Is the Actors Guild union hurting movies?

[MyBlu-rayBrotherEd]

Originally Posted by Gaius Marius

Yup, you especially see that here in California......

....and have you seen Detroit lately?

[DetroitSportsFan]

No, lack of imagination and innovation is hurting movies.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by MyBlu-rayBrotherEd

....and have you seen Detroit lately?

I live here, and was a UAW member for 12 years.

Any questions?

[FlipperWasIrish]

Originally Posted by oppopioneer

Have any of you thought about how possibly the Screen Actor's Guild union could be hurting Hollywood and the movie industry sort of like the question with the unions and the U.S. auto industry?

I do believe that the actor's union is driving up the cost of movies drastically because of pay. Actors/actresses get paid up front before the movie even opens at theaters. As we know many actors make any where from $5 million to $25 million a movie and most the budget goes to the actors and grew. Most actors don't do most of their stunts and many don't do any stunts at all and the increase of CGi where actors stand in front of green screens and don't do any stunts but pretend they're falling off buildings and getting attacked by a monster also shows they are extremely over paid.

There are countless and countless movies that are just ridiculously expensive and are really not good and do not even look like they cost half of what the budget was. For example the movie 'Land Of the Lost' which was rated one of the worst movies of all time cost $100 million dollars to make, and I ask where did all that money go to? These movies are more than the entire GDP of many countries.
Comparison -
Men In Black = $90 million
The Day the Earth Stood Still = $80 million
Matrix = $63 million

Let's say you want to make a movie and the studio gives you a $40 million budget and you want Will Smith to be in it, well he demands $20 million upfront, that's 50% of the budget for one actor.

A better way to make movies is to pay everyone involved after the movie is released and divide up the total box office revenue to the actors and crew and also some of the revenue from dvd and bluray sales.

I have no clue where you get your figures or what your defination of "many" is? Your assumptions lead me to believe you are clueless as to the economics of the industry and the part unions play in supportiing the the overwhelming number of employees (actors, directors & crew) who work hard at there jobs for much less than six and seven figure salaries. Yes, a small number do make high salaries, but that is up to the studios to decide.

You want to change this, use your own money and buy a studio to try your method of production and see if you stay in business, I doubt you will.

[oppopioneer]

Originally Posted by LynxFX

SAG protects the pay and benefits of the 99.5% of the actors that don't make over 50k a year. Same with the DGA and WGA. The whole basis of your argument is utterly flawed and ridiculous.

And how many of those actors do we see in movies and tv shows? Funny how most the movies that come out we see the same 12 to 15 actors and actresses and who ever is the "trendy" overated celeb on People magazine because they got a superior agent and work for a superior talent agency. These unions are NOT making it easier for the lesser known actors and actresses who are making around $50k a year to get their fair shot.

And here comes Miley Cyrus, the next female actress we'll see in lots of movies the next 30 years and most of them will be bombs but she will get the contract because her agency will get the contract for her and get the deal to be in People Magazine and her publicists will set up a date with some other male actor to be "seen" so they can get photographed to sell more celeb gossip magazines. And YES celeb gossip magazines do often decide who gets the movie roles.

[oppopioneer]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

I hate to burst your bubble here pal, but Hollywood is a business.

If you want the big name actors, then you have to pony up the cash.

It's well known that Will Smith will be able to up the box office grosses on a movie, and that's why he demands the big money for his roles.

The people/audience aren't stupid and big names don't sell movies as we see George Clooney, Ben Affleck, Julia Roberts, Jennifer Aniston, Jessica Biel, Jesica Alba, Cameron Diaz aren't drawing big anymore and Will Smith has had many movies that didn't do good at the box office. People prefer a very good movie that catches the imagination of the public instead of celebrities. Hollywood often puts out more bombs than they put out blockbusters.

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Also, paying for a movie after it's filmed doesn't feed the families of the people who are working behind the scenes of the movies. A better way of doing that would be to sign better contracts in Hollywood, but they go with what works.

You can only get better more fair reasonable contracts when the unions bend. The NFL has a good system in place with collective bargaining agreements and it's the #1 most successful sport and possibly business model in the U.S. and doing extremely well in this global recession where the owners and franchises make lots of money, but the players are millionaires too, but they're forced to work harder as they should. NFL players earn their salaries more than any actor/actress does.

Originally Posted by jadedeath

It's also not the Actors alone that are driving up the costs of movies, it's this little concept I like to call 'inflation' it's rare but it does happen, set design costs more, camera operators no longer wish to work for $0.25 an hour, you will be hard pressed to find even backround talent that will work for IOU's {and sometimes Y's} next thing you know bloody interns will start demanding money for getting you coffee...

I agree, and there are ways around that such as hiring people behind the camera who are in film school and students can learn and also pitch in and remove a lot of the high salary people who connect a 20 foot wire from one camera to the mixing machine. Lots of people in the film making process on set can be replaced by film students who want to learn the process and that increases the odds and chances a director and producer will spot them and give them a shot. There are too many people standing around behind the camera, too many and getting paid more than what they're worth!

