Kholi Hicks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2007
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Niceeeeee
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Corporate Hollywood, the distribution problem.
- Thread starter David Rasberry
- Start date
Niceeeeee
Thank you. As you correctly point out, I wasn't expressing political views, I was using this as an example of looking for savings in the wrong places, attacking departments that cost pennies rather than those that cost millions, while at the same time blaming those who are paid the pennies for all of the economic strife. I wasn't making any comments on the government, but in trying make a point it was the first thing that came to mind...
Timothy Eaton
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 413
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Santa Barbara, California
- Website
- www.veritestudios.com
Not political. Really Mike? Let's see - in two posts about the cost of making movies, you have opined about health care and unions, the defense budget vs. social programs, and elicited a federal spending graph from Erik. I like a good political discussion as much as the next guy. This is just not the place to grind your axe and has already taken up too much bandwidth. Give it a rest.
I think you're projecting your own personal views on me. The health care issue is real, and one of the main reasons the IATSE continues to be needed in what is ostensibly a freelance industry. That has nothing at all to do with politics and everything to do with reality. If you ask anyone who works in the industry in a crew position, they would probably tell you the same thing. And I didn't bring up the union issue, the person I was responding to did, and used it as a lightning rod for what he feels is wrong with the industry. I already explained the budget example. I don't grind axes on Reduser (there are a lot of other places to do that, including my own blog), but sometimes it's much easier to explain a point of view if you can give an example or a basis for comparison. If you read it as some kind of political agenda, that's your interpretation, not mine.
Steve Das
Well-known member
Why is healthcare a political issue in the U.S. it should be a humanitarian one.
Why do all govt. workers get health care plans while everyone else is told..
NO health for you.The police get it..damn prisoners in jail even...teachers and fireman check..
..the military and politicians yes..but yet everyone else who wind up
paying all the taxes to fund these government workers are told..
Sorry..it costs too much to keep you healthy. Crazy.
But then I guess we get the government we deserve..just like restaurants get
us the food we deserve..and studios gives us the movies we deserve.
Institutions can only exist by giving people what they want.
If they don't there's no money coming in and they don't survive.
We need to stick to Corporate Hollywood topic here..but since we got stuck on waste issue..
well..it just seems that the bigger anything is...it is
inherently more wastefull..so most likely Defense and Healthcare and Social Programs
all have tons of waste and inefficiencies. And probably Hollywood
films over $100 million have more waste than any other just by the sheer size.
But this is a side issue. The real issue is why people here seem to hate Hollywood films so much ???
...and yet they are the most popular and financially successful movies made in the world...by a longshot.
Last edited:
I agree. My feeling is that it's more about elitism than anything else, the notion that anything that's entertaining can't be worthwhile, even if its only purpose is to entertain. Personally, I think there's lots of room for all kinds of pictures, because there are a lot of people out there who want to see different things. Many people simply want to escape everyday problems and be entertained, and for them, the big tentpole features with lot of stuff blowing up are very appropriate, as are a lot of broad comedies. Others want entertainment for their kids, and for them, the animated features are often a good choice. Others still want deeper studies of the human condition, and for them, serious dramas, both studio and independent, serve that need. The fact is that budget alone doesn't dictate what's worthwhile and what's not. A high budget doesn't mean the picture is worthless, and a low budget doesn't mean it's great. I thought Inception was a good example of a rather high budgeted project with a lot of quality and storytelling worth, but I can also point to any number of low budget features that I thought were a complete waste of time.
Independent filmmakers don't have a monopoly on quality, and studios don't only turn out junk. It's easy to buy into the "studio=evil, indie=good" mentality. But it just doesn't happen to be true.
Finally, someone gets me... This is 100% exactly the reason why I only go by "O". :thumbsup:
I definitely, agree with you guys here. I love Hollywood movies. I'm only arguing against the process because I don't want to see the industry die. Plus, if they can increase efficiency, more movies can be made ever year!
