Entirely unsurprising, but I’m still very tired
You must log in or # to comment.
those who take financial risks are rewarded the most
That’s the problem, the people who actually make the thing get nothing but the rich fuckers who restrained the project every step of the way and hindered the actual creative process in favour of profit are the only ones who benefit.
I truly don’t know if the world will ever reach a point where we can have a genuine conversation about shit like this. It always seems to evolve into the average person taking the side of the business person and arguing that the “complainer” knew what they signed up for
Every conversation about exploitation gets derailed by capitalist apologists repeating the same set of talking points while deepthroating the boat. Sad
“They were asking for it. Did you see what they were wearing? A uniform for christ’ sake” -average person discussing any form of employee exploitation.
deleted by creator
Read the actual statement instead of falling for ragebait.
deleted by creator
You’re right but $300 a day. I can’t get over how little people are working for out here. $300 a day. I won’t leave my house for so little. I’m a working artist, too. Obsession couldn’t afford me, apparently.
(I think the set design etc is much much harder than what I do, too.)
Where are you working as an artist that $300 a day is chump change? Do you have any openings? I’m lucky if I make $100 a day working full time as an artist.
Their username being “architect” I have to wonder if they think being a professional architect is what people mean by “working artist”.
Maybe, I’d be cool with with considering designing a building a kind of art form, but it is a little facetious of them to not mention that if that is the case.
I mean, must be nice? Are you just trying to flex or what? Do you know how many non-artist but still skilled workers would jump at the chance for $300 a day?
I would jump at $300 per day, alas I am a German with only a bachelor’s degree.
those who take financial risks
Fuck off
Read the actual statement instead of falling for ragebait.
And yet not having enough finances can be a financial risk
…nor do the wealthy ever have any negative outcomes. If their investment fails, they start asking for government bailouts or filing insurance claims. There’s never any actual risk. Just different directions from where they get their money.
Reminds me of Musk’s infinite buying strategy:
Levchin was at a friend’s bachelor pad hanging out with Musk. Some people were playing a high-stakes game of Texas Hold ‘Em. Although Musk was not a card player, he pulled up to the table. “There were all these nerds and sharpsters who were good at memorizing cards and calculating odds,” Levchin says. “Elon just proceeded to go all in on every hand and lose. Then he would buy more chips and double down. Eventually, after losing many hands, he went all in and won. Then he said “Right, fine, I’m done.” It would be a theme in his life: avoid taking chips off the table; keep risking them.
Moral of the story: Be rich enough to keep trying
The Martingale strategy lmao
My theory is that nazi musk has ruined every social interaction he’s ever had
No no you see you can only take a “risk” if you are a serious person with capital to lose
Read the actual statement instead of falling for ragebait.
the “risk” they take is that if it fails they might have to become a worker
Read the actual statement instead of falling for ragebait.
This statement does not in any way contradict or counter the one you’re replying to.
The artists and crew took their own risk of doing this film and not doing something else that made even minimum wage. Putting in money you get in your sleep is not a risk.
Read the actual statement instead of falling for ragebait.
Go ahead, just say you wanted to be the millionaire. Thats what you wanted.
Read the actual statement instead of falling for ragebait.
How the fuck did this make it better? Homie had direct control over that. He could have stipulated they also get a cut of the box office. Please use your actual brain instead of defending brutal capitalism as a reaction.
That’s a boycott from me towards his future movies
Curry Barker - YouTube Creators Who Have Made the Jump to Hollywood
Read the actual statement instead of falling for ragebait.
Does anyone know how much he made from the movie?
The only number Ive been able to find is that the distributor bought the rights to the movie for $8 million after it had debuted at TIFF. I figure a large amount of that has gone to him though I have no way of knowing. None of my indie movies ever had their rights bought for millions.
On the other hand theres always 6000 middle men that the money has to go to first.I would assume he has paid money to some people who volunteered, but I have no way of knowing, since the only person who has spoken about payment is an art lead that’s mad they got paid 300 a day on an indie movie.
as always, piracy stays winning.
it’s hilarious to me when the studio reputation management campaigns come out and act like the people on the high seas are stealing money from the key grip and the hair & makeup people. like those people ever get points, even on these “startup” type indie projects.
nope, it’s all just shoestring corner-cutting on labor allowing the “investor” to brag about how they 10-100x’d due to their shrewd strategy of “having a bunch of money already”.
Oh look, turns out it"s a class thing and there are no good/bad generations
Read the actual statement instead of falling for ragebait.
That’s accurately summarized by the “rage bait” headline. Like sure, nice sentiment but how about you pay the people? Bonus payments beyond what’s contractually agreed aren’t impossible.
When you put time and reputation on a film are you not also taking financial risk? If the film flops then odds are you will get less work, and less paying work. This art director was treated like an unpaid intern.
