How would you feel about AI being used for deceased voice actors?

[JulieYBM]

Let younger people decide what they want to watch. There's no reason for a fandom to try shoving their shit down the throats of younger people. Hell, try watching what they like instead!

[WittyUsername]

Even if Nozawa theoretically consents to allowing Tori to use AI to replicate her voice, it’d still feel wrong to me. There’s something inherently creepy about deepfakes of dead people.

[Peach]

No thank you. Not even if the actors gave permission.

Watching the English dub for Dragon Ball Daima, I realized I loved the new voices. I actually thought the new voices for Vegeta, Piccolo, and Supreme Kai were better than the adult funimation voices. I genuinely think it’s getting time for a blanket or near blanket recast.

Always go with a recast, always. Even if it’s different. I don’t mind growing accustomed to new actors and new takes.

[WittyUsername]

Even if Nozawa theoretically consents to allowing Tori to use AI to replicate her voice, it’d still feel wrong to me. There’s something inherently creepy about deepfakes of dead people.

Damn it, I meant Toei, not Tori. It’s too late for me to edit my earlier comment.

[Vegeta th3 4th]

Watching the English dub for Dragon Ball Daima, I realized I loved the new voices. I actually thought the new voices for Vegeta, Piccolo, and Supreme Kai were better than the adult funimation voices. I genuinely think it’s getting time for a blanket or near blanket recast.

Both Japanese and English voices should've been fully recast with Kai.

[Kunzait_83]

Stopping the franchise entirely is obviously not an option, it's not feasible with massive IPs like Dragon Ball,

Yes, it is absolutely 100% an option to stop a 40+ year old franchise with hundreds of episodes and chapters, and countless dozens of movies and video games: and its without question the sanest possible option at this point for almost anything that hits a certain level of saturation.

And no one who posts here should give even the slightest two inklings of a shit about what is or is not "feasible" for a "massive IP".

I can't believe I still have to repeat this yet again in the year of our lord 2025:

You're not the IP holder. You're not an executive at Toei or Shueisha. You're not a shareholder for this property. Nobody here who posts on this forum is any of those things. Neither you nor anybody else on this forum has any financial stake whatsoever in Dragon Ball, or any other anime or manga series.

"it's not feasible with massive IPs like Dragon Ball"

Christ, listen to yourself. Listen to how you're talking, the words you're using, and how you're even framing this in the most basic sense. As if what is or is not economically feasible with this property is something that in any way remotely the concern of you or any of us here?

This whole phenomenon (that's been omnipresent since the mid to late 2000s and has only continued to get worse in the years since) of fans acting like they're armchair TV or film executives who have any remote interest or stake in making financial-based decisions on a creative/artistic property they love is so beyond mentally deranged and always has been.

You're literally trying to critically examine and evaluate artistic/creative media from the express standpoint and perspective of the moneymen/bean counters in the studio boardroom... as a member of the fucking audience. I don't have words for how utterly demented and backwards this is, on just the sheer face of it. It should be self-evident.

It used to be that fanboys were often mocked for being armchair writers/directors/artists back in the day. And as dumb and cringe as that could obviously and often get, that is still frankly a trillion times healthier and more sane than fans acting as armchair studio executives or financiers.

At least fans wanting to one day be or see themselves as an artist/writer/creative inspired by the thing they love is something genuinely aspirational and even quasi-obtainable-ish (in ideal circumstances anyway).

Putting yourself, as a fan of a creative property, in the shoes not of the artists/creatives who made the thing, but in the perspective of the executives and suits who make decisions based on charts and graphs of revenue the property generates... I'm sorry, but this is thinking and behavior that is just inherently absurd and twisted on its face. And I shouldn't have to elucidate further on why that is because again, it should be self-evident.

I have concerns about AI, but I don't think it's the end of the world either. Just like any disruptive technology, people fear job loos.

When it comes to creative media, like film, television, etc. job loss is only one side of it. There's also the loss of basic humanity in the work itself. If the art/media we consume is being created not by a human being, but by a machine learning algorithm that is just aggregating and repurposing from an pre-existing pool of old content... then you clearly WILL lose anything resembling a genuine and human creative vision or point of view.

