This Deadline interview is a dense one, but it raises some critical issues that directly impact producers across film and television. Here’s the full article for anyone who wants to dig in:
https://deadline.com/2026/02/christopher-nolan-interview-ai-healthcare-d...
As newly elected President of the Directors Guild of America, Christopher Nolan makes it clear that a proposed five-year deal with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers is “very, very unlikely,” especially in an industry changing as fast as this one. His reasoning touches on healthcare and pension sustainability, AI protections, backend participation, tax incentives, and the long-term health of domestic production.
A few producer-relevant takeaways stood out to me:
- Longer contracts may offer short-term stability, but could limit flexibility in a rapidly shifting market
- Healthcare and pension funding are becoming a central pressure point across all unions
- AI is no longer theoretical; its impact on copyright, monetization, advertising models, and creative control is already here
- Residuals and backend participation remain essential to sustaining a working middle class in this industry
- Domestic production incentives are still a major concern, with real implications for where and how projects get made
From a producing perspective, these negotiations will shape budgets, timelines, financing models, distribution strategies, and labor relationships for years to come.
I’m curious to hear from producers at different stages:
How are you thinking about long-term labor agreements when planning future projects?
Do AI protections and ad-supported models factor into your current production decisions yet?
What concerns you most about the next round of negotiations, or what gives you hope?
Let’s talk about what this could realistically mean for the work we’re all trying to get made.
4 people like this
Thanks for sharing the interview, Ashley Renée Smith.
4 people like this
There are many issues in consideration for this year's industry negotiations, but the single-most important is the health of the plans which are effectively on life support. While the plans were first impacted by industry shutdowns during COVID, a much larger and lasting impact is from the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes. Given that, the AMPTP/studios will hold a lot of chips at the bargaining table and could very well push for longer terms than the typical 3-year cycles that we've been seeing however unlikely they are to achieve that.
Issues aside, what hasn't been discussed much - and what could lead to some interesting twists - are the many new faces in the room and the changes among the studios. While there are recent articles with interviews of newly elected presidents Sean Astin at SAG-AFTRA and Christopher Nolan at the DGA, the AMPTP also has a new head: Greg Hessinger, who takes the place of long-time head Carol Lombardini (who has retired). Couple that with a change in the negotiation pattern (SAG-AFTRA is going first this cycle instead of the DGA who has gone first the last few cycles), and the yet-to-be-determined outcome of whether Warners will go to Paramount (a Skydance Corporation) or Netflix, it will all be intriguing to see how these things impact the dynamics of the negotiations and the progress each side can make.
3 people like this
Great breakdown of the interview. I'd push back a bit on the AI framing in the original article though.
Take the Disney-OpenAI deal. When people hear "Disney signed a billion-dollar AI deal," they assume AI-generated movies or TV shows. But that's not what this is. It's a consumer engagement tool for fans making short clips with animated characters. It explicitly excludes talent likenesses and voices. Sam Altman described the use case as "a Buzz Lightyear custom birthday card for their kid." That's not a production pipeline threat, but the vague framing lets people fill in their own fears.
Where AI actually shows up in production is more mundane: rotoscoping, background plates, de-aging, pre-viz. These are augmentation tools enabling mid-budget films that wouldn't otherwise get greenlit, not replacement tools.
Here's what doesn't get discussed: tens of thousands of LA production jobs lost over three years weren't primarily AI casualties. They were casualties of Peak TV ending, the 2023 strikes, and California ranking sixth globally for filming behind Toronto, the UK, Vancouver, and others. Many companies also over-hired during COVID, and the AI narrative provides an easy, fictional scape-goat for layoffs that were already in motion.
On AI replacing writers: I teach this in my AI courses. The difference between a beginner using AI versus an award-winning writer is night and day. Talented people using AI will win over just anyone using AI. For the record, I also teach NOT using AI to create story. It's better suited for brainstorming, proofreading, catching plot holes and so on anyways.
Nolan's right that licensing deals need clear pathways back to union members. But conflating fan engagement tools with production threats muddies the conversation producers actually need to have.
The real 2026 questions: How do we protect entry-level pipeline jobs? How do we communicate to producers and studios that every AI tool still needs a human pilot catching errors and creating fixes? What's the consent framework for digital likenesses? Those are answerable. "AI is coming for everything" isn't a strategy.
6 people like this
Nolan is asking the real question: consumer spending on entertainment has been steady, then why is none of that money trickling down to the workers? We're truly seeing the effect of entertainment companies run by Wall Street. Profit over relationships.
6 people like this
Agreed Geoffroy. The difference between how it used to be to the degree it's at now is staggering. : The Entertainment Industry Pay Gap: Key Numbers
The CEO-to-Worker Ratio
AMC Entertainment: 974-to-1 (CEO made ~$11.4 million; median employee made $11,659)
Bob Iger's 2024 compensation: $41.1 million
Disney's CEO-to-worker ratio: approximately 746-to-1
The Zaslav Number
David Zaslav earned $498 million over five years (2018-2022)—roughly 384 times what the average Hollywood writer made. This while WBD's stock dropped about 60% post-merger.
