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.
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.
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.
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:
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?