Art is WAY more than just "content to be consumed": you're getting a window into the mind and perspective of the person/people who created it. AI totally removes that aspect of it. This idea that "AI is just a tool, like CGI" is inherently false: CGI still requires an artist who not only uses skill but also is making conscious creative choices throughout the process.

AI isn't being seen or treated as merely a "tool" by most studio higher ups: its being viewed as what will one day inevitably be a full automation of the creative process: its removing the human element from art entirely, in which case what even IS the point of art anymore?

Art should be a means of connecting people through the vision of the artist: when the artist is no longer human but an automated machine just randomly cobbling together scraps from a giant pool of pre-existing content... the word "slop" is thrown around in regards to AI for EXACTLY this reason. Its just contextless drivel, without any human perspective whatsoever. Art without a human artist's perspective and vision isn't art anymore: its just contextless nonsense that no longer serves any purpose.

I don't think machines will ever completely replace humans and put people out of work entirely. The work will change as it always does and people will have to adapt. Some will lose their jobs as they become obsolete, which is sad, but it's a fact of life that nothing remains static. James Cameron has talked about using AI for VFX in ways to help artists. He says the work will change and open up VFX artists for other things in the field. There's a lot to consider here and we shouldn't immediately jump to the world ending, even metaphorically.

With respect to Cameron, this is an inherently naive view of what the obvious end-goal with AI is on behalf of studio executives: numerous film and TV studio CEOs have made it abundantly clear that the long-term goal of AI - in their eyes - is full automation of content creation, making not just actors, but also writers and directors (not to mention production crews in general, from lighting to set dressing and makeup artists, etc.) totally obsolete.

The reason is simple and obvious: have fewer and fewer people to pay salaries to to maximize profits for the studios. The end-goal (again, in the minds of executives) is for a studio monkey to press a button and have AI basically churn out a whole entire film or TV series from wholecloth singlehandedly, without having to pay ANY production team or creatives/artists whatsoever.

Its the literal manifestation of "a thousand monkeys on typewriters" and whatnot, except instead of monkeys on typewriters, its 1's and 0's (filtered through oceans of pre-existing content as a basis to draw from) passing through a machine learning program.

Thus outside of maintenance and upkeep of the AI software being used, its all profit for the studio. Barest minimum of money spent on production, maximize revenue. More money to include in their own yearly bonus packages as well, natch.

Obviously this still isn't feasible now: but this is obviously the long-term vision that studio executives have had for this technology for the past few years or so: and once again its not like many of them have been particularly shy about outwardly and blatantly admitting such.

What the studio heads want and see for AI is directly at odds with what even high level (and tech-friendly) creatives like James Cameron see and want from it: guys like Cameron (and I think once more that they're being incredibly naive and even delusional about this) basically see AI as a means of supplementing and assisting the work done by digital effects artists to save time and be more efficient in their work and nothing more. If that's all that AI ultimately amounted to being, no one other than hardcore tech nerds would give two shits about it.

But that's clearly not at all where the business side of filmmaking and TV has been positioning this technology to act as.

At the end of the day, capitalism demands that money and profits supersede all else, and certainly all human concerns: the moment AI reaches a point in its development where studio executives see that they can use it to churn out an entire film or TV series from wholecloth without any human input (other than inputting a prompt), that will be the exact moment that directors, writers, and actors will find themselves universally out of work. 100% as guaranteed as the laws of gravity.

This isn't so much about technology as it is about capitalism, and about how the whims of money and creating maximum profit will just about always override any notions of even the most basic humanity - and oftentimes, even the most obvious rationality - in a purely capitalistic system.

Money rules all, money sits above all, and the moment something like AI reaches a point where jobs can be cut and money can be saved, those jobs WILL be cut as sure as the sun rises and sets. No matter how valued those jobs were beforehand.

