Author: jh staff

Skip ‘The Exorcist: Believer’ Remake and Opt for the Original

Hollywood heads are spinning over the poor box-office performance of “The Exorcist: Believer.”

The recent big-screen release is a remake of the original horror flick “The Exorcist,” which back in 1973 scared the wits out of its massive viewing audience.

Universal shelled out a whopping $400 million for the intellectual property rights and was actually planning on a franchise trilogy.

However, the remake, with a budget of $30 million, only managed to take in $26.5 million in its initial debut. It then fell almost 60% in its second weekend, with a paltry $11 million haul.

Critics and audiences were in agreement that the movie was simply a dud. Studios generally view a CinemaScore grade below “B” as a fail. This movie received a grade of “C.”

The film’s over reliance on jump scares and computer-generated effects are only part of why it bombed. Blame the rest on the movie’s inauthentic approach to a very real supernatural occurrence.

The truth is the rite of exorcism is steeped in biblical and religious history, and the original film gave the plot and characters their proper due. It was a huge financial and critical success.

It also legitimately lays claim to being one of the scariest films ever made.

One of the constructive consequences at the time of being terrified by the notion of demonic possession, albeit via film, was that many individuals were affected deeply enough to turn away from the evil that had seeped into their own personal lives.

Here’s a summary of the true story upon which the original film was based.

The real-life demonic possession of a young 14-year-old boy occurred in Maryland.

The youth began to exhibit eerie and peculiar behavior, including speaking aloud in foreign tongues, the levitation of his body, and a display of inordinate superhuman strength.

His family consulted a number of doctors and psychiatric professionals, but they were unable to help. Eventually, his parents turned to the Catholic Church for assistance.

A request was made of two priests, Fr. William S. Bowdern and Fr. Edward Hughes, to perform the rite of exorcism on the boy. The ritual took place over the course of more than two weeks, and there were occasions of extreme violence.

Curse words directed at the priests flowed from the boy’s mouth. His body levitated at times and his speaking became that of an unnatural entity. Eventually, the priests were able to successfully drive out the evil spirit, which allowed the boy to return to a normal life.

The exorcism story was widely reported in the media, and it caught the attention of a Catholic Christian student at Georgetown University named William Peter Blatty. He began to research the subject and eventually wrote a novel based on the supernatural occurrence and deliverance from evil.

Blatty’s novel, which was also titled “The Exorcist,” was published in 1971.

Back when he was still climbing the ladder of success, a young Blatty dressed up as a Saudi Arabian prince and appeared as a contestant on Groucho Marx’s game show “You Bet Your Life.” He won $10,000.

This gave him enough money to quit his job and write full-time. He eventually penned a film adaptation of his novel that bore the same name and in 1973 took home an Oscar.

Blatty was uniquely prepared by his faith to take on the subject. His parents were Lebanese immigrants. His dad Peter was a cloth cutter and mom Mary a devout Catholic Christian. Mary was also the niece of a bishop.

In his youth, he attended a Jesuit school, Brooklyn Preparatory, was the recipient of a scholarship, and graduated as class valedictorian. He once filed a canon law petition against his alma mater, Georgetown, for its promotion of anti-Christian ideas.

There is a reason why Catholic priests are routinely featured in films of this kind. The Catholic Church has a long history of analyzing and seeking to understand the theology of demonic possession.

The sequences, prayers, and sacramentals utilized over the centuries by the Catholic Church, along with the extensive preparation of the individual who is conducting the exorcist rite, have proven to be efficacious in the deliverance ministry.

The remake’s story is purportedly inspired by the real-world experiences of Fr. Gary Thomas, who is said to have participated in more than eighty exorcisms. But even though the film resembles the original in a few ways, it is markedly different in the ways that matter most.

The bottom line is that “The Exorcist: Believer” contorts the rite of exorcism to conform to the political, cultural, and theological sensibilities of today’s radical left.

In my humble opinion, the original film is the one to watch.

And in my lifespan of experience, the original teachings on demonic possession and deliverance from evil are the ones to be believed.

Actress Sharon Stone’s Hollywood Lesson

It was the 1990s and Sharon Stone was on top of the world.

She was one of the most popular movie stars of her times.

Her big breakthrough came when she landed a part in the 1990 science fiction action film “Total Recall.”

In 1992 she catapulted to international stardom when she appeared in the big-screen thriller “Basic Instinct.”

