ZacKing Posted February 27 Posted February 27 18 minutes ago, Ghost said: Studios were in better shape back in 94 then now. For the record, a million in 94 would be 2.1 now. Still a tiny budget for a movie (imo) Hey if you want to consider 1 million plus dollars "tiny" and pocket change, more power to you. I think it's a lot of money and I don't think most studios are happy to willy-nilly piss that kind of money away. You're welcome to disagree. Also, I didn't make any claims about studios being better or worse off 30 years ago. I just said 1 million in 1994 is worth more today. 1 1
Ghost Posted February 27 Posted February 27 2 minutes ago, ZacKing said: Hey if you want to consider 1 million plus dollars "tiny" and pocket change, more power to you. I think it's a lot of money and I don't think most studios are happy to willy-nilly piss that kind of money away. You're welcome to disagree. Also, I didn't make any claims about studios being better or worse off 30 years ago. I just said 1 million in 1994 is worth more today. Hey, not tiny money to me. I still stop and pick up dimes when I see em 😀 I just think it’s nothing to the studios - it wouldn’t surprise me to find out their catering budget is bigger than that on most movies. The way they piss away money makes me think they have no clue whatsoever.
PeregrineFalcon Posted February 27 Posted February 27 34 minutes ago, Ghost said: I do find it odd that the first Madame Web thread was locked because someone came in and started arguing semantics, and now it’s starting in this Madame Web thread. Oh that's standard procedure on forums, including this one, now days. People will come into a thread, stir up trouble, and then when they get push back they move the goal posts "I don't believe you because your 'tone of voice' that I hear when I read your posts", "I don't believe you because you didn't cite sources", "I don't believe you because your sources aren't credible", etc, etc, etc. And then, when that doesn't work, they report a bunch of posts and cry to the moderators about [REDACTED] and then the mods lock the thread. Unfortunately this has the effect of allowing the crybullies to control what people are allowed to discuss because the moderators go along with it in order to decrease their workload. I keep having these discussions because I'm hoping that if I present facts enough times that eventually some of them will sink in. I think that's what the kids refer to as "gatekeeping." 1 1 Being constantly offended doesn't mean you're right, it means you're too narcissistic to tolerate opinions different than your own.
battlewraith Posted February 27 Posted February 27 10 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said: Oh that's standard procedure on forums, including this one, now days. People will come into a thread, stir up trouble, and then when they get push back they move the goal posts "I don't believe you because your 'tone of voice' that I hear when I read your posts", "I don't believe you because you didn't cite sources", "I don't believe you because your sources aren't credible", etc, etc, etc. And then, when that doesn't work, they report a bunch of posts and cry to the moderators about [REDACTED] and then the mods lock the thread. Unfortunately this has the effect of allowing the crybullies to control what people are allowed to discuss because the moderators go along with it in order to decrease their workload. I keep having these discussions because I'm hoping that if I present facts enough times that eventually some of them will sink in. I think that's what the kids refer to as "gatekeeping." That's an interesting perspective. Here's mine: I think that the previous thread probably got locked because it had more or less fizzled out in terms of making any actual points. It was dormant for a period of time, and then somebody started it up again, at which point some mod decided to put a stake into it. Then hilariously it was picked again here in a more toned down version that's more or less people aggrieved by studios pissing away money on bad projects. Oh the humanity. I don't see a group of crybullies trying to control what you want to discuss. What I see primarily are an aging cohort of liberals (which makes sense for an old superhero MMO). I don't mean liberal in a political sense, as in liberal Democrat. I mean it more in the philosophical sense--as someone who takes the individual as the point of departure for viewing life in general. The liberals on the right complain about wokeness. The liberals that are more moderate or even left leaning complain about quotas, people checking boxes, etc. That is more typical of the posters here. A lot of people in general try to cite things and yes a lot of it is just garbage (i.e. opinion pieces by youtubers). 1 1
