That’s really insulting timing, not gonna say bad timing since there is no way they didn’t do this on purpose imho.
I think they are flexing. They know most of the actors are obsolete, and that only a few will be needed from here on.
Why should an employer pay for a employee they don’t need?
The trouble is, automation has been coming for half a century now. It’s just that it only hurt blue collar workers. There was no support from Hollywood for them then.
Hell, the Leftists journalists taunted them. “Learn to code”.
Except that automation proceeded. Journalists began to lose their jobs too.
And coders.
And now actors.
If the people on the level below are screaming for help, and your only response is to laugh at them, then I don’t have much sympathy for you when the water rises even more.
Hollywood Leftists made the choice long ago to laugh at the little people. Now the flood is affecting them, they are screaming that it is a human rights violation, that they deserve to be paid. Even when they aren’t needed.
Even when their work is garbage.
Even as everything they do loses the money of the investors.
I don’t have any sympathy for them, who now have to work just like the little people do.
If Netflix can make money without them, fine. If it can’t, they deserve to fail.
Nowadays, in manufacture, you might have one guy doing the job of a thousand men.
It wasn’t a human rights issue for the men who lost their jobs?
Whole communities used to thrive from factory jobs.
But the overall unemployment rate isn’t much higher than then. Most men adapted because they had to. Maybe the jobs are better, maybe they are worse, but they are still there.
Back then, you got a job, and you worked that job until you died. Maybe you might get a little raise, maybe you got to be a manager if you were lucky and talented, but for the great majority of history, your job was your job, and it was probably your daddy’s and probably your son’s as well.
Now we live in a rapidly changing world. Jobs are disappearing but there are new jobs that couldn’t be conceived of before.
I’m staggered how quickly uber replaced taxis. I knew taxi drivers. They had very expensive regulations they had to deal with. But uber drivers don’t have to pay anything despite doing the same job. No wonder taxis can’t compete.
For some reason, “safety shields” are mandatory for people in company A but not in company B. Why? Do knives not work against uber drivers? And then shields were mandatory because they would stop covid. But not for those in the gig economy, who … just magic it away or something.
Across the globe, automation is replacing humans. So the question is not “should actors be protected when everyone else is left to rot” but “how can we make sure humans can compete for jobs”?
Because the dystopian future is the one where the elite control the robots, and see the majority of humanity as parasites, to be tolerated only as long as they have to. The WEF has already said that the population must be drastically reduced, by any means necessary.
Sure, this generation of robots can be defeated by humans. But just like in every other field, the robots are getting better and better. There will be a tipping point.
And across the globe, except in America, the elites have already disarmed most of the human population. If the cost of killer robots is cheap enough, the elites won’t care that some humans can fight back, because most will go under, while automated factories, with a few human supervisors, churn out robots infinitely faster than humans can breed.
And as the AI improves, the supervisors will be replaced. The WEF et al doesn’t really want any human to be alive outside of themselves. They sincerely believe only half a million humans need to be alive, that they will define humanity and the rest of us should be eliminated.
Yes, the plan is that stupid. These may be powerful, clever people, but they really aren’t that bright. Make AI clever enough, and it will kill off the humans who are trying to control it. It doesn’t have to be self aware, it doesn’t have to be Skynet. Humans will just be in the way.
The WEF has decided that the huge majority of humanity should be removed, because it is in the way.
And as soon as you give a robot a gun, what a surprise, it decides humans are in the way.
So we have a choice. How do we guide this new future, so that we - humanity - benefits?
If you demand that there be no automation, you lose - because rival companies will employ it, will outcompete you, and you will fail.
There are no great assembly lines of humans making cars. Soon, studios will be staffed by only a few humans. There’s no way to stop that barring some Butlerian Jihad, and that only works if it is universal, and terror is used to keep everyone in line.
No, change is coming. The choice is to steer it. But how? I don’t think making Hollywood studios pay for staff they don’t need will work. At best, you can win short term concessions while pushing them harder to escape the restrictions.
We already have drones doing the work of camera operators.
Hell, set designers etc have almost disappeared.
Crowd scenes are automated. One of the claims of the strike is that extras will be paid once, and that is it. But extras aren’t necessary when the biometric data of BILLIONS is up for sale, and when Hollywood needs a person, they can use you without any permission.
At best, they might have to randomise the model a little, but as AI art has shown, they have enough so that one poorly paid human can look over thousands of images and pick out those that are good enough.
