i'm sag and in the meeting on monday, duncan was saying that if they use generative AI and they use our faces for machine learning, they have to pay us. like if we're on file, it seems like if they use a "recognizable facial feature" they have to get consent and pay us. and someone was like "how do we know they won't just use us to train the machine learning anyway?" and he was like "they probably ARE going to try to do this." and indicated that there is government stuff going on to try to help this and also being very very aware of combating it every step of the way. he also said there's gonna be another meeting with AMPTP in the spring where there's gonna be more AI details. it seems like the AI issue is going to be ongoing and renegotiated often because tech is changing so quickly.
I'm definitely glad to hear that "lower teir" actors such as extras were looked after. My biggest fear was that big time actors would just take their good things and let those who dont get paid the big bucks get screwed over
I've never commented on a RUclips video... and probably never will... But I really appreciate your even-keeled, grounded, objective, thought-through, non-reactionary, non-incendiary "let's look at this from different angles" kind of response. And just wanted you to know :) We need more of this in society
I *am* worried about the gaps in AI protection, but tbh the gains in intimate scene coordination are massive. There are legitimately going to be people who would have been assaulted who do not get assaulted because of this rule, it's a real and substantive win. Hair and makeup agency especially for people of color is going to be huge, too. Let's hope it forces the studios to employ workers who know how to do black hair and makeup as a standard rule and that *not* knowing how to do black hair and makeup makes you unemployable in show business.
Well, the problem is they don't need intimacy coordinators anymore if they have a digital replica or a synthetic person. I feel like the AMPTP gave a lot of concessions knowing that they could circumvent most of them with AI eventually. Duncan confirmed they can use digital replicas to keep making stuff during a strike, and that's a problem not just for SAG-AFTRA, but it would also remove leverage for crews belonging to Teamsters/IATSE.
See.. the "exceptions-to-consent" may not harm actors, but it absolutely harms VFX artists/animators. We already have far and away, bar none, the worst pay of any department hands down when we _DO_ get work (which is intentionally the case, and can be traced back to Lucasfilm intentionally making sure we couldn't unionize through NDAs at ILM/hiring exclusively non-union artists on the PT when we tried to). Then on top of that, we can now just be permissibly excluded from work by AI under this contract. I get that's already standard practice, nevertheless it's still wrong.
Good video. I agree with the non AI parts, that's good. It's just AI is going to be a challenge. I've seen some Voice actors worry with it. We shall see as things move forward, but overall not bad
Main concern I've heard is the right to withhold consent isn't protected, so studios can just say you must consent to all AI use to get hired, so the requirement is meaningless except for big stars. Since there are also requirements for payment, I think this is overblown.
7:06 Despite the director being infamously cancelled, I can't help but think of James Marsters and what he said regarding the impact "Seeing Red" had on him. (Of course he was constantly asking SMG if she was okay) but it *did* traumatize him he went to therapy and stayed in high level counseling for... decades(?) if I remember the latter time-frame correctly. It's been awhile since I watched that interview.
Thank you for the video, Vera! Some points about the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) current deal with the studios: -Presence of intimacy coordinators during naked/sex scenes: it should already be the standard. Certain actions which were ignored or dismissive in the past could have become inappropriate today, especially if one of the actors involved in these scenes finds themself in a vulnerable position. Things change with the time, and certain concerns could rise, and people must adapt to that. -Actors being consulted about hair and make-up beforehand: as Vera explained, it is very important when taking into account actors-of-color's feedback about the process. White people, even the ones trying to be inclusive, could not be aware about certain ethnic issues, and they must to be willing to hear people-of-color about them. -Consent over the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI): the big problem with AI is requiring to be trained using a lot existing human-generated material or, in that case, real people's likeness, which usually is acquired without consent or fair compensation of the original creators/persons. If at least both these conditions are fulfilled, that would be a step in the right direction over the ethical use of AI. It is also very good that the deal lays down the use of the actors' likeness only during a current single media work, with new uses in different works requiring to ask for authorization and new compensations. At a superficial level, this deal seems fine and covers most of the actors' concerns. In the case of the deal being refused to be ratified by most members of the SAG-AFTRA, or studios fail to honor it, even by exploiting loopholes, actors going back to strike is always an option, despite raising some legal issues under already signed contracts.
