#would love to hear other takes on this

[ozimagines]

The Trouble with Robson…

So… I’ve seen some discourse on this site about James Robson… and I want in lol.

I’ve got a lot of thoughts about this man, and based on everything I’ve read from other Oz fans, I might have an unpopular opinion.

Please don’t get me wrong! Season 2-Season 5 he was a tremendous piece of shit. Like in every way possible it is to be a piece of shit. But that said I have two points: 1) that’s what makes him an good CHARACTER, not a good person, and 2) a redemption arc doesn’t mean that person is automatically forgiven, but are going down a better path and MIGHT be forgiven for their actions at a later date. It is with this, your honor, that I submit that Robson’s redemption arc was actually one of the better plot lines in Oz. (Please don’t hate me lol)

Okay, so Robson season two, pretty easy to characterize. He’s a Nazi. He’s violent. He’s a rapist. Very easy to hate. Season three, he’s lieutenant to Vern Schillinger in the Aryan Brotherhood. He boxes and such. In season four, he’s a menace, coming into his own character. He threatens on his own and has his own plot lines now. Season five is more of the same, at first, he rapes Peter Schibetta, he tries to ruin Beecher’s life, etc. He commits one of the more heinous of his crimes in my book when he kills the young Muslim man in the store room. A long, drawn out process that James is smiling through. He LOVES violence. More than anything he seems like he was made for prison. Then he learns about his gums, makes racist remarks to the doctor, one thing leads to another, he has black man gums and gets kicked out of the brotherhood.

He’s destitute and alone, which is all he deserves. But even Kareem Said finds pity for him and says “God is trying to teach you something. Please be smart enough to learn.”. What can even God attempt to teach someone like James Robson? He does what he needs to survive. He joins Cutler and agrees to be his prag. Here’s where some views from other Oz fans and I start to diverge. You look at videos on YouTube, many of the comments you’ll find say “good, he deserved it.”. The best argument I heard for this was actually from Funky Frog Bait on YouTube talking about misgendering murderers. Many people misgendered the nonbinary Nashville shooter. Why would you respect the pronouns for a person that horrible? Because, as Funky Frog Bait said in their video, it revolves around your opinion of gender as a whole. If you can just revoke someone’s preferred pronouns when they’re bad people, how “bad” does a trans person have to be to not have their pronouns respected? People of differing “politics” (morals) say different things, but if we apply this argument to Robson’s situation, I think it has to do with one’s overall view of rape. How “bad” does someone have to be before being raped is considered a reasonable punishment? For me, it’s never. For me, just as in never revoking someone’s right to their preferred pronouns, I also think it’s never justifiable to rape someone. So, no, I don’t think Robson deserved to be raped, even though he was a serial rapist himself, because there’s no situation where I think rape is a justifiable response. People may disagree with me, but I think it’s a slippery slope when you can deem someone as deserving of rape.

We learn during this time, as he’s being beaten and abused sexually by Cutler, that James was beaten and abused by his father as a kid. He confirms that this occurred while he was only five years old. His first introduction to life and sex was violence. Maybe this gives you sympathy for him, as it did me, but maybe you say fuck him, it doesn’t excuse anything. But I don’t think that it was meant to be an excuse, I think it was meant to be an EXPLANATION. I think we were learning how he became James Robson of unit B, not justifying his actions as James Robson of unit B. He was a child and the person he was supposed to trust most in this world gave him very harsh lessons very early on: no one cares about you, and do what you need to do to survive. He becomes demure and pitiful in Sister Pete’s office. One line that stuck with me was “here I am, 35 years old and I have nowhere to run.”. He’s been running his whole life. Running away from an abusive father and running away from his own actions. “I shame to think of what I’ve done. Look on it again, I dare not.” Is Cutler’s line as MacBeth in the play. It is an apt line for James. He’s been running from his own actions for as long as he could remember. Like I said, none of this justifies the lives he’s ruined and taken, but it does explain the inter-workings of a character that was pretty static for four seasons. That he survives. He tells Sister Peter Marie that all he does is run from things. I truly believe that some of the reason he was able to be as ruthless as he was is because he doesn’t let himself think about his own actions.