Later she would play a role in the 1995 epic crime drama “Casino,” which ended up delivering the best reviews of her career, along with an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress.

Numerous films would follow, cementing her position as a top Hollywood actress.

Her life was going exceptionally well with her career soaring, due in large part to the Oscar nomination, which credentialed her as a serious actress.

Her personal life was blossoming too. She and her then-husband adopted a child, experiencing the joy and fulfillment that new parenthood brings.

Unbeknownst to Stone, her world was about to turn upside down. Within a few months, life would take a sudden and tragic change for the worse.

She suffered a type of stroke in which a vertebral artery ruptures. For nine straight days bleeding was occurring in her brain, and she was given only a 1 percent chance of surviving.

Sadly, at a time when she needed them the most, her Hollywood friends and acquaintances all but abandoned her. The only person who really stood by her side in this most difficult time was her devoted Dad.

“My father was there for me, but I would say that was about it,” Stone shared.

After the terrible health crisis, she faced further personal and professional challenges. Her marriage disintegrated and the Hollywood phone eerily stopped ringing.

“I lost everything,” she said. “I lost all my money. I lost custody of my child. I lost my career. I lost all those things that you feel are your real identity and your life.”

Stone’s Hollywood experience provides the opportunity to examine the changes that have taken place in our cultural attitudes and behaviors with regard to celebrity.

Stone was a genuine movie star, the kind that in these continuing digital revolution times seems to have disappeared.

Lost, in large part, is the sense of mystique that Hollywood stars of the past possessed. Lost oftentimes, too, is the basis for admiration given.

So who are today’s stars? And has the arc of fame been irretrievably altered?

The answers to these questions seem to depend chiefly on the medium as well as the manner in which entertainment is presented to and consumed by an anticipated audience.

Over the last several years the changes that have taken place within the entertainment business have no doubt been profound. Movie theater attendance has significantly declined. And for lack of a better word, so have “conventional” movie stars.

At the same time there has been a rise in the actual number of celebrities as well as the types of venues in which fame can be attained.

We now have multiple categories of film stars, television stars, music stars, sports stars, political stars, preacher stars, internet stars, social media stars, etc., all of whom vie for the public’s attention and the varying levels of fame that accompany it.

The opportunity for people to achieve Andy Warhol moments has expanded exponentially. And so it is that anyone with a smart phone and an internet connection can potentially claim their 15 minutes of fame.

While there may be a lot more famous faces around, it is also much more difficult for those faces to maintain their celebrity status over time. In other words, fame seems to be even more fleeting than it was in the past. And the arc of fame seems to have been altered in length and breadth.

For an individual, life in the fame lane can take you from the highest of highs to the lowest of lows.

Stone has lived it.

She shares her story of survival and serves as an example of the triumph of the human spirit.

She does offer the following admonition, though. “If you want to live with solid citizens, don’t come to Hollywood.”

Don’t know if anyone is going to stop chasing fame, but it’s worth thinking about for at least an LA minute.

Upcoming Supreme Court Cases May Help Restore Free Speech on Social Media

The Supreme Court recently announced that it is going to hear two major cases relating to the right of free expression.

Both cases will examine the constitutionality of state laws that were created to prohibit tech companies from discriminating against social media platform users who are ideologically conservative.

At the heart of the cases is Big Tech’s pattern of targeting and eliminating select content.

The passage by state legislators in 2021 of the laws in question came in response to censorship of user-generated content, which was taking place on social media sites.

The Texas and Florida legislatures were acting on behalf of their constituents in using their lawmaking capabilities to try and restore freedom of expression to the portion of the digital world that was being impacted by selective censorship.

It is regrettable, to say the least, that the redacting of factual information, political ideology, faith expression, and the like, which frequently runs contrary to today’s progressive and/or radical narratives, is routine business for a majority of Big Tech companies.

The Texas and Florida legislators engaged in the appropriate processes in an effort to address the censorship problem.

Texas law H.B. 20 bars social media platforms with at least 50 million active users from blocking, removing, or demonetizing content based on a respective user’s point of view. Similar to phone companies, the law re-classifies social media platforms as “common carriers.”

Florida law S.B. 7072 forbids large social media platforms from censoring or banning political candidates and what the law refers to as a “journalistic enterprise.” The Florida bill also mandates that social media companies publish standards for the removal of content as well as for exercising consistency in the application of such standards.