This was more detailed than the other breakdowns I had seen/read, so thank you! I did not know about the intimacy coordinators or the hair/makeup issue but these seem like steps in the right direction.
I think the term that comes missing a lot when discussing these contracts, is "realistic expectations", for both sides. It sounds to me that both sides of the table came together to agree to realistic expectations on both sides, here. There's protection for actors, where desperately needed. Likewise, there are elements that protect the studios from some outrageous actor claims. Neither side got everything they thought they ought to have gotten, but that's the nature of compromise, and the expectations of this contract seem REALISTIC. It's definitely an improvement.
Had a question, Vera. First off, excellent video! Was eagerly awaiting it. So, basically, I’ve heard a lot of people say that SAG-AFTRA did not get anything they wanted on scaled residual shares. This is a widespread opinion. Could you possibly do a follow-up short or something addressing this, whether it’s just a misconception or what people are even talking about? I was convinced, before I watched this, that the 20 percent viewership bonus was all they got in terms of residuals and nothing else. I think a lot of people are confused, myself included. Thanks!
We'll see if I have the time to look further into this but on a glance it looks like people had hoped that streaming residuals would more closely mirror film and network tv residuals, which was unlikely to ever happen just because things can't be quantified the same ways.
For someone who's not in the union... you have done a superb job with the basic explanations in regards to this 2023 contract. We go back to the table in 2.5 yrs... Let's hope a.i. doesnt get out of hand during these 30 months.
One of the interesting benefits AI will have for actors is that, certainly under uk case law, entertainers are one of the few classes of people who can be forced to actually fulfill the obligations of their contract rather than paying compensation for the break. Its because people (used to) pay to be entertained by specific entertainers and there is rarely a satisfactory 1:1 replacement available. This has led to many an entertainers being forced to continue to work in a hostile environment with hostile employers. At least with AI actors in this position will be able to negotiate a resolution whereby their likeness can still be used but they themselves will not be subject to a hostile work environment.
I am an actor and a member of SAG-AFTRA. I watched Justine Bateman on the AI and I also saw tThe Majority Report segment with Shaan Sharma. I do tend to lean towards what you are saying but definitely do have some big concerns on the AI issue as brought up by Shaan Sharma. I think I'm going to vote yes but I am waiting to hear more because these issues have made me not a definite yes vote. It is taking work away from actors in the future if as Shaan says they can just pay you once to feed you and a number of other performers to create.an AI character who is not any of the people fed into the system to make it but has your nose or mouth, etc. Especially if they can use these "characters" to replace human actors. And also the fact that they have been allowed to use AI to generate non-human characters (animals, monsters, aliens) where in the past, actors were used in either performance capture or the character was created by makeup artists on an actor. It is causing a decrease in potential jobs. So that is concerning too. So as much as my vote may end up as a yes. I do need to see these things addressed a little more before I am ready to vote.
Bateman also has no idea what AI is, she has a tech degree from decades ago and has kind of put her foot in her mouth in the eyes of the VFX trade. Claiming a lot of the manual VFX process is "AI" and should be halted.
I remember a commercial from many years ago that was an early example of a deep fake. It consisted of film of deceased actors that was somehow "spliced" into the commercial to make it look like they were interacting with each other. It was very startling to see 1930s-era James Cagney at a party with Marlene Dietrich and Humphrey Bogart where a young (1950s-era) Liberace was playing the piano. The commercial was on YT for a while but was eventually removed for "copyright violations". I always wondered whose copyright was violated: the product being sold (I think it was vodka) or the owners of the films whose stars were inserted into the commercial. Would such a work be allowed under the new contract? Who has the power of consent in the case of an actor in an old film? Does it matter if the actor is still alive or does the studio own the rights to the actor's image in their film regardless of if the actor is living.
I believe the rules and contracts dictating the appearance of celebrities in commercials is completely separate from this agreement with movie studios. I’m not positive on this but I think there’s actual laws around what appear to be celebrity endorsements of products.
A lot of people are glass half empty and I don't understand how anyone lives with that level of stress. You have to be conscientious and cautious, but not to a fault.
if no one has said- there is an intimacy coordinator on RUclips who talks about what is done and how in a family friendly way. based on what I've seen, yes its a good thing.
