4 ms·

> positioned herself in favor of the Hollywood strike, saying her dad ‘definitely would’ve been out there fighting the good fight for art and artists’ “fightin

> positioned herself in favor of the Hollywood strike, saying her dad ‘definitely would’ve been out there fighting the good fight for art and artists’ “fighting the good fight for people with skills the market doesn’t value as much as they thought” can someone explain it a different way to me

__loam 3y ago
The writers won the strike so clearly the studios value their labor.
- stale2002 3y ago
  For now, with the existing state of the industry and the fact that AI tools have not been fully used by most studios, you are correct. Studios can't just change their whole process overnight. Revaluate this in a couple years, though, when new studios have popped up that can do the same work for a 10th the cost.
  - __loam 3y ago
    I've said this here before but I think a lot of people on hackernews are confused about how the market for creative industries actually works. Productivity alone is not necessarily correlated to profitability or potential success.
- vlunkr 3y ago
  It isn't the first time either.
- taeric 3y ago
  Depends what you mean by "won?" It is ending, but I'm not exactly hearing gnashing of teeth from the studios, here.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    The studios held out and eventually caved on pretty much every single demand. Not sure how that’s not a gnashing of teeth.
    - taeric 3y ago
      The studios were clearly going to have to give in eventually. I won't really argue against that. I'm not entirely clear that this was a battle to be "won," though. It isn't like they've never left bargaining in the past thinking that they did well, only to find out that things changed later. Or that they just misunderstood stakes. To be clear, my main doubt in that post is that this is a battle that can lead to a winning war. I am not at all opposed to it happening. Indeed, I support those that were striking. I can't but feel that there is a higher up meta battle that will be more high stakes.
      - dagmx 3y ago
        I don’t think the studios see it your way though. There were quotes from executives where they wanted to essentially starve out the writers and come to more agreeable terms for the studios. Just last quarter they were bragging how the strikes were saving them money. I legitimately don’t think the studios wanted to agree till they saw their next quarter numbers. And I guess maybe I shouldn’t say “the studios”. They apparently had a couple holdouts in their corner which caused negotiations to take longer than the majority of the studios would have wanted
        taeric 3y ago
        Could be, for sure. My gut is that most of the publicity and quotes I saw "from studios" were from basically the entry level/grunts of the studio world and combed to find the worst that could be found, quote wise. Note that I do think studios were more happy with the deal they had before the strike. I just don't think they are gnashing teeth at the agreement.
        3y ago
howlingfantods 3y ago
market valuation depends on the consensual negotiations of all the stakeholders and consumers of a product don’t have 100% power to control the price. movie studios would love to price content creation at 0 if possible.
mistrial9 3y ago
how about this - you can store "excess valuation" as pieces of printed paper aka financial instruments, recognize the appreciation of their value in trading, but also pull behind-the-scenes moves such as multiple classes of stock, different terms for different purchasers, front-running the trading of them, exchanging them for less than face value in private deals, etc.. they also work well at scale. OR you can recognize skills development in humans, who are social, who show repeated contributions of skill, talent, looks, actions, insights into written works or other human activity, and then recognize them with payment for their increasingly valued skills. You can also collect together and negotiate with them (publishing side), gather others with skill and negotiate (writers union) collectively, put value into items that only that individual can hold or make (personal items like letters).. and thereby deliver the OBVIOUS value that they bring, with bargained economic instruments. When one side demeans, disenfranchises, belittles, avoids recognition of, uses dirty tricks to steal from, the other side, it looks pretty bad. Often this behavior is egged on by third-parties with only personal interest in mind, like for example, investors.. who might use their wealth leisure time to engage in some of these anti-social and/or criminal market behaviors. When an entire class of people in a civilization, like perhaps talented artists, actors, illustrators, writers, and other creative, are threatened for their income and future wealth, and get detracted by investors in public.. that looks pretty bad too.. Perhaps some of that is a little like what is going on now in Hollywood, California and related industries.
stetrain 3y ago
A company offers you an $80k salary for a new position, you counter offer with $100k, and they say they'll call you back. A couple days later they call and you both agree to $95k. Is that you "fighting the good fight with skills the market doesn't value as much as you thought?" Or is it negotiating to find the true market value that you are willing to accept and the company is willing to pay for your skills?
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  the true market value can be considerably less, your logic works both ways
  - stetrain 3y ago
    If both sides agree to a price then that's a very local market value. If lots of people on both sides agree to a price then that really is market value.
shermantanktop 3y ago
How about this: in your restatement, "the market" appears to be a neutral objective weighing function that tells the truth regardless of how uncomfortable that truth might be. But "the market" is often a personification of power, with powerful interests (sometimes hidden) working together to bend the market's behavior to their ends. When that happens, if we don't see that bias, thinking of the "market" as objective is a path to being manipulated by those interests. In this case, the powerful forces are distributors and financiers who cannot operate without creative talent. The actual customers want the creative output, they have no interest in the logo at the front of the movie. So the distributors are powerful rent-seekers who would like to use technology to increase their share of the rent.