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Then again, there's also folks that download movies illegally, I mean if some 1000's of people take something and not pay for it, I'm sure that any business will just leave the price on the remaining stock {or for those that wish to actually PURCHASE what they watch/listen to} the exact same. No, they pretty-much have to raise the price in order to make sure that they come close to breaking even.

I agree, it's like what hurt the music industry with Napster and lots of people including fellow musicians attacked Metallica for being against Napster and said it was uncool, well many of these musicians could only perform in studio and couldn't perform live and those songs that were being downloaded are studio recorded songs, so the only musicians making money today are ones that know how to tour live and sound good live on stage because of concert ticket sales. Pearl Jam does sound good live but they and Rage Against The Machine wanted to be political leftist activists against capitalism and they hurt their fellow musicians. The people who support Napster are also the same people who support Net Neutrality which will increase the amount of illegal downloading of Hollywood movies.

[oppopioneer]

Originally Posted by FlipperWasIrish

I have no clue where you get your figures or what your defination of "many" is? Your assumptions lead me to believe you are clueless as to the economics of the industry and the part unions play in supportiing the the overwhelming number of employees (actors, directors & crew) who work hard at there jobs for much less than six and figure salaries. Yes, a small number do make high salaries, but that is up to the studios to decide.

You want to change this, use your own money and buy a studio to try your method of production and see if you stay in business, I doubt you will.

Do you work in the industry? If not well who are you to judge me?

By the way, why doesn't any actor making over $10 million a movie donate their own money to help actors and actresses making very little money in the same unions? Yeah "Do as I say not as I do" just like how most these Hollywood celebs like to say they're liberal and progressive and care for the environment while they live in massive mansions with large carbon foot prints and Sheryl Crow telling us we need to wipe ourselves with only one piece of toilet paper, yeah sure! But hey, if they get scene driving a Toyota Prius I guess that off sets their $30,000 annual electric and gas bill that is 10x the national average. So don't give me any Bill Maher HBO rhetoric hypocrisy.

By the way, it would be almost impossible for anyone to try to start up their own studio in the U.S. that isn't union and isn't in Los Angeles because of the power of the Hollywood industry. We even see California politicians and Governor Arnold Swarzenegger trying to stop movies being filmed in Canada. So both Hollywood and SAG would be against you.

We see so many, millions and millions of people want to be directors and film students who can't break through and the SAG only represents less than 5% of the population of film students and less than 1% of the population in the U.S. that is trying to make movies and get their scripts excepted. I see personal movies filmed on YouTube by young people that are far more intellectual, real and beautiful compared to a lot of Hollywood nonsense that requires no thinking. And that is also how Francis Ford Coppola feels too who Hollywood pushed out.

[Blu-ray Fanatic]

Only Alec Baldwin and the actors behind Film Actors Guild are hurting movies.

[oppopioneer]

Originally Posted by Blu-ray Fanatic

Only Alec Baldwin and the actors behind Film Actors Guild are hurting movies.

That went right over my head, are you being facetious or?

[CarsonDyle]

Let's be real. The fact that Will Smith gets paid before a movie is released has everything to do with the union. The fact that he gets paid 20 million dollars per movie has NOTHING to do with the union.

Google is your friend. The union minimum for an actor is $809/day. If the actor is lucky enough to get a substantial part, the rate is $2808/week. Sounds like a ton -- if you work 52 weeks a year.

If a studio wants to pay Will Smith $20 million dollars, they obviously think it will be worth it in the long run. Same thing with John Travolta. Oh wait -- Travolta doesn't make $20 million dollars a movie anymore. The studios don't think he's worth it. Again, NOTHING to do with the union.

In addition, studios are on to the fact that most stars aren't worth the massive paychecks, which is why so many lesser knowns headline the latest CGI-fests. (Hello, Sam Worthington.) Studios have also began re-structuring deals, so that they pay less money up front to the big paycheck stars. Ocean's Eleven is actually a good example. The stars got paid UNION MINIMUM in order to get the film made at a reasonable price.

Yes, there is a discussion to be had about the role of unions in the American workforce, but actors making millions of dollars have nothing to do with unions.

[oppopioneer]

Originally Posted by CarsonDyle

Let's be real. The fact that Will Smith gets paid before a movie is released has everything to do with the union. The fact that he gets paid 20 million dollars per movie has NOTHING to do with the union.

Google is your friend. The union minimum for an actor is $809/day. If the actor is lucky enough to get a substantial part, the rate is $2808/week. Sounds like a ton -- if you work 52 weeks a year.

If a studio wants to pay Will Smith $20 million dollars, they obviously think it will be worth it in the long run. Same thing with John Travolta. Oh wait -- Travolta doesn't make $20 million dollars a movie anymore. The studios don't think he's worth it. Again, NOTHING to do with the union.