Sag here! I’be been scanned with NO language. I refuse to be scanned without a contract, I’m voting yes. It is complicated, you’re right but we’ve been scanned already it’s not ending & I want to go back to work 😢
Don't worry too much- keeping a library of scanned extras is 100x more complicated and requires more coordination than any studio actually has. While the studio may think thats a viable thing to do, in the actual production usually we just make CG people or scan ourselves.
the results of the SAG-AFTRA deal are a good starting safeguard. I can't help but feel like the studios may be overplaying the use of AI. There is a lot of improv and experimentation certain performers do that make the material work.
Yeah, as someone in the industry, there is no way AI is capable of doing what they think it can- they're probably imagining that VFX = AI because they all know so little about how the work is done and especially the studios thinking that tech is magic. They probably think that motion capture goes directly into the final product too.
AI is less Hollywood and more Silicon Valley. The big thing will be if AI companies use movies to train AI where that will go. I actually think the other stuff sounds more interesting, intimacy coordinators and the make up rules, and the no fee for auditions I don't know how that was ever a thing.
If you can get used to the camera guy being there and the director being there to yell cut, you can get used to having one extra person watching you who can tell you to stop.
I know you said they could remove a wrinkle they didnt want without permission but at what point does it cross the line into de-aging (which i think you said they do need consent for? ) also what about things like stretch marks etc would they need permission for those? Id be very annoyed if i was an actress and someone removed every sign of my humanity without permission
@@okankyoto no I get that and I don't think the audience should care if the actor or actress is okay with it, but imagine an actress shoots a sex scene for example and they take away cellulite or stretch marks without even asking, like it's just expected, what does that say to an actress who's just put themselves in quite a vulnerable position? Like I understand it's probably widely done now but the whole point if strikes is changing what is widely done (I will say I don't think this way about anything that isn't permanent like acne because that's really difficult if you shoot things out of order) also I don't think deaging is bad if its necessary for the plot I was just interested in where the line is
I think the term AI might be used too much. Most of the digital imagery is done by CG artists who are just people who might use AI as one of the tools to do their job. Great video.
Most of what people are discussing as AI is _machine learning_ (such as in graphics tools) and _large language models_ (generative text and natural-language prompts).
I’m surprised we go the the perception knockoff the irrational and the new season of quantum leap cause as we have seen with the irrational having to go on hiatus due to running out of episodes due to not having enough episodes shot to get us to the Christmas break cause of the strikes one would think we would have a season full of reality and game shows at least for the first half of the season and the strikes are why dancing with the stars returned to abc after being taken off the network and made a Disney+ exclusive
I honestly view intimacy coordinators the same as stunt or fight coordinators. Could you get different more spontaneous performances without them? Sure! Could you get safer one? Nope.
you can't TALK about the new contract as SAG is NOT sharing it with the members until ratify....You can only talk about a little exerpt (18 pages) and other opinions.....
fingers crossed that hair and make up in period dramas don't get even worse now. Obviously health and safety are more important. But like. I am already in pain watching most period dramas. Hair and makeup are usually even worse than costumes.
You're using ai for a lot of examples here when really you mean VFX. And as a vfx artist that's my main worry from the strike agreement. I'm absolutely against ai but vfx artists are not ai. How are crowds of massive stadiums or giant battles even possible without cg crowds?
I'm also very aware that vfx artists can't even get shot for our showreels anymore and the excuse is that our shots might have actors in them. But if you're looking for a job, you're not trying to show the actor, you're showing the work you did
OTOH filmmakers who avoided sex and/or nudity due to fears of liability or controversy from somebody acting like a clueless jackass or somebody getting hurt might feel that having an intimacy coordinator helps them and their production.
i'm sag and in the meeting on monday, duncan was saying that if they use generative AI and they use our faces for machine learning, they have to pay us. like if we're on file, it seems like if they use a "recognizable facial feature" they have to get consent and pay us. and someone was like "how do we know they won't just use us to train the machine learning anyway?" and he was like "they probably ARE going to try to do this." and indicated that there is government stuff going on to try to help this and also being very very aware of combating it every step of the way. he also said there's gonna be another meeting with AMPTP in the spring where there's gonna be more AI details. it seems like the AI issue is going to be ongoing and renegotiated often because tech is changing so quickly.