Everything and everyone is disposable where money and profit is concerned in our current system, and its only the truly willfully naive (or actively malicious) left in today's world who are still in active denial about the kind of utterly dystopic society we're currently living in and dealing with here: one that puts money well above any and all other aspects of human life with zero compassion, empathy, or remorse.

[JulieYBM]

The creative process is rewarding. Removing thst from the creation of art kills what makes art 'art'.

Like...how many of the people posting here have created art? Me and who else? I'm curious, because I don't see anyone actually stopping and just not having any pride in what they make.

[Dragon Ball Ireland]

The creative process is rewarding. Removing thst from the creation of art kills what makes art 'art'.

Like...how many of the people posting here have created art? Me and who else? I'm curious, because I don't see anyone actually stopping and just not having any pride in what they make.

I have done illustrating, painting and sculpting in school and for fun. My own characters haven't been that creative, but I tried, and have written countless essays through college, bits and pieces of books I want to write (that are on the backburner), so, yes I know even though I've not made anything groundbreaking there is an element of pride and achievement (however small in my case) for something that is crafted with your own vision.

I understand the value of art and the importance of a humans own input (which is what gives art its soul). Moreover I know how challenging it is to create something, which captivates and inspires people, because I've not done anything I have the confidence had that effect as of yet. As you say though there is a sense of reward if you can do it successfully.

James Cameron is an accomplished filmmaker and technical visionary, so I'm sure he's aware of what would be lacking in fully AI-generated art. As for AI bring used as a tool to supplement whatever the existing artist is trying to do, time will tell and remain open minded. I'll check out some of what is to come, but I'm sure I'll always prefer art made by humans, and the more of it in the work the better. I'll see how AI is used in future, but I'd like it to be used sparingly, if at all. For better or for worse it is inevitable we will see fully AI-generated art.

[JulieYBM]

I have done illustrating, painting and sculpting in school and for fun. My own characters haven't been that creative, but I tried, and have written countless essays through college, bits and pieces of books I want to write (that are on the backburner), so, yes I know even though I've not made anything groundbreaking there is an element of pride and achievement (however small in my case) for something that is crafted with your own vision. I understand the value of art and the importance of a humans own input (which is what gives art its soul).

James Cameron is an accomplished filmmaker and technical visionary, so I'm sure he's aware of what would be lacking in fully AI-generated art. As for AI bring used as a tool to supplement whatever the existing artist is trying to do, time will tell and remain open minded. I'll check out some of what is to come, but I'm sure I'll always prefer art made by humans, and the more of it in the work the better. I'll see how AI is used in future, but I'd like it to be used sparingly, if at all. For better or for worse it is inevitable we will see fully AI-generated art.

I should make clear that I would describe Cameron as s fucking idiot here and if he wants something done, he should hire someone to do it and not erase a part of the creative process with random shit from an AI funded and intended by corporations to replace the human touch in art.

Things created by AI have no value because AI is not a sentient being we can connect with. AI isn't a makeup brush or an adhesive glue to applying prosthesis. AI isn't a brush or a pencil. Artists aren't involved. Humans aren't involved, crafting the tinniest of details themselves.

[MasenkoHA]

No thank you. Not even if the actors gave permission.

Watching the English dub for Dragon Ball Daima, I realized I loved the new voices. I actually thought the new voices for Vegeta, Piccolo, and Supreme Kai were better than the adult funimation voices. I genuinely think it’s getting time for a blanket or near blanket recast.

Always go with a recast, always. Even if it’s different. I don’t mind growing accustomed to new actors and new takes.

Haven’t seen Daima yet but I remember watching Super’s dub how noticeable it was how much better the new actors (the angels, the gods, the ToP participants) were compared to the legacy Funi cast. I don’t even think the legacy cast is that bad and a lot of it is probably having to still do those Saturday Morning cartoon voices they established by 2002 vs later additions like Veronica Taylor, Jason Douglas, James Marsters etc having the freedom to do a more naturalistic approach. Not surprising if the recast for the chibi versions in Daima did better

I’m inclined to agree with Vegeta th3 4th a complete and total recast for Kai probably should have happened.

