Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
‘When have I exploited others and been voyeuristic?’
I agree with the voyerism part, but earning millions for starring in a stupid movie is exploitation in my book. Exploitation of the fans who spend their money on tickets, exploitation of those who work on set for nearly nothing, exploitation of the industry, etc.
|
I agree actors, at least SOME actors, are earning far too much money for what they do, but I don't think it's exploitation if the producers are willing to pay it. They don't have to pay it, after all. People who work on sets, especially if they are unionized, and most of them are, make very good money for what they do. A friend of mine was a propmaster on The X-Files and let's just say he owns a beautiful waterfront home in a city where shacks start at $1 million, travels extensively and only works now when he chooses to. And he was essentially a glorified carpenter. And the crew salaries are even higher in the States, especially when you start adding up the overtime.
Quite a few decent actors also work for scale in indie films, or take their profits on the back end, which rarely materializes. Most actors are not earning millions for every movie role and those who do -- their days may be numbered. Hollywood has always excelled at creative accounting. A movie can make a huge amount of money and yet the producers/studios will claim there are no profits. They are just as greedy as the A list actors who earn big bucks, IMO. And absolutely no one is forcing the public to go see these films. If nobody went, the huge salaries would start going down fast, a trend that is already in motion according to The Hollywood Reporter and Variety and other sources I read regularly.
It's not exploitation if all the parties are willing.