I am altering the deal…pray I don’t alter it any further
- Her probably
These kind of films should really be run like a startup, people get wages for doing the work and also get equity of it takes off. But it’s rigged so the investors get all the gains, while the workers really get paid a tiny amount
That “rig” is called a contract lol
People come at this one case as if success was a foregone conclusion. This level of financial success was absolutely not a sure thing for a movie made by 2 YouTubers, even if it was good. Plenty of people would negotiate away their equity stake for an increased wage (which would be a good choice in many cases), and some of them would then complain afterwards if it succeeded. Plenty of movies flop. As a person whose work cannot guarantee it even primarily influence success or failure, it makes no sense to trade guaranteed wages for equity in most cases.
If they did that then there might be more people like George Lucas. You think movies will let a director have a percentage of toy sales after they made that mistake with him? Nah that’s more money for them.
Or obi wan, getting what 1? 2? % of gross man made serious bank.
Article: Someone being entirely reasonable regarding the crappy economical context of their contributions to a successful project.
Post title: “A case of sour grapes”
Hmm lets see - The work was 20 days of “art directing” (i.e. telling other artists what to do). How much do you think that’s worth?
This post reeks of chauvinism
Capitalism is when the profits from the movie go to the people who put money into the film in the beginning. That’s the people who already had money!
We need an economic system where the profits from the movie go to the people who actually did the work, regardless of how much money they already have.
The theory is that the people putting the money into it are the ones taking the risk. If you sign on as an employee you get paid no matter if the film is a flop that never makes its budget back or an unexpected success.
If the rates are low, she could have potentially negotiated a clause in her the contract for a cut of the profits or a bonus. Alec Guiness did that for Star Wars when no one anticipated how big a hit it would become and made millions. But the Art Director in the article is now looking at things in hindsight when it’s easy to say what she should/could/would have done.
To me it’s very sad that someone gained 200m and never thought about just giving 100m or at least 20 or 50m to the people that made it possible. I would’ve. That would be decent and also creates a loyal crew for my next project.
I would still raking enormous profits. Why do people never have enough? Even a measly 50k bonus means a difference for someone living paycheck to paychrcl and would not even have scratched the profits.
Some people can afford to risk 750 thousand dollars. Some people are living paycheck to paycheck and can’t afford to risk one day’s work. Capitalism is supposed to be fair because you get back what you’re willing to risk. But it’s not fair, because we didn’t all start with the same privileges.
If you can’t afford to risk 750 thousand dollars on a movie, then the system is working against you.
Having more initial resources then the other guy has nothing to do with capitalism. Your problem is with ownership.
Yes, I’m against corporate ownership of property. I do not think anyone should be able to own the tools that artists use to do their jobs.
I believe the compensation structure should generally be based on a percentage. While risk certainly influences the final share distribution, the labor contribution should also be factored in. This isn’t required now, obviously, but I think it’s generally fair and a more fair world is what I want to live in.
For this to work you would have to specific ban those workers from being allowed to negotiate away their percentage in exchange for guaranteed wages. Because many people would want to make that trade for good reason, because these types of out-of-the-blue success stories are are the exception not the rule.
Compensation for work should be twofold:
- a fixed rate pay for the work actually being done (because no matter the success or failure, you put the work in)
- a percentage of the profits if the product is successful.
Investors should not be able to claim any more than, say, 50% over their initial investment. That’s already much, much better than any return rate you’d get on other investments, and it would actually benefit those who put in the work, and not the guy who had some spare change to gamble on something (that spare change being a life changing amount for any single person).
Now the film cost 750k to produce. Let’s say that marketing and such cost 9 million (it didn’t but let’s presume). That is 210 million pure profit.
750k for sets, props, costumes and salaries. Presuming around 500k went to salaries, that’s ~90 people making that ~7k each (obviously different roles make different amounts but let’s equalise here).
Now, if the investor took 10 million, that’s still a 1300+% return on the investment! And the remaining 200 million, would mean over $2mil payout per person for the entire crew.
Which, in my opinion, would be the fair split. Average people could never even become near that kind of ROI on any kind of gambling, and the investors here literally just put the money on the table. They didn’t do anything else.
Yeah according to her logic, if the film did really badly, she now has to pay back her wages. lmao
By that logic, she’d get nothing because art directors only tell other people to work lol
You mean a contract?
It think that everyone who made the film possible should share equally in the spoils, regardless of what contract they signed.
Bruh she worked a total of 20 days
Big dawg, she’s isn’t going to get what she wants. There is no need to manage public opinion for free.
You signed the contract
In today’s upside down topsy turvy world, some judge will probably rescind the contract.
Wack