Frostbiter Posted February 27 Posted February 27 I see events a little differently. I made a post speculating what the reasons for Sony Studios making this picture might be and immediately received several rude replies in response. Then I get called a troll and taken to task by another poster for asking where someone else got a number from. Everyone sees things a little differently I guess. 1 Torchbearer Discount Heroes SG: Frostbiter - Ice/Ice Blaster Throneblade - Broadsword/Dark Armor Brute Silver Mantra - Martial Arts/Electric Armor Scrapper
Game Master GM Crumpet Posted February 27 Game Master Posted February 27 Movies need to make roughly twice to two and a half times their budget to break even. Cinemas take half the box office for themselves so if a film cost 100 million to make, add another 50 million for advertising (being on the low side) a film needs to make around 350 million just to break even. Movie budgets are often under reported as the cost of reshoots can double the stated budget. In the case of Madam Web all the dialogue was redone (badly) and sometimes you can see the lips move out of synch to the dialogue. Personally I would double the movies stated budget so 500 to 600 million would be needed to break even. 2
Frostbiter Posted February 27 Posted February 27 2 minutes ago, GM Crumpet said: Movies need to make roughly twice to two and a half times their budget to break even. Cinemas take half the box office for themselves so if a film cost 100 million to make, add another 50 million for advertising (being on the low side) a film needs to make around 350 million just to break even. Movie budgets are often under reported as the cost of reshoots can double the stated budget. In the case of Madam Web all the dialogue was redone (badly) and sometimes you can see the lips move out of synch to the dialogue. Personally I would double the movies stated budget so 500 to 600 million would be needed to break even. Morbius suffered from the same reshoot issues at times. Both of these movies have been a mess. I'm very interested in seeing where Sony is going with these. I'm trying not to have some hope for Kraven the Hunter because I suspect I'll be disappointed. Torchbearer Discount Heroes SG: Frostbiter - Ice/Ice Blaster Throneblade - Broadsword/Dark Armor Brute Silver Mantra - Martial Arts/Electric Armor Scrapper
PeregrineFalcon Posted February 27 Posted February 27 16 minutes ago, Frostbiter said: I see events a little differently. I made a post speculating what the reasons for Sony Studios making this picture might be and immediately received several rude replies in response. Then I get called a troll and taken to task by another poster for asking where someone else got a number from. Everyone sees things a little differently I guess. If I was one of the "rude replies" then I apologize. In my defense I'll say only that I was not happy when it appeared to me that you were calling Ghost a liar. While I stand by what I said about standard forum behavior, perhaps I misunderstood yours. Unfortunately, given constraints here, that's the best that I can explain my actions. Peace. Being constantly offended doesn't mean you're right, it means you're too narcissistic to tolerate opinions different than your own.
Luminara Posted February 27 Posted February 27 16 minutes ago, Frostbiter said: I'm very interested in seeing where Sony is going with these. 2 4 Get busy living... or get busy dying. That's goddamn right.
Frostbiter Posted February 27 Posted February 27 40 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said: If I was one of the "rude replies" then I apologize. In my defense I'll say only that I was not happy when it appeared to me that you were calling Ghost a liar. While I stand by what I said about standard forum behavior, perhaps I misunderstood yours. Unfortunately, given constraints here, that's the best that I can explain my actions. Peace. You weren't. However, I've only agreed to one set of rules here and they are not yours. Consider me lawful/evil if you need to, but I only honor agreements I've actually made. 1 Torchbearer Discount Heroes SG: Frostbiter - Ice/Ice Blaster Throneblade - Broadsword/Dark Armor Brute Silver Mantra - Martial Arts/Electric Armor Scrapper
PeregrineFalcon Posted February 28 Posted February 28 4 hours ago, Frostbiter said: You weren't. However, I've only agreed to one set of rules here and they are not yours. Consider me lawful/evil if you need to, but I only honor agreements I've actually made. Being constantly offended doesn't mean you're right, it means you're too narcissistic to tolerate opinions different than your own.
