3 ms·

But who has the budget for particularly recognisable extras anyway? It's not like famous enough to be mass-recognisable actors are getting paid to be extras an

by OJFord 3y ago

But who has the budget for particularly recognisable extras anyway? It's not like famous enough to be mass-recognisable actors are getting paid to be extras anyway, and why would you bother to copy someone unknown's likeness when you can just have your AI generate something new anyway? And I'm not convinced you'd want recognisable extras, it'd be distracting wouldn't it? And detract from who your actual stars are when they don't have more of a part?

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
"recognizability" has nothing to do with why actors are striking. If I'm a background actor, of course I want to get paid to be in multiple movies instead of just getting paid once to serve as AI training data. Plus, many famous actors started out in bit background parts, and there is a valid fear this is "pulling up the ladder". Brad Pitt's first movie role was as an uncredited waiter in the 1987 film No Man's Land, for which he was almost fired trying to ad lib a line (i.e. to "upgrade" his part to a speaking role).
- OJFord 3y ago
  But my point is why is that the alternative? Why am I training my AI on anonymous jobbing actors whom I have to pay per use, instead of any old anonymous generative face? There are already film trailer-esque videos of 'people' generated by Midjourney or similar, and then some other image->video processor, on YouTube.
  - sb8244 3y ago
    Maybe they'd strike for that to not happen. Actors will be involved in 99.9% of productions, and people will always be involved. Are they in union with those actors?
    - OJFord 3y ago
      They should strike to be paid twice when stunt or likeness (for 'clone' type scenes) doubles are in use too. I don't think it's at all obvious a significant number of the rest would care never mind want to strike on their behalf. We're not even talking just about properly famous 'made it' actors, we're talking about anyone with a speaking part, or just more of an obvious or interactive role... It'd be like software engineers (from nobody in particular like me, to big recognisable names) striking over office cleaners' fear they're being replaced with Roombas.

by OJFord 3y ago

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

"recognizability" has nothing to do with why actors are striking. If I'm a background actor, of course I want to get paid to be in multiple movies instead of just getting paid once to serve as AI training data. Plus, many famous actors started out in bit background parts, and there is a valid fear this is "pulling up the ladder". Brad Pitt's first movie role was as an uncredited waiter in the 1987 film No Man's Land, for which he was almost fired trying to ad lib a line (i.e. to "upgrade" his part to a speaking role).

OJFord 3y ago
But my point is why is that the alternative? Why am I training my AI on anonymous jobbing actors whom I have to pay per use, instead of any old anonymous generative face? There are already film trailer-esque videos of 'people' generated by Midjourney or similar, and then some other image->video processor, on YouTube.
- sb8244 3y ago
  Maybe they'd strike for that to not happen. Actors will be involved in 99.9% of productions, and people will always be involved. Are they in union with those actors?
  - OJFord 3y ago
    They should strike to be paid twice when stunt or likeness (for 'clone' type scenes) doubles are in use too. I don't think it's at all obvious a significant number of the rest would care never mind want to strike on their behalf. We're not even talking just about properly famous 'made it' actors, we're talking about anyone with a speaking part, or just more of an obvious or interactive role... It'd be like software engineers (from nobody in particular like me, to big recognisable names) striking over office cleaners' fear they're being replaced with Roombas.