Finally season 6! He kills Cutler with some kinky play, joins the brotherhood, and it seems like he’s back, right? Only when he sees his wife, we see some of the shame come back. Some of the embarrassment of being taken in that way. If he feels this way now, he felt this way for however long his dad was abusing him. He loses it with her for calling him a “cock sucker”, which CLEARLY he’s embarrassed/ashamed about. He hurts her, and immediately, instantly, feels bad about it. I love learning the morality of immoral characters. With everything he’s done, why was hurting his wife crossing a line? Because she trusts him, just like little James trusted his dad. I think, personally, that he sees himself as her personal protector. Since he couldn’t protect himself, he became the protector for her, and then for Vern, but James isn’t stupid enough to think Vern can’t take care of himself. I think hurting his wife tore him up so much because he remembers when he relied on his dad for everything, and his father took advantage of his state.

Then he finds out he has AIDS. He joins a support group for rape survivors. They talk about their experiences and James listens to all of them. He thanks them towards the end, saying it was good to “hear it from both sides” which we know is something he knew already since he was at least five. But hearing those stories, all of which are upsetting but some are straight gruesome, puts FORCES him to face his actions. He can’t run anymore, his lifestyle caught up with him. Am I saying he deserves AIDS? 🤷‍♀️ Chissà. Who’s to say? He has it though. There’s a deleted scene where he lets Clarence rape him (I understand “lets” and “rape” don’t make much sense together but I don’t think coerced consent is consent at all so it’s still assault), and it gives Clarence AIDS. Robson says something interesting, with his classic smile on his face. “Retribution. It’s all about retribution.”. That’s what Oz is about. Retribution. It should be about Rehabilitation, but it’s all about Retribution. This is where James’ story ends on the show. With him moving to unit F, the AIDS unit. Finally, even if only physically, is he forced to face his actions.

This is why I think his story was beautifully written. He’s just a meathead in the beginning, but we learn about his morality -because he does have a code, even if it’s not a good one-, his past, and his future. They took a character that was frankly very flat and gave us a wide enough view on his life and character to confuse our anger into sympathy into more anger and into sadness. I don’t know if anyone else felt this way but my heart just dropped when he mentioned his dad. James Robson never stood a chance. He was a monster in training since he was five. But no one deserves to be raped. (A good reference is Adam Gunzel who was a BIG prick… but never deserved that shit.) Anyway these are just some of my thoughts on one of the most interesting characters in Oz (to me at least) and gave us an actual character out of a plotless muscle man.

One thing I think we can all agree on:

Retribution. It’s all about retribution.

[breadstickms]

@/miseraou on twitter drew eva as muu, which i thought was absolutely brilliant. naturally, i had to then sketch my own take on a p:eg milgram au lmao

[lizzybeeee]

Someone on reddit posted a pic of the concept art characters from the DATV artbook and I'm just...so tired and disappointed.

We could have had Calpernia as a companion, not even mentioning Imshael.

This clearly shows that they initially - in whatever iteration of the game it is - cared about incorporating aspects of previous games. Imagine having Calpernia, Harding, and Imshael as companions and not having them comment/acknowledge the events of Inquisition! Imagine Calpernia talking and giving insight into Corypheous or Samson, or arguing with Harding in banter! Imagine Imshael talking about Michel deChevin or complaining that the Inquisitor stabbed them! Not to mention the other concept art that had Dorian and Isabela interacting - try making anything like that happen without acknowledging DA2 or DAI!

Can you imagine having all these characters in the game, then having the nerve to drop 'the south of Thedas is blighted and destroyed now lol' in a letter? No!

We live in the worst timeline with DATV - a game that utterly watered down, sanitized, and obliterated everything that came before it. A game that removed all mystery and intrigue, condensing it to "solas and the ancient elves did it lol' - telling us with no gravitas, bluntly stating it with the subtly and care of a fucking dragon in a tea shop. A game that, with no shame, went scorched earth with Ferelden, Kirkwall, and Orlais with the sole intent of clearing the board so that they can cultivate some new IP with the existing Dragon Age name.