Excraft Posted February 28 Posted February 28 17 hours ago, GM Crumpet said: Movies need to make roughly twice to two and a half times their budget to break even. Cinemas take half the box office for themselves so if a film cost 100 million to make, add another 50 million for advertising (being on the low side) a film needs to make around 350 million just to break even. Movie budgets are often under reported as the cost of reshoots can double the stated budget. In the case of Madam Web all the dialogue was redone (badly) and sometimes you can see the lips move out of synch to the dialogue. Personally I would double the movies stated budget so 500 to 600 million would be needed to break even. This seems very likely and does beg the question - who at Sony thought this movie would be able to bring in that kind of money to even come close to breaking even, let alone turn a profit? I think what @ZacKing said earlier about sunk costs makes sense and that's a big part of what's going on. It certainly seems to me that studios are reluctant to give up on the superhero genre since they've already invested so much money in it. That and I agree with those who've said Hollywood way overspends in general, specifically way, way, way too much on actors. It's insane the amount of money being paid to some of them, especially when you have SAG/AFTRA going on strike over wages and such. 17 hours ago, Frostbiter said: Morbius suffered from the same reshoot issues at times. Both of these movies have been a mess. I'm very interested in seeing where Sony is going with these. I'm trying not to have some hope for Kraven the Hunter because I suspect I'll be disappointed. I don't disagree, although I'd say I don't have much hope at all for Kraven coming anywhere remotely close to breaking even either. He's not that interesting a character in my opinion and certainly isn't one that would be a box office draw. Personally, I think Sony is better off selling the Spider-Man rights back to Disney and pocketing the cash. Certainly a better investment than churning out turd after turd that's bleeding them dry. 1 1
battlewraith Posted February 28 Posted February 28 25 minutes ago, Excraft said: That and I agree with those who've said Hollywood way overspends in general, specifically way, way, way too much on actors. It's insane the amount of money being paid to some of them, especially when you have SAG/AFTRA going on strike over wages and such. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_system_(filmmaking) "The phenomenon of stardom has remained essential to Hollywood because of its ability to lure spectators into the theater. Following the demise of the studio system in the 1950s and '60s, the star system became the most important stabilizing feature of the movie industry. This is because stars provide film makers with built-in audiences who regularly watch films in which their favorite actors and actresses appear.[7] Contemporary Hollywood talent agencies must now be licensed under the California Labor Code, which defines an agent as any "person or corporation who engages in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising, or attempting to procure employment for artist or artists."[8]: 167 Talent agencies such as William Morris Agency (WMA), International Creative Management (ICM), Creative Artists Agency (CAA), and many more started to arise in the mid-1970s. CAA created new ways of marketing talent by packaging actors, agencies are able to influence production schedules, budgeting of the film, and which talent will be playing each particular character. Packaging gained notoriety in the 1980s and 1990s with films such as Ghostbusters, Tootsie, Stripes, and A League of Their Own (three of which star Bill Murray). This practice continues to be prominent in films today such as Big Daddy, Happy Gilmore, The Waterboy, and Billy Madison (all of which star Adam Sandler). The ease of selling a packaged group of actors to a particular film ensures that certain fan groups will see that movie, reducing risk of failure and increasing profits." 2
Excraft Posted February 28 Posted February 28 6 minutes ago, battlewraith said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_system_(filmmaking) Right, so there you go. Hollywood way overspends on actors and actresses. 1
battlewraith Posted February 28 Posted February 28 3 minutes ago, Excraft said: Right, so there you go. Hollywood way overspends on actors and actresses. Ummm no. Let me quote this for you again: 16 minutes ago, battlewraith said: The ease of selling a packaged group of actors to a particular film ensures that certain fan groups will see that movie, reducing risk of failure and increasing profits. 15 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Following the demise of the studio system in the 1950s and '60s, the star system became the most important stabilizing feature of the movie industry. This is because stars provide film makers with built-in audiences who regularly watch films in which their favorite actors and actresses appear. Does Tom Cruise deserve to make more money for a day's work than say a heart surgeon? According to the market yes, because Tom Cruise will bring in an audience of fans that will significantly increase the odds of a film making a lot of profit. 2
PeregrineFalcon Posted February 28 Posted February 28 30 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Does Tom Cruise deserve to make more money for a day's work than say a heart surgeon? According to the market yes, because Tom Cruise will bring in an audience of fans that will significantly increase the odds of a film making a lot of profit. Yes, Tom Cruise does deserve to make more money than a heart surgeon! Now feel free to tell me why I'm a horrible evil monster. 1 Being constantly offended doesn't mean you're right, it means you're too narcissistic to tolerate opinions different than your own.
