Of Course It’s For The Money
As film fans we have plenty of good reasons to complain about Hollywood and the state of the film industry all the time. Clearly they’re doing something right since we are film fans and keep going back, but that doesn’t mean they don’t make (sometimes massive) mistakes, and we as PAYING movie fans have the right to either cheer or criticize movies, studios or actors whose movies we pay to see. And that’s the way it should be.
However, just as we film fans sometimes give too much credit or praise where it isn’t really deserved, I think we can also fall into the habit of levying criticisms that are… well… misplaced. One good example of this is the line often used by pretentious film snobs to attack the big genre films that so many of us love. Lines like “Why do they keep making all this blockbuster crap” or “Why are people going to see such and such $300 million dollar movies”. The answer to those questions are obvious… because we like them. And as my friend Robert over at IESB once wisely said “Those self professed film experts better thank god those blockbuster movies exist, because what the hell do they think PAYS for the smaller projects they seem to love so much”. True words, true words.
But the one criticism that I want to address here is one I’ve mentioned in the comment sections a few times and even mentioned on the Uncut show more than once, but I’ve never gotten around to addressing in an actual post. It’s one that I hear all the time about certain actors or studios who choose to make certain movies. When it’s said, it’s usually meant as a blistering insult, but when you really step back to think about it, it’s just common sense. They line is some variation of:
- They’re just doing it for the money
- The studio is just being greedy
- He’s just in it for the pay check
- All they care about is money
- The studios just want another cash cow
- etc. etc. etc.
Clearly the connotations, when such phrases are used, are negative and are meant to imply that the actor, director or studio has done something wrong in their pursuit of money. “They’re making a sequel to that?!?! Obviously it’s just a money grab“.
The funny thing is that you very rarely ever hear that sort of criticism brought against any other industry. Seriously, when is the last time Toyota made a new car and heard people complaining “That car is just a money grab“? Basically never. You know why? Because it is understood by the market that Toyota is in the car business TO MAKE MONEY. In essence, it’s understood that everything Toyota does in the car business is a money grab. They are in the car business to make money. It isn’t the car hobby. It isn’t the car past time. It’s the car BUSINESS. They are in business to make money.
Too many people romanticize the film industry as just a bunch a happy artists who want nothing more than to make the world more beautiful with what they have to create and say. In a word, that’s bullshit.
Let’s start with the Directors shall we. According to the Director’s Guild of America (DGA), do you know what the MINIMUM salary is for a director on the average low budget hollywood movie (with around a budget of $1.5 million dollars) is? About $14,500 a WEEK with a minimum commitment of 10 weeks. That’s not including bonuses, percentages or other benefits. Just the flat, bottom of the barrel fee is $145,000 for 2 and a half months of work.
And guess what, we shouldn’t criticize directors for making that much money. It’s a high paying job, why shouldn’t they want it?
My point is, you most likely have a job that you go to every day. Hopefully you like your job (statistics show that most people don’t). But even if you LOVE your job, I’m willing to wager that if you weren’t getting paid, you’d stop going. Or, if another company offered you another job in the same industry and in the same city for DOUBLE the money… I bet you’d be walking into your boss’ office first thing in the morning with your two weeks notice. Are you just doing a “Money Grab”? No, you’re making a living as best you can… hopefully in a field you don’t hate. I highly doubt anyone will criticize you for the move.
Because of that aforementioned over romanticization of the movie world, we often forget that while these actors are very lucky to be doing what they do… it’s still their career. It’s their job. It’s how they earn they’re money. Do you know how much actors make? According to the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) the minimum any SAG actor can make on a low budget film (low budget to SAG is about $2.5 million budget), is just over $500 a day. We’re not talking about big stars. We’re just talking about no name actors working for minimum. $500/day. I’ll tell you right now I’ve never made $500 a day in my life.
And guess what, we shouldn’t criticize actors for that. They don’t always get work. It’s a career that offers the hope of big fame and fortune… why shouldn’t they want it?
Now let’s talk about the studios. They are in the movie BUSINESS. Not the movie HOBBY. Not the movie PAST TIME. It’s called the movie BUSINESS. They invest huge amounts of money to produce a product they hope the market will like and then make a profit off of. It’s what any and every business does. If you or I were to invest $20,000 in a movie, you bet your sweet ass we’d only be doing it if we thought there was the real potential that we would at the very least get our money back, and hopefully make some profit. Essentially the studios are no different, nor should they be blamed for that.