What a fucking waste.

[shesnake]

"Wait."

The Acolyte (2024) by Leslye Headland

[owlheartt]

Something I really like about timebomb is that Ekko actually knows what he's getting into.

I'm not really seeing it get talked about but in season 1 they mention that Ekko and the firelights help people addicted to shimmer get off it and lead more fulfilling lives within the community. I should probably rewatch the scene for the exact wording (might be misremembering tbh) but that comment implies A LOT.

First: Ekko's mission is helping people where he can, he would probably try and help Jinx even if he wasn't in love with her

Second: He has experience dealing with severe mental illness as that often goes hand in hand with drug abuse, namely depression/suicidal ideation like what Jinx was exhibiting

Third: He's probably mapped out best course of action FOR dealing with this and has already figured out his own limits/boundaries. Meaning he knew what he was getting into trying to talk Jinx out of suicide, and was thus more equipped to deal with the aftermath

Fourth: He's probably helped ex members of Silco's gang. The firelights seem to have a theme of healing and repairing and recovering, so they've probably also learned to forgive. If they're mission is to rebuild the lanes into a safe space, they can't exclude people they don't like, they have to make room for them. I think they fought Silco out of necessity, and I doubt Jinx would be the first person they help who's killed one of them.

These all might be a bit of a stretch but I think it really fits. Beyond that, it shows that Ekko can ACTUALLY help Jinx. As much as unconditional love can do, Ekko has the tools for Jinx's recovery and a path ready for her. He also probably knows that her "healthy" will look different from AU Powder's "healthy." On top of that, I expect he knows how to respect her even in the middle of psychotic breaks and won't agitate her already frail mental state

[icewindandboringhorror]

Little bright colored outfit with a fun vest ~

(shoes from ebay like 10 years ago. everything else is thrifted)

[cloysterbell]

Pete, I need you to stay here.

[still--kicking]

I saw very cute art about Keith's love language being acts of service and now I'm thinking about everyone's love languages

I agree that Keith is probably acts of service for how he shows love and quality time for how he feels loved. I think words of affirmation is the most difficult for him to receive (I think that's part of why the early seasons dynamic with Lance works so well for him, I think the rivalry and bickering feel safer to Keith than outright affection would)

Loverboy Lance is probably a blend of words of affirmation, physical touch, and acts of service. Probably also quality time tbh he grew up with a lot of love being shown in lots of ways so I think he'd be fluent in all the love languages, but maybe has a hard time giving and receiving gifts

Pidge feels like a gift giver to me. Pidge absolutely tracks down that niche collectible you've been trying to find for years for your birthday and you'll never know if they got it through legal means or not, and receiving gifts that feel accurate and personal to them makes them feel the most loved

We know Hunk loves cooking for others and I'd say that's a blend of gift giving and acts of service. I can't see him struggling receiving any of the love languages in particular but that might be because the writers forgot to give him a character flaw to overcome

Allura is probably words of affirmation I can't explain it I just feel it's true for her. Somebody please tell her she's doing a good job please I beg you. I think acts of service don't register as a love language to her because growing up as a princess she was probably surrounded by people who did things for her all the time as their job rather than an act of love. Quality time is probably high up for her too because I imagine her parents were quite busy so making time for her felt special. We've also seen her appreciate getting gifts ("I'd love something sparkly!")

Shiro I'm stuck on tbh, he generally stays pretty separate from the other paladins and we don't get any of his family history and also he's not himself for the majority of the show. What we do know from the flashbacks in season 7 is that he feels the need to prove that he's capable, and we don't know where that drive comes from but I'd guess that makes him a words of affirmation guy. Similar to Allura, someone please just tell him he's doing a good job. We also see his clone appreciate the quality time with the team in the monsters and mana episode so that could be high for him too

Coran is absolutely acts of service and quality time, in that order. But I think he often thinks of these as going together, when he and Lance are cleaning the pods in season 1 we see him telling Lance about himself while they're working. That feels like a blend of acts of service and quality time to me

Anyway I got soooo carried away with this so I hope you enjoyed my 1am thoughts

[starryeyeddreamer21]

Hazbin Hotel Incorrect Quotes

Angel: *sliding money across the bar to pay for his drinks* You can call me sugar daddy longlegs

Husk: no

Niffty: Does that make Husk sugar baby shortlegs?