In addition, studios are on to the fact that most stars aren't worth the massive paychecks, which is why so many lesser knowns headline the latest CGI-fests. (Hello, Sam Worthington.) Studios have also began re-structuring deals, so that they pay less money up front to the big paycheck stars. Ocean's Eleven is actually a good example. The stars got paid UNION MINIMUM in order to get the film made at a reasonable price.

I agree with a lot of this and often the studios are going by the free markets and what sells and what doesn't.

Originally Posted by CarsonDyle

Yes, there is a discussion to be had about the role of unions in the American workforce, but actors making millions of dollars have nothing to do with unions.

I don't agree with that and that's naive and not true. Unions still play a huge role and if unions don't play a role then what's the point of having unions in contract negotiations regarding pay?

[FlipperWasIrish]

Originally Posted by oppopioneer

Do you work in the industry? If not well who are you to judge me?

At one time I did, but that was over 30 years ago. I judged you on the basis of your statements. I'm still waiting to hear what you think "many" is? As my best guess is that only a handful have GDPs lower than 233 million you claimed. To me, that is far from many and when I first started to doubt your position. Which is why I asked how you define it.

Originally Posted by oppopioneer

By the way, why doesn't any actor making over $10 million a movie donate their own money to help actors and actresses making very little money in the same unions? Yeah "Do as I say not as I do" just like how most these Hollywood celebs like to say they're liberal and progressive and care for the environment while they live in massive mansions with large carbon foot prints and Sheryl Crow telling us we need to wipe ourselves with only one piece of toilet paper, yeah sure! But hey, if they get scene driving a Toyota Prius I guess that off sets their $30,000 annual electric and gas bill that is 10x the national average. So don't give me any Bill Maher HBO rhetoric hypocrisy.

Many of the well off do support the current and past members of the respective unions who are less fortunate. You're foolish to think otherwise. As for what any actor says, each person makes thier judgement on the value. While I disagree with Sheryl Crow telling people what to do, (IMO) she has a more valid basis for her position when compaired to you throwing out unsupported facts to support what looks like jealousy of stars (for lack of a better word).
[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by oppopioneer

By the way, it would be almost impossible for anyone to try to start up their own studio in the U.S. that isn't union and isn't in Los Angeles because of the power of the Hollywood industry. We even see California politicians and Governor Arnold Swarzenegger trying to stop movies being filmed in Canada. So both Hollywood and SAG would be against you.

I didn't say start I said buy a studio. You are the one that wants to try to change the economics of the industry to your "better way fantasy". Fact, there are many independant film companies, and not all are union. Yet again, you show a lack of knowledge on what you try to speak about.

It's not only California, many states want more films produced in their states. Many films/TV shows are shot in Canada for purely economical reasons due to taxes and other regulations. As for the SAG, they are much more concerned with thier union members getting work than whether its in California, New York or Canada (or even Connecticut and many other places).

Originally Posted by oppopioneer

We see so many, millions and millions of people want to be directors and film students who can't break through and the SAG only represents less than 5% of the population of film students and less than 1% of the population in the U.S. that is trying to make movies and get their scripts excepted. I see personal movies filmed on YouTube by young people that are far more intellectual, real and beautiful compared to a lot of Hollywood nonsense that requires no thinking. And that is also how Francis Ford Coppola feels too who Hollywood pushed out.

I partially agree with you here as I also find some excellent works on YouTube. It is a great avenue for artists to show their work and one that was not around when I was younger. Some of them if they have the desire and luck (this comes into play in many industries) may someday be a paid working member of the profession. Since I have always loved the art, for most of my life I have supported Independent Film makers both financially and with encouragement and/or advice when they hit a bump in the road.

As for breaking through, as with any career, it takes talent, hard work and luck (To say it another way - they have to be fortunate to be in the right place, at the right time and with the required skills).

[oppopioneer]

Originally Posted by FlipperWasIrish

At one time I did, but that was over 30 years ago. I judged you on the basis of your statements.

If you don't mind, were you an actor, actress or what part of the filming creation process and why aren't you today and since those 30 years have you been able to retire comfortably and not have to work?

Originally Posted by FlipperWasIrish

Many of the well off do support the current and past members of the respective unions who are less fortunate. You're foolish to think otherwise.

How so? How much do they give by a % of their own net worth? It's like when celebrities attend fundraisers, the room is full of multi millionaires and they want to raise money for aids or cancer or Africa and at the end of the night they raise around $500,000 bucks which is often less than 5% of their total net worth per celeb. lol

Originally Posted by FlipperWasIrish

As for what any actor says, each person makes thier judgement on the value. While I disagree with Sheryl Crow telling people what to do, (IMO) she has a more valid basis for her position when compaired to you throwing out unsupported facts to support what looks like jealousy of stars (for lack of a better word).

awwww "you're just jealous" as I would expect to hear from a 8 year old.