[Dragon Ball Ireland]

I’m inclined to agree with Vegeta th3 4th a complete and total recast for Kai probably should have happened.

It's so unfortunate the Ocean Kai dub has yet to see the light of day, as if it does that would be the closest we could get to a clean slate when it comes to casting from a company that could have taken the safe route of leaving old castings as-is.

Sure some of the legacy cast like Brian Drummond and Scott McNeil as Vegeta and Piccolo remained, but unlike Funimation they went the extra mile to reaudition every role. They were even daring enough to recast the main character (we know Richard Ian Cox was cast as Goku).

[ABED]

I have concerns about AI, but I don't think it's the end of the world either. Just like any disruptive technology, people fear job loos.

When it comes to creative media, like film, television, etc. job loss is only one side of it. There's also the loss of basic humanity in the work itself. If the art/media we consume is being created not by a human being, but by a machine learning algorithm that is just aggregating and repurposing from an pre-existing pool of old content... then you clearly WILL lose anything resembling a genuine and human creative vision or point of view.

Art is WAY more than just "content to be consumed": you're getting a window into the mind and perspective of the person/people who created it. AI totally removes that aspect of it. This idea that "AI is just a tool, like CGI" is inherently false: CGI still requires an artist who not only uses skill but also is making conscious creative choices throughout the process.

AI isn't being seen or treated as merely a "tool" by most studio higher ups: its being viewed as what will one day inevitably be a full automation of the creative process: its removing the human element from art entirely, in which case what even IS the point of art anymore?

Art should be a means of connecting people through the vision of the artist: when the artist is no longer human but an automated machine just randomly cobbling together scraps from a giant pool of pre-existing content... the word "slop" is thrown around in regards to AI for EXACTLY this reason. Its just contextless drivel, without any human perspective whatsoever. Art without a human artist's perspective and vision isn't art anymore: its just contextless nonsense that no longer serves any purpose.

I wasn't talking about AI and the arts specifically. I agree that art is about connection and communication. I was more disagreeing with the point that AI will render nearly everyone jobless. That's been the argument for lots of disruptive tech. It hasn't happened yet. Will AI be the thing that proves them right? I'm doubtful. Not to say there won't be pain as things change, though.

But while I'm at it, as much as I agree that studio execs are trying to get AI to be just good enough that people will pay enough to make it profitable and it won't lead to any great art, I also thing audiences are also partially to blame. My niece and nephew visited my parents about a year ago and they didn't watch any TV shows. They just watched inane youtubers. I get the appeal of watching things Let's Play videos, but it's hard to justify studios paying millions for even mid range budget films like they used to make when audiences are fine sitting home watching people with uninformed opinions yell in videos longer than the movies they are supposedly mad about.

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with your point about the stupidity of watching things like a studio exec. I saw a tweet where some writer said they miss they days when filmbros talked about Scorsese and Tarantino. Now they talk about films like they were studio execs. It's the exact thing I've come to hate about discussing pro wrestling. Screw ratings and the gate and drawing power. What matches and promos give you goosebumps? That's what I care about.

Back to the topic at hand, I'm more than fine with recasts. I've dealt with new Ronald McDonald's since I was a kid. I can deal with this and so can you all.

[Hellspawn28]

I hate AI for art, writing, music, and acting. But, I think AI and machines can be helpful for something's (like building buildings), but never to replace artists.

[JulieYBM]

I hate AI for art, writing, music, and acting. But, I think AI and machines can be helpful for something's (like building buildings), but never to replace artists.

You need human architects to create buildings, too. Not only is it an art unto itself, but it’s a safety issue and a matter of responsibility. Who is responsible for damage and death if decisions are made by AI?

[Vegeta th3 4th]

Who is responsible for damage and death if decisions are made by AI?

That's the point. The more automation and AI you have, the harder it becomes to hold companies and governments accountable for mistakes.

[JulieYBM]

Who is responsible for damage and death if decisions are made by AI?

That's the point. The more automation and AI you have, the harder it becomes to hold companies and governments accountable for mistakes.

