[ SECRET POST #3862 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3862 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[FunkoPOP]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Game of Thrones]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Power Rangers 2017, Erica Cerra]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Legend of Korra]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Peter Capaldi]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Gerard Way in "Ghost of You", Harry Styles in Dunkirk]

__________________________________________________



08.
[Fargo Season 3]












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 32 secrets from Secret Submission Post #553.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Those numbers aren't written in the stars, they're numbers that are chosen and decided and negotiated and all of that. More money should be spent on wages.

Right, so if you have X amount of money, you should spend more on wages for the production team, but then that means you have less for your actor. The budget may not be written in the stars but they are very real, even on big productions with big budgets there are always places they have to limit. If the actor salaries are not being limited, then it HAS to be limited somewhere else, and that usually falls on the rest of the production team.

You can't just say "wages should be raised" but expect everything to remain the same for everyone in production, that money has to come from somewhere. As nice as it would be for budgets to be unlimited it doesn't actually work that way.

They're worth it in the sense that the movies they're in make a lot of money because of them

But movies don't make money solely because of actors, they help sell the brand but tons of movies with big name actors flop and many movies with no-names do well. That means actors aren't the ONLY reason a movie does well. A lot of people in production are just as valuable to a movie, writers, directors, storyboard artists, animators, etc. A lot of those people also spend more time on the project then actors do. Animators even do part of the acting, why aren't they paid just as well? Who determined that actors are "worth" that much? Why would taking in slightly less be a problem (especially if they're still paid well?)

[(Anonymous)]

Right, so if you have X amount of money, you should spend more on wages for the production team, but then that means you have less for your actor. The budget may not be written in the stars but they are very real, even on big productions with big budgets there are always places they have to limit. If the actor salaries are not being limited, then it HAS to be limited somewhere else, and that usually falls on the rest of the production team.

It shouldn't fall on the rest of the production team. It only does because they don't have enough leverage and power. It should fall from the owners.

But movies don't make money solely because of actors, they help sell the brand but tons of movies with big name actors flop and many movies with no-names do well. That means actors aren't the ONLY reason a movie does well. A lot of people in production are just as valuable to a movie, writers, directors, storyboard artists, animators, etc. A lot of those people also spend more time on the project then actors do. Animators even do part of the acting, why aren't they paid just as well? Who determined that actors are "worth" that much? Why would taking in slightly less be a problem (especially if they're still paid well?)

Fair enough. I don't have any idea how to judge the various contributions those people make. What I do know is that, if nothing else, they must be at least that valuable to the movie. Or the people in charge of the movie must think that they're that valuable. Because if they didn't, they wouldn't pay them. That's all I'm saying.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Producers generally don't get a big pile of money to split between actors and crew. Actor salaries are negotiable to a certain degree. No one's going to pay Chris Pratt $12 million to do art-house Shakespeare. They'll get someone willing to do Hamlet at a price they can finance based on expected revenue.

And on the production end, producers usually will have storyboarded the script and created a massive spreadsheet accounting for all photography and technical costs down to the hour and the muffin. Their effects contractors will have their own massive spreadsheets accounting for hours per frame. At least some of the production labor is unionized, and those folks get paid at the negotiated rate if they're on site.

All of this is going to go into financing the film. And a lot of movies don't get financed if they're high-budget and high-risk. Del Toro and Gilliam are both known for shelving projects they can't get financed. Besson famously raised his own venture capital for Valerian.