Husk: No

Niffty: Can I be sugar baby shortlegs?

Husk: NO

Angel: *wheeze*

[yashley]

Say something true!

[fortunatelyfresco]

Please feel free to elaborate in the tags.

[annamationsart]

this au came to me in a vision. putting the mag in magical girl

[statementlou]

Tbh i am not surprised that a person who openly talked about having drinking problems since 1d days, because of how crazy 1d worked has been agressive. What surprises me is people being surprised (they never seriously saw drunk person?). But i am also confused about this whole book. Apparently Maya said that that book is not fully bout Liam but compilation about her exes and some of the worst parts are not about him. But recently she said that the book is “ofc about him” so what is true then? Or did she meant it that ofc some parts are about him or that whole book is about him?

Sorry, just confused

I also am not surprised- we've learned so much more about the real stories of things and about the guys' actual lives over the last years, and the story that has unfolded around Liam has been totally consistent throughout if you've been following it, and so the information Maya is telling us is shocking and upsetting but not difficult to believe. I got an anon yesterday saying they were worried about getting similar revelations about the other boys, like "if Liam could be doing this we just don't know, any of them could", and while in a way that's always true I guess, anyone could be doing anything in private like... that doesn't really concern me. Because none of these Liam revelations are coming out of nowhere, there have been many MANY steps along the way leading us here if you've been watching, and he has talked openly about both his mental health struggles and his addiction issues. So to answer that anon... to find out something similar about Louis would in contrast contradict everything we know about him and no I'm not worried about it. Is he an abuser or a loose cannon, well that news would truly shock me to my core, I will be honest. But anyway as for the book I don't find it strange that she was nervous when it came out and treading lightly and later decided, fuck it. In the absolutely on point tiktok she dropped today (YES👏GIRL👏FUCKING TELL THEM👏) she even mentions attempts to keep her from publishing the book, presumably by Liam's team, that I am riveted by and cannot WAIT to hear more details about actually- like I said I don't find it at all strange that she was nervous and downplayed it a bit then. But if she says now that it's just about Liam, well, I would say it's been clear from the beginning that the book is their story. Maya herself brought up the parallel of songs being written about stuff and I think it's the same thing; it's true (she was in an abusive relationship that involved certain kinds of events) but maybe not 100% literal (I'm sure details were changed to make the story work, it's not like a word for word timeline of their interactions or whatever).

[lilpandrea]

God, not that anyone cares, but I might have to take a break from the cr fandom whenever Dorian speaks about or to the gods. The moment Dorian isn't some goody-two-shoes character and veers off from being an "agreeable" character to many...how easily these ppl just write him off as some stupid simpleton. Jfc from discord to Tumblr (don't know what twitter thinks since I don't frequent that place or live chat because when is live chat ever appeased).

Anyways, I'm excited to see what comes from this conversation with the AH. Cmiiw but I don't think Dorian knows you have to be an exalted ruidusborn to be a vessel. If he did, he wouldn't willynilly agree to sacrifice Fearne or Imogen. It's like a lot of you forgot one of his core values: his friends/loved ones above everyone else. He casted force cage on Fearne in the very same episode to protect her.

[i-dreamed-i-had-a-son]

Broke (2016): BBC Sherlock is a phenomenal piece of media and anything that seems like a flaw just hasn't been fully explored yet

Woke (2020): BBC Sherlock is an incredibly flawed series run by an egotistical writer, it never deserved the hype and is actively bad on so many fronts (especially representation)

Bespoke (2024): BBC Sherlock is flawed and bogged down by increasingly poor writing, which many fans refused to see while it was airing, leading to hugely misplaced expectations (particularly for the final series), AND it has the seeds of some compelling characterizations and portrayals, some genuinely solid performances, and touches--albeit imperfectly--on complexities that are still being discussed today (particularly as it relates to the relationship between Sherlock and John). The huge cultural impact of the show has created a massive pendulum effect in its public perception, leading to most people today remembering a caricature of the show (whether positive or negative) rather than appreciating its nuanced merits and failings...that being said Season 4 sucked