__loam 3y ago

The writers won the strike so clearly the studios value their labor.

stale2002 3y ago
For now, with the existing state of the industry and the fact that AI tools have not been fully used by most studios, you are correct. Studios can't just change their whole process overnight. Revaluate this in a couple years, though, when new studios have popped up that can do the same work for a 10th the cost.
- __loam 3y ago
  I've said this here before but I think a lot of people on hackernews are confused about how the market for creative industries actually works. Productivity alone is not necessarily correlated to profitability or potential success.
vlunkr 3y ago
It isn't the first time either.
taeric 3y ago
Depends what you mean by "won?" It is ending, but I'm not exactly hearing gnashing of teeth from the studios, here.
- dagmx 3y ago
  The studios held out and eventually caved on pretty much every single demand. Not sure how that’s not a gnashing of teeth.
  - taeric 3y ago
    The studios were clearly going to have to give in eventually. I won't really argue against that. I'm not entirely clear that this was a battle to be "won," though. It isn't like they've never left bargaining in the past thinking that they did well, only to find out that things changed later. Or that they just misunderstood stakes. To be clear, my main doubt in that post is that this is a battle that can lead to a winning war. I am not at all opposed to it happening. Indeed, I support those that were striking. I can't but feel that there is a higher up meta battle that will be more high stakes.
    - dagmx 3y ago
      I don’t think the studios see it your way though. There were quotes from executives where they wanted to essentially starve out the writers and come to more agreeable terms for the studios. Just last quarter they were bragging how the strikes were saving them money. I legitimately don’t think the studios wanted to agree till they saw their next quarter numbers. And I guess maybe I shouldn’t say “the studios”. They apparently had a couple holdouts in their corner which caused negotiations to take longer than the majority of the studios would have wanted
      - taeric 3y ago
        Could be, for sure. My gut is that most of the publicity and quotes I saw "from studios" were from basically the entry level/grunts of the studio world and combed to find the worst that could be found, quote wise. Note that I do think studios were more happy with the deal they had before the strike. I just don't think they are gnashing teeth at the agreement.
        3y ago

howlingfantods 3y ago

market valuation depends on the consensual negotiations of all the stakeholders and consumers of a product don’t have 100% power to control the price. movie studios would love to price content creation at 0 if possible.

mistrial9 3y ago

how about this - you can store "excess valuation" as pieces of printed paper aka financial instruments, recognize the appreciation of their value in trading, but also pull behind-the-scenes moves such as multiple classes of stock, different terms for different purchasers, front-running the trading of them, exchanging them for less than face value in private deals, etc.. they also work well at scale. OR you can recognize skills development in humans, who are social, who show repeated contributions of skill, talent, looks, actions, insights into written works or other human activity, and then recognize them with payment for their increasingly valued skills. You can also collect together and negotiate with them (publishing side), gather others with skill and negotiate (writers union) collectively, put value into items that only that individual can hold or make (personal items like letters).. and thereby deliver the OBVIOUS value that they bring, with bargained economic instruments. When one side demeans, disenfranchises, belittles, avoids recognition of, uses dirty tricks to steal from, the other side, it looks pretty bad. Often this behavior is egged on by third-parties with only personal interest in mind, like for example, investors.. who might use their wealth leisure time to engage in some of these anti-social and/or criminal market behaviors. When an entire class of people in a civilization, like perhaps talented artists, actors, illustrators, writers, and other creative, are threatened for their income and future wealth, and get detracted by investors in public.. that looks pretty bad too.. Perhaps some of that is a little like what is going on now in Hollywood, California and related industries.

stetrain 3y ago

A company offers you an $80k salary for a new position, you counter offer with $100k, and they say they'll call you back. A couple days later they call and you both agree to $95k. Is that you "fighting the good fight with skills the market doesn't value as much as you thought?" Or is it negotiating to find the true market value that you are willing to accept and the company is willing to pay for your skills?

yieldcrv 3y ago
the true market value can be considerably less, your logic works both ways
- stetrain 3y ago
  If both sides agree to a price then that's a very local market value. If lots of people on both sides agree to a price then that really is market value.

shermantanktop 3y ago

How about this: in your restatement, "the market" appears to be a neutral objective weighing function that tells the truth regardless of how uncomfortable that truth might be. But "the market" is often a personification of power, with powerful interests (sometimes hidden) working together to bend the market's behavior to their ends. When that happens, if we don't see that bias, thinking of the "market" as objective is a path to being manipulated by those interests. In this case, the powerful forces are distributors and financiers who cannot operate without creative talent. The actual customers want the creative output, they have no interest in the logo at the front of the movie. So the distributors are powerful rent-seekers who would like to use technology to increase their share of the rent.