Reading banmefromposting’s screenshot of the thing it kinda sounds like he’s hoping that time and reputation will bring connections for people who worked on it, which it probably will
Idk i’m having a hard time getting worked up for the art director, like yeah I’d be mad if something i worked on made millions and i got shit, but also, she got paid almost 7000 for less than a month’s work. i’m sure she’s struggling but that’s nearly a quarter of my yearly income, in a month. And she’s got “art director for Obsession” on her resume now, i can’t imagine she’ll be struggling to find decent work
It’s sympathetic because these types of people are usually funded per-project. Yes she made $7000 for less than a month’s work but that may be her only work for months to over a year. The hope would be that since this movie has taken off, she would immediately get a bigger project, with better pay and experience less downtime between jobs. But who knows. Since she went on twitter and it set-off a huge struggle-session over there, she might get blacklisted now for complaining.
There’s nothing wrong with complaining and discussing one’s wages of course. But this is America where you’re not allowed to bite the hand that feeds. Lower-level employees on projects should be able to negotiate for percentages of BO but the big companies that pick up these movies won’t let that happen. Everyone just gets told “this is the way it is, work harder”.
Read the actual statement instead of falling for ragebait.
The art director got paid 300$ a day, which is not like being treated as an unpaid intern
Wow hexbear comments section goes so hard.
The financers/producers openly dissuaded union work because of the “tight budgets.” As a result, the workers got fucked over while the financiers made out. I wonder how a film with such a tight budget, was able to afford the kind of marketing that allowed it to catapult to this kind of breakaway success story? I guess its just that good of a movie, word of mouth right? Marketplace of ideas, surely not a concerted effort by various sectors of the movie industry to promote a union-busting film, to lend legitimacy to a new business model that ensures even more technical trades get forced to take lower wages in order to return profits to those who took “financial risks.”
Indie films dont have the same level of engagement as larger blockbusters by unions, particularly the crew union IATSE. The unions just dont really keep track of indie movies. They also have a lot of pull with american production and distribution companies. So the movie was made for 750k, and sold for 15m (what a roi!) to a Canadian distributor, bypassing american union reach, and the distributor took on marketing. They used “guerrilla marketing” tactics to lend some bona fide to the low budget.
There have been a lot of films in recent years made for exceedingly low budgets, using this indie movie loophole and trying out various other tactics like filming in Las Vegas where union penetration is lower, though this often still leads to the crews seeking out and organizing union contracts. None so far has been this big of a success, so Obsession is being pushed in every which way. Its the realization of a long project by movie production companies to skirt union oversight. This always leads to more dangerous conditions and lower wages across the board.
I dont know about you all, but I’m never watching this shit ass movie, and I will never watch anything by this director/production company, if I can help it.
The writer/director having his own huge organic following via the comedy group definitely helped get the funding and get the movie to be more successful than if he was a first time writer/director making a real indie film. This makes it seem like they knew there would be a profit and they should have offered bonuses and extra pay to the crew based on profit.
So if the movie makes x amount over the budget (which means the risk takers got all their money back so their risk is covered) then all the crew get a certain percentage based on their role. Then everyone makes money, including the “risk takers,” and the more money the film makes, the better it is for everyone. Even if the distributors got 50% profit after getting their investment back and the other 50 was split between the crew, it would be incredible bonuses for the crew and the distributor would be making an absurd amount of profit.
everyone makes money
Not without a union contract.
Seems like you didn’t understand what I was saying
No I think you’re right, I just can’t imagine what would ever compel a youtuber to do the right thing, except a verifiable threat to his flabby unwashed ass
Like I’m writing about needing a union and you’re replying with a hypothetical situation. I’m just not very good with hypotheticals
Mark Plier did a similar thing to what I described with his movie’s success. Your solution is more of a hypothetical, since it’s not possible for all workers to be a member of the unions you are describing per the union’s own structural mandates. They are actually quite difficult to join with many locals pretty much not accepting applicants unless they have friends with leverage in the local. So while it is very easy for every YouTuber who makes a movie using their capital, social or otherwise, to choose to split profits with crew, your solution to just get a union contract isn’t actually available to the majority of workers in the industry until a revolutionary party leads the defeat of capitalism and creates a society where all workers are inherently in a union in one way or another.
Ah Marxism-Leninism-Markiplierism.
More union busting apologism, just advocating for conscientious capitalism. Instead of siding with the workers, side with the youtubers. What a confusing time for people.
You are a very confused person, lmao. I said the only way to secure worker’s rights is by defeating capitalism because unions themselves literally don’t accept all the workers who need them as members. Somehow I’m advocating for union busting by pointing out that unions won’t take in workers as members. Yes, the person pointing out the issue is the problem, not the issue itself.
Marx, Engels and Lenin tore apart economism over a century ago, showing clearly why reducing the worker’s movement to mere unionism is ultimately reactionary but here we are over a century later and the biggest losers on the Internet are still advocating for “unions” as a solution when the unions themselves are reactionary tools of capital that refuse to represent workers. You prefer to throw the majority of an industries workers under the bus and blame them for not joining a union they aren’t allowed to join.