That was a rhetorical question, if it wasn't clear. That's the meaning of what I was getting at.

[Kunzait_83]

I wasn't talking about AI and the arts specifically. I agree that art is about connection and communication. I was more disagreeing with the point that AI will render nearly everyone jobless. That's been the argument for lots of disruptive tech. It hasn't happened yet. Will AI be the thing that proves them right? I'm doubtful. Not to say there won't be pain as things change, though.

I should note once more that there is a wide gulf between the intentions of studios executives with regards to AI and how its used, and the actual reality of how advanced and effective AI actually is in practice. I don't think that AI ever will or can get to a point where it'll be sufficiently capable of rendering human artists obsolete (we still can't even get it to get basic facts of reality correct): but that's not how the CEOs of most major film and TV studios are thinking about it.

Even if the reality of AI as a technology falls way short of people's expectations of it - and to be clear, I 1000% personally think that most people's expectations of AI are wildly and comically over-inflated relative to the actual reality of what its actually capable of doing in actual practice - the fact that studio executives not only have the intention of wanting to use something like AI to render all human artists and creatives completely obsolete, but feel confident enough to openly state that intention publicly, proudly, and repeatedly to the press... that's NOT a good place for the arts to be in generally speaking, in and of itself.

When the people who are in direct financial control of mass media and art at the very top of the food chain are stating openly in no uncertain terms that they explicitly view ALL human artists and creatives as not only completely disposable, but as a bothersome nuisance to them that they're eager to find any excuse to completely get rid of them all for good... that isn't a positive place for us as a society in general and for art as an institution in particular to be in, just in and of itself.

So even if AI never reaches a point where it wipes out all artistic jobs (and I agree that it likely won't, if only because the technology frankly just demonstrably isn't nearly as good or as advanced as the tech hype cycle is puffing it up to be), the stated position of major studio executives on the technology and how they personally view it and wish to use it in their ideal conditions is just a horrible, shitty precedent for us to be under anyway. Regardless of how the tech actually shakes out in actual practice and use.

But while I'm at it, as much as I agree that studio execs are trying to get AI to be just good enough that people will pay enough to make it profitable and it won't lead to any great art, I also thing audiences are also partially to blame. My niece and nephew visited my parents about a year ago and they didn't watch any TV shows. They just watched inane youtubers. I get the appeal of watching things Let's Play videos, but it's hard to justify studios paying millions for even mid range budget films like they used to make when audiences are fine sitting home watching people with uninformed opinions yell in videos longer than the movies they are supposedly mad about.

I just want to note that the death of mid-budget mainstream films is a topic that I've had a great deal of interest in and have read and studied up on extensively for literally decades now. And I can say very definitively that this has been a problem that WELL long predates the rise of streaming, Youtube Let's Plays, and so on. Hell, it well predates Gen Z as a media-consuming cohort.

The death of mainstream mid-budget films has been an ongoing phenomenon going all the way back to the early to mid 2000s (which is also back when I first started following this issue myself). While streaming and celebrity Youtubers have certainly helped exacerbate that issue, they are in no way the direct, root cause of it.

The real root of that issue has always been due to rising inflation overall, as well as the studio filmmaking model radically altering its structure entirely to depend on global, multi-billion dollar opening weekend earnings from massive, bloated tentpole films, rather than overall earnings from broader theatrical runs or home video sales.

That problem started a LONG time before streaming and Youtube were really a significant factor in anything - hell, it even started right smack during the heyday of home DVD releases at their financial apex - and it visibly and significantly impacted the amount of mid-budget studio output in wide release going all the way back to when I first started college at 18 (which was noticeable enough back then that it got me so interested in this topic in the first place, from the standpoint of someone who's favorite mainstream movies growing up in the 80s and 90s tended to range from the low to mid-budget). I'm 41 now, so do the math.

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with your point about the stupidity of watching things like a studio exec. I saw a tweet where some writer said they miss they days when filmbros talked about Scorsese and Tarantino. Now they talk about films like they were studio execs.