Well let's let the union give Charlie Sheen and Tom Sizemore a 10th chance while the lower class film student or 50 year old struggling author trying to get her script read gets no chance. And let's all unite behind child molestor Roman Polanski and sign a petition for him and never mention the victim involved. (Kudos to Michael Douglas who has the integrity and honor to not sign the petition at the Cannes Film Festival!). You defend people who wouldn't give you the time of day, keep defending these people, it's like people who worked for BP defending BP no matter what.

Originally Posted by FlipperWasIrish

I didn't say start I said buy a studio. You are the one that wants to try to change the economics of the industry to your "better way fantasy". Fact, there are many independant film companies, and not all are union. Yet again, you show a lack of knowledge on what you try to speak about.

Well I hope the film studio does change and it looks like it's slowly taking baby steps in that direction as we see the growth of bluray and the home theater market with flat screen tv's and 3D tv's you will see less people go to the movies, less ticket sales overall except for the big James Cameron type films that include IMAX but those are few and far between so the unions and studios will have to find ways to come up with other ways to profit and make a living.

Originally Posted by FlipperWasIrish

It's not only California, many states want more films produced in their states. Many films/TV shows are shot in Canada for purely economical reasons due to taxes and other regulations. As for the SAG, they are much more concerned with thier union members getting work than whether its in California, New York or Canada (or even Connecticut and many other places).

Oh please, don't be naive, it's about politics just like with every union, they would cut off their nose to spite their face and organized labor often goes against it's workers. I fear for the safety of any top Hollywood celeb now who appears on Fox News and criticizes Obama, or dare I say....takes a stand against gay marriage and supports the Arizona immigration law!! ohhh noo!!! (Politics comes first!)

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by CarsonDyle

Let's be real. The fact that Will Smith gets paid before a movie is released has everything to do with the union. The fact that he gets paid 20 million dollars per movie has NOTHING to do with the union.

Google is your friend. The union minimum for an actor is $809/day. If the actor is lucky enough to get a substantial part, the rate is $2808/week. Sounds like a ton -- if you work 52 weeks a year.

If a studio wants to pay Will Smith $20 million dollars, they obviously think it will be worth it in the long run. Same thing with John Travolta. Oh wait -- Travolta doesn't make $20 million dollars a movie anymore. The studios don't think he's worth it. Again, NOTHING to do with the union.

In addition, studios are on to the fact that most stars aren't worth the massive paychecks, which is why so many lesser knowns headline the latest CGI-fests. (Hello, Sam Worthington.) Studios have also began re-structuring deals, so that they pay less money up front to the big paycheck stars. Ocean's Eleven is actually a good example. The stars got paid UNION MINIMUM in order to get the film made at a reasonable price.

Yes, there is a discussion to be had about the role of unions in the American workforce, but actors making millions of dollars have nothing to do with unions.

Ya, but obviously you don't understand what it's like being an actor, do you? Yes, $2808 a week is a fantastic pay rate. However, 98% of the actors who get that kind of pay are lucky to get more than 2 or 3 weeks worth of work all year long. Suddenly, when you look at it as $6000 a year, it offers a whole new perspective on the situation.

Hell, I'm an actor and haven't had any work in 2.5 years! That works out to be $0 a week for 144 weeks!

[CarsonDyle]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Ya, but obviously you don't understand what it's like being an actor, do you? Yes, $2808 a week is a fantastic pay rate. However, 98% of the actors who get that kind of pay are lucky to get more than 2 or 3 weeks worth of work all year long. Suddenly, when you look at it as $6000 a year, it offers a whole new perspective on the situation.

Hell, I'm an actor and haven't had any work in 2.5 years! That works out to be $0 a week for 144 weeks!

"Sounds like a ton - if you work 52 weeks a year" was my sarcastic/overly-clever way of saying most actors DON'T work 52 weeks a year. I agree with you. It's hard out there.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by oppopioneer

The people/audience aren't stupid and big names don't sell movies as we see George Clooney, Ben Affleck, Julia Roberts, Jennifer Aniston, Jessica Biel, Jesica Alba, Cameron Diaz aren't drawing big anymore and Will Smith has had many movies that didn't do good at the box office. People prefer a very good movie that catches the imagination of the public instead of celebrities. Hollywood often puts out more bombs than they put out blockbusters.

I'm just going to use George Clooney to prove your example wrong:

His last couple of movies:

The men who stare at Goats:
Production budget: $25 million
Box office: $68 million worldwide

Up in the Air:
Production budget $25 million
Box office: $163 million worldwide

Burn after reading:
Production Budget: $37 million
Box office: $163 million worldwide

Hell, I can keep this going with most of your list, Will Smith:

Seven Pounds:
Production budget: $55 million
Box office: $168 million worldwide

Hancock:
Production budget: $150 million
Box office: {you might want to sit down for this one} $624 million worldwide

I am Legend:
Production budget: $150 million
Box office: $585 million

Will Smith hasn't put out a really big stinker for awhile, and most of his movies make back their money in the box office, and this is why Hollywood is willing to shell out the money for him.

