66
'Spider-Man' Windfall: Tom Holland to Make Over $100 