this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
137 points (87.4% liked)
Work Reform
9991 readers
143 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This whole article sounds prudish. There's nothing particularly wrong with there being nc-17 or M rated voice acted scenes in appropriately rated games. If you don't want to act them out, then simply don't. You have a union to back you up. That being said, these sort of scenes definitely need to be negotiated and talked about long before minutes before acting it out. I fully agree with such a sentiment.
You should read the article. It’s not just voice actors. Mocap performers, wearing fitted Lycra suits, have to act out graphic scenes without prior notice so the scripts can remain confidential until the day of the shoot.
Ah. Yeah. That's a problem. If I went into work one day and my client said "now, pretend to rape and hurt this woman" I think I'd be uncomfortable too. I wonder if they even know the subject matter going in, even if the scripts are confidential. At the very least, a trigger warning.
Ad hoc rate just quadrupled
As long as studios are upfront about what to expect and it all gets negotiated it should be fine.
If sudden rape scenes appear that can cost you your job, income, and career if you sont do it, then well, how far away is that from actual rape?
Good on you for understanding the psychological impact of such a proposition, but being physically penetrated is definitly another level.
Well, there is an entire -rather famous- market section in the entertainment industry where being physically penetrated is part of the job description. Ya know, porn?
Well these motion capture artists did not sign up to do porn.
Nor does porn do rape scenes without prior warning.
Rape is a serious issue that is trivialized by popular culture.
I agree with your second phrase, I absolutely disagree with your last one, though. Nobody trivializes rape, and popular culture doesn't trivialize rape either
Losing a job is not the same as being raped.
A lost carreer may share elements, but does not equate.
Nobody's arguing that. This is about the right to informed consent, not censorship.
That's not always the case in the moment.
...so you actually agree with what they're trying to do but still felt like misrepresenting it for a few sentences before saying so?
Weird choice, but at least you reached the right conclusion at the end 🤷
Misrepresenting? Please elaborate how I'm doing such a thing, there are two issues here: the subject of the scenes, and the not being told about the subject.
I have my two cents on each subject, you can agree or disagree with what I say, but saying I was Misrepresenting anything is flat out lying about my comment.
That's how. By inventing the first issue. Nobody's arguing for censorship. It's only about the right to informed consent.
Nope. You were inserting a strawman argument about censorship. That's by definition misrepresenting.
I feel like sometimes people comment, then read the article, and then try to backpedal when you point out that they missed the point of the article. Thanks for calling it out though
What an empty comment, smuglord.
Just pointing out the logical inconsistency of going off on an irrelevant tangent about prudishness and then in the same comment support what it's ACTUALLY about.
That's not empty. Unlike your comment, hypocrite.
My comment was concise, clear, and accurate, and I stand by it.
I also don't agree with the OP you responded to, but they at least had thoughts - and, more to the point, weren't a total smuglord.
Well, you're right that it was concise, at least..
As did I. Using strawmen like injecting an irrelevant argument about censorship matters. It's dishonest and misleading and that's what I was commenting on.
That's just your hypocritical opinion 🤷
Not really expecting you to see it, anyways.
I'll continue to love love, hate hate, and outsmug the smuglords. I don't mind the apparent hypocrisy of using my enemy's tools on them, when I find it applicable.
try not to cut yourself on all that edge.
Ok, l'll be more careful.
I agree, 100% there is nothing wrong with mature content in games as long as there is consent by all parties involved.
The article is not about mature content in games. It’s about people in mocap suits being told to act out graphic scenes without prior notice, because the scripts are kept confidential until the day of shooting.
Do you mean the title? You didn't read the article. They just want to make sure the process is right and that the actors know that they are going to act in sexual scenes in advance.
Obviously you either didn't read the article or don't care about actors being forced to enact sexual assault scenes. I'd rather think it's the first, because from your response I'd assume that you simply don't care about the actors' well-being and just want your fap material.
Please pay more attention the next time, and at least pretend that you care. This is about informing the actors and getting their consent.
And don't come with that crap about unions; in the game industry unions are practically non existent.
So read the article, twice if necessary; you might learn a thing or two.
I don't understand the logic. Why would you choose this path? Disclosing the nature of the scenes during hiring would only attract exactly the people who are already comfortable with performing the content.
The only reason to hide it would be to attach more popular names to your title, but think that through. So you've trapped your talent, and sprung a spicy scene on them last minute, now what?
They'll:
a) flat out refuse
b) maybe sue you
c) give an uncomfortable, lackluster performance
d) happen to be cool with it and also give a good performance
D is both the only really good outcome, and by far the least probable, 10% chance tops.
C isn't great, but at least their name is on the box, and they do the other parts well. I'd say about 40% probability.
A means more complications any way you slice it, either editing scenes or hiring additional talent, probably about 30%, .
B is about 15%, leaving 5% for the lizardmen.
If the content is that crucial to the product, find a performer who is willing and able to do it well.
Edit: To clarify, not only is throwing adult scenes at performers last minute unethical, it's also stupid.
So your fine with traumatizing individuals who arent ready for such work???
No, that's uncomfortably stupid. They can be told a generic summary of what they will be doing. "There will be a scene involving SA, in the script. You will have to be okay with this in order to voice on this project. "
Also, please God, what the hell is that formatting. You list a, b, c, d then go on to expand D, C, A, B. My formatting sucks but yours almost sent me in a dyslexic rage.
Worst of all I don't even know if your for this or against it. I may be stupid but it feel like you said both, the first paragraph and last paragraph seem to contradict each other.
What are you talking about? That's the exact opposite of what I said.
I'm saying that, even if you ignore the ethical issues, it's still stupid to do this.
Ugh