Hell, this was even a visible phenomenon just on this very forum over the years. Back in the Kanz (then-Daizex) forum's earliest days (circa 2004 through 2007-ish or so), it wasn't uncommon to see a LOT of posts from folks here about how they wanted to break into the animation industry as an artist/writer/director due to their love of cartoons (via Cartoon Network, Pixar, Disney, etc) growing up.

Setting aside the whole can of worms that is this community's overall myopic hyper-obsession with children's cartoons and media, somewhere at the turn of the late 2000s into the early 2010s, I'd noticed that even this "someday I want to be an animator or animation director so I can make the next Avatar: The Last Airbender or DCAU" type of sentiment gradually start to fade away entirely around here and instead give way into this current "armchair studio executive/financier" that's been just as prominent in so many other communities.

Obviously this phenomenon is a lot more widespread than just this forum, but this forum does also serve as kind of a microcosm for just how omnipresent this way of thinking has gradually gotten over the years: where out of control hyper-capitalism has permeated itself so deep into the very fabric of our culture that fans/nerds/geeks have increasingly stopped personally identifying with and looking up to artists and creatives and instead identify a lot more closely with and look up to executives and financiers.

[Jord]

It's too bad some people don't see the value of using AI as a tool. Digital colorization of animation is also a tool used to increase possibilities in animation. Guess we should have balked against that too, when it put cell painters out of job.

[Vegeta th3 4th]

It's too bad some people don't see the value of using AI as a tool. Digital colorization of animation is also a tool used to increase possibilities in animation. Guess we should have balked against that too, when it put cell painters out of job.

There's a difference between using AI as a tool, and having it take over a job completely. We are now seeing thousands of people around the world lose their jobs to AI and automation; that's not a tool, it's an outright replacement of the human worker.

[Kunzait_83]

It's too bad some people don't see the value of using AI as a tool. Digital colorization of animation is also a tool used to increase possibilities in animation. Guess we should have balked against that too, when it put cell painters out of job.

Thanks for completely ignoring the actual content and substance of what was being talked about: which was the openly stated desires by studio executives to eventually see AI grow/evolve into not being a "tool", but into a wholesale replacement for ALL human artists, across the board.

i.e. This isn't a case of "jobs of one type being replaced by jobs of another type". Its a case of "an entire field of jobs disappearing entirely, to be replaced by nothing".

AI isn't being seen or treated as merely a "tool" by most studio higher ups: its being viewed as what will one day inevitably be a full automation of the creative process: its removing the human element from art entirely, in which case what even IS the point of art anymore?

............

With respect to Cameron, this is an inherently naive view of what the obvious end-goal with AI is on behalf of studio executives: numerous film and TV studio CEOs have made it abundantly clear that the long-term goal of AI - in their eyes - is full automation of content creation, making not just actors, but also writers and directors (not to mention production crews in general, from lighting to set dressing and makeup artists, etc.) totally obsolete.

The reason is simple and obvious: have fewer and fewer people to pay salaries to to maximize profits for the studios. The end-goal (again, in the minds of executives) is for a studio monkey to press a button and have AI basically churn out a whole entire film or TV series from wholecloth singlehandedly, without having to pay ANY production team or creatives/artists whatsoever.

Its the literal manifestation of "a thousand monkeys on typewriters" and whatnot, except instead of monkeys on typewriters, its 1's and 0's (filtered through oceans of pre-existing content as a basis to draw from) passing through a machine learning program.

Thus outside of maintenance and upkeep of the AI software being used, its all profit for the studio. Barest minimum of money spent on production, maximize revenue. More money to include in their own yearly bonus packages as well, natch.

Obviously this still isn't feasible now: but this is obviously the long-term vision that studio executives have had for this technology for the past few years or so: and once again its not like many of them have been particularly shy about outwardly and blatantly admitting such.

What the studio heads want and see for AI is directly at odds with what even high level (and tech-friendly) creatives like James Cameron see and want from it: guys like Cameron (and I think once more that they're being incredibly naive and even delusional about this) basically see AI as a means of supplementing and assisting the work done by digital effects artists to save time and be more efficient in their work and nothing more. If that's all that AI ultimately amounted to being, no one other than hardcore tech nerds would give two shits about it.

