|
|
Post by conspirologist on Sept 26, 2017 12:50:29 GMT
The quality of films can be insured through progressive pay. They can pay the minimal union salary to the creative team, the producer, screenwriter, director, casting, designer and actors of leading roles, and add the interests from net profit.
Thus, the studios will not bear million losses for prepayment of hack work, and the creative team will realize that the quantity of salary is proportional to the quality of the level of their talent and the desire to create perfect films.
As soon as the oligophrenics in film studios would understand that this is the only way to make quality films in the capitalist system without large losses, nobody will ever again produce expensive hack-work.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 26, 2017 12:55:07 GMT
But they want money now!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 13:07:39 GMT
Very few films are horrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by conspirologist on Sept 26, 2017 13:11:21 GMT
It will work only if all the major studios will make an agreement to use the progressive pay. |
|
|
|
Post by conspirologist on Sept 26, 2017 13:12:50 GMT
Very few films are horrible. You are obviously suffering from Dunning–Kruger syndrome. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 26, 2017 13:17:11 GMT
Not that I'd complain about this--because my tastes aren't at all like a stereotypical cinephile's tastes, but if you were to do what you're suggesting, you're going to get an increase in people making films that get the biggest box office receipts. In 2016, these were the top 100 films in terms of gross:
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
Finding Dory
Captain America: Civil War
The Secret Life of Pets
The Jungle Book (2016)
Deadpool
Zootopia
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Suicide Squad
Sing
Moana
Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them
Doctor Strange
Hidden Figures
Jason Bourne
Star Trek Beyond
X-Men: Apocalypse
Trolls
La La Land
Kung Fu Panda 3
Ghostbusters (2016)
Central Intelligence
The Legend of Tarzan
Sully
Bad Moms
The Angry Birds Movie
Independence Day: Resurgence
The Conjuring 2
Arrival
Passengers (2016)
Sausage Party
The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Ride Along 2
Don't Breathe
Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children
The Accountant
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows
The Purge: Election Year
Alice Through the Looking Glass
Pete's Dragon (2016)
The Girl on the Train (2016)
Boo! A Madea Halloween
Storks
10 Cloverfield Lane
Lights Out
Hacksaw Ridge
The Divergent Series: Allegiant
Now You See Me 2
Ice Age: Collision Course
The Boss
London Has Fallen
Miracles from Heaven
Deepwater Horizon
Why Him?
My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2
Jack Reacher: Never Go Back
Fences
Me Before You
The BFG
Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising
The Shallows
Office Christmas Party
Assassin's Creed
Barbershop: The Next Cut
13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi
Lion
The Huntsman: Winter's War
Kubo and the Two Strings
Manchester by the Sea
Warcraft
How to Be Single
Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates
War Dogs
Almost Christmas
Money Monster
Allied
Nerve
Risen
The Nice Guys
The Boy (2016)
Dirty Grandpa
Ouija: Origin of Evil
The 5th Wave
Inferno
Mother's Day
Patriots Day
Gods of Egypt
Collateral Beauty
Hail, Caesar!
When the Bough Breaks
Zoolander 2
Moonlight (2016)
The Finest Hours
Florence Foster Jenkins
Hell or High Water
The Forest
Ben-Hur (2016)
The Witch
Bridget Jones's Baby
Kevin Hart: What Now?