As a business, they react and respond to what they see the market demanding. The business that meets demand (effectively) makes the money. Oh sure they’ll do smaller projects… but every single time they do they do so with the goal of making a profit on it (big or small), and so they should.
Look at Johnny Deep for a moment. Do you think he just does movies for the “art” of it? Do you think he does what he does just because he loves it soooooo much? If you’re unsure, go track him down at one of his 4 houses spread over 3 countries and ask him. In total he’s only worked about 8 months in the last 3 years. You’d think if he LOVED the art so much he’d work more than that… but he doesn’t have to because he’s a mega millionaire who doesn’t have to work all that often to keep up the lifestyle he now enjoys. And who among us can blame him for that? Wouldn’t you or I enjoy it all just as much if we had the opportunity to do so??? Of course we would! Acting is his JOB.
The point of this whole little diatribe is this: Saying “it’s just for the money” is actually a pretty silly and self evident thing to say. Every actor, every studio, every director is in it for the money. Oh they may ALSO be in it for other factors as well… no doubt… but if they ever say “it isn’t about the money” do a quick check to see if they work for free… if they don’t, they’re either lying or kidding themselves.
The movie business is a business, and those involved have CAREERS in it and we shouldn’t criticize them for that. They work to earn money. You work to earn money. I work to earn money. We spend more of our waking hours at work than we do in our own homes. Why? For the money.
So the next time you hear someone say “They’re just doing it for the money”, just ask them: “Well what do you think they’d be doing it for?”
48 Comments, Comment or Ping
gutpunch
Agreed.
It’s a fucking business.
Sep 23rd, 2008
Oliver
There’s a big difference between ‘Just doing it for the money’ and ‘Only doing it if they get paid’. I think this is a bit of a non issue.
You can be motivated by a pay cheque to stick with a project through the hard stuff, but it’s not enough on it’s own to inspire quality work, there must be a desire to be satisfied with the result on it’s own merits. My point is this. One must have monetary and artistic motivation to create good work. I don’t think that when people suggest certain projects are cash grabs they’re forgetting that that money is always a big part of the equation, they’re just suggesting that in this case, it’s the only part of the equation.
Sep 23rd, 2008
Doug Douglas
Am I the only one who isn’t sure what the hell the point of this post was?
Building Toyota cars isn’t an art, it’s a feat of business/engineering. Whether or not people are given hope, insight, and/or vicarious whatever doesn’t factor into it. The business of movies depends on the art of film being successfully executed on some level.
I can’t tell whether you’re arguing that actors and directors are disingenuous when they claim they don’t do movies for the money, or that audiences are fatuous when the complain that they’ve done it for the money.
You also fail to stress that most directors are part-time directors, getting work when they can. Thus, getting paid a relatively high wage for a short period of time is the only way they can survive (i’m talking about the guy making 14k a week) when he’s only working a few weeks out of the year. To make a living as an artist is to incur necessary risk, which is why, when you succeed as an artist, this risk is financially rewarded. Most filmmakers are unemployed more often than the guy working a 9 to 5, and so when they find employment they are necessarily paid more for every day they work.
I guess I’m just not really sure what you’re arguing. Should we stop complaining that our favorite actor did a retarded movie for the pay check, even though he clearly didn’t need it? Cause that’s not going to happen. Should filmmakers stop claiming they do their jobs for reasons that aren’t monetary? Not going to happen. So, uh, thanks for that post.
Sep 23rd, 2008
Intelligence
John’s right to a point. However, he is excluding the existence of the counter point, which isn’t fully correct either in it’s own right.
With statements like:
“Too many people romanticize the film industry as just a bunch a happy artists who want nothing more than to make the world more beautiful with what they have to create and say. In a word, that’s bullshit.”
- is something coming from one who doesn’t understand what being an artist is like. Because that is what many artists do. And they are fully aware that they are ~not~ running the film industry. Some are more reality based than others, but the paradigm remains. And coming from John who is trying to make his own movie, seems to be shooting down his own passion for making it. “but of course I’m not making it for the money”, you might say. Well, like Doug Douglas pointed out, artists, painters, photographers, actors and anyone in the arts spends their everyday like that.
You’ve basically brought up the old “Art” vs “Business” debate - neither of which could function without the other. Society listens to the almighty dollar mind you, so many just assume business wins. Such as yourself. There is nothing new here whatsoever.
Sep 23rd, 2008
John
Hey Douglas,
the point of the post is obvious.
You said:
The business of movies depends on the art of film being successfully executed on some level.
