Hollywood’s current state of failure and the reasons for it

[Cephus]

Right back at ya.

Does Jim Cameron not deserve to share in the profits of Avatar?

James Cameron made $350 million from the first Avatar and $95 million up front for the second. He has it in his contract to make more on the back end. Are you calling James Cameron poor? Should he be out there crying that he's going to lose his house, like Billy Porter is?

Cameron doesn't need to work another day in his life. His net worth right now is in the neighborhood of $800 million. He could make almost 3 Indy 5s out of pocket, although hopefully, he'd do a lot better at it than Disney did.

 

[Cephus]

Actors can go on hundreds of unpaid auditions on their own dime just for the chance to MAYBE book a role - while imperfect, the residual system is supposed to help.

People can go to hundreds of job interviews on their own dime without getting a job. Welcome to the real world.

 

[batguy]

There was something else I was thinking about, since it's come up, but for those claiming that writers deserve to get paid more, but also that they are not responsible for the disasters in the box office because directors and producers can change their scripts whenever they want, why do these people deserve more money since what is shown on screen, it isn't their work?

Bet we won't get any good answers to that, will we?

A car designer follows orders on whether he is drawing up a pickup truck, or an economy car, or a sports sedan. Does that mean he isn't contributing to the design? Come on.

What is so objectionable about these writers striking? I don't get it. They aren't making a lot of money for what they are doing in the big scheme.

I mean, your opinion seems to flip to "Hey, that's just the free market at work" when the subject is Bob Iger. Why is it right & proper for a billionaire to get paid whatever stupid amount the stockholders will offer, but it's a travesty when some struggling writers want to make a skilled blue-collar salary? I honestly don't understand the contradictory attitudes. Is there some other consistency in here that I'm missing?

Maybe this is getting too personal & political and I need to back off a notch.

 

[ghostryder]

People can go to hundreds of job interviews on their own dime without getting a job. Welcome to the real world.

I'm so glad you're here to educate me on how the real world works.

Apologies - I was unaware I was in the presence of a true master.

 

[ghostryder]

James Cameron made $350 million from the first Avatar and $95 million up front for the second. He has it in his contract to make more on the back end. Are you calling James Cameron poor? Should he be out there crying that he's going to lose his house, like Billy Porter is?

Cameron doesn't need to work another day in his life. His net worth right now is in the neighborhood of $800 million. He could make almost 3 Indy 5s out of pocket, although hopefully, he'd do a lot better at it than Disney did.

Cameron gets residuals for writing Avatar. Are you saying he doesn't deserve them?

 

[Paul Andrew]

Why do you basically flip to "Hey, that's just the free market at work!" when the subject is a CEO like Iger? Why is it right & proper for a billionaire to get paid whatever stupid amount the stockholders will offer, but it's a travesty when some struggling writers want a skilled blue-collar salary? I honestly don't understand the contradictory attitudes. Is there some other consistency in here that I'm missing?

When a CEO makes more it's heroic. Altruistic. Virtuous, even.

When the poors make more it's because they're trying to "steal" it from a CEO.

 

[batguy]

When a CEO makes more it's heroic. Altruistic. Virtuous, even.

When the poors make more it's because they're trying to "steal" it from a CEO.

That's a common attitude in our culture and it mystifies me.


But I did re-edit my comment (that you quoted here) because my first pass seemed a bit aggressive/personal. I'm trying to stay civil here.

It was probably inevitable that this topic would turn political & heated. I'm kinda surprised we have made it to 14 pages without a lockup.

 

[Paul Andrew]

That's a common attitude in our culture and it mystifies me.


But I did re-edit my comment (that you quoted here) because my first pass seemed a bit aggressive/personal. I'm trying to stay civil here.

It was probably inevitable that this topic would turn political & heated. I'm kinda surprised we have made it to 14 pages without a lockup.

There's always room for shades of grey in the opinion section here, and I think it's a valid question. I'm not trying to appear as "heated", but I'm tired of this attitude that treats the market as if it were some sort of otherworldly creature that just does what it does, bestows riches upon those it deems worthy and hardship upon those it doesn't.

People made all this **** up. None of it is written in the bedrock of the planet, and none of it is immutable. All it takes is the will of enough people to go "Hey, why are you making more money for all this **** I made and I'm not?"

 

[Cephus]

A car designer follows orders on whether he is drawing up a pickup truck, or an economy car, or a sports sedan. Does that mean he isn't contributing to the design? Come on.

Do they get paid every time one of the cars they designed are sold? Do they get paid every time one of the cars they designed are driven? Of course not. That would be idiotic.

What is so objectionable about these writers striking? I don't get it. They aren't making a lot of money for what they are doing in the big scheme.