[thelaurenshippen]

finally taking the time to read through the SAG agreement summary and oof, I hope they have an AI town hall soon because...well, there are things to discuss!

so, in case folks are curious, here are my immediate takeaways from the deal as a SAG actor, a SAG producer, and person who is not any kind of expert but spends a lot of time being skeptical of contracts I sign. this is a summation/commentary, not a holistic breakdown of every point, nor even an in-depth discussion of the points I do talk about. and it is, of course, in no way legal advice or voting advice.

this post is already maybe the longest post I've ever written on tumblr (lol) and I feel like I've barely scratched the surface. to be clear, nothing I'm saying here represents how I'm going to vote, how I think other actors should vote, or my be-all-end-all stance on a particular issue. this is me reading through, flagging what concerns me, and asking myself questions. and I'm here to take your questions too! though of course my expertise is limited.

(what?? something I wrote got annoying long?? in my tumblr? it's more likely, etc. huge write-up after the cut)

the good

self-tape stuff: this is one of the more niche/the thing that the general public will find least interesting, but they've put in a lot of provisions to make sure self-tape auditions have limits (# of pages, no stunts, no nudity, doesn't have to be professionally shot, etc.) which is amazing because these types of auditions have gotten out of control since the pandemic. this feels like a great gain

data transparency: in no world did I think the streamers were ever going to agree to any data sharing with either the wga or sag so even though the data is limited, this still feels huge to me.

folks who sing and dance will be paid for both of those things now, which is great

they've added MLK day and Juneteenth as holidays (about time)

a performer cannot be required to translate their own lines

principal performers are required to be given hair and makeup consultation or reimbursed for obtaining their own services - this seems like a small thing, but it's being put in here pretty much entirely because HMU services have generally been appalling when it comes to textured hair/a variety of skin tones. there's also stuff in here about working to hire more diverse HMU artists

it looks like it's going to be easier/provide a path for folks getting IMDb credits even if they're not credited on screen

miscellany: there's a bunch of gains in wage increases, P&H increases, relocation fees, franchise language etc. that all seem good to me, though my limited knowledge on those subjects prevents me from going in depth on them.

this is not important, but it tickled me, there's a term to replace all instances of "telegraph" in the contract with "email & text" which like...why has it taken us thirty years to do that lol.

the "...hm..."

intimacy coordinators: oof. when I watched the press conference SAG gave, I was fucking thrilled when they said that the new agreement required folks to hire intimacy coordinators for nudity and simulated sex scenes. that was almost reason enough for me to vote for it tbh - not requiring it is the exact reason I voted no on our last contract. however, reading the contract summary now, the exact language is: "Producer must use best efforts to engage an Intimacy Coordinator for scenes involving nudity or simulated sex and will consider in good faith any request by a performer to engage an Intimacy Coordinator for other scenes. Producer shall not retaliate against a performer for requesting an Intimacy Coordinator." this....sucks. "best efforts" and "good faith" are not the same as "required". IMO, an intimacy coordinator is the same thing as having a stunt coordinator or, like, any number of health and safety requirements. OSHA doesn't say you must "in good faith" put your "best effort" to providing fire exits. it's great that performers can request coordinators for any kind of scene, and this is still the strongest language we've ever had in a contract but....c'mon guys.

residuals: look, I can't speak to these new terms in any concrete way. there are increases, there are bonuses for streaming success, there's a whole thing about a fund regarding those successes that I need explained to me more in depth, but overall, it looks like we made some in-roads here. as someone who employs actors under digital distribution contracts that has no residuals (podcasts), I know how genuinely cumbersome the unholy trifecta of "views-success-profit" can be (as in views do not equal success, success does not equal profit, etc.). I also have no sympathy when the majority of companies dealing with that cumbersome trifecta are massive media conglomerates. anyway, long story short, idk if this is good enough, I'm hoping to attend the next info meeting sag has.