That’s a false distinction. In making cars, the business also depends on the final product being successfully executed on some level as well. That goes for all business. The “art” of filmmaking is absolutely no different.
Filmmaking is a business. Those who do it as a career do it for the money, just like anyone else does in their careers. There are other factors as well (as I said in my post), but to accuess people of just doing something in the movie business “for the money” is a ridiculous thing to say because they ALL do it for the money.
Sep 23rd, 2008
BobaFett
Ask Kevin Smith why he sold his comic collection to make “Clerks”. It wasn’t for the art.
Sep 23rd, 2008
John
Hey Intelligence
You said:
“And coming from John who is trying to make his own movie, seems to be shooting down his own passion for making it. “but of course I’m not making it for the money”, you might say.”
Passion is a part of it for sure, BUT… OBVIOUSLY I’m also doing this in the hope to at least make my money back, and perhaps make more. For me to say anything otherwise would be disingenuous and hypotritical.
Too many people forget that business is the bottom line. None of these artists who do this as a career do it for free, nor give their money away for free. They hope to SELL their art for a PROFIT. That is their goal. And there is nothing wrong with their goal… it is the movie BUSINESS.
The only unique thing here is that the product being produced for sale is art.
Sep 23rd, 2008
NineShooter
Good post. I was having this exact argument with a co-worker the other day. I’m sending him the link to this now.
Sep 23rd, 2008
Mr. Chris
Makes sense to me.
I find it frustrating that people use the “just for money” line to describe every Hollywood blockbuster that features explosions and CGI. That stuff may be expensive, but I’d totally make those movies for free if I had the chance. Sometimes heart is in the mindlessness of it all and not just in bags dancing in the wind.
(I’d still take the paycheck if they offered me one.)
Sep 23rd, 2008
RyanMag
But wouldn’t it be fair to say that, sometimes, people are doing it way more for the money than for the art of it?
Both motivations are always there, but did Cuba Gooding Jr. do Daddy Day Camp to inspire children and hope for a decent return on his time, or did he do it more so for a paycheck and he kind of cares about kids?
Sep 23rd, 2008
Jack M.
Too many people romanticize the film industry as just a bunch a happy artists who want nothing more than to make the world more beautiful with what they have to create and say. In a word, that’s bullshit. - John Campea
I’m quoting this on a shirt.
Sep 23rd, 2008
George
Are you making the anniversary to make money?
Sep 23rd, 2008
Guzzi
I like the post John, and I really like where you say they may ALSO be in it for other factors, and I hope they are, but money is always a factor. You said you hope to make a profit on your movie and I think you are also making it because it is something you are very interested in. Hopefully you do make a profit and also make a good movie which leads to more work and more money.
I have had the most basic part of this conversation with many co-workers over the years, I go to work because they pay me, I try and do a good job in the hopes that they will notice and at least keep me around, maybe even give me more money. It is very similar in most buisnesses.
There are people out there who make very little money doing something they love or care about very much but those people are vastly outnumbered by the people who are doing their job mainly because of the money.
Doug Douglas said “Building Toyota cars isn’t an art” I am sure there are some people involved in the design of Toyota cars that would strongly disagree with you. If cars were totally about function they would have a very different look, there is art involved there, and that art is there to draw in customers, sell more cars and make more money.
Totally off subject: Where are the Podcasts? I haven’t seen one since the 16th and I am starting to get a little shakey.
Sep 23rd, 2008
John
Hey George,
Fair question. As I said in the post there are “other factors as well… no doubt” in making film. For me, the excitement of trying the experience is a big factor.
But…
If I knew there was ZERO chance for me to at least make my money back then I wouldn’t be doing this at all. It’s just that simple.
Sep 23rd, 2008
Doug Douglas
“If I knew there was ZERO chance for me to at least make my money back then I wouldn’t be doing this at all. It’s just that simple.”
And that is where you and I differ. I’ve been shooting movies since I was nine, and have maxed out my credit card at least three times in order to complete projects for my reel. If I was in it for the money, I’d go to law school and make bank so I could avoid bankrupting myself every time I wanted to add to my reel. Do I eventually want a career out of this? Of course. But it’s been my experience that the people who get into the filmmaking biz purely AS a biz, purely as a way for them to enrich themselves, are the ones who fail and really have no talent for it to begin with. There’s a reason they hire lawyers, businessmen and financiers to handle the economics of this industry: if their wasn’t at least ONE person (hopefully the director) only concerned about the art of the project above all monetary concerns — up to and including his paycheck — no truly great movies would ever get made.