The Long-Term Trend (EPI data, verified)
YearCEO-to-Worker Ratio196521-to-12024281-to-1
CEO pay since 1978: up 1,094%
Worker pay since 1978: up 26%
The Layoffs
Media companies cut over 20,000 jobs in 2023 alone—the worst year since 2020—with further waves continuing into 2024.
5 people like this
A long term agreement sounds great in theory. Who doesn't love the thought of stability? However, with all of the contraction and change over the last few years, it may be ill-advised to enter into a binding agreement without certain assurances. Late last year, Disney and YouTubeTV were quarreling over this very issue and the resolution with a long term deal with opt outs. Perhaps, the DGA and other unions could look to a structure like that as a compromise.
2 people like this
There are so many considerations out there right now- some of it is inherently a must have, some are negotiable when you consider how the industry can shift and change- like when Covid hit- and there are some key things needing to be addressed- like pay gaps, like IP owned by the writers, the state of filming in areas being abandoned because it's not feasible with not just rules and regulations- but the safety of those in the crew and cast. I think in some ways- the Guilds as a whole need to work together- to actually sit down and discuss the evidence and truth of what IS, what should be going forward- and as a team, work toward those goals.
2 people like this
Nolan is right to push for a shorter, more adaptable agreement—the industry is transforming too fast for a rigid five-year deal. His points about sustainable healthcare, AI ownership, and protecting residuals are the foundations for a viable production economy.
2 people like this
Ashley Renée Smith, thank you for sharing. What Nolan highlights here is exactly what many are already feeling on the ground: the industry is shifting faster than any five‑year agreement can realistically hold. From my perspective, the biggest tension is between stability and adaptability. We need contracts that protect workers, but we also need room to respond to rapid changes in AI, distribution models, and global production incentives. What gives me hope is that these conversations are finally happening out loud, with transparency and urgency. I believe we can build something more sustainable for everyone involved.
2 people like this
Loving all of these thoughts and insights! Keep them coming, guys. This conversation will be an ongoing one this year.
2 people like this
This is exactly the conversation we should be having, and I don’t think enough people are asking the right questions yet.
What struck me most about the Nolan interview isn’t whether a five-year deal makes sense or not, it’s that everyone is still debating within a business model that no longer truly exists.
No matter where you land philosophically, the reality is this: the last round of strikes accelerated changes that were already underway. A significant amount of production moved overseas, alternative models filled the vacuum, and a lot of that business simply hasn’t come back. The protections gained were real—but they came with consequences that the industry is still absorbing.
What concerns me is that many negotiations still seem framed around:
increasing pension contributions
increasing minimums
adjusting residual formulas
Those are important issues, but they assume a volume and structure of work that may no longer be sustainable in the same way.
The harder (and more uncomfortable) question is:
How does this industry actually make money now, and how will it make money five years from now?
Because the answer probably isn’t “the same way, but with higher costs.”
As one recent example, look at Iron Lung, a horror film that reached #1 at the box office through self-distribution. That doesn’t mean every film should (or can) do that, but it does prove that alternative models can work when the audience, marketing strategy, and distribution path are aligned.
Someone like Christopher Nolan may never self-distribute his films, even though he could. But that’s exactly the point: different projects require different models and different solutions. There is no longer a single “correct” pathway.
Business models have shifted:
Ad-supported and hybrid distribution is here to stay
Budgets are compressing, not expanding
Development risk has moved upstream
New formats (including verticals and short-form narrative) are growing rapidly, even if they aren’t traditional prestige plays
Ignoring those realities and negotiating purely from legacy assumptions risks protecting a system that fewer projects can afford to operate within.
I don’t have clean answers, and I’m not pretending to. But I do think the conversation needs to expand beyond “how do we preserve the past with better terms?” to “how do we restructure the ecosystem so there’s actually enough work to sustain careers?”
That may mean:
Rethinking backend and participation models
Exploring alternative revenue streams
Accepting that not all growth will look like studio features or premium series
Creating new on-ramps for creators that don’t rely solely on traditional greenlights
If we don’t start engaging with those questions now, there’s a real risk of winning protections on paper while shrinking the actual amount of work available in practice.
Curious how others are thinking about this, especially producers who are already operating outside the traditional studio/streamer pipeline.
1 person likes this
Tony Armer Those are great points and there's an article dealing with theatre exclusivity which can hurt the foundation of the system even more if it's NOT spoken on and things are not looked at in not just an alternative means format, but also as transmedia as a whole. https://deadline.com/2026/02/theatrical-window-end-will-devastate-movie-...
The article says "Nolan affirmed the DGA’s support for a federal film tax incentive, explaining that the union aims to persuade federal lawmakers to consider a stackable 25% rebate that can be combined with state offerings, 'to be competitive with other places in the world that are siphoning production from the United States because of the excellent incentives that they have.'" Do you think a 25% rebate that can be combined with state offerings will be enough to make the U.S. competitive with other places in the world?
1 person likes this
Joshua Young Tax incentives have to change for jobs to come back. Hard to beat the UK with rebates up to 40% that include above the line and talent.