Technology industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association have challenged each of the state laws. Members of the groups include TikTok, X, formerly called Twitter, and the owners of Facebook and Google.

The Biden administration joined with the technology groups, arguing that social media platforms’ rights include those of censoring the content of customers.

Two appeals courts have given conflicting rulings over the two state laws. One of the appellate courts upheld the Texas law, but another struck down the Florida statute. In both cases, implementation of the state laws during appeals has been temporarily halted by federal courts.

In May of 2022, the Supreme Court (by a 5-4 ruling) kept the Texas law on hold during the process of litigation.

Justice Samuel Alito was part of a dissenting opinion, which said that the law should be left in place and that the issues were so novel and significant that the Supreme Court would have to consider them at some point. The justice wrote, “Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news.”

Justice Alito added, “At issue is a groundbreaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.”

The justice also expressed skepticism toward the argument that social media companies have editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment, such as the kind that newspapers and other traditional publishers enjoy.

The aforementioned tech trade groups, along with the Biden administration, are contending that the Constitution protects the social media platforms’ elimination of so-called disinformation.

Tech companies claim that taking away their unfettered right to censor will mean that their platforms will be filled with the vague categories they are claiming pose a danger, e.g. bullying, extremism, and hate speech.

However, the High Court will look closely at the carve-outs that state legislators placed in the laws to permit platforms to perform legitimate functions. These exceptions allow categories of content, such as pornography and foreign government speech, to be removed by the tech companies.

The above mentioned cases, which will be heard in the new nine-month term that recently began, will ultimately answer a single question of utmost importance: Do states have the ability to put a halt to speech discrimination by tech companies?

Social media platforms have become essential communication components of everyday life.

They allow us to connect and interact with individuals, organizations, educational institutions, governmental bodies, health agencies, etc.

Pray that the Supreme Court decides in favor of a free internet so free speech can live.

Why Historical Statues Need To Be Preserved

We are living in truly disturbing times.

Although much could be said on this topic, in the interest of time the following commentary will be limited to a discussion of the destruction of historical monuments and statues that were intended to commemorate past individuals and/or events of national importance.

Centuries old historical figures and their counterpart statues are presently being deconstructed by activist left-wing zealots.

Rather than focusing on the character, courage, and altruism of former civic ancestors, those bent on destruction are purposefully displacing them from the context of their respective historical time periods, only to hold them to modern-day standards.

The following example is one that is currently in the news.

The Democrat-led New York City Council has advanced a bill that, if passed, will result in the removal of works of art, including statues that depict some of America’s most influential historical figures.

Statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Christopher Columbus, and many others are on New York City’s potential chopping block.

These are individuals who have played enormously important roles in the creation of America. Their statues serve as reminders of the contributions that they made and ideals they held, which enabled them to lead a people from autocratic rule to representative democracy.

The removal of such statues is part of a woke handbook, which seeks to redact from the pages of history those whose life stories don’t fit the desired narrative of those presently in power.

The Long Island town of Brookhaven is coming to the rescue, offering to take possession of the statues and even cover the costs for dismantling and shipping them.

Reportedly, officials have indicated that they already have spaces available for placing the statues in Brookhaven’s 20-plus parks.

In a letter to NYC Mayor Eric Adams, Brookhaven Town Supervisor Edward Romaine detailed how important some of the historical figures are to the community, including how Washington had toured the town and founding father William Floyd had called it home.

“The Brookhaven Town Board knows the importance of our history in bringing us to the place we are today,” the letter states. “If we look through our eyes today and try to judge them for what they did years ago as some people may do they come away with a different view. I look at their contribution to history overall, I look at what they’ve done.”

When deciding whom to commemorate, either by statues, monuments, holidays, currency, stamps, or names of towns, schools, and streets, we choose individuals who have made exceptional contributions to society. In so doing, we sometimes prefer to look at the greater good that has been done and permit it to outweigh the human failings.

If you are puzzled as to why someone would demonize Washington, the Father of the Country, or Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, you are not alone.

The reason may be rooted in a lack of appreciation for and understanding of the destiny-altering period in our nation’s birth, the Revolutionary War.

One of the finest films ever made dealing with this historical period is “The Patriot.”

Roland Emmerich directed the epic movie, which stars Mel Gibson, Chris Cooper, Heath Ledger, and Jason Isaacs.