Are you saying if your film doesn’t make its money back you’re done with making movies? Because that would be like a pianist claiming if his first concert didn’t get him into the London philharmonic he was going to quit playing. Most movies never see the light of day, break even, or get any kind of distribution. Which you probably already know.
Sep 23rd, 2008
steven
John this is your “riddle of steel”
I think it’s kinda harsh to label filmaking as only something to make money out of instead of seeing things from 2 points of view
the incentive for filmakers/artist is the money, theres no doubt about that, but they are businesses that are required to find new ideas, and take huge financial risk to see which piece of film/art will have the most appeal. now there are exceptions to that of course, but sitting down and writing and directing, and coming up with new ideas for people to enjoy is an art, and based on the success of that, they are compensated before of after with money. to label Spielberg or Jackson or dare I say Lucas with someone who’s ONLY in it for cash is an insult to the craft, cause basically what your saying is that there bottom line was cash, and E.T, Star Wars, or LOTR was just happenstance
Sep 23rd, 2008
John
Hey Doug Douglas,
I see and appreciate what you’re saying… but as you yourself said… part of your motivation in doing what you do is to turn in into a career.
As I said in my post… THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS NO DOUBT. I’m not saying everyone is ONLY in it for the money… but it is, in my mind without question, the most significant factor.
Sep 23rd, 2008
Manny
“But…
If I knew there was ZERO chance for me to at least make my money back then I wouldn’t be doing this at all. It’s just that simple.”
Couple of things:
What is it you are doing on the Anniversary exactly? Financing, Writing, and Directing? Because it’s rather obvious that whoever is putting the bucks behind the movie (INVESTING it) would want to see a return. But your quote would sound odd coming out of, say, Michel Gondry’s (Director of Be Kind Rewind, Eternal Sunshine) lips considering he just gets paid to be a director, even if the movie tanks, even if the movie is never released - he still gets his paycheck.
Were you trying to point out that although actors (other known aliases: humans) may love acting all, they still need money and enjoy it and don’t mind making lots of it? Or that investors (of anything) want to see a return?
Because if that’s all, you forgot something: The sky is blue.
Sorry to be a dick, but when someone says “They made that just for the money” they mean “This movie was more BK chicken fries than a 5-star steakhouse filet mignon (which is what I wanted/hoped/paid for). More commodity than piece of art.”
We can all agree these types of movies exist; A op-ed article about it in a slightly condescending tone just seemed like a bit much, especially for something so obvious. Still love you guys.
Sep 23rd, 2008
John
Hey Many,
You said:
“Because if that’s all, you forgot something: The sky is blue.”
That is my point exactly. Many people always seem to forget the simple and obvious facts. You and I may see it as so clear and obvious that it doesn’t need mentioning… but trust me it does.
hehe… you also said:
“A op-ed article about it in a slightly condescending tone”
Sorry man, but when you say “I’ve got news for you, the sky is blue” then my words were a LOT less condescending that yours. :P
Sep 23rd, 2008
Raphael
That’s not true John Cusack took no salary for acting in the lead role on Max.
Sep 23rd, 2008
John
Hey Raphael,
That’s simply not true. Cusack is a member of the Screen Actor’s Guild, and as such he MUST get paid. What is your source for that?
Sep 23rd, 2008
Raphael
imdb
Sep 23rd, 2008
Raphael
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290210/trivia
Sep 23rd, 2008
John
Hey Raphael,
He may not have drawn a salary as a PRODUCER, but as an actor and a member of S.A.G. he had to take a fee. If not he would have been thrown out of the Union. It’s in their rules.
It is also possible that the quote is misinformed, or that what it MEANT to say what the Cusack may have deferred some of his salary till later. Either way, buy the rules of the union, he got paid.
And still my point is still correct. Cusack was also a producer on the movie, so he stood to gain financially from the movie either way.
Sep 23rd, 2008
Raphael
Ok… lol
Sep 23rd, 2008
George
I just don’t understand the point of this article.
Yes it is about money but a passion for film making in most cases is the major driving force because there is certainly no money in it early on.
You yourself are about to make a film. You are hoping there will be money at the end of it but if you knew there was no chance of making a cent back would still try to make the film?
thats the difference.
Most film makers put everything they have into their own films early on and don’t give a fuck whether they make a cent because they know more than likely they won’t. If they are liucky they might get a return to their investors but they themselves will more than likely walk out empty handed. But they want to make films.
I know a a lot of film makers and wannabe film makers who have spent years making nothing. Living on the bones of their bottoms making their own films and putting all of the money they make in the 9-5 jobs making films. Not one of them are doing this thinking it will all pay off when they become millionaires. They are doing it because they love making films. end of story.