That’s good to know! It’s a bit reassuring
I'm definitely glad to hear that "lower teir" actors such as extras were looked after. My biggest fear was that big time actors would just take their good things and let those who dont get paid the big bucks get screwed over
Engaged consent & physical safety are important priorities. Mitigating physical & fee based barriers will help everyone
I've never commented on a RUclips video... and probably never will... But I really appreciate your even-keeled, grounded, objective, thought-through, non-reactionary, non-incendiary "let's look at this from different angles" kind of response. And just wanted you to know :) We need more of this in society
I *am* worried about the gaps in AI protection, but tbh the gains in intimate scene coordination are massive. There are legitimately going to be people who would have been assaulted who do not get assaulted because of this rule, it's a real and substantive win. Hair and makeup agency especially for people of color is going to be huge, too. Let's hope it forces the studios to employ workers who know how to do black hair and makeup as a standard rule and that *not* knowing how to do black hair and makeup makes you unemployable in show business.
Well, the problem is they don't need intimacy coordinators anymore if they have a digital replica or a synthetic person. I feel like the AMPTP gave a lot of concessions knowing that they could circumvent most of them with AI eventually. Duncan confirmed they can use digital replicas to keep making stuff during a strike, and that's a problem not just for SAG-AFTRA, but it would also remove leverage for crews belonging to Teamsters/IATSE.
See.. the "exceptions-to-consent" may not harm actors, but it absolutely harms VFX artists/animators. We already have far and away, bar none, the worst pay of any department hands down when we _DO_ get work (which is intentionally the case, and can be traced back to Lucasfilm intentionally making sure we couldn't unionize through NDAs at ILM/hiring exclusively non-union artists on the PT when we tried to). Then on top of that, we can now just be permissibly excluded from work by AI under this contract. I get that's already standard practice, nevertheless it's still wrong.
Good video. I agree with the non AI parts, that's good. It's just AI is going to be a challenge. I've seen some Voice actors worry with it. We shall see as things move forward, but overall not bad
I really love the way you talk about this stuff in general! you're really good at discussing stuff, professional.
Main concern I've heard is the right to withhold consent isn't protected, so studios can just say you must consent to all AI use to get hired, so the requirement is meaningless except for big stars. Since there are also requirements for payment, I think this is overblown.
7:06 Despite the director being infamously cancelled, I can't help but think of James Marsters and what he said regarding the impact "Seeing Red" had on him. (Of course he was constantly asking SMG if she was okay) but it *did* traumatize him he went to therapy and stayed in high level counseling for... decades(?) if I remember the latter time-frame correctly.
It's been awhile since I watched that interview.
Complications tend to be concerning.
I was waiting for this
You have a finely honed skill in concise and nuanced communication, above almost every other commentary and video essay channel I've seen
Thank you for the video, Vera!
Some points about the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) current deal with the studios:
-Presence of intimacy coordinators during naked/sex scenes: it should already be the standard. Certain actions which were ignored or dismissive in the past could have become inappropriate today, especially if one of the actors involved in these scenes finds themself in a vulnerable position. Things change with the time, and certain concerns could rise, and people must adapt to that.
-Actors being consulted about hair and make-up beforehand: as Vera explained, it is very important when taking into account actors-of-color's feedback about the process. White people, even the ones trying to be inclusive, could not be aware about certain ethnic issues, and they must to be willing to hear people-of-color about them.
-Consent over the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI): the big problem with AI is requiring to be trained using a lot existing human-generated material or, in that case, real people's likeness, which usually is acquired without consent or fair compensation of the original creators/persons. If at least both these conditions are fulfilled, that would be a step in the right direction over the ethical use of AI. It is also very good that the deal lays down the use of the actors' likeness only during a current single media work, with new uses in different works requiring to ask for authorization and new compensations.
At a superficial level, this deal seems fine and covers most of the actors' concerns. In the case of the deal being refused to be ratified by most members of the SAG-AFTRA, or studios fail to honor it, even by exploiting loopholes, actors going back to strike is always an option, despite raising some legal issues under already signed contracts.
This was more detailed than the other breakdowns I had seen/read, so thank you! I did not know about the intimacy coordinators or the hair/makeup issue but these seem like steps in the right direction.
Like I said at the start, the AI stuff seems to have sucked all the oxygen out of the room and dominated most talking points.
I think the term that comes missing a lot when discussing these contracts, is "realistic expectations", for both sides.
It sounds to me that both sides of the table came together to agree to realistic expectations on both sides, here.
There's protection for actors, where desperately needed.
Likewise, there are elements that protect the studios from some outrageous actor claims.