battlewraith Posted February 28 Posted February 28 15 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said: Now feel free to tell me why I'm a horrible evil monster. Sorry "horrible evil monster" is a competitive position and you don't make the cut. As I indicated, there are metrics where Tom Cruise deserves more than what the heart surgeon makes. Tom is going to bring in money for the studio, far more than the heart surgeon as an individual will for the hospital. But it shouldn't take a great deal of imagination to see how perverted and stupid that is as a compass for what people are worth. The person who is literally saving lives is worth less than the actor who is making Top Gun movies a financial success. Regardless, this is in response to the comment that some actors are paid way too much. With regards to how the industry works--no. The actors that are paid that much money are brought in because they have a fanbase and a track record of success with audiences. 1
ZacKing Posted February 28 Posted February 28 (edited) 2 hours ago, battlewraith said: Does Tom Cruise deserve to make more money for a day's work than say a heart surgeon? According to the market yes, because Tom Cruise will bring in an audience of fans that will significantly increase the odds of a film making a lot of profit. See now, here you go again trying to distort a conversation and trying to argue your opinions as facts. This isn't the conversation at all. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anyone suggesting Tom Cruise shouldn't make more than a heart surgeon. If you can find where that's expressly stated, I'd love for you to direct quote it since I must have missed it. The argument you're trying to make here is nonsensical because no one has suggested anything of the sort. It's you looking to start an argument over opinions just for the sake of arguing.... again. 1 hour ago, battlewraith said: Regardless, this is in response to the comment that some actors are paid way too much. I think you've missed the point (again) and still haven't learned the difference between opinion and fact. How much is too much is the subjective question. What dollar amount constitutes "too much" is an opinion that's going to vary from person to person. @Ghost and I were debating whether a million dollars is a lot of money to a studio. We weren't discussing facts, we're sharing opinions. Neither of us are right or wrong. Now, is Tom Cruise worth the 70 to 100 million he makes per movie? Not to me, but I'm not really a big fan of his, especially since he's made some real turds before. Is RDJ worth the 450+ million he's made doing Marvel movies? Personally, I don't think so, but that's my opinion, not a fact. I think that kind of money is way too much money for one actor to make, especially given that there's quite a lot of very talented people in SAG/AFTRA who are struggling to make minimum guild wages because they haven't gotten their "big break" yet. That's what I believe the conversation was about. Maybe the Tom Cruises and RDJs can take a pay cut to help those fellow guild members out? Again, that's just an opinion not a fact though. You may feel differently and there's nothing wrong with that. You're welcome to your opinion. Edited February 28 by ZacKing 2
ZacKing Posted February 28 Posted February 28 21 hours ago, Frostbiter said: I'm trying not to have some hope for Kraven the Hunter because I suspect I'll be disappointed. I just can't see Kraven the Hunter being a good movie. Maybe I'll be wrong, but I personally think it's safe to say this is going to be another one to toss onto the steaming turd pile right next to Madame Web. 1 1
PeregrineFalcon Posted February 28 Posted February 28 1 hour ago, battlewraith said: As I indicated, there are metrics where Tom Cruise deserves more than what the heart surgeon makes. Tom is going to bring in money for the studio, far more than the heart surgeon as an individual will for the hospital. But it shouldn't take a great deal of imagination to see how perverted and stupid that is as a compass for what people are worth. The person who is literally saving lives is worth less than the actor who is making Top Gun movies a financial success. Yes. Because the market determines worth based solely on value generated not on emotions. Using your emotions to determine value then every nurse and school crossing guard should make way more than Tom Cruise does. The only problem with that is that no economy imaginable could possibly work that way. So yes. Tom Cruise deserves to make as much as ten heart surgeons and the market agrees with me, which is why he does. Being constantly offended doesn't mean you're right, it means you're too narcissistic to tolerate opinions different than your own.
battlewraith Posted February 28 Posted February 28 5 minutes ago, ZacKing said: See now, here you go again trying to distort a conversation and trying to argue your opinions as facts. This isn't the conversation at all. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anyone suggesting Tom Cruise shouldn't make more than a heart surgeon. If you can find where that's expressly stated, I'd love for you to direct quote it since I must have missed it. The argument you're trying to make here is nonsensical because no one has suggested anything of the sort. It's you looking to start an argument over opinions just for the sake of arguing.... again. Well first of all, nobody as far as I know is forcing you to engage with or respond to my comments, none of which were directed towards you. If you want to get pissy over it fine, but don't whine to me about arguing.... again, when you are butting in and getting pointlessly emotive.... again. Nonetheless, I will try to break this down for you in simple terms: Excraft said this: "That and I agree with those who've said Hollywood way overspends in general, specifically way, way, way too much on actors. It's insane the amount of money being paid to some of them, especially when you have SAG/AFTRA going on strike over wages and such. " Do they get paid too much or not? From what perspective. With respect to the actual history and economics of the industry the answer is no. Promoting and hanging the success of films on bankable stars is the default business model of Hollywood. That's not a matter of opinion. THAT is the factual aspect of this conversation. You're tying yourself in knots over this fact vs. opinion nonsense, in response to me criticizing someone's opinion based on the facts of how the industry has historically operated. And yes, I added the heart surgeon example to indicate a different way of looking at things. Should I send a written request to your office first before I add things to the conversation? It is deeply troubling how much that throws you. 1 2
