> Think of it as an internship, if you like. That, you'll surely agree, has some value? Sure. I generally agree that the loss of background actors would be har

> Think of it as an internship, if you like. That, you'll surely agree, has some value? Sure. I generally agree that the loss of background actors would be harmful to actors, most of whom are poor. > But, they're not doing that! They're taking background actors' images, and copy-pasting them into other scenes, and other works. This is not clear. I think what you are saying and what SAG are saying is incorrect because frankly it doesn’t make sense to me. The studios have said those narratives are grossly incorrect, and I am inclined to agree simply because they do not make economic sense. Background actors are cheap and better than trying to “paste” them into future scenes. But I don’t really care because the actual thing we should care about is the near term future where background actors are simply generated entirely, which is the primary threat and completely unchallenged by the current debate being had. That’s the problem. The argument is the problem. Not the general plight of the small actors. Any belief that they are solving their current problems or future proofing themselves is painfully naive.