Neither side got everything they thought they ought to have gotten, but that's the nature of compromise, and the expectations of this contract seem REALISTIC.
It's definitely an improvement.
Had a question, Vera. First off, excellent video! Was eagerly awaiting it. So, basically, I’ve heard a lot of people say that SAG-AFTRA did not get anything they wanted on scaled residual shares. This is a widespread opinion. Could you possibly do a follow-up short or something addressing this, whether it’s just a misconception or what people are even talking about? I was convinced, before I watched this, that the 20 percent viewership bonus was all they got in terms of residuals and nothing else. I think a lot of people are confused, myself included. Thanks!
We'll see if I have the time to look further into this but on a glance it looks like people had hoped that streaming residuals would more closely mirror film and network tv residuals, which was unlikely to ever happen just because things can't be quantified the same ways.
For someone who's not in the union... you have done a superb job with the basic explanations in regards to this 2023 contract. We go back to the table in 2.5 yrs... Let's hope a.i. doesnt get out of hand during these 30 months.
Thanks for explaining all of this. :)
been waiting for your thoughts on this!
34:25 Assume the worst
Okay, but isn't concent eventually going to mean "You either concent to all the things or you are not going to act in any of our movies ever"?
"No, I'm not Bethesda"
🤣🤣 LMAO
One of the interesting benefits AI will have for actors is that, certainly under uk case law, entertainers are one of the few classes of people who can be forced to actually fulfill the obligations of their contract rather than paying compensation for the break. Its because people (used to) pay to be entertained by specific entertainers and there is rarely a satisfactory 1:1 replacement available. This has led to many an entertainers being forced to continue to work in a hostile environment with hostile employers. At least with AI actors in this position will be able to negotiate a resolution whereby their likeness can still be used but they themselves will not be subject to a hostile work environment.
I am an actor and a member of SAG-AFTRA. I watched Justine Bateman on the AI and I also saw tThe Majority Report segment with Shaan Sharma. I do tend to lean towards what you are saying but definitely do have some big concerns on the AI issue as brought up by Shaan Sharma. I think I'm going to vote yes but I am waiting to hear more because these issues have made me not a definite yes vote. It is taking work away from actors in the future if as Shaan says they can just pay you once to feed you and a number of other performers to create.an AI character who is not any of the people fed into the system to make it but has your nose or mouth, etc. Especially if they can use these "characters" to replace human actors. And also the fact that they have been allowed to use AI to generate non-human characters (animals, monsters, aliens) where in the past, actors were used in either performance capture or the character was created by makeup artists on an actor. It is causing a decrease in potential jobs. So that is concerning too. So as much as my vote may end up as a yes. I do need to see these things addressed a little more before I am ready to vote.
Bateman also has no idea what AI is, she has a tech degree from decades ago and has kind of put her foot in her mouth in the eyes of the VFX trade. Claiming a lot of the manual VFX process is "AI" and should be halted.
I remember a commercial from many years ago that was an early example of a deep fake. It consisted of film of deceased actors that was somehow "spliced" into the commercial to make it look like they were interacting with each other. It was very startling to see 1930s-era James Cagney at a party with Marlene Dietrich and Humphrey Bogart where a young (1950s-era) Liberace was playing the piano. The commercial was on YT for a while but was eventually removed for "copyright violations". I always wondered whose copyright was violated: the product being sold (I think it was vodka) or the owners of the films whose stars were inserted into the commercial. Would such a work be allowed under the new contract? Who has the power of consent in the case of an actor in an old film? Does it matter if the actor is still alive or does the studio own the rights to the actor's image in their film regardless of if the actor is living.
I believe the rules and contracts dictating the appearance of celebrities in commercials is completely separate from this agreement with movie studios. I’m not positive on this but I think there’s actual laws around what appear to be celebrity endorsements of products.
A lot of people are glass half empty and I don't understand how anyone lives with that level of stress. You have to be conscientious and cautious, but not to a fault.
if no one has said- there is an intimacy coordinator on RUclips who talks about what is done and how in a family friendly way. based on what I've seen, yes its a good thing.
What’s their channel? I’m interested in knowing more. Till this video I didn’t know that there was a job like that
@@sinimegI believe OP is referring to Jessica Steinrock.
@@SourcoolnessThanks!