the bad

the new hair/makeup provisions are explicitly for principal actors. while I hope it leads to better, more inclusive HMU services all around I haaaate that this implies supporting or background actors (who oftentimes also have to sit in HMU) don't deserve the consideration. (then again, background actors are usually required to do their own HMU/bring their own costumes, but for productions where that's not the case, the same HMU provisions should apply IMO)

as with every contract, there's language that could be stronger, clarity that needs to exist, and important things missing - but this isn't the final contract and I'm not a lawyer, so I'm gonna leave that stuff to the experts.

but, "lauren", you say, "what about all the AI stuff? where does that go?" well, reader, I was planning on including that in the above but it's the hot-button issue right now and I think it's wickedly complicated, so I wanted to break it down separately, after I had a chance to point out all the good-bad-in-between stuff that's not getting talked about.

a note: in my career, I've learned there's two big things to keep in mind when reading a contract you might sign:

what is the worst case interpretation of this language (thank you to my lawyer, prince among men, for teaching me how to do this in practice (that said, anything I say here is not legal advice, he'd also want me to say that lol))

what are you willing to lose/compromise on/what are the limits of your pragmatism? contracts are not about a company giving you everything you want out of the goodness of their heart - it is always a compromise. pragmatism has to be a part of the equation.

so, with that said, I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here, and a) try to find the good/the pragmatic and b) catastrophize the worst case scenario. but first, it might be handy to look at this SAG infographic for some basic definitions. let's go.

the AI good

a ton of stuff here requires consent. that is not a small thing, and the consent continues even after your death (whether it was a yes or no; though this can be complicated by your estate/your union)

the language does establish that the consent must be a separate signing from the employment contract, even if its in the contract, which is great (but more on that below - timing matters)

actors often do get paid for use of their digital replicas, though it's different based on the use/type of replica.

the actor must be provided with a "reasonably specific description of the intended use". this language is vaguer than I would like, because it allows producers to decide what "reasonably specific" and "intended" means - there's always going to be some vagueness when it comes to this specific thing, but a good start would be for producers to require not blanket consent, but conditional consent for each significant use of digital replicas.

if the replicas are being used in other mediums, that must also be consented to, thank god.

replicas cannot be used in place of background actor counts on a given day - if I'm understanding this correctly, this means a production can't just have a bunch of fake background actors by themselves, they have to engage real people up to a certain number first (which in this new contract is 25 for TV and 85 for movies). we're already filling in background with digital people or copy-pasting of the same crowd over and over and have been doing so since at least the late 90s, so it's good we're continuing to put up boundaries around that.

the AI "...hm..."

it's unclear (to me) when an actor can be asked to consent. IMO, everything is meaningless if the consent is happening as part of regular contract negotiations. these things have to happen when - and only when - the actor has already been engaged in a role and feels empowered to say no

the use of independently created replicas (replicas pulled from existing footage, not created by the actor) being allowed without consent under first amendment reasoning - this is obviously concerning a lot of people bc first amendment arguments are so broad. that said, there's a pragmatism part of me that understands this is already happening/has been happening for a while and used in ways I think are perfectly fine - I was just watching the new episode of For All Mankind (one of the best TV shows right now!) and it's an alternate history, which meant that in the opening scenes of this season they had some bonkers good deep fakes of Al Gore saying stuff he never said. I think that's okay to do in a fiction show that imagines a different US history! "but Lauren", you might be saying, "Al Gore isn't a member of SAG!" are you sure? are you positive? because I'm pretty certain he is - he was in several episodes of 30 Rock, way more people are in SAG than you think (every NPR reporter for instance), and the two worst presidents we've had in the last 50 years (yes, those ones), are both definitely members of SAG (even if one is dead). now, the other side of this is that public figures like politicians are under a different social contract than actors, and if they wanted to sue, they could, unlike the average SAG actor who might have their image abused. this is why this is in the "hm" column - deep fakes and parody/satire/commentary use of replicas is already here and there's always going to be a 1st amendment argument to make, so we need to figure out how best to limit those and protect the most vulnerable.

