I am altering the deal…pray I don’t alter it any further
- Her probably
I hate how people frame as “Hey look the producers took the risk, so they should get the returns.” They just took a financial risk. It’s literally the easiest risk to take. Ask gamblers. While the crew takes all kinds of risk with the gear, dialogue choices, costume choices, set choices, sacrificing sleep and food for a day here and there, using the hours that they could have spent gambling in the stock market to come with a proper story, planning, practicing and executing it. So yeah these guys definitely deserve a bonus from the success as THEY MADE THE SUCCESS HAPPEN.
So if you build a hotel and generate profit, should you funnel that profit to the people who constructed the hotel?
Actually, if an architect and a construction team invented a revolutionary, hyper efficient, beautiful new way to build hotels that caused revenues to skyrocket gazillion %, they would demand royalties or equity. Furthermore, we already have a model for this: profit sharing, bonuses exist for above the line talent because we acknowledge their labour creates the outsized value. There’s no logical reason that shouldn’t extend to the rest of the crew who sacrifice their time and health to make it happen.
Well I’m not talking about creating an invention. I’m talking about building a product for someone else. If an architect creates a hotel for someone (no matter how insane or swaggy its design), they don’t usually get the profits afterwards. They are paid for that construction job alone. That’s more like what happened with this movie.
That is a false equivalence.
A movie is not a hotel and the film crew is not following a fixed blueprint.
If a construction crew lays bricks perfectly, the hotel’s value stays the same (unless the architect actually makes a design that helps the property’s value to go up in which case they demand profit sharing and equity). But a film crew is creating a unique project. If the camera operator captures a breathtaking shot, the value of the movie skyrockets. if they mess up, it’s worthless. The crew’s creative labor is what actually generates the outsized profit.
Plus, we already give profit sharing to directors and writers because we acknowledge their labor creates the value. Arguing that the rest of the crew (who sacrifice their health and sleep to execute that vision) don’t deserve a slice isn’t logical.
Architecture is art too. Its not just for functional means. Even the paint strokes on a wall can be considered art (how meticulously its done) and something as simple as paint texture can make people continue choosing that hotel.
You just proved my point. If a painter’s meticulous brushstrokes are so unique that they literally drive recurring revenue and make guests keep choosing that hotel, then that painter isn’t just a labourer anymore but a core value creator.
If their specific, artistic choices are generating perpetual, ongoing profit for the owner every year, then logically, they deserve a piece of that ongoing profit.
Similarly if the producer gets to make passive, recurring income off the crew’s recorded artistry forever, the crew deserves a piece of that recurring success. To argue otherwise is to say, Thank you for creating the magic that makes me rich. now go home while I collect the cheques.
Isn’t that typically part of the contract?
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?
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
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.
It’s the same situation in startups, but usually people get a wage and equity, because you don’t generally have much of an option to boost the wage much instead. The project would much rather trade risky equity than have to dig up more cash for higher wages
That “rig” is called a contract lol
Yes, excessively complex contracts that large overpowered corporations get vulnerable people to sign. The massive imbalance in power and knowledge mean that it is rigged and the investors definitely took advantage of this.
Why does every job have to be a lifelong commitment? According to you, they should get rid of all contract jobs and nothing should be a one-off deal?
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
Personally, I’d go farther and just abolish the concept of money. We should have a gift economy instead.
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.
This post reeks of chauvinism
You signed the contract
In today’s upside down topsy turvy world, some judge will probably rescind the contract.
Wack