Excraft Posted February 28 Posted February 28 2 hours ago, battlewraith said: Does Tom Cruise deserve to make more money for a day's work than say a heart surgeon? According to the market yes, because Tom Cruise will bring in an audience of fans that will significantly increase the odds of a film making a lot of profit. 1 hour ago, battlewraith said: As I indicated, there are metrics where Tom Cruise deserves more than what the heart surgeon makes. Tom is going to bring in money for the studio, far more than the heart surgeon as an individual will for the hospital. What a fantastic response to a statement I never made. Great job! 👍 17 minutes ago, ZacKing said: Now, is Tom Cruise worth the 70 to 100 million he makes per movie? Not to me, but I'm not really a big fan of his, especially since he's made some real turds before. Is RDJ worth the 450+ million he's made doing Marvel movies? Personally, I don't think so, but that's my opinion, not a fact. I think that kind of money is way too much money for one actor to make, especially given that there's quite a lot of very talented people in SAG/AFTRA who are struggling to make minimum guild wages because they haven't gotten their "big break" yet. That's what I believe the conversation was about. Maybe the Tom Cruises and RDJs can take a pay cut to help those fellow guild members out? You're correct in your assessment @ZacKing, thank you. My comment was more about my personal opinion that many big name actors are overpaid in general. And I agree, many of them are way overpaid, especially with so many other very talented people in SAG/AFTRA and the WGA who are really struggling to find work. To me, someone like Tom Cruise getting paid 100 million for a movie is too much. He's probably worth upwards of 500 million, if not more. Does he really need another 100 mil for his next movie? Is he really going to live any differently if he's worth 500 million instead of 400 million? Maybe if people like that didn't demand that fat pay check, studios would have a little more money to work with, be able to pay people a little better for their work and be more inclined to take chances on smaller indie-type projects. Sometimes I think people forget franchises like Rocky started as an indie-film, and many indie-films like The Whale and Everything Everywhere All at Once have won academy awards. This is all my opinion though, so others I'm sure will disagree, which they're of course welcome to do. 1 1
Luminara Posted February 28 Posted February 28 2 hours ago, battlewraith said: Does Tom Cruise deserve to make more money for a day's work than say a heart surgeon? No. But Karl Urban does. His chin carried a movie better than Tom Cruise ever has. 3 1 Get busy living... or get busy dying. That's goddamn right.
battlewraith Posted February 28 Posted February 28 16 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said: Using your emotions to determine value then every nurse and school crossing guard should make way more than Tom Cruise does. The only problem with that is that no economy imaginable could possibly work that way. It's not really about using your emotions, unless you think all valuation is based on using emotions. In real life you have the majority of the people that actually make life livable making very little money because of the way the market works. The market is not a meritocracy, it is not a moral system, and yet people are willing to accept the most bizarre outcomes and write of other perspectives as feelings or opinions. That doesn't hold up under the most gentle scrutiny. It's even weird in this thread. People intuitively seeing the wrongness of some of these outcomes (i.e. actors being wildly overpaid) but discrediting themselves because it's opinion (and the whole philosophy behind the market is not). 2
ZacKing Posted February 28 Posted February 28 5 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Well first of all, nobody as far as I know is forcing you to engage with or respond to my comments, none of which were directed towards you. If you want to get pissy over it fine, but don't whine to me about arguing.... again, when you are butting in and getting pointlessly emotive.... again. As far as I know, we can all respond to any posts made here whether they are "directed at" us or not. 8 minutes ago, battlewraith said: And yes, I added the heart surgeon example to indicate a different way of looking at things. Ok so you admit you can't directly quote where any suggested otherwise. At least you can own up to that. Good for you. It's nonsense to add that in because no one suggested in the first place. Tom Cruise should make more than a heart surgeon and a heart surgeon should make more than a cashier at Tesco. No one's suggested otherwise. 10 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Do they get paid too much or not? From what perspective. From personal perspective. How much money is too much money? That's the question and people are going to have very different opinions on what is "too much" in that regard. It's not hard to figure that much out. 11 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Promoting and hanging the success of films on bankable stars is the default business model of Hollywood. That's not a matter of opinion. THAT is the factual aspect of this conversation. Correct and no one suggested otherwise. Saying "I think actors are overpaid" isn't saying anything about the standard business model for Hollywood. It's just stating an opinion on the pay for some actors. You're trying very hard to turn it into that, but it isn't working. 11 minutes ago, battlewraith said: You're tying yourself in knots over this fact vs. opinion nonsense, in response to me criticizing someone's opinion based on the facts of how the industry has historically operated. .... Should I send a written request to your office first before I add things to the conversation? It is deeply troubling how much that throws you. Pretty sure I'm not tied in knots over anything, but you certainly seem to be. 1
Recommended Posts