3 ms·

You really missed the point. We're talking about a Hollywood production making 220 millions, not a couple of people running a show for a small town of 300 peop

You really missed the point. We're talking about a Hollywood production making 220 millions, not a couple of people running a show for a small town of 300 people. You do understand that this is exploitation right? Paying someone 250k and profiting 220 millions? I'm not on the position to give anything to the guy because he was not asking for it. Since the Hollywood production made a fortune on his, they could've at the very least provided him with a normal life for the time he was around.

SideQuark 4y ago
> You really missed the point. Exactly. It's always those with the most excuses about why they won't spend their own money on something who are loudest about wanting to spend other's money on it. Again, "Once you understand why you gave zero, you're closer to understanding why someone else didn't give a million". >Paying someone 250k and profiting 220 millions? Profiting $220M? This is complete nonsense. The movie cost $60M to make. It had a box office ticket sales of $220m. Those ticket sales are not "profit" - some goes to theaters, some goes to pay back the $60M + interest. Some is spent on marketing. Calling revenue profit is untrue no matter how you slice it. And the exposure the movie brought to the story likely added far more to helping the man than the money they paid for him. You have a very misguided understanding of this. >You do understand that this is exploitation right? Yes, if we could just ban making movies about any topic unless everyone in the entire chain is provided a life of luxury then we'd all be just fine. Except movies bringing many important issues to the wider masses would not happen, and there would likely be more, not less, exploitation in the world since no longer could filmmakers choose important social topics, because some internet troll isn't happy about people not being paid millions. So, if you really want to help people, and not just rant about spending other people's money, get out there, donate, spend time, or whatever, helping those around you.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

SideQuark 4y ago

> You really missed the point. Exactly. It's always those with the most excuses about why they won't spend their own money on something who are loudest about wanting to spend other's money on it. Again, "Once you understand why you gave zero, you're closer to understanding why someone else didn't give a million". >Paying someone 250k and profiting 220 millions? Profiting $220M? This is complete nonsense. The movie cost $60M to make. It had a box office ticket sales of $220m. Those ticket sales are not "profit" - some goes to theaters, some goes to pay back the $60M + interest. Some is spent on marketing. Calling revenue profit is untrue no matter how you slice it. And the exposure the movie brought to the story likely added far more to helping the man than the money they paid for him. You have a very misguided understanding of this. >You do understand that this is exploitation right? Yes, if we could just ban making movies about any topic unless everyone in the entire chain is provided a life of luxury then we'd all be just fine. Except movies bringing many important issues to the wider masses would not happen, and there would likely be more, not less, exploitation in the world since no longer could filmmakers choose important social topics, because some internet troll isn't happy about people not being paid millions. So, if you really want to help people, and not just rant about spending other people's money, get out there, donate, spend time, or whatever, helping those around you.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]