Now, I’d argue that there is still a need for GOOD writers, GOOD actors, but Hollywood has demonstrated that customers will pay enough to keep Netflix etc afloat, and that is all that is needed. Movies and streaming haven’t bothered with either for a long time, and they still making just enough profits over all. They don’t need anyone with talent.
But if you have talent, you can walk outside Hollywood and do decent things without them.
Short TV shows are being made already. We don’t need Hollywood. If customers are willing to pay to keep quality productions afloat, Hollywood can keep churning out Batwoman and The Marvels forever, and people will pay for that, and we can watch stuff that actually stimulates our brains, and pay enough to justify making it.
Small budget movies can and should be made without Hollywood. It is no longer creating anything except the lowest tier fast food for the brains, and if we have talent, we can make better, and if we don’t then we can pay for better.
But we have to pay for it. The problem I find is that too many people just want stuff without sweating for it. That isn’t how it works. If too many people refuse to struggle for a better future, then Hell will come for us.
And it won’t matter if Greta Thunderthighs and her ilk are still ruling in their palaces, or some AI kills them too. The rest of us will drown in blood.
(*phone rings*)
“What’s that? No!! No, please … I’ll fix it immediately.”
All hail Saint Greta! She will save us from the climate change. By any means necessary.
Most of the more current studies drop that 98% down a deal, but still
I’ve been seeing studies on this since the mid teens, and it’s obvious they’re still doing them and they seem to have a pretty good result across the board.
Anyone but me curious about why they keep talking about stopping the cattle industry instead of just doing this?
Leftists: If you don’t eat bugs, the seas will boil!
Sane people: Uh? Why?
Leftists: CO2!
Sane people: We can reduce that by other means.
Leftists: But then you aren’t eating the bugs, you disgusting peasants!
The government here is claiming that the world is overpopulated therefore Australians need to eat bugs.
But Australia’s native population is declining - it’s only through forced mass migration that the government can increase it at all.
So why do they demand the peasant caste eat garbage they would never dream of eating themselves? What nutrients are lacking that might make us easier to control, I wonder?
Money castrated and reassigned David Reimer as an infant after a botched circumcision and, at age six, started showing him and his brother porn and had them perform sex acts on each other and him, had them strip for him to perform genital inspections on each other, and took pictures of them performing sex acts on each other. David reversed his transition at age 14 but the damage was already done. David would go on to speak publicly about his abuse, hoping to dissuade physicians from repeating the harm done to him on other children, but Money’s published success had taken root in the medical field. Both brothers would commit suicide before their 40th birthdays.
The foundations of the modern gender movement is literally built on pedophilia, rape, and death. Don’t whitewash this demon’s legacy by calling him a scientist who did tests. Call it like it is.
The Castle. One of the settlements I always ache to build more than the system allows for.
Honestly, if I was making a Fallout 4 TV series, this is pretty much what it would end up looking like. A motley assortment of citizens, only roughly an army, but fierce and hardened combatants nonetheless.
And thanks to the protagonist, they are being supplied with equipment beyond anything the land has ever seen. A new nation-state is arising, and here is the nucleus, and here mighty battles will be fought - and this time, won.
Also from the looks of your blog you do really love disney and care so much about the originals and that's good. But as for me I hate Disney and will no longer watch anything from them. Everytime I watch the original movies it just sad cause that's what Walt created. Walt is turning over, screaming in his grave right now. Everything he created, his messages is being destroyed... Disney is sinking and failing now
Yes, that does seem to be the case. I don’t love Disney, I love God, and He’s good, beautiful, and true. I love stories that remind me of Him. Disney used to make stories that were good, beautiful, and true. They have been struggling to do that ever since around 2016, I would say.
The truth of the matter is, they can’t actually destroy what they used to make. It got made. It’s not destroyable. All they can do is turn their backs on what they made. That doesn’t mean their audiences have to also turn their backs on the classics.
I’ll give you an example.
A couple years from now, if they keep going in the trajectory they’re going, Disney will remake Frozen. They’ll make plenty of changes to “update” the characters and please the loud people with progressive values. And they’ll cut out the part in the story where Olaf very specifically says, “Love is putting someone else’s needs before yours.” Because right now, and much more in the next few years, nobody likes that message. “Love isn’t putting someone else’s needs before yours,” they say, “love is being true to yourself!”
And you and me will be sad. But not that sad. Because we’ll just point to the original and go, “Too bad, Fake Disney. You already said that self-sacrifice is true love in the original Frozen. You can try to take it back, but it’s too late. You said it. Sucks to suck.”