I don't see where they're making much worthwhile. The box office and streaming numbers would seem to agree. Someone suggested that maybe they should make a set amount and then, if the show makes it past certain well-defined financial metrics, they get some more. Of course, nobody wants to do that. They just want to show up and get paid, whether their work sucks or not.

I mean, your opinion seems to flip to "Hey, that's just the free market at work" when the subject is Bob Iger. Why is it right & proper for a billionaire to get paid whatever stupid amount the stockholders will offer, but it's a travesty when some struggling writers want to make a skilled blue-collar salary? I honestly don't understand the contradictory attitudes. Is there some other consistency in here that I'm missing?

Maybe this is getting too personal & political and I need to back off a notch.

I find it strange that people can say "Bob Iger shouldn't make so much!" but the second anyone suggests that maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger or James Cameron shouldn't make so much, they crap themselves. Maybe nobody in Hollywood should make that much, then, when these things fail in the box office, they won't be hundreds of millions of dollars in the hole.

I'm not defending Iger or anyone else in Hollywood, it's just strange that there's only one side that anyone is complaining about.

 

[Cephus]

Cameron gets residuals for writing Avatar. Are you saying he doesn't deserve them?

He made $95 million up front for Avatar 2. Are you saying he ought to have more? Why does he deserve to make more when a CEO doesn't, especially considering that the CEO gave him the money to make the movie in the first place?

 

[Cephus]

I'm so glad you're here to educate me on how the real world works.

Apologies - I was unaware I was in the presence of a true master.

Nice way to side-step the issue. This is what you people do. A casting call is nothing but a job interview. If Joe Blow doesn't deserve to get paid for showing up for an interview, an actor doesn't deserve it either.

Now you're trying to back out of it because you got called on your crap.

 

[ghostryder]

He made $95 million up front for Avatar 2. Are you saying he ought to have more? Why does he deserve to make more when a CEO doesn't, especially considering that the CEO gave him the money to make the movie in the first place?

It has nothing to do with the amount - it's the concept. He created Avatar - are you saying he doesn't deserve to share in its success? Why can't you answer the question?

 

[ghostryder]

Nice way to side-step the issue. This is what you people do. A casting call is nothing but a job interview. If Joe Blow doesn't deserve to get paid for showing up for an interview, an actor doesn't deserve it either.

Now you're trying to back out of it because you got called on your crap.

lol, what do you mean, "You people" - ? Called out for what crap? I didn't side step a thing, Brocephus. You're the genius posting ignorant nonsense. The fact you have no idea what an audition entails, what an actors life is really like, or believe writers "sit on their asses" most of the year only highlights this fact.

From another thread:

 

[ghostryder]

 

[robstyle]

Glancing over the talk of a livable wage while working in the entertainment industry.

A friend just left LA after 16 years of making movies, working as a line producer... He made ends meet by driving Uber eats. He isn't the type to sit around and wait for things to happen. He made his own projects happen, created board games and graphic novels. But the cost of living caught up VS the chance of success in the mainstream entertainment industry. It's a fishbowl. You're in or you're not. He left to Atlanta a week ago and already had work before he arrived.

I also see many people complain about the high cost of living, rent, bills..., in southern California in general. Seems the cold hard fact of doing basic finances doesn't apply to many people. If I can't afford to live somewhere id be looking to somewhere that is affordable. Rocky would say that's how winning is done.

I've seen many people with all the skill and creativity as well as the desire and will to succeed in the entertainment industry end up going back home due to the cost of living in socal. For a reality check the indie scene for film making still has the $100 a day mentality. Who would work for that amount you might say, those that are trying to get a foot in the door. With a film crew and new hires nobody hires cold and if they do you're working for free to prove your worth. It's called "intern".
All that said there are two people that i hired as intens that ended up making it over the course of near 30 years. Two people in thirty years. It's that difficult to make it mainstream. I'm talking people getting their first industry gig, not those in and out over time.

 

[HeartBlade]

I like Iger. He gave me a lot of the excitement at the theaters over his tenure but the candle that burns twice as bright lasts half as long. Rumor is he might run for president. If he does I think it would be wise to remember his record. Sure he might blast onto the scene with jobs and roads and profits but can you count on those short term gains?

Yeah, there is the rumor that Iger wants to run for president, hence why he left the company and is planning on writing a memoir. Also why he started injecting “politically correct” messaging and being more outspoken about political issues (even Chapek tried to rein it in once he was CEO).

To be fair, every president has focused on short-term gains to make their presidency look good. The economic cycle doesn’t react immediately to policy changes so presidents on both sides do many policies with short-term gains and let the next guy in 4 to 8 years deal with the mess. People also have short memories so if a President does something “unfavorable” out of necessity (like raise taxes to rebalance the budget), they get voted out for the other guy. Kind of explains why a lot of long term problems persist.