For someone to say that Hollywood puts out more bombs than blockbusters, that's not even really a matter of opinion or personal preference, you're incorrect.

Most of what Hollywood does makes money in one way-shape-or form or another. They have money coming in for a movie with Box office, home video sales, television rights, merchandising etc. There are very VERY few movies in Hollywood that don't make their money back in the long run.

Which is why Hollywood is still around as a business.

You can only get better more fair reasonable contracts when the unions bend.

Bull$#!+, you get better contracts when your negotiators feel like negotiating better contracts, right now the system works for all involved.

The NFL has a good system in place with collective bargaining agreements and it's the #1 most successful sport and possibly business model in the U.S. and doing extremely well in this global recession where the owners and franchises make lots of money, but the players are millionaires too, but they're forced to work harder as they should. NFL players earn their salaries more than any actor/actress does.

Again, B.S. I can name quite a few actors that make more money per year than any NFL player will ever make on an annual basis. For example, if Will Smith makes $20 million per movie, and he made 2 movies in 2008, that's $40 million per that year, how many NFL players make $40 million for one year?

Also, Hollywood isn't the NFL, it's a completely different system that the two aren't even remotely comparable other than saying "they're both businesses" Well, YES, they ARE both businesses, you're right, but Toshiba and Nabob coffee are both businesses, but do they operate the exact same? No, they certainly don't.

I agree, and there are ways around that such as hiring people behind the camera who are in film school and students can learn and also pitch in and remove a lot of the high salary people who connect a 20 foot wire from one camera to the mixing machine. Lots of people in the film making process on set can be replaced by film students who want to learn the process and that increases the odds and chances a director and producer will spot them and give them a shot.

Let me just ask, do you like watching movies?

That's the reason why people make the money that they do in Hollywood, it's BECAUSE producers aren't allowed to just hire people for nothing {like film students} and reap all the rewards.

What you are advocating is for the average person {camera tech, lighting person, gaffer, etc.} to make NO money at all, {or next to nothing} while Hollywood runs off with all the profit.

Which, is kind of silly.

There are too many people standing around behind the camera, too many and getting paid more than what they're worth!

Hollywood works on a system where you pay the best money for the best people, if you don't like it, I'd suggest that you PM me and I'll send you my address, you can ship all of your Blu-ray related equipment and movies to me, and then you can live as a hermit somewhere not wanting to watch anything related to Hollywood ever again. It's the only way for you to avoid that which you do not like so vehemently.

I agree, it's like what hurt the music industry with Napster and lots of people including fellow musicians attacked Metallica for being against Napster and said it was uncool, well many of these musicians could only perform in studio and couldn't perform live and those songs that were being downloaded are studio recorded songs, so the only musicians making money today are ones that know how to tour live and sound good live on stage because of concert ticket sales. Pearl Jam does sound good live but they and Rage Against The Machine wanted to be political leftist activists against capitalism and they hurt their fellow musicians. The people who support Napster are also the same people who support Net Neutrality which will increase the amount of illegal downloading of Hollywood movies.

I agree, but at the same time, it's the folks that download all the time that are hurting the industry as a whole, it means that all the whining and complaining about how "Hollywood puts out crap, whine whine whine!!111!!" and downloading illegally to 'test things out, because I don't want to pay for what I don't like' are just running around in circles chasing their own tails. If Hollywood doesn't get the money from that rental, then it can't go out eventually and produce something that you might like because it won't have the cash to 'get experimental' and just goes with the safe franchises and remakes.

It's the ultimate catch-22 and the most painful logical disconnect that people have today.

Logan

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

I hate to burst your bubble here pal, but Hollywood is a business.

If you want the big name actors, then you have to pony up the cash.

It's well known that Will Smith will be able to up the box office grosses on a movie, and that's why he demands the big money for his roles.

Also, paying for a movie after it's filmed doesn't feed the families of the people who are working behind the scenes of the movies. A better way of doing that would be to sign better contracts in Hollywood, but they go with what works.

It's also not the Actors alone that are driving up the costs of movies, it's this little concept I like to call 'inflation' it's rare but it does happen, set design costs more, camera operators no longer wish to work for $0.25 an hour, you will be hard pressed to find even backround talent that will work for IOU's {and sometimes Y's} next thing you know bloody interns will start demanding money for getting you coffee...

Then again, there's also folks that download movies illegally, I mean if some 1000's of people take something and not pay for it, I'm sure that any business will just leave the price on the remaining stock {or for those that wish to actually PURCHASE what they watch/listen to} the exact same. No, they pretty-much have to raise the price in order to make sure that they come close to breaking even.

In short, they're not really helping, but when movies have budgets on a fairly regular basis of $100million+ I don't think that spending $20million on talent alone is that much of a stretch.

Logan

Agreed in full.

[LynxFX]

Originally Posted by oppopioneer

And how many of those actors do we see in movies and tv shows?