Now a few of them have been lucky enough to move onto commercials and music videos where they have been fortunate enough to make some money. and you know what? they are still putting that money into their own films.
Sep 23rd, 2008
Doug Douglas
“As I said in my post… THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS NO DOUBT. I’m not saying everyone is ONLY in it for the money… but it is, in my mind without question, the most significant factor.”
It might be the most significant factor for artists already making their living as filmmakers, but I can guarantee you that very few actors or directors or writers trying to break into the film industry motivated by money are going to succeed. I hope it isn’t the most significant factor for you, if only because there has to be some point in a filmmaker’s career where money isn’t the motivating factor; the early stages of one’s career is usually the safest point where aesthetic concerns can (and should) trump monetary ones. Yes, every filmmaker is pursuing a career, but that isn’t tantamount to pursuing money. A career means one can pay their bills, it does not necessarily mean they can buy 4 houses and a yacht. I guarantee you Spielberg wasn’t thinking of money when he first started making films as a boy and realized he wanted to do it for a living; I guarantee you Christian Bale wasn’t thinking of money when he fell in love with acting as a boy. If someone begins their artistic career with monetary motivations, they’re doomed before they’ve even started. They’d do better to be a businessman, lawyer or banker.
Sep 23rd, 2008
George
What cusack did and a lot of name actors do when they want to get a indie of the ground is they will accept “scale”
They take the guild minimum instead of their normal fee.
Its’s that whole one for them (the studios) one for me (indies) mentality.
A big time actor has a film he is passionate about. He wants it to get made so he takes scale rather than his normal fee to help get the film made. Some of them will of course have a back end deal but they lower their normal fee up front so the film can get made.
Sep 23rd, 2008
Doug Douglas
“He may not have drawn a salary as a PRODUCER, but as an actor and a member of S.A.G. he had to take a fee. If not he would have been thrown out of the Union. It’s in their rules.”
Incorrect. I have several SAG friends, and this simply isn’t true. Ever seen a super independent film with a shoestring budget that boasts big stars? If a budget is small enough SAG actors are allowed under certain strictures to receive less than their union rate, or nothing at all. This is not a Hollywood secret. You think Tarantino could afford to pay Harvey Keitel his SAG rate in “Reservoir Dogs”? Or that Wes Anderson could afford Bill Murray in “Rushmore”? Bill Murray actually cut Anderson a check in the middle of production so that he could afford to shoot a helicopter crash scene (which was later edited out).
Sep 23rd, 2008
Raphael
QT turned down the chance to Direct Men in Black
Sep 23rd, 2008
John
Hey Raphael,
You said:
“QT turned down the chance to Direct Men in Black”
So? Professionals make decisions all the time based on what they think would be best for their careers. In other jobs some people turn down overtime sometime because of other factors. Their jobs are still about the money.
QT turning down MIB was as much a financial decision as anything else.
Sep 23rd, 2008
George
MIB probably cost more to make than all of QT’s films combined.
It would have been his biggest pay day ever. He turned it down because he didn’t want to make that movie.
I didn’t know that he turned that down but if thats true it was purely a film making decision.
Money had nothing to do with it because he certainly would have got a bigger cheque for that then doing Jackie Brown or kill bill.
Sep 23rd, 2008
Raphael
What’s the point of this again i’m confused?
Sep 23rd, 2008
Intelligence
I understand what you’re saying, it’s not incorrect - but look a couple of comments up.. You’re arguing, quote: “Their jobs are still about the money.”
Now read that sentence again. jobs. about. money.
You’ve raised an axiom as a point of argument. Which doesn’t make sense.
It’s like arguing the only reason anyone does anything is for their benefit. A selfless act? Done to make the do-er feel good.
The question of art as subject is irrelevant based on your argument - if argument is even accurate. You could be talking about baking pies or having fart contests.
In the different vein, if you are making a movie, by yourself (of course you’ll have contacts, but if you’re choosing to sit in the sultan seat of the project while, according to yourself, having no idea what you’re doing) - I would recommend at least contemplating that you will lose your shirt. I applaud your candor in setting your focus high but there is a reason why the phrase “Hope for the best, expect the worst.” is so popular. And that is why some will claim that no artist does what they do for the money.
All the best.
Sep 23rd, 2008
Raphael
Ok yes their doing it for the money but that doesn’t mean their not passionate about their jobs, that’s why its a dream to make it in the business on doing something you really love and getting paid for your talents.