Although fictional in nature, the film’s story is based on the reality of Revolutionary War times, a period during which our nation was coming into being. It tells the story of Benjamin Martin (portrayed by Gibson), a widowed farmer who is reluctantly drawn into the war.

Martin is a veteran of the French and Indian War. He has sworn off violence but is forced to take up arms once again when his son is murdered by Colonel Tavington (portrayed by Isaacs), who is a particularly cruel British officer.

Martin’s farm is burned down by the British, and he and his remaining children are forced to flee. He joins a militia group and begins to fight back. He instructs his men on how to use guerrilla tactics to defeat the British and soon becomes a legendary figure among the colonists.

Director Emmerich, who is of European descent, understands the importance of America’s birth. He summed up his attraction to the project on the film’s DVD, stating, “These were characters I could relate to, and they were engaged in a conflict that had a significant outcome, the creation of the first modern democratic government.”

“The Patriot” is a tale of loyalty, sacrifice, and the unquenchable thirst to live free.

These are the intangibles that we honor when we erect statues of historical figures who left an indelible mark to the benefit of all of their progeny.

And that progeny includes you and me.

Cultural Marxism Being Used in Teacher Hiring

Cultural Marxism is a far-left intellectual movement that seeks to systematically destabilize society from within.

For a considerable length of time now those who subscribe to this ideology have been hard at work materially altering the values of the Western World, with a particular emphasis on values conveyed in society’s schools.

Some in the establishment media and institutional elite make the assertion that Cultural Marxism doesn’t even exist.

So what’s in a name? Well in this case, it’s a lack of truth in labeling.

Karl Marx, co-author of The Communist Manifesto, was of the political philosophy that human society develops through class conflict. The conflict takes place between the ruling class that controls the means of production and the working class that facilitates the production.

Marx espoused that a capitalist system eventually self-destructs, and communism is the ultimate governmental answer.

When World War I ended, some Marxist thinkers came to believe that in trying to achieve communist goals, Marx hadn’t really paid close enough attention to the need to infiltrate culture.

There was an influential group of European thinkers that methodically carried out an assault on the foundational pillars of society: religion, patriotism, marriage, family, and the criminal justice system.

Cultural Marxism adopted the viewpoint that traditional culture is a source of oppression and existing conventions, institutions, and even history must be torn down in order to rebuild a society with new Marxist structures.

More contemporary Cultural Marxism primarily tries to destroy the notion of absolute truth and replace it with relativism, political correctness, multiculturalism, and communist revolutionary theory.

We are at a point in our society where this replacement ideology has saturated our colleges and universities. Now there is quite a bit of evidence that in large part it has made its way to the elementary and high school levels of education as well.

Parents have disturbingly discovered that the Cultural Marxist concepts of “systemic racism” and “unconscious bias” are embedded in much of the school curricula, oftentimes under the label of DEI, which stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

One of the ways in which the far-left has increased and actually solidified the presence of Cultural Marxism in educational institutions is through the screening process for prospective K-12 hires.

Public school districts across the country are using a screening process for potential teachers that is apparently designed to ensure that future educators will be singularly aligned with Cultural Marxist ideology.

The National Opportunity Project (NOP), a nonprofit government watchdog and educational organization, has produced the first survey and overview of the DEI-model hiring process in K-12 education, with nearly 70 public schools participating.

The NOP found countless examples of the restrictive underlying ideology in the teacher hiring process.

Unfortunately, the notion of seeking out the most qualified candidates for open teaching positions appears to be taking a back seat. Instead would-be teachers are being evaluated on whether or not they adhere to desired DEI tenets.

For example, districts are using politically loaded language within job postings, seeking candidates who “demonstrate the qualities of an equity-literate educator” or who “demonstrate a commitment to diversity and recognized equity and inclusivity.”

Across the nation public school job postings are setting forth ideological pre-requisites that are rooted in Cultural Marxism.

Here is a sampling of some of the school districts that are apparently all-in with the ideology, along with some of the language that is being utilized:

–Evanston Township High School District 202 is seeking those applicants who demonstrate a commitment to “social justice” and “equity.”

–Denver Public Schools is looking for candidates who have an “anti-racist mindset” and will “work to dismantle systems of oppression and inequity.”

–The public school district in Washington, D.C. is recruiting teachers who are able to “define, understand, and promote equity” in order to “systematically interrupt institutional bias.”