You see them in every single movie and tv-show out there. Perhaps you should stick through the credits sometimes.

[oppopioneer]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

I'm just going to use George Clooney to prove your example wrong:

His last couple of movies:

The men who stare at Goats:
Production budget: $25 million
Box office: $68 million worldwide

haha a budget of $25 million? And how much was Clooney's contract in that? And it made $68 million worldwide? Well then why didn't they make 'Land Of The Lost' for $25 million when it costs $100 million? Again you pick movies with in today's world have some very very small budgets. Even 'Land Of The Lost' made $69 million. How much did Clooney get paid in these movies with quite pathetic budgets? Notice how Clooney isn't doing his Batman big movies anymore. Because they would bomb! lol

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Will Smith hasn't put out a really big stinker for awhile, and most of his movies make back their money in the box office, and this is why Hollywood is willing to shell out the money for him.

You mean like 'Ali' ? with a budget of $110 million and Gross revenue of $87,713,825. Funny you cherry picked many of these small budget movies where they take big pay cuts to make them. Ali was also probably Will Smith's best acting performance to date.

Let's talk about Will Smith's movie: "The Secret Life Of Bees." that cost only $11 million to make, now what was Will Smith's salary in that? It's almost impossible to not make back $11 million at the box office and what if Will Smith charged $20+ million for that film and the other actors and actresses didn't take pay cuts either? It's kind of easy for a movie studio to make back money when the crew takes over a 50% to 65% pay cut to make it and give up their union roots, sort of like how athletes are hated by the unions when they take pay cuts to stay with the same team when other teams offer them more.

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Most of what Hollywood does makes money in one way-shape-or form or another. They have money coming in for a movie with Box office, home video sales, television rights, merchandising etc. There are very VERY few movies in Hollywood that don't make their money back in the long run.

Which is why Hollywood is still around as a business.

How much of the revenue of these movies is made at the box office and how much is made in dvd and bluray rentals, Netflix and all online streaming? Yes Hollywood is still around and had to find extreme ways to make back any money and how Sony/Columbia pictures pushed and begged for bluray to take over the Hollywood format for movies as it made rentals and home theater more popular and movie theaters less money. The fact that Hollywood can't get people out of their homes to want to see movies at the theaters is pretty pathetic unless it's some ultra 3D event. With the increasing use of online streaming and websites that play movies illegally and with the possibility of "Net Neutrality" it will just make it harder for Hollywood to pay back it's budget busters.

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Bull$#!+, you get better contracts when your negotiators feel like negotiating better contracts, right now the system works for all involved.

ahhh b.s. to you, I was in Los Angeles during the Hollywood strike where Jay Leno and the late night comedians went off the air for a few weeks because the actual people who write their jokes for them felt they weren't getting their fair share when in fact Leno, Letterman, Conan and all the others can write and say their own jokes, it's just the unions demand they hire these punks. In fact the jokes were be much funnier and original if the actual comedians were allowed to say their own jokes. What's funny is Ellen Degeneres, Leno, Letterman and many others left the picket line pretty quickly and went back to work. How long was Ellen out there for? lol haha

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Again, B.S. I can name quite a few actors that make more money per year than any NFL player will ever make on an annual basis. For example, if Will Smith makes $20 million per movie, and he made 2 movies in 2008, that's $40 million per that year, how many NFL players make $40 million for one year?

haha that's my point, Hollywood actors/actresses are over paid, they don't do hardly any stunts and many don't do any stunts at all and they get paid to do mostly nothing most the time while they spend most their time in their trailers ro making these ridiculous demands like having 100 bottles of special water, special fruit displays that look like a damn Donald Trump wedding in their dressing rooms and trailers. NFL players and athletes actually earn their pay and put their bodies on the line "risk reward" and every NFL game sellout or fill up any where from 75% to 100% their stadiums that hold 60,000 to 100,000 fans every week and get far higher ratings than any movie on tv.

If James Cameron released his movie on tv only on ABC or CBS or NBC or Fox it wouldn't get not nearly as many viewers as the Superbowl or even a regular NFL game. lol

Hollywood made $9.76 billion in 2008. The Dallas Cowboys new stadium is worth over $1 billion alone. This year's Superbowl was watched by 153.4 million people in one night. How much would a Hollywood movie make if 153.4 million went to see it at the theater's in it's opening Friday night release?

So those actors and actresses are over paid, drive up costs and actually make it harder for the rest of the crew to get pay raises and higher pay in general. And most people don't read the credits so most actors and crew go unnoticed. So Hollywood would do much better if it had proper collective bargaining agreements, the salaries were more evenly divided. The Hollywood unions pay is more divided from the actors to the crew than it is in the NFL from the quaterback to the rest of the players. There are many offensive lineman and defensive lineman who get paid more than the QB and aren't well known.

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Let me just ask, do you like watching movies?

