2023 was the year of AI’s ‘purge’ from Hollywood. With the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television (SAG-AFTRA+) smelling a disaster incoming and forcing their way into ensuring that writers cannot be cut out of the creative process or paid substantially less.
The WGA agreement, while far from perfect, was born out of creatives’ frustration, yet playing the double agent when efficiency was on the table, something that studios are known for and are always looking for.
Just recently, Warner Bros signed a deal with the AI company Cinelytic to use their decision-making system to gauge how likely a movie is to succeed at the box office, and who should be cast to make sure that happens.
“Artificial intelligence sounds scary. But right now, an AI cannot make any creative decisions,” says Queisser, Cynelytics founder, in an interview for The Hollywood Reporter.
This might sound hopeful, but practically, what it means is that AI got fired as a scriptwriter and promoted directly to the boardroom.
All In the Name of Efficiency
The protests were clear enough. Writers sought fair remuneration and job security, and tools like Sudowrite, Scriptbook, and the classic ChatGPT threatened to undermine that. Beyond the economic backlash, it was evident that no AI tool could replicate the quality of human writers, and that no good would come from the art and industry.
‘I don’t see it (AI) replacing us yet, but the impact on other areas of the industry could be very damaging,” said David Kavanagh, executive officer of the Federation of Screenwriters in Europe (FSE) for THR, representing more than 8,000 writers across the continent.
In the US, while hard-fought, it seemed that writers triumphed over AI, with the consensus being that AI could only be used as a tool and could not be credited; even better, a human needed to be credited. But what defines the thin line between a tool and a stakeholder, if Scriptbook rates the quality of the plot you deliver to a major studio, without it even being read by a person?
Under the umbrella of saving time to make better decisions, Cynelitics goes beyond that and calculates how much more you’d earn if, say, the villain role were played by William Dafoe instead of the director’s initial choice, Jared Leto.
How can these tools do that? Very simple, big data training on every movie and script that can be scraped from the internet. But does a director truly need a piece of software to tell them that a more famous actor will sell more tickets? Do any of these calculated outcomes take into account context and the characteristics an actor needs to have to make the movie work?
While there’s a moral case to be made and an even stronger artistic one, regulations, even after the WGA agreement, allow studios and writers to retain all rights related to AI development and training. As good as it may sound, it’s a double-edged sword, as while a writer can sue if their work is used by an AI without consent, a studio can effectively train models that endlessly reproduce scripts they own, cut cots, and only hire WGA writers because they must.
There’s A Better Way to Do It
The AI companion industry has figured out how to use AI in a way that serves both companies and their audience; however, the same can’t be said about the movie industry, which is still focused on saving costs rather than producing value and trying to customize for audiences, an approach that never seems to work.
There may be a future scenario where the principles of emotional connection that gave birth to AI companions can be adapted to refine scripts other than just being deployed as an AI chat bot, which is what they’re mostly used for nowadays. And that’s not through the analysis of massive data, but by supporting creatives within the context of their creation to make the best movie they can, having AI partners rather machines doing the work for them or boldly stating that your work is not good enough to be on the big screen.
The Problem Is That Algorithms Can’t Take Risks
When Peter Jackson went on ‘tour’ to find a studio that would finance The Lord of the Rings, every single one of his requests got rejected. A relatively unknown director from New Zealand is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars to adapt one of the greatest fantasy stories ever written? What score would you think Cynelytic would give to the movie if the leading actor who plays Frodo is an unknown teenage Elijah Wood with a dream that production has only seen on a VHS tape?
New Line Cinema took a last-minute 300-million-dollar risk because one man in the company believed in the project and Peter Jackson. In an era of AI-driven decisions, it’s challenging for random life events or a brave decision to serve as a catalyst that produces the finest movies.
Furthermore, AI can’t take into account how art represents the changes in society and what the world needs. While profit thrives on stagnation and subscription, history has proven that all cycles are broken when a new director, band, painter, etc, take the courage to challenge the status quo and, from a local following, turns into an international movement.
Creativity doesn’t come from the top down; only financial prediction can, which, based on the massive flop of the latest Marvel franchises that only a few years ago were always a ‘safe’ option.
We Can’t Predict the Future Yet?
Let’s not forget that WGA Agreements are only valid for three years, and time is almost there for new regulations to be discussed and multiple scenarios to unfold. We have seen so far a struggle between the higher-ups and the creators, who sadly are being pushed hard enough to rely on protests to get a momentary break from tech.
What is certain is that, in the short and medium term, the battles will be hard-fought. However, we will know that the balance is found once the new wave of fresh, risky creativity hits the cinemas.
To Support our independent investigative journalism contributions are welcome via Cashapp to: $BlackStarNews
Also support Black Star News by buying merch from our brand new Black Star Store!