I provided the mark plier example because you said my comment about what a better contract could look like was just a hypothetical and it is a recent example of the type of thing I’m talking about. It would be easier for people to pressure those youtubers into better contracts through boycotts and other tactics because they have an unusually high amount of control over the films they make than an average new filmmaker, especially since, again, you literally can’t join the industry unions most of the time. Which is why I added the caveat that the real solution is not relying on unions or YouTubers but on revolution. Reading comprehension has plummeted, I really hope you get a tutor or something
Is he the dingus who said The Simpsons invented the monkey’s paw tale?
It is, though he didn’t technically say that but clearly didn’t mention the base story so it’s safe to assume he’s totally unaware of it. He also said “live TV” when referring to a Simpsons rerun.
Wow
Just. Wow.
I have got to get my shit together and find a financier for my movie, Death by Cloud
It’s not death. It’s a homecoming
i guess an animated rerun is live compared to on-demand content.
Hexbear dont fall for misinformation ragebait challenge (IMPOSSIBLE):
Kind of a shitty reduction of his entire statement, so one can do ragebait. His actual statement isn’t some out of touch thing, but an explanation of how the money gets shared and why. Hes not talking about himself.
He also wasn’t a millionaire or someone who financed the movie with daddys money, as far as Im aware, so I dont know where users get that idea.
Not to mention the vast majority of the money doesnt go to him, but to the supplier, who paid millions to have it in cinemas and stuff. The supplier takes almost all the profits.
I dont know how much he has personally made, but I reckon if it was enough to pay out bonuses, those bonuses would first go to people who were either volunteering or people who were on set for the entire period of production.On top of that the art director took a job in an indie film where she got paid 300$ a day. She was fine with the rate until the movie saw success. She didnt get ripped off, she got paid a fair wage for her work, yet now pretends she didnt.
Edit: here is her statement
nominative determinism strikes again
The coal miners didn’t expect to strike gold, so they didn’t get ripped off when the mine owner took it all.
To be fair technically they’re just as ripped off as when it was just coal
??? the post image actually pretty well summarises his statement. So god knows why you’re really worked up about this.
Sounds like you’re a true leftist
If the film had a small budget it’s not like the worker who took out a few months to work on it for $7000 has taken on much less risk than the writer or producer that chipped in $50,000. This is capitalist apologia. The risk the art lead had was if the movie flopped they might not get much work ever again, leaving them destitute and having to pick up work elsewhere. The same risk that someone who offered up a little seed capital to kick the project off.
The art lead got paid 300$ per day. They were not on set for several months. They did not offer up a little seed capital, they took a job and got paid a pretty good wage. Especially for a movie that had a budget of 250k.
None of this is capitalist apologia, as Curry Barker is not in control of distribution of the movie. The distributors retain the vast majority of profits.
Having saved up some unknown amount of money that one can pour into a passion project does not make one a capitalist.
She didnt get ripped off, she got paid a fair wage for her work, yet now pretends she didnt.
If your labor earns millions for the people who didn’t do the labor and you aren’t paid the resulting profits that is robbery, this is a basic position for anyone claiming to be anti-capitalist.
Yeah, it’s a very strange attitude for a long time Hexbear user to have, I think they got fixated on the idea of this being “ragebait” and raged so hard about that themselves that they ended up forgetting basic leftist principles and basic facts about how capitalism works.
$300 a day?! Slave fucking wages!
Honestly these artists bring the rest of us down. It’s $2000 a day for me, and I’m not in Hollywood. I’m booked for months.
I’m paying a tattoo artist $250 an hour. He’s booked for months.
Why are people working on films for nothing!
The industry is so fucked right now that people take non-union work at shit wages with no benefits. people just want work and don’t care too much where it comes from. that’s what her last line about flipping the project refers to, if the production turned union partway through, that number increases drastically and the workers gets benefits. the producers then argue they can’t afford that but that’s besides the point
people just want work and don’t care too much where it comes from
can’t afford to care
precisely. 300 dollars a day is better than 0, even if it’s a pittance compared to the union compensation
There are only a certain amount of jobs made with a budget that will pay this each year and there are many more people who need work than how many those can hire.
$1500-$2000 day rate is a normal rate for an industry professional who is booked for months but there are probably dozens or hundreds of people for every role in every city who are not getting those rates which is why you are booked out for months. Those roles are going to you but the dozens of other people who need work are forced to accept less or else they won’t be hired over the dozens of others who will accept it.
Those roles are going to you but the dozens of other people who need work are forced to accept less or else they won’t be hired over the dozens of others who will accept it.
And sometimes are forced to find work outside of their skillset and specialty just to survive, further hindering their ability to leverage professional skills for a professional income as employers wonder why a skilled [whatever] worked at Amazon for however many months or years instead of practicing [skill]
i guarantee you that you’re making that money because of who you know, not what you know. That isn’t the same as saying you don’t know skills worth that value, I’m saying you would not receive even a fraction of that value without whatever connections got you to where you are. See Jabril’s comment for more
Keep up the union busting! What we need now isnt solidarity, its quibbling over the meaning of words
Read the actual statement instead of falling for ragebait.
New tagline material?
Difficult to have any enthusiasm for any “indie boom”