That's the reason why people make the money that they do in Hollywood, it's BECAUSE producers aren't allowed to just hire people for nothing {like film students} and reap all the rewards.

I agree, I'm glad you brought up Producers who have interfered too much in the creative process of the film. Why is the producer who's really only job is to raise funds for the film now involved in hiring actors, crew and even sticking his/her nose into the script? This is why a lot of Hollywood movies are completely stupid and unintellectual because the director has lost 100% creative control and you have some arrogant cocky Producer who should be out playing golf talking on his cellphone away from the set at all times. All his job to do is raise funds/money for the film. Francis Ford Coppola who was begged by Paramount to direct the Godfather Part 2 which he didn't really want to demanded that no studio exec and no producer even show up on set, well he created a classic, first sequel to win Best Picture.

Originally Posted by jadedeath

What you are advocating is for the average person {camera tech, lighting person, gaffer, etc.} to make NO money at all, {or next to nothing} while Hollywood runs off with all the profit.

Which, is kind of silly.

No, I want to see the actors/actresses, directors get paid less and be able to lower the budgets and really you don't need thousands of dollars for a day's work if you sweep the floor or connect a wire and then have an assistant wire checker, and then a 3rd advisor to the assistant wire checker, and then a executive assistant to the 3rd wire advisor to monitor it. It's like a porn set, you got idiots standing around not doing anything but are just there to watch and make like what they're doing is important. We don't need you, we can find ways to plug in a wire and blow the saw dust off the plug outlet.

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Hollywood works on a system where you pay the best money for the best people, if you don't like it, I'd suggest that you PM me and I'll send you my address, you can ship all of your Blu-ray related equipment and movies to me, and then you can live as a hermit somewhere not wanting to watch anything related to Hollywood ever again. It's the only way for you to avoid that which you do not like so vehemently.

Just because I disagree with your crazy outrageous salaries and budgets of some films costing $170 million to make with millions of dollars going to who knows where just like bloated corrupt government social program to stand in front of a camera doesn't mean I don't like movies and I'm very selective of the movies I watch.

Have you made millions in the industry? Are you famous? How much did Clooney pay you to do coffee runs and promise you could hang with him if he used you as a coat rack? If not you shouldn't be defending the less than 3% in Hollywood who make lots of money because it hasn't benefited you. If you were walking in Malibu and were dying of dehydration none of these Hollywood celebs would pi** in your mouth. You're living vicariously through these phonies.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by oppopioneer

haha a budget of $25 million? And how much was Clooney's contract in that? And it made $68 million worldwide? Well then why didn't they make 'Land Of The Lost' for $25 million when it costs $100 million? Again you pick movies with in today's world have some very very small budgets. Even 'Land Of The Lost' made $69 million. How much did Clooney get paid in these movies with quite pathetic budgets? Notice how Clooney isn't doing his Batman big movies anymore. Because they would bomb! lol

What does it matter what Clooney was paid in it? The budget was $25 million, all in.

You mean like 'Ali' ? with a budget of $110 million and Gross revenue of $87,713,825. Funny you cherry picked many of these small budget movies where they take big pay cuts to make them. Ali was also probably Will Smith's best acting performance to date.

Actually, if you check, I picked the LAST 3 movies that Will Smith made.

Let's talk about Will Smith's movie: "The Secret Life Of Bees." that cost only $11 million to make, now what was Will Smith's salary in that? It's almost impossible to not make back $11 million at the box office and what if Will Smith charged $20+ million for that film and the other actors and actresses didn't take pay cuts either? It's kind of easy for a movie studio to make back money when the crew takes over a 50% to 65% pay cut to make it and give up their union roots, sort of like how athletes are hated by the unions when they take pay cuts to stay with the same team when other teams offer them more.

Since when are Athletes hated by unions?

How much of the revenue of these movies is made at the box office and how much is made in dvd and bluray rentals, Netflix and all online streaming? Yes Hollywood is still around and had to find extreme ways to make back any money and how Sony/Columbia pictures pushed and begged for bluray to take over the Hollywood format for movies as it made rentals and home theater more popular and movie theaters less money. The fact that Hollywood can't get people out of their homes to want to see movies at the theaters is pretty pathetic unless it's some ultra 3D event. With the increasing use of online streaming and websites that play movies illegally and with the possibility of "Net Neutrality" it will just make it harder for Hollywood to pay back it's budget busters.

Yup, you're right, Hollywood can't break any box office records.

I was in Los Angeles during the Hollywood strike where Jay Leno and the late night comedians went off the air for a few weeks because the actual people who write their jokes for them felt they weren't getting their fair share when in fact Leno, Letterman, Conan and all the others can write and say their own jokes, it's just the unions demand they hire these punks. In fact the jokes were be much funnier and original if the actual comedians were allowed to say their own jokes. What's funny is Ellen Degeneres, Leno, Letterman and many others left the picket line pretty quickly and went back to work. How long was Ellen out there for? lol haha

That was the writers strike, which union are we talking about here?

haha that's my point, Hollywood actors/actresses are over paid,

They're paid what the business contracts to pay them for.