Sag here! I’be been scanned with NO language. I refuse to be scanned without a contract, I’m voting yes. It is complicated, you’re right but we’ve been scanned already it’s not ending & I want to go back to work 😢
Don't worry too much- keeping a library of scanned extras is 100x more complicated and requires more coordination than any studio actually has. While the studio may think thats a viable thing to do, in the actual production usually we just make CG people or scan ourselves.
I've been watching this channel for years and I'm still wondering who the other people are in the council of geeks logo at 0:17
Folks who used to appear semi-regularly in the past who I don’t want to just drop from the logo because they’re part of the history.
Damn, now I want to go to a party you're hosting. :D
the results of the SAG-AFTRA deal are a good starting safeguard. I can't help but feel like the studios may be overplaying the use of AI. There is a lot of improv and experimentation certain performers do that make the material work.
Yeah, as someone in the industry, there is no way AI is capable of doing what they think it can- they're probably imagining that VFX = AI because they all know so little about how the work is done and especially the studios thinking that tech is magic. They probably think that motion capture goes directly into the final product too.
AI is less Hollywood and more Silicon Valley. The big thing will be if AI companies use movies to train AI where that will go.
I actually think the other stuff sounds more interesting, intimacy coordinators and the make up rules, and the no fee for auditions I don't know how that was ever a thing.
In the author community a fee to apply is literally a scam
If you can get used to the camera guy being there and the director being there to yell cut, you can get used to having one extra person watching you who can tell you to stop.
I know you said they could remove a wrinkle they didnt want without permission but at what point does it cross the line into de-aging (which i think you said they do need consent for? ) also what about things like stretch marks etc would they need permission for those? Id be very annoyed if i was an actress and someone removed every sign of my humanity without permission
Its done on almost every movie but nobody really notices. Hair trims, bump reduction, wrinkle tucks all done manually by vfx teams.
@@okankyoto no I get that and I don't think the audience should care if the actor or actress is okay with it, but imagine an actress shoots a sex scene for example and they take away cellulite or stretch marks without even asking, like it's just expected, what does that say to an actress who's just put themselves in quite a vulnerable position? Like I understand it's probably widely done now but the whole point if strikes is changing what is widely done (I will say I don't think this way about anything that isn't permanent like acne because that's really difficult if you shoot things out of order) also I don't think deaging is bad if its necessary for the plot I was just interested in where the line is
I know actors that think this is a terrible deal
I think the term AI might be used too much. Most of the digital imagery is done by CG artists who are just people who might use AI as one of the tools to do their job. Great video.
Most of what people are discussing as AI is _machine learning_ (such as in graphics tools) and _large language models_ (generative text and natural-language prompts).
Hell yeah, consent!
I’m surprised we go the the perception knockoff the irrational and the new season of quantum leap cause as we have seen with the irrational having to go on hiatus due to running out of episodes due to not having enough episodes shot to get us to the Christmas break cause of the strikes one would think we would have a season full of reality and game shows at least for the first half of the season and the strikes are why dancing with the stars returned to abc after being taken off the network and made a Disney+ exclusive
I honestly view intimacy coordinators the same as stunt or fight coordinators. Could you get different more spontaneous performances without them? Sure! Could you get safer one? Nope.
you can't TALK about the new contract as SAG is NOT sharing it with the members until ratify....You can only talk about a little exerpt (18 pages) and other opinions.....
Yeah… I know. I point that out. Repeatedly.
fingers crossed that hair and make up in period dramas don't get even worse now. Obviously health and safety are more important. But like. I am already in pain watching most period dramas. Hair and makeup are usually even worse than costumes.
You're using ai for a lot of examples here when really you mean VFX. And as a vfx artist that's my main worry from the strike agreement. I'm absolutely against ai but vfx artists are not ai.
How are crowds of massive stadiums or giant battles even possible without cg crowds?
I'm also very aware that vfx artists can't even get shot for our showreels anymore and the excuse is that our shots might have actors in them. But if you're looking for a job, you're not trying to show the actor, you're showing the work you did
Maybe those guys whining about the "intimacy coordinator" should learn how to act. That's how acting works, just sayin'...
the SW industry needs intimacy coordinators tbh
Get ready for less sexy nudity in cinema 😅
OTOH filmmakers who avoided sex and/or nudity due to fears of liability or controversy from somebody acting like a clueless jackass or somebody getting hurt might feel that having an intimacy coordinator helps them and their production.