Sep 23rd, 2008
Crimsonmoon
Hello John!
Love your blog site
This is my first post, it’s a bit long and for that I apologize.
I don’t think people complain about movies trying to make money, I think they complain about studios, actors, etc. trying to make so much of it.
I mean using your exampe if an average joe went from a $10 an hour job to a $20 an hour job, of course no one would complain. But if a multi-millionaire actor’s asking price went from $10 million a movie to $25 million a movie people are going to complain because their paycheck will drive up production costs which drive’s up the price of the movie which drives up ticket prices. Thus, we the consumer ultimately end up paying for it. I mean, what could that actor get with $25 million that he couldn’t get with $10 million? Bragging rights that’s what. If actors, directors, etc. didn’t continually ask for more and more money, it wouldn’t cost them so much to make movies and us so much to see them. I mean, didn’t YOU complain about Chris Tucker making so much off of Rush Hour 3? What happens if an actor asks for $100 million? Wouldn’t you complain at that point that he’s just being greedy? Especially if it starts driving ticket prices to $15 bucks a pop?
I also disagree with your comparison of the movie industry to the car industry. A car is a product. Movies are art. Cars are also a NECESSITY. Movies are not. Toyota is not trying to entertain, amaze, or dazzle us, they are trying to spend millions of dollars to provide the public with a NECESSARY product. As opposed to
the movie industry which tends to needlessly waste millions of dollars for actors, directors etc. to star in art (most of which is mediocre) that ultimately is NOT a necessity. ($200 MILLION for a 2 hour big screen adaption to a 60’s cartoon show???)
Even if we used your example, unlike in the movie business Toyota doesn’t pay their engineers, designers, and builders MILLIONS to create a car. If they did, they’d pass the price onto the consumers causing most of their cars to cost well over $50 GRAND. Imagine a Toyota Camry costing $65,000. They would not stay in business for very long. That’s why this comparison seems flawed. Movies should be compared to other industries of art, not industries of product.
So I think this is what most people are really complaining about, the excessive greed of Hollywood the general decline of Hollywood’s art and the resultant high prices placed on the consumer for poor art due to said greed.
By the way, If you think i’m being naive, unfair, or out of line please let me know. I do not mean to be so disagreeable, I’m just stating what I believe people are upset about. I’m more than willing to be corrected.
Sorry about the long post.
Sep 23rd, 2008
BamKazaam
omg i hope after this post we won’t get more “Meet the Spartans” movie, then Doug would have to do more public service :p
Sep 23rd, 2008
DeAnte T. Goodloe
John, you’re overreacting and you missed the entire point of why people use these insults. We don’t use them because we choose to believe that studio executives and producers do what they do for completely altruistic purposes and are only in it for the “art.”
We say “they just doing it for the money” because we know it’s OUR money they’re trying to dupe us out of. For the most part, we’re fine with that. Audiences have no problem handing over some well earned cash in exchange for an entertaining ride at the multiplex.
As long as we’re being entertained and a decent amout of effort appears to have gone into the product, we do not feel that our intelligence is being insulted, so we won’t throw out the money criticism.
However, when a studio and director decide to create spin-offs and sequels that are totally unecessary, attempt to expand the story well after it’s already ended in the last film, and/or are just retreading territory already charted with NOTHING new to add, it is an exploitative grab at our wallets that manipulates our enjoyment for the character/franchise and is a HUGE insult to our intelligence.
We WILL call them out on it. It’s usually only then that the money critique comes into play. We’re more than willing to line they’re pockets with our money, but movie studios and directors have their own end of the bargain to hold up as well - make something worth our money.
Unfortunately, many car companies manage to do this more often than movie studios.
Sep 23rd, 2008
DeAnte T. Goodloe
I typed “unfortunately” soley because of the comparative prices. I’d much rather have reliable vechicles and unreliable movies than the other way around.
Sep 23rd, 2008
giren
I agree that a film industry is a money grabbing business. Every penny made by a movie will be savour by them and they’ll make another one and another.
But it will be nice to have a good movie that comes from that money. Movie that didn’t suck and looks like a trash. It’s nice to have a masterpiece coming from those money.
And if that what it needs to make a good movie (money). Then let it be. The fact that they make a good movie from and for money is not an issue. The issue is how hollywood still make a crap just because the money.
It’s an issue for me, but apparently not for some people. So…
Sep 24th, 2008
probitionate
Well.
Nothing I read in response to John’s post surprised me. At all.
