• Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Properly paying writers and actors are some of their expenses though, not random unrelated people that want money. Using revenue here makes sense to me.

    • player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Imagine that the studio makes a movie that uses a famous song, actor, or other piece of intellectual property that is very expensive but they know it will boost box office sales. They might spend $5 million on this IP and it might generate $6 million in additional revenue.

      Now, some people look at the $6 million in revenue and ask where their cut is. Of course the studio doesn’t actually have the $6m, they only have $1m after paying for the IP. Extrapolate this out for a whole movie.

      This is why it doesn’t make mathematical sense to compare your wage to revenue - it is ignoring business fundamentals. Instead we need to look at profit which already has all expenses subtracted out. Profit is where any additional compensation must come from, or the studio needs to cut expenses elsewhere.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Sure, so long as you’re cutting all the expenses out of the revenue too, and not just union dues. The whole trick of this chart is to make pretend like writers, actors, etc are only getting 0.01% slices of the pie and the studio keeps the rest. When the actual actors (as opposed to the union itself) are going to be a big chunk of that revenue, as are the actual writers, editors, special effects, sets, costumes, etc, etc.

      • Eranziel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The point the chart is trying to make (I assume) is that if you’re dealing with such a small part of the pie, it’s not actually worth arguing over unless you’re just being greedy.

        If you gave all of those unions 100% compensation increases it would now be 0.06% of studio revenue. Tell me with a straight face you think that their margins are so tight that sharing up that percentage of revenue would suddenly make movies an unprofitable venture.