alteration: with this language, a project can digitally alter without consent if the script and performance stays "substantially" the same. again, this language is too mealy-mouthed. I don't know that I have a huge problem with a line of dialogue getting replaced with a digital version of that actors voice if, for instance, a word was mispronounced, or wind garbled the sound or whatever - yes, it would eliminate the need for ADR, but if we put some limit on it like..."if there are more than 5 lines in a given episode/movie that require digital alteration in the service of clarity, the actor must be engaged for an ADR session or paid for the digital replacement" then I could see this being workable. I'm also personally okay with things like costumes being digitally altered but, again, we need limitations on that. digital altering cannot replace the art of costuming but, for instance, if a costume needs to be altered to include a hate symbol or something, I think that's fine (example: I have friends who worked at the VFX house for an alternate history TV show that involved a lot of Nazi costuming and set design - a huge part of that VFX house's job was to put swastikas in places, rather than props making nazi flags. I'm okay with that!) but again, these fringe cases do not a compelling arugment make, and this contract language can be interpreted too broadly for my comfort! like everything else in this "hm" category, I need to see the final contract language to decide.

the AI bad

there's a bunch of circumstances in which actors don't get paid for creating their replica/use of it and those circumstances are too broad for my taste.

synthetic performers - this is just awful. no. no, we should not be allowing AI to generate entire actors. just............no. there's some language about the producers having to talk to the union if the synthetic performer is "used in place of a performer who would have been engaged under this Agreement in a human role" but this doesn't apply to non-human characters so....wouldn't that be all roles?? leaving the producers room to be like "this role has to be synthetic, we never would've cast a human!" is bullshit. also, even if we're having AI create a magical talking unicorn whole cloth (which, like, also no, we have artists for this), that unicorn still needs to be voiced by a human person. this whole section is a disaster.

the exceptions to consent for digital alteration are bad-bad. I talked about the potential ADR replacement above and that has a whole host of issues with it that I didn't even get into, but I can see the argument. the rest are very troubling:

there is an exception under "any circumstance when dubbing or use of a double is permitted under the Codified Basic Agreement or Television Agreement" - okay, so does this mean we can replace dubbing artists and stunt performers entirely? this section is about digital alteration, but who's to say alteration couldn't turn an actor broadly miming a fight into an entirely digital, expertly performed fight that usually a stunt double would have done? with AI translation technology, does this mean we're replacing VO artists for dubs entirely? bad!

similarly, "Adjusting lip and/or other facial or body movement and/or the voice of the performer to a foreign language, or for purposes of changes to dialogue or photography necessary for license or sale to a particular market" - Justine Bateman has a great twitter thread on the terrible puppetry potential of this but I want to draw attention to the particular market bit - we all know that selling to china is such a huge part of studios' strategies that they'll remove entire scenes or lines around queer stuff. to me, this clause makes all of that so much easier. I know the argument here is going to be "we can replace swear words and license it for kids!" which.......sure? fine? but, uh, we already have ways to deal with that? and the potential for abuse here is terrifying to me. with all the digital alteration stuff too, there's just so much icky implication for the beauty/body standard to get so much worse.

if a background actor’s digital replica is used in the role of a principal performer, they'll be paid as if they actually performed the days for that role, which, sure, but uhhhh why are we saying it's okay for a digital replica of a background actor to suddenly be a leading role!?!?! I can't think of anything more demoralizing than going to set to act in background (a job I've done! an important job! a fun job a lot of the time! but creatively limited) and then getting a much bigger role (the dream!) and.....not being able to, you know, act that role or be in scenes with other principal actors or do the thing that you've dedicated your life to doing. nightmare stuff.

woof. there's so much more to say but I'm going to leave it there. these are the concerns I'm going to go into SAG's meetings with, and the concerns I'll be considering as I decide how to vote. I know there are things I didn't address and very possibly things I misinterpreted or misrepresented - if you're an actor, I highly recommend a) reading that Justine Bateman thread and b) attending SAG's meetings to ask questions and express your concerns. and I'd love to hear what y'all think! my ask box is open.