Because if you read everyone’s comments and distill them, what’s left is an assumption that determines to a great extent the sort of point-of-view people tend to have about this subject, ‘the movies’. This assumption is something I’ve referred to on many occasions here and elsewhere: the ‘ownership’ that many, many people feel about film.
It’s a quite-territorial, quite-personal position that people take. There is something about movies that bring out the ‘proprietor’ in people far more than in just about any other arena. Not in music, not in fashion, not in television…not in politics, not even in sports, even with the most ardent fans, in relationship to owners/managers of their favourite franchises. People hold forth about movies as if a) they exist strictly for THEIR benefit, and b) they actually know enough about ‘the biz’ to possess a truly qualified opinion. (When in reality, all most are actually qualified to pronounce on is whether they liked a film or not.)
Most of the comments here stem from this point-of-view, this feeling of ownership. It tints (taints?) everything, puts a spin on the counter-arguments, and renders most of the discussion moot; you cannot proceed with a successful argument if your basic assumption is erroneous. (You can…but it sure looks silly.)
As for trying to understand the motivations of anyone involved in the film industry…whether or not they do what they do ‘just for the money’… In all fields of endeavour, there will always be varying reasons why people do what they do. But as an awful lot of the film industry’s participants are creative sorts (some ‘artists’, some not), and clearly, many of the people here are not…to presume an actor’s, or director’s or even producer’s ‘true’ motivations is as ridiculous as the armchair quarterback presuming to understand the motivations of their favourite athlete. (If you don’t understand how utterly divergent the creative world can be from the daily-grind one that most of the population exists in…then making proprietorial comments seems even more nonsensical.)
I know that to some, what I’m talking about just won’t register. THAT’S how attached they are to this feeling of ownership. (And in turn, to ‘knowing the score’.)
A couple of end-notes:
-Cars are NOT necessities. They’re a lifestyle choice at the core of the –suspect– North American value system. But this remark said SO much about the tenor of the comments in general.
-Movies are not -by default- ‘art’. They’re a commodity that when done in a certain away, can rightfully be regarded as ‘art’. But then your ‘art’ may be the next person’s dreck. It’s eternally subjective. However, filmmaking is, in the end, a BUSINESS. The ideal in this business is to produce a piece of art that brings in hundreds of millions of dollars of profit. But as in many other areas of Life, the ideal is rarely achieved. Most films are made to entertain…and by extension, bring in gobs of money…and maybe grab some artistic accolades along the way. To suggest that film, in general, is ‘art’… Uh, no. )
Sep 24th, 2008
Intelligence
Probitionate
Fantastic response.
However, after your end notes, it reads that you’re classifying films and filmmaking as being one in the same.
If not, you’re referring to films as a piece of art (”The ideal in this business is to produce a piece of art that brings in…”)
….and only a few moments later, insist they aren’t. (”To suggest that film, in general, is ‘art’… Uh, no.)
To clarify, films are in fact, a collaborative art piece, whether being garbage, exploitative or mastered. The “argument” here -better described as a topic rather than an argument with a foreseeable outcome- is the business side of filmmaking.
Sep 24th, 2008
Kevin
Well said, sir. While I often see people only making movies to make money, and not to entertain me, I get annoyed, but at the end of the day, I would do the same thing and love every minute of it. ‘Cause it’s all about me,’ isn’t it?
Sep 24th, 2008
Johnny Boy
Some actors believe in their projects so much that they are willing to take pay cuts, or no pay, or put up their own money to help finance the film… some times it is about the art and not the money.
Sep 24th, 2008
Sahil
@ Johnny Boy
I think they take pay cuts/no pay so that they can get a bigger percentage of the gross at the end of the movie……….
Ex. Brad Pitt recived $10M for Oceans 11 and then $20M after the movie because it was such a success vs.
George Clooney who recived $20M upfront and didnt get anything after the movie.
But I guess there are other times like when Steven Speilberg asked not to be paid for his work on Schindler’s List.
Sep 24th, 2008
Calviin
For admission: I read the post, but I didn’t read the comments. Some people had comments that were too long for me at the moment. So I may say something here that someone already pointed out, but oh well.
There is one problem with your article. It has to do with understanding the use of words and qualifiers.