It's called Economics, you might want to research that some time, if the demand is up for an actor, like say, Will Smith, then the studio pays more to have him in the movie.

they don't do hardly any stunts and many don't do any stunts at all and they get paid to do mostly nothing most the time while they spend most their time in their trailers ro making these ridiculous demands like having 100 bottles of special water, special fruit displays that look like a damn Donald Trump wedding in their dressing rooms and trailers. NFL players and athletes actually earn their pay and put their bodies on the line "risk reward" and every NFL game sellout or fill up any where from 75% to 100% their stadiums that hold 60,000 to 100,000 fans every week and get far higher ratings than any movie on tv.

Movies on TV have already been through the gamut of box office and home video, so obviously they're not going to have the ratings of a live football game.

Also, you might want to check on how 'diva'-ish football players can be, unless you're into professional dogfighting, you don't really have a leg to stand on.

If James Cameron released his movie on tv only on ABC or CBS or NBC or Fox it wouldn't get not nearly as many viewers as the Superbowl or even a regular NFL game. lol

That's why Cameron doesn't do that, because that would be stupid.

If you're going to argue from that standpoint, then you REALLY don't understand business in general, forget Hollywood.

Hollywood made $9.76 billion in 2008. The Dallas Cowboys new stadium is worth over $1 billion alone. This year's Superbowl was watched by 153.4 million people in one night. How much would a Hollywood movie make if 153.4 million went to see it at the theater's in it's opening Friday night release?

And the Dallas Cowboys will be paying for that stadium for the next how many years?

Let's talk last year, how many stadiums would you be able to build just on the gross of Avatar alone?

So those actors and actresses are over paid, drive up costs and actually make it harder for the rest of the crew to get pay raises and higher pay in general.

B.S. Again, research economics.

And most people don't read the credits so most actors and crew go unnoticed. So Hollywood would do much better if it had proper collective bargaining agreements, the salaries were more evenly divided. The Hollywood unions pay is more divided from the actors to the crew than it is in the NFL from the quaterback to the rest of the players. There are many offensive lineman and defensive lineman who get paid more than the QB and aren't well known.

Missed the part where I said that the two businesses weren't comparable didn't you?

[quote]
I agree, I'm glad you brought up Producers who have interfered too much in the creative process of the film. Why is the producer who's really only job is to raise funds for the film now involved in hiring actors, crew and even sticking his/her nose into the script?
[quote]

Again, you obviously don't understand Hollywood if you think that a Producer's job is only to raise capital for the movie.

This is why a lot of Hollywood movies are completely stupid and unintellectual because the director has lost 100% creative control and you have some arrogant cocky Producer who should be out playing golf talking on his cellphone away from the set at all times. All his job to do is raise funds/money for the film. Francis Ford Coppola who was begged by Paramount to direct the Godfather Part 2 which he didn't really want to demanded that no studio exec and no producer even show up on set, well he created a classic, first sequel to win Best Picture.

A lot of Hollywood movies make money. That's their job, it's a business.

No, I want to see the actors/actresses, directors get paid less and be able to lower the budgets and really you don't need thousands of dollars for a day's work if you sweep the floor or connect a wire and then have an assistant wire checker, and then a 3rd advisor to the assistant wire checker, and then a executive assistant to the 3rd wire advisor to monitor it. It's like a porn set, you got idiots standing around not doing anything but are just there to watch and make like what they're doing is important. We don't need you, we can find ways to plug in a wire and blow the saw dust off the plug outlet.

People get paid the going rates as per supply and demand and contract negotiations.

Obviously you have no clue about the pron industry either, seeing as how they have extremely streamlined operations which they only have the most basic crew required and paid for.

That's why they're able to crank out pron movies one after the other for years at a time.

Just because I disagree with your crazy outrageous salaries and budgets of some films costing $170 million to make with millions of dollars going to who knows where just like bloated corrupt government social program to stand in front of a camera doesn't mean I don't like movies and I'm very selective of the movies I watch.

Now you're bringing government into it?

Hollywood has little to do with the government, in fact, they add quite a great deal to taxes and such for various areas that they're in. Take a look at Toronto, they film quite a huge amount of movies here. And they do so because municipalities actually fight it out to see who gets the locations.

Have you made millions in the industry? Are you famous? How much did Clooney pay you to do coffee runs and promise you could hang with him if he used you as a coat rack? If not you shouldn't be defending the less than 3% in Hollywood who make lots of money because it hasn't benefited you. If you were walking in Malibu and were dying of dehydration none of these Hollywood celebs would pi** in your mouth. You're living vicariously through these phonies.

I'll defend whomever I feel like defending.

Just because you don't understand basic economics doesn't mean that people shouldn't point out to you that you're incorrect about MOST of your assumptions about an industry that you clearly don't have any clue about.

Logan