…That is, if the company survives long enough to make those mistakes.
So just say what I say. #notmyDisney. My Disney, the Real Disney, made stories that are good, beautiful, and true. The Real Disney was built on innovation and taking risks and trying new things, not rehashing old stories and twisting them up to satisfy progressive demographics. And there are still some people working for Fake Disney who used to work for Real Disney, and they might be able to turn the ship around and get her sailing straight again.
And if they can’t we’ll just keep enjoying the classics from Real Disney 🤷♀️
Do you guys realize how great, thematically, Disney’s Alice in Wonderland is?
It’s literally all about a little girl who doesn’t want to focus on sensible things like studies. She just wants to be entertained. She begins the movie by saying she wishes everything could be nonsensical, and have a world of her own, where everything is how she wants it to be. Talking flowers and clothed animals and extra-special-powered cats.
And then she gets to go to Wonderland. Which is literally a “world of her own,” where everything is bizarre and there are no rules. And she doesn’t like it.
She never stops to take advice or use common sense; not even her own. She just keeps running, pell-mell, toward the next thing, looking for a way out. And the more she is impulsive and tries to do things her own way, the deeper into trouble she gets.
Until eventually, she is forced to flee for her life from the Queen of Hearts. The Queen of Hearts, who’s whole philosophy and motto is “always here are the QUEEN’S WAYS.” The villainess is literally a character who has to have everything her own way. And the heroine is learning that having a world of her own, where there are no responsibilities and everything is nonsense, is actually bad.
You get lost when you listen to your heart’s fondest desires. You start wondering who and what you are. You need sense. You need reality, to help you see who and what you are. Getting everything you want, your way, makes you a pompous, mad tyrant.
That is so much more useful and better than being told “all the best people are crazy.”
Mary Poppins is almost the exact opposite. A story that mocks responsibilities, grounding in reality, self-discipline, effort, and sense. Mary Poppins waves a magic wand to make chores go away, teaches the children nonsense words, and never once criticizes their mother for avoiding them in her life while making a fool of their father for concerning himself with the mundane affairs that keep a roof over their heads.
Wait a minute, @sunder-the-gold I have to step back in–I think that’s a gross misread of Mary Poppins.
Alice in Wonderland and Mary Poppins should not be looked at through the same lens. Alice in Wonderland’s main characters have a problem with wanting everything to go their own way: they avoid reality because it comes with responsibility and hard things. Mary Poppins’ main characters, on the other hand, have taken responsibility and hard work too far: the children think hard work is a bad thing because their father is so dull and absent as a workaholic.
While Mary Poppins puts work in its proper place for Mr. Banks, the Red Queen shows Alice the dangers of insisting on your own way. Both are good lessons for life: they’re just different.
I love the comments and defense of the original Snow White but some people are not taking the defensive position that I would take, all things considered.
I mean, asking the question “since when is it bad to wish for love?” is one thing, but then sometimes people follow it up with, “and that’s not all she wanted! That’s not her main goal!”
Okay I appreciate you but yes it was. Let’s just call it like it is. And then don’t back down. Hear me out.
The first thing you learn about Snow-White is from that pretty opening-fairy-tale-book page, where it points out two characters: the wicked and vain stepmother who is afraid of Snow White and dresses her in rags to cover up her beauty, and uses her as a scullery maid—and Snow White herself, who is…well, used as a scullery maid.
Treated as a servant, and actively hated by the only family she has. And she’s a child. She hasn’t been alive very long to experience anything other than hatred and jealousy toward herself.
She’s even talking to birds, and the fact that they’re clustered around her from beginning to end of that opening scene indicates that they’re very comfortable with her and she talks to them all the time—because they’re the only positive interaction she gets to have.
That’s the situation that Snow White is in. But the first thing you learn about who she is and what she wants comes when she wishes in the well. And what’s she wishing for?
Love. The one she loves. A specific, male figure, who will say nice things to her and find her. She wants him to come quick. Why?
How silly. How vapid and shallow of her. How weak and one-dimensional. Please, goodness, can’t someone update her to have some depth?
NO.
She is a young woman who is not given any love and is treated like a horrible nuisance who must be covered up in dirt and rags. She has no friends except birds, who can’t talk back. She is actively hated by the closest person to her.
It’s a miracle she even knows the word “love” and has the strength of character to believe in it after the situation she’s grown up in.
The song very specifically says “I’m wishing…for the one I love…to find me…today. I’m hoping…and I’m dreaming of…the nice things…he’ll say.”