–City Schools of Decatur, Georgia is looking to hire educators that are committed to “dismantling systemic racism and generating racial equity.”

In a similar vein, questions being posed during interviews appear to be attempting to screen candidates on the basis of their allegiance to DEI-Cultural Marxist concepts.

Here are some examples of such school districts, along with questions that are being employed:

–Virginia’s Loudoun County Public Schools asks prospective hires, “How would race and diversity impact your classroom?”

–Homewood-Flossmoor High School in Illinois asks candidates to “provide an example of how you have created equity in your classroom.”

–Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland inquires, “How do you ensure that student outcomes are not predictable by race, ethnicity, culture, gender, or sexual orientation?”

It is up to all of us to continue to monitor our local school districts and hold school administrators accountable with regard to the teacher selection process.

Yes, it’s one more thing to worry about and one more thing to have to contest.

But aren’t our children truly the best of what we’re all fighting for?

‘Sound of Freedom’ Producer Eduardo Verástegui Offers Mexico a Presidential Choice

In Mexico, Eduardo Verástegui is a household name. He’s a musical entertainer and telenovelas superstar.

His career blossomed in the United States as well as in Mexico, with his celebrity status rising as he worked with high-profile industry figures, such as Calvin Klein, Jennifer Lopez, and Sofia Vergara, to name a few.

Over the years he acquired a number of movies and television shows under his belt, which include “Chasing Papi,” “Bella,” “Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2,” “CSI: Miami,” and “Charmed.”

Most recently, he played the roles of lead producer and cast member for the international film phenom “The Sound of Freedom,” which has now reached a level close to $200 million in global box-office.

In his latest project, he has chosen to enter the political arena, and he’s going for a top-tier spot. The necessary paperwork has already filed for his run as an independent presidential candidate in Mexico’s June 2024 election.

Verástegui’s motivation to have a role with a purpose in the public square may relate to the time period in which he experienced one of his big Hollywood acting breakthroughs.

After being cast in the comedy “Chasing Papi,” he sought voice coaching lessons to up his English pronunciation skills. As providence would have it, his language tutor was a committed Catholic Christian named Jasmine. Evidently, she affected his thought processes far beyond mere diction lessons.

Over the course of a six-month tutoring period, he re-discovered his faith and resolved to turn away from any involvement in films that would conflict with his Christian beliefs.

To this end, with fellow founders and partners Sean Wolfington, Alejandro Gomez Monteverde, and Leo Severino, Verástegui co-founded a production company called Metanoia Films, the purpose of which was to create media that contained edifying content.

In his recent Mexican presidential candidate announcement, he emphasized life and freedom as the key driving principles in his decision.

“After a period of discernment, I made the most important decision of my life: I have just registered with the INE [National Electoral Institute] my intention as an aspiring independent candidate for the presidency of the Mexican Republic for the elections on June 2, 2024,” he wrote in an Instagram post.

“My fight is for life. My fight is for freedom. It is time to remove the same old people from power. Our country needs a new way of doing politics, to eradicate corruption and impunity,” he stated.

In the past, he campaigned for pro-life causes and even conducted prayers on social media. In addition, he put his faith into action, establishing Manto de Guadalupe, a pro-life organization based in Los Angeles, which includes a crisis pregnancy center.

His announcement of a presidential run comes after the Mexico Supreme Court issued an unthinkable landmark decision that legalizes abortion in a once-fervently faith-filled country; a decision that paves the way for a massive increase in the killing of pre-born infants.

Prior to the Supreme Court decision, only 12 Mexican states and the Federal District had legalized abortion. However, this current decision allows abortions to take place across all of Mexico.

In his independent run for Mexico’s presidency, Verástegui faces quite a difficult path. As an independent, he is challenging both of the nation’s established political parties, each of which has already selected its candidate.

Verástegui is portraying himself as a new kind of leader. This may be advantageous for him because he is able to stand in stark contrast to the established parties, which the public, in large part, distrusts.

The Pan, Mexico’s purported right-of-center party, is likely to be targeted by Eduardo’s presidential campaign in a manner reminiscent of U.S. candidates that have run against Republicans of the establishment kind.

Last year Verástegui enhanced his bona fides by hosting the Conservative Political Action Conference in Mexico, an international forum for populist conservative leaders from around the globe.