I'm not defending Iger or anyone else in Hollywood, it's just strange that there's only one side that anyone is complaining about.

Bro you’ve been praising Iger and CEOs in general in every post you’ve had with me in this thread.

No one is crying about big actors not making enough and we also talked about it in this thread about how the “movie star” is dead so no one warrants that much which you seem to agree with. And at least this big directors and actors still produce work or make some concrete value like draw audiences to watch their movies. Iger and similar ilk have done nothing but tank the companies they were supposed to maintain.

View attachment 1728031

If this is really true, has anyone thought of the possibility that AI will screw over not the little guy but the big studios?

I don’t think AI is going to replace creativity. Technology has never done that. What is has done was be a force multiplier, allowing teams to complete projects that used to take far more manpower and higher costs for far less manpower and lower costs.

With theaters dead thanks to streaming and sharing sites like YouTube, I wouldn’t be surprised if a couple years from now, good writers with a team of creatives produce the next Star Wars or Jaws and share it on such a site. Why try to live in overpriced SoCal trying to get into an industry plagued by cronyism when you can just make a similar level film in your backyard or rent a cheap location in Oklahoma or somewhere to reduce costs?

We are all talking about the little guy like the big studios are immune but I think it’s feasible that these very giants are the ones to fall with the rise of AI.

 

[batguy]

If this is really true, has anyone thought of the possibility that AI will screw over not the little guy but the big studios?

I don’t think AI is going to replace creativity. Technology has never done that. What is has done was be a force multiplier, allowing teams to complete projects that used to take far more manpower and higher costs for far less manpower and lower costs.

With theaters dead thanks to streaming and sharing sites like YouTube, I wouldn’t be surprised if a couple years from now, good writers with a team of creatives produce the next Star Wars or Jaws and share it on such a site. Why try to live in overpriced SoCal trying to get into an industry plagued by cronyism when you can just make a similar level film in your backyard or rent a cheap location in Oklahoma or somewhere to reduce costs?

We are all talking about the little guy like the big studios are immune but I think it’s feasible that these very giants are the ones to fall with the rise of AI.

It's hard to know because it's hard to predict how much of the final product will come from AI & CGI. It's tempting to say "Actors will go extinct and it will all be CGI/AI" and it's also tempting to say "That fakery will never replace real humans" but the truth is probably in the middle.

I could imagine a future where actors are mainly needed for the closeup 'acting' scenes and a lot of their screen-time is fabricated footage & stand-in doubles with face swaps. Today they use CGI when James Bond hangs from a flying helicopter, tomorrow they will use CGI/AI when he walks across a parking lot. With AI/CGI help they could whittle down the number of real actor shots to a bare minimum of the most important drama scenes.

I mean, we just saw an 'Indiana Jones' movie where they rolled cameras for 3 months while Harrison Ford was sitting out injured. There were some rickety CGI shots in the final cut but that was down to corner-cutting. The tech is capable of getting a big portion of the movie done without the star actor. The current work-around method is filming a body double and then using CGI to map the star's face onto him. Tomorrow they will fabricate the whole shot with AI.


I think we might see a new generation of upstart independent studios. Not located in Los Angeles, not hiring their unions/guilds, etc. They will get stuff done at lower production value and much lower cost.


In the longer run, I think it's very possible that AI learns to dupe human creativity so well that most human filmmaking dies out. Nothing will kill it entirely but that's not the point. Movies didn't kill live theater in the early 1900s but they sure made a dent in the live theater business.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

View attachment 1728031

I think this makes a great point regarding how much of a writer’s work never turns into an actual project.

I imagine a lot of a writer’s time is spent on creating and “pitching” a story that never actually gets “sold” or “picked-up” by the studio.

That has to be pretty rough.

 

[Moviefreak]

It has nothing to do with the amount - it's the concept. He created Avatar - are you saying he doesn't deserve to share in its success? Why can't you answer the question?

And don’t forget James Cameron owns the Avatar rights. Disney just distributes it. He created it. He wrote it. He owns the rights. So of course he deserves to make the most out of everyone.

 

[Tan Djarka]

I was watching a documentary series about films in the years 1982 (the best year ever!). In it Dean Devlin said he was talking to the studio exec who greenlit "Independence Day", who confessed he likely wouldn't push it through today. Why? Because it wasn't called "War of the Worlds".

That's the problem. Show business is a business after all. A business which is understandably risk averse, given they money the spend on the average movie. But may be they're too risk averse? What we end up with is reboots, remakes, sequels, and nothing that strays too far from known and bankable commodities.

Heck, even the best, most original film of last year, "Everything Everywhere All at Once" piggybacked on the multiverse concept popularized in the MCU. Though, to be fair, it was produced by A24, which does appear to value artistic merit over box office returns.