story a good story. And the only thing that makes the franchise films and procedurals that are good as good as they are is the fact that they written by professional WRITERS who translate their own lived experience as people into scripts.

So unless you WANT TV and film to be just nonstop BAD Law & Order episodes and bad movies, maybe we should not use AI. Because no matter how advanced it gets, unless you can have AI go out into the world and live a life and have relationships, it'll never be as good as humans.

Again, I don't see how you don't get that you're describing a really bleak future and presenting it as it's a good thing. What you're advocating for is essentially the death of creative labor and entertainment as art.

What you're advocating for can only really be justified from the perspective that nothing should be ever be valued for any other reason besides its cost-effectiveness. You know, there is such a thing as ART and people who want to preserve that.

[married guy]

Considering the sheer amount of money on the table, paying the people who help provide and create it a fair wage shouldn't even be a consideration.

In regards to Gunn and the DCU cinematic universe, I'm more optimistic about it than if Snyder continued.
My preference would be that DC simply create well written & acted pieces that appreciate and acknowledge the history of the characters. I think having a single voice overarching every property restricts too much.
The films don't need to all be linked. Doing so puts limitations in place. The last thing DC movies need is limitations.

Create compelling movies and TV shows and don't worry so much about how they all fit together.

The Flash was hands down the WORST super-hero film I've ever watched. It was too concerned with cameos and Easter eggs instead of providing a compelling lead character.
I'd rather watch Blade Trinity on repeat for a month than re-watch five minutes of that festering turd of a film.

[Badou]

Again, you seem to miss the point that actors act because they want to act. They don't want to be paid to JUST market a film. Where is the fun in that?? The fun of being an actor is in bringing what you bring to a character or scene. That is the entire reason people become actors. And they would therefore rather NOT have anyone else HIJACK THEIR LIKENESS OR THEIR VOICE to do that for them. ESPECIALLY without your consent or even compensating them.

I don't know what kind of fantasy land you live in but not every actor out there is some bleeding heart thespian that studied all the classics of cinema or something. Many want to be actors because of the money, fame, and lifestyle that being an actor provides and the acting is just a job. You even see this within sports. Not everyone that plays sports professionally does it out of love for the game. It's a big discussion in something like the NBA atm. But it feels like you are jumping to conclusions way to fast. No one is getting their likeness hijacked without consent. I've not heard that anywhere nor is that legal. They want safeguards in place to future-proof the use of AI with actors so they can get proper compensation because the unions failed to see what happened with streamers screwing actors out of residuals. The main point of tension between the studio and the actors is the residuals on streaming platforms. Right now actors get paid WAY less than what they should be when these streaming platforms are having their movies or TV shows get binge watched endless by people all around the world all day everyday, and also these studios can remove the movie or TV show from their platform freely to skirt around having to give out residuals or bonuses based on how a certain project did, and it is also difficult to even know how truly successful a project was as there is no real data for streaming views other than what the streaming networks provide.

You are literally describing the nightmare scenario for all actors. And its a reasonable thing to be afraid of and its not UNreasonable that actors are now striking in part over it. Because it is a threat to the very ability to make a living as an actor. If studios can short-change an actor and convince them to sell their likeness, then they have no reason to ever hire that actor again. And given the fact that actors AND writers are the backbones of this industry and the people who make the content that these Hollywood CEOS make tens to hundreds of millions of dollars off of, you better believe they will withhold their labor until the studios cave. These studios would not even exist without the labor of these creatives. And now that two major unions are on strike, these Hollywood execs should be afraid. We cannot afford to give an inch on this issue and if they think otherwise, that's just painfully naive. Because guess who is more replaceable than actors and writers? Uh CEOs. ChatGPT can do David Zaslav's job a lot easier than it can do Matt Damon's.

The majority of actors now in the guild make well below a livable wage. A big issue is that with streaming and the reduced number of episodes shows now have the salaries have kind of fallen off and a lot are now earning less than they did in the early 2000s. The entire industry is built on the backs of desperate people moving to Hollywood hoping for their shot at fame. It's one of the most predatory industries in the country but the dazzling movies and TV shows mask the real problems within the industry as a whole. But it all still comes down to contracts. No one can get their likeness taken from them unless they sign it away themselves. The union's purpose is to make sure the studios can't overstep the bounds of the contract and give the actors protection. Just make sure actors don't sign contracts that give studios unlimited freedom with using AI likeness of them unless the actor wants it. I feel like that is a fairly easy thing to handle in the long run.

And no, it's not the same as stunt doubles and body doubles. What a painfully ignorant thing to say. For one, those doubles are still human and secondly, uh the main actor is still the one actually ACTING out the scenes? Are you somehow under the impression that actors ONLY perform stunts for a living?? Do you ONLY watch action films?

So you don't think stunt performers are actors as well? So when Batman is doing all those action scenes, riding his motorcycle, and fighting the bad guys that doesn't count as acting too? Then what about the people that do all the performance capture for animation or anything? Do you think that was actually Vin Diesel in the blue suit doing all the performance capture work for Groot? I just don't think a person being used as a stand in for some AI likeness actor isn't that dissimilar to performance capture now. Since they will only be providing the motion but the voice and image will be added later.

Maybe you do if you think we're "frozen" already, since you know, we still are coming off of a boom and golden age in quality television and film written by writers. AI could not have written something like Succession or The Bear or The Last of Us or Big Little Lies or The Flight Attendant or The White Lotus or Everything Everywhere All at Once or Past Lives or literally any good film or TV show. It just couldn't have. Projects like that are not within its grasp. Because the whole draw of those projects come from how relatable and human they are. That is what makes a good story a good story. And the only thing that makes the franchise films and procedurals that are good as good as they are is the fact that they written by professional WRITERS who translate their own lived experience as people into scripts.

Yeah it couldn't now, but there is nothing saying that in 20 or 30 years AI couldn't write something that is on par with a show you consider great. There is just no way to know, but so much of what makes a show successful isn't just the writing. It is also the directing, the acting, and the editing. I think eventually AI will be used in all parts of production of these shows and it will get to a point where the audience probably won't be aware of what is or isn't aided by AI I think. That is probably the most likely future. It isn't a all in or all out thing in regards to AI, but more of a blend of it across the whole industry that will make thing simpler.

Again, I don't see how you don't get that you're describing a really bleak future and presenting it as it's a good thing. What you're advocating for is essentially the death of creative labor and entertainment as art.

I never said it was a good thing. I don't know where you got that from. I was just talking about it from a more neutral point of view. Since all industries deal with these kind of upheavals when new technology is introduced. Towns across the US are gutted because automation and computers have rendered so many old jobs obsolete. I think it is inevitable that many jobs in Hollywood both in front and behind the camera will change drastically with the use of AI. AI will eventually be able to edit film and create CGI assets which will cost a lot of jobs working in post production too. It's sad but I don't see how you can ban technology that will be able to do so much.

What you're advocating for can only really be justified from the perspective that nothing should be ever be valued for any other reason besides its cost-effectiveness. You know, there is such a thing as ART and people who want to preserve that.

Again, I never said I was advocating for anything. My whole point was that it would be incredibly stupid for the studios to ban or outlaw new technology that could reshape their entire industry. If you were the studio you wouldn't give that future option away now.