Should he succeed in gaining a place on the ballot, he will be able to offer voters in Mexico an alternative to two left-of-center establishment candidates, Pan candidate Mexico Senator Xóchitl Gálvez and the governing left-wing Morena candidate, former Mexico City Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum.

To win a place on the June 2024 ballot, he has until January 2024 to obtain signatures of support from 1% of voters, which are distributed across 17 states.

An amazing arc of success surrounds Verástegui’s life. A providential win of the presidency could be forthcoming.

If this happens, positive changes will surely be in store for our neighboring country South of the Border.

And the world will get to see a glimmering example of how celebrity power can work for the good.

Strike Two: Hollywood Actors Union Goes After Video Game Companies

For months now the Hollywood actors union has been on strike against the movie studios.

Now the union is seeking to authorize a second strike, this one involving major video game companies.

The current labor actions began when the Writers’ Guild of America union (WGA) went on strike in May of this year.

In mid-July, the WGA was joined by the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA).

It was historical in nature because a simultaneous strike of both actors and writers hadn’t happened in 63 years.

The actors union hasn’t gone on strike against video game companies since 2016. The strike back then lasted 11 months.

If the sought after strike addition materializes, video game actors most affected would be ones who do motion capture work and voice-overs for the video game producers.

The largest producers of video games in the world are big-name companies like Disney, EA, Activision, Epic Games, and Take Two. These are companies that are parties to the SAG-AFTRA video game contract.

The union has stated that it is asking video game companies for an 11% raise, with two 4% increases during the term of the labor contract, along with protections against AI technology.

SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher issued a statement about the proposed new strike.

“Here we go again! Now our Interactive (Video Game) Agreement is at a stalemate too. Once again we are facing employer greed and disrespect. Once again artificial intelligence is putting our members in jeopardy of reducing their opportunity to work. And once again, SAG-AFTRA is standing up to tyranny on behalf of its members,” she said.

Use of the term “stalemate” by the head of a prominent union doesn’t bode well for those seeking a speedy resolution to the labor turmoil in Hollywood.

SAG-AFTRA’s strike has almost completely shutdown the activities of Hollywood studios.

Talks between the industry and the unions have not been promising. There have been no breakthroughs over a long summer. The unions seem to be far away from the better wages, residuals, working conditions, and AI protections that actors and writers seek.

SAG-AFTRA needs to supplement the picketing and negotiating with additional action. Adding video game companies to the labor lockout list is one way of increasing leverage while raising public awareness.

Evaluating these strikes is a complex calculus, one with multiple variables.

Entertainment companies are very much in need of content, and the preference would be to have the labor disputes come to an end.

Powerful studio heads are concerned about how the strikes are perceived by Wall Street. The entertainment industry had been in the doldrums before the strike began. And layoffs at production companies and talent agencies certainly didn’t help the overall economy.

Additionally, the strikes have caused significant disruptions to film and television productions all over the world. According to the Financial Times, the ongoing strikes have cost the California economy about 5 billion dollars.

The consequences of the shutdown of Hollywood productions have set off a ripple effect across a large swath of local businesses; those that provide services to the movie industry, including catering, dry cleaning services, drivers, rental companies, etc.

Hollywood jobs seem to be in constant flux. The entertainment industry in general is not known for its job security. People are routinely thinking about getting out of the industry and opting for something with more employment stability.

Workers and businesses that have been affected by the strikes may decide to relocate elsewhere, and would therefore not be available if and when productions actually resume.

On the other hand, if the unions push too long and too hard on the studios, the studios may find an alternative way to obtain the content that they need.

During the 2007-08 WGA strike, the studios were unable to hire union writers. So they turned to the reality TV genre that propelled reality shows to a level in which they still lay claim to a large portion of television production.

Then there’s the elephant in the room, Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Do the work stoppages and production-set standstill become incentives for studios and production companies to accelerate the use of AI technology?

The strike may just push content executives to expedite their AI capabilities.

In fact, this seems to be happening as job postings for AI product managers offering compensation packages of $300,000-$900,000 would indicate.

The studios and streaming services are already using AI technology in the script-screening process, synopsizing stories and diminishing the need for human story analysts.

When writers and actors strike because they are afraid of being replaced by technology, will the content executives be tempted to hire compliant robots that are programmed not to picket?

Hopefully, something will give soon so the cameras can get rolling again.