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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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?