Well, in my personal philosophy I believe that's all a government should be spending money on. The government should only exist to provide us protection and police. Things get screwy when the government get's involved with personal and social issues... because then emotions get involved, politicians pretend to "care" about individuals, people vote for the wrong reasons, ect... Government turns from objective, to subjective... and then chaos ensues.
Kholi Hicks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2007
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I have NO idea why people hate them so much... it baffles me. I'm sure everyone has their reasons and that's fine, but sometimes it seems like jaded and bitter commentary. Not all of the time, but some of the time.
Steve Sherrick
Well-known member
In some ways, you have support in your theories from the likes of filmmakers like David Fincher and Steven Soderbergh. They are big believers in getting a film from concept to screen in the most efficient way possible, but keep in mind that the emphasis is on the efficiency as it relates to them having a thought, an idea and that idea becoming reality quickly. In other words, it's not necessarily always about less is more but rather, whatever it takes to make it happen fast. If it means less people, less hands to pass through then so be it. But it could also be the opposite. Maybe it takes a lot of people to pull it off quickly. Someone like Fincher understands the process, understands what things get in his way, and knows how to push for more efficiency. That's why I think it's important to be on the front lines and see first hand how these things go because it's much easier to figure out what's wrong and how to fix it. As an example, watch this BTS where assistant editor and Fincher talk about finding other ways of doing things.
Joe G.
Well-known member
I wasn't going to bother with this thread since it's been so douchey on so many levels... but...
It's not "defense" when you fly to other people's countries and drop bombs on them. That's "offense" and "belligerence" and "aggression."
The very word embodies a hubristic lie about what your empire actually does with the money.
I have no problem with "defense" (not sure why you capitalized it either, some quasi-religious motivation probably). It's the criminal wars of aggression that bother me (and other non-Americans the world over).
I'm also not fond of the word "entertainment" as a noun. It's the ultimate cop-out, ceding that your art is in fact garbage with no merits other than surface appeal. Art should entertain. The entertaining shouldn't be the entire purpose and totality of it, however. Lots of (soullless hacks) people try to push this line of argument, but I'm not sold.
"Entertainment" for entertainment's sake is mindless distraction. Pretty pathetic as the foundation of a career and or industry.
In my view good movies do more, a lot more.
"Politics aside, Tim and Bryce, are you disputing the fact that Defense is the single largest portion of US Federal spending, or merely ignorant of it?"
It's not "defense" when you fly to other people's countries and drop bombs on them. That's "offense" and "belligerence" and "aggression."
The very word embodies a hubristic lie about what your empire actually does with the money.
I have no problem with "defense" (not sure why you capitalized it either, some quasi-religious motivation probably). It's the criminal wars of aggression that bother me (and other non-Americans the world over).
I'm also not fond of the word "entertainment" as a noun. It's the ultimate cop-out, ceding that your art is in fact garbage with no merits other than surface appeal. Art should entertain. The entertaining shouldn't be the entire purpose and totality of it, however. Lots of (soullless hacks) people try to push this line of argument, but I'm not sold.
"Entertainment" for entertainment's sake is mindless distraction. Pretty pathetic as the foundation of a career and or industry.
In my view good movies do more, a lot more.
If anyone wants to cause harm to an individual or nation, regardless of who is in the right or wrong (again, this is subjective and another discussion entirely), it is only logical to take preventative action. If you wait for an opposing force to act against you, you run the risk of residual damage.
Or in layman's terms... The best defense is a good offense. :thumbsup:
Steve Sherrick
Well-known member
How about 'em Red Cameras. Heard they shoot some darn nice images. 
But useful and often necessary for human well being. Not everything has to teach a lesson. Not everything has to be a deep commentary on some aspect of the human condition. Sometimes one just needs an escape. I don't consider that pathetic, I consider that a basic human need, even if it is often only a temporary one.
And nobody has painted it as "the foundation of a career and or industry." It is just a part of it, and as far as I'm concerned, not always a bad part.
Ivan Kovax
Well-known member
How about 'em Red Cameras. Heard they shoot some darn nice images.
Nah, overrated. They not really 4k