“They’re just doing it for the money”
“The studio is just being greedy”
“He’s just in it for the pay check”
“All they care about is money”
“The studios just want another cash cow”
These are the examples. They all have one thing in common. They indicate that the subject is only performing their job for money. They key here is that we are saying it is ONLY for money. We are saying that there are zero additional reasons besides money for their decision. There is a large difference between “doing it for the money” and “only doing it for the money.” Sure we all work for money. We have to. It is what we use in our society to live. I do my job for the money. I also enjoy programming enough that I also do it in my free time. So when I come to work and have to write code for applications that we use, I am doing this job for money AND because I enjoy writing code. I am only doing it for the money. The point of saying that a person is only doing it for the money is to express that they have no care or emotional investment in the project. They are using it as a means to an end, but not for any other benefits, wants or needs.
People are driven to improve themselves. Not for money, but because it is a basic instinct to get better at anything you can. I am a programmer. I write code for computers. In my free time, I often will try to learn new computer programming languages because they can teach me new things that I didn’t know. You would suggest that I am doing this for the money because, as I learn the new languages, I am raising my skill level and thus my value, so I can earn a higher paycheck. That argument makes sense and sounds like common sense truth, but it is actually false.
When I was in high school, I taught myself to write code in a variety of programming languages, as well as teaching myself a variety of speaking languages like Spanish, French and American Sign Language. I went to college for Architectural Engineering in college, and it was something I was good at. My past time of learning code was not in any way a benefit to what I was expecting to be my employment. Designing buildings is not the same as writing code. My interest in learning new languages was my hobby, not my job. I learned that because I enjoyed my hobby and I could be good at it, that it was a better and more enjoyable career. However, it wasn’t until years after I started learning programming that it would become something that I would turn into a career, and thus was not something I had been doing for money at all. My habits for studying and learning languages has not changed since it began, but as stated earlier, you and other would guess that my hobby is partially something I do “for the money.” As I have shown here, not only do I not teach myself new languages “only for the money,” but money has no basis for my interest at all. Appearances are deceiving. I have multiple hobbies. Beside programming (which I do for work and for fun), I also sew. Yes, sew. With a sewing machine and everything. If it is not obvious, this hobby has nothing to do with programming. Everything I learn from this hobby has no worthwhile application to my job. I still try to get better at it because I want to be better. I use the skill to make outfits and costumes for friends and family, but I make no money from it since they don’t pay me, and I don’t save money because it would cheaper to buy the outfits instead, but it’s still fun to make them and learn from the experience. I do it to better myself because that is what drives me.
Bruce Willis is good at action films. He gets paid well for doing action films. Did he do Sixth Sense just for the money? Perhaps he did it because he wanted to improve his acting skills, because acting is his hobby AND his job. He could certainly have a monetary benefit from becoming a better actor, but only because acting happens to also be his job.
This is getting off base because my original point is just to say that using the qualifier of “just” or “only” is a way of saying that they don’t care for any other reason.
You suggest that if they weren’t going to pay him, he wouldn’t do the job. I submit that you can’t be sure of that. As believable as that sounds, I can transplant that exact scenario to my life and prove it is wrong. You would suggest that if my company didn’t pay me, I wouldn’t have written any code for them. Here’s the catch. They didn’t hire me to be a programmer. They hired me as a database administrator. My original job is to make sure the databases that we use here stay operational and to train new employees how to use them. I became a programmer here because I wrote some programs on my own that help out coworkers with jobs they had to do. The programs did not make my own job faster, but helped them. Simple tasks that they had to repeat over and over again became automated because I helped them. For free. Because I wanted to help and because it was a hobby of mine. And, just to drive the point home further, I also write code for people I don’t work with or have never met, that I make available online. I do not get paid for it. They are for other people to benefit from and I enjoy it as a hobby.
It is entirely possible that some actors are doing things for more than just the money. They might be doing it because they enjoy it too. Or perhaps, they just happen to get paid, but would do it regardless. As you can see, I do, and I know I’m not the only one, so it’s not a fantasy.
Sep 24th, 2008
Zach
I just think that the phrase “They only made it for the money” is used really for when somone is disappointed in a movie or if its an un-needed sequal to milk the original for all its worth….but yes it is a business and movies, like every other piece of entertainment is produced to earn a profit.
Sep 24th, 2008
John
So, naturally you do the minimum you can get away with and still get paid? Just like everyone else in the world, including artists (hell, ESPECIALLY artists, right?), you’re only interested in how much money you can make.
Give me a break, can you honestly not see the motivation behind making movies for a living and yet not making them the most lucrative, pandering blockbusters possible? Just because something’s a business doesn’t mean that everyone involved in that business is in it purely for the money. I’m a cynic, but this article is just far too simplistic.
Sep 25th, 2008
Reply to “Of Course It’s For The Money”