So hopefully those are the sorts of films you like, because you'd be getting far more of those
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 26, 2017 13:17:53 GMT
Very few films are horrible. You are obviously suffering from Dunning–Kruger syndrome. The only person suffering from Dunning-Kruger would be you if you believe that aesthetic value is objective. |
|
|
|
Post by conspirologist on Sept 26, 2017 13:22:25 GMT
You are obviously suffering from Dunning–Kruger syndrome. The only person suffering from Dunning-Kruger would be you if you believe that aesthetic value is objective. I don't think so. I wrote a couple of movies that have become cult classics. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 26, 2017 13:24:14 GMT
The only person suffering from Dunning-Kruger would be you if you believe that aesthetic value is objective. I don't think so. I wrote a couple of movies that have become cult classics. That might have been interesting had it made any sense in context. |
|
|
|
Post by conspirologist on Sept 26, 2017 13:29:41 GMT
Not that I'd complain about this--because my tastes aren't at all like a stereotypical cinephile's tastes, but if you were to do what you're suggesting, you're going to get an increase in people making films that get the biggest box office receipts. In 2016, these were the top 100 films in terms of gross: So hopefully those are the sorts of films you like, because you'd be getting far more of those Sorry, but you don't understand the difference between Gross revenue Vs. Net profit. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 26, 2017 13:33:20 GMT
Not that I'd complain about this--because my tastes aren't at all like a stereotypical cinephile's tastes, but if you were to do what you're suggesting, you're going to get an increase in people making films that get the biggest box office receipts. In 2016, these were the top 100 films in terms of gross: So hopefully those are the sorts of films you like, because you'd be getting far more of those Sorry, but you don't understand the difference between Gross revenue Vs. Net profit. In what way do you believe the difference is relevant here? |
|
|
|
Post by conspirologist on Sept 26, 2017 13:38:32 GMT
Sorry, but you don't understand the difference between Gross revenue Vs. Net profit. In what way do you believe the difference is relevant here? The less money are invested, the more profit the studio gets. It's elementary math. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 13:47:04 GMT
Very few films are horrible. You are obviously suffering from Dunning–Kruger syndrome. Nope |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 26, 2017 13:47:05 GMT
In what way do you believe the difference is relevant here? The less money are invested, the more profit the studio gets. It's elementary math. Aren't they going to get more profit on films that gross more? |
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Sept 26, 2017 14:08:31 GMT
So i can't tell if this guy is serious or just kidding. Yes there have been some majorly bad movies,but they seem to be very far and few between. Do I need to remind you IT and Annabelle Creation were the best 2 horror movies this year? So you're basically saying that nothing will please you.
|
|
|
|
Post by conspirologist on Sept 26, 2017 14:15:11 GMT
The less money are invested, the more profit the studio gets. It's elementary math. Aren't they going to get more profit on films that gross more? I already explained it in my previous post. Do you have ADHD? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 26, 2017 14:20:09 GMT
Aren't they going to get more profit on films that gross more? I already explained it in my previous post. Do you have ADHD? You're conflating answering a question with "explaining it." I'm asking you a question. What's your answer? |
|
|
|
Post by conspirologist on Sept 26, 2017 14:28:16 GMT
So i can't tell if this guy is serious or just kidding. Yes there have been some majorly bad movies,but they seem to be very far and few between. Do I need to remind you IT and Annabelle Creation were the best 2 horror movies this year? So you're basically saying that nothing will please you. Humans have needs and preferences. Needs are objectivity based on rationality. Preferences are subjectivity based on emotions. Cinematography, like any other product of human brain intellectual activity, is divided into two types of perception - genres and execution. The genre is perceived emotionally, therefore subjectively, since different people are interested in different topics. Execution is perceived rationally, therefore objectively, only as a dichotomy between talented or untalented. Film critics can't criticize subjective genres, but only objective execution quality of the idea trough the plot. |
|
|
|
Post by conspirologist on Sept 26, 2017 14:47:48 GMT
I already explained it in my previous post. Do you have ADHD? You're conflating answering a question with "explaining it." I'm asking you a question. What's your answer? No. I already explained it in my previous post. Words lose their meaning when people lose their minds. |
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Sept 26, 2017 16:37:13 GMT
So i can't tell if this guy is serious or just kidding. Yes there have been some majorly bad movies,but they seem to be very far and few between. Do I need to remind you IT and Annabelle Creation were the best 2 horror movies this year? So you're basically saying that nothing will please you. Humans have needs and preferences. Needs are objectivity based on rationality. Preferences are subjectivity based on emotions. Cinematography, like any other product of human brain intellectual activity, is divided into two types of perception - genres and execution. The genre is perceived emotionally, therefore subjectively, since different people are interested in different topics. Execution is perceived rationally, therefore objectively, only as a dichotomy between talented or untalented. Film critics can't criticize subjective genres, but only objective execution quality of the idea trough the plot. Man am I glad I don't see movies with you. You are as bad as the Nostalgia Critic and his brother. |
|