But that's clearly not at all where the business side of filmmaking and TV has been positioning this technology to act as.

Reading is fundamental. Reading comprehension even more so.


At a certain point, I'd like people in this community to just... take five seconds out of their day to think beyond just "Me want more cool content" and "I'm going to think about this purely from the perspective of the CEO of a studio, even though I'm the furthest fucking thing from one myself, and pretend like I have any remote financial stake in the studio's bottom line, even though I don't and never will".

So long as we live in a capitalist society/economy, then jobs being lost in general is a BAD thing for average, ordinary people: you, person who is reading this, are overwhelmingly likely an average, ordinary person. You're not a billionaire head of a major film or TV studio, and you never will be. You're just some random schmuck, like me and everyone else here, who depends on a paycheck of some kind in order to live and have the basic, bare necessities for survival.

Without jobs, that check you depend on to survive goes away, and you can't afford basic things like food to eat, and a roof over your head to live in. This is how a lot of people become what we call "homeless".

Now that we got that basic concept out of the way, we'll move to something a bit more advanced: not everyone who works in Hollywood or the entertainment industry are super wealthy, famous celebrities. There are a LOT of average, ordinary-ass blue collar manual laborers who work in the film industry: as set designers, carpenters, lighting technicians, electricians, day players, costume seamstresses, etc.

These people are not the wealthy and glamorous Will Smiths or Sydney Sweeneys of Hollywood who make a gazillion dollars to just show up and say their lines for a few weeks at a time and then do press junkets before going back to their million dollar estates: these are average, ordinary-ass people, no different from you or I, who live in a shitty apartment or tiny house, barely make bills every month, and are just working to put food on the table week to week. The only difference is that they work for their shitty paycheck on a film set instead of an office cubicle: other than that however, there's no difference whatsoever between them and any random person you know in your life.

When jobs for ordinary people disappear, in any industry: that's bad for all of us average folks who aren't fabulously wealthy. We ALL depend on these paychecks to survive and not be homeless and starving.

The people who come out ahead and do better when these jobs disappear are not ordinary, average people like you or I: the people who profit from these jobs disappearing are fabulously wealthy CEOs and executives: which, once again, you and I are not and never will be.

Again, for the umpteenth time: YOU, PERSON READING THIS, YOU'RE NOT A WEALTHY STUDIO EXECUTIVE OR CEO, AND YOU NEVER, EVER WILL BE. Like everyone else who posts here, you were born some random nobody and you'll likely die some random nobody.

You're not special (in the economic and social power sense of the word, and not like as an individual human being), you're not rich and powerful, you never will be special/rich/powerful, and you're not a temporarily embarrassed billionaire entrepreneur-in-waiting. The same thing goes for your friends, family, and anyone/everyone else you care about in your life: all of them are average, not-rich, not-powerful, un-special nobodies too, just like you, me, and everyone else in this forum.

Vegas-odds-probability of course.

I'm very sorry to puncture your fantasy here, but allow me to formally and cordially invite you back to real life for a moment here.

So taking all this into account: when you find yourself rooting for and cheering on events to progress in such a way that only fabulously wealthy business executives and CEO's come out ahead while countless average, ordinary working people suffer immensely... ask yourself "Why is that? Why am I acting like this? Who or what am I invested in here? Who's side am I on here?"

Because the thing that you're rooting and cheering for is something that in all likelihood will only ever end up harming average, ordinary people who live paycheck to paycheck, like yourself and every other person you know in life.

Wake the fuck up and smell reality here guys. This isn't a video game, this isn't a Shonen manga or anime. This isn't a fucking internet meme. This isn't a Marvel movie or comic. This isn't some stupid RPG where numbers going higher is always good, no matter what. This is real life: where shit has serious, dire, life-threatening consequences for average, innocent people. Read something of substance about reality sometime soon, ASAP, and/or otherwise touch some grass.