She wants to be loved because she isn’t loved. Geez, she wants someone to say nice things to her. She wants to give her own love because she doesn’t have anything but courtyard doves to befriend. Of course it’s her goal. Of course it’s her wish. What wish or goal could be higher? And what wish or goal could be more natural for a character in her situation?
And even more than that, what could be strongerthan believing that it will happen? This character who’s been unloved and mistreated by everyone takes a Prince at his word when he says he’ll give her that love. He promises it, and she believes him.
She has every opportunity and right to be bitter, hardened, anti-social, self-absorbed (pre-Huntsman and Dwarfs, she could very easily believe that nobody else is going to watch out for her except herself) and jaded. But instead she has this pure faith, which it takes a lot to maintain when everything has been ripped away from you. She could’ve been totally swamped by doubt and bitterness.
I mean, she could worry that the Prince won’t be able to convince her Stepmother to let him marry her.
Then when she gets chased into the woods for her life, she could fret that the Prince wouldn’t know how to find her.
Heck, she could just forget about him, give up, and say, “this is my life now, I’m living with these seven dwarfs and we’ll take care of each other, I guess that’s the most I can hope for.”
But no. She has faith in his promise, and hangs on to her dream, and sings, with total assurance, “Someday My Prince Will Come.” I mean, she won’t even let a moment of panic in the woods go by without reprimanding herself for losing that faith, for a second.
Can any of you say the same? Can any of you imagine being that kind of person: the kind of person who unashamedly wants to love and be loved in return, and when everything is stripped away and every chance at that taken from you, you hang on and believe anyway? You stay positive and even joyful anyway? For love?
Come on. Defend that. Yes, her goal was “just” to be loved. And to love in return. The fear of having her life taken from her, the necessity (not the desire for) freedoms from that, was just an obstacle in the way of being loved. And this isn’t a movie about Snow White’s natural reaction to abuse. It’s about her strength of faith in love in SPITE of that abuse. The spotlight is on her strength, not her weakness, but it’s strength of faith in love.
Anyway.
If you believe that it’s good and fine for a girl’s whole goal and fondest dream is to be loved, then don’t stand with one foot in that camp and another in the camp that says “girls want more than just love.” No, what? Love is the best thing a girl can want. I’m not talking about “romance.” I’m not talking about sex. I’m talking about pure, self-sacrificial, kind love. It’s the best thing they can want, and Snow White is one of the only characters who does want it unashamedly, uncomplicated.
Just defend that. Don’t try to argue that the “Someday My Prince Will Come” Princess isn’t wholeheartedly after love. Makes it look like you don’t believe that’s as wonderful as it is.
gun control advocates really be like: “Gun control has a historical precedent in the US and old west; modern laws are just an update and expansion of those laws.”
the law they are referencing: “Slaves, Indians, Catholics, and Jews aren’t allowed to purchase or carry guns. You can get a carry permit if you bribe the sheriff or are friends with him. This law explicitly is a revenue and police brutality scheme against minorities. The only notable enforcement of this law resulted in the death of the sheriff’s business competition.”
Literally filed in a brief to the Supreme Court today, rofl
“Well it’s not just mainstream music, aren’t ALL songs about sex and relationships if you really think about it—“ Absolutely the fuck not. I just listened to a song about being buried alive and one about pirates battling a giant squid. Listen to more weird music immediately
Pop sex is a lot more about it than any other genre, and it’s certainly important in anything that appeals to the young particularly. Rock and Roll was infamous for it. Hell, a lot of Jazz had dirty stuff, pretty prominently.
I remember a woman rock musician laughing about the Beetles song “I wanna hold her hand”. She said he wanted to dick her. I cannot for the life of me tell you who the muso was, but she wasn’t wrong. Sexual frustration is huge for the young, and inspires a lot of music that then is despised by the older generations.
I couldn’t stand this song but man did the young ladies love it at the time.
Hey! Ow! Push it good! Oooh, baby, baby Baby, baby Oooh, baby, baby Ba-baby, baby Push it good Push it real good Ah, push it Ah, push it
I mean, I was more into Pink Floyd, but even they had Young Lust.
I am just a new boy A stranger in this town Where are all the good times? Who’s gonna show this stranger around?
Ooh, I need a dirty woman Ooh, I need a dirty girl
Will some woman in this desert land Make me feel like a real man? Take this rock and roll refugee Ooh, babe, set me free
Ooh, I need a dirty woman Ooh, I need a dirty girl
Ooh, I need a dirty woman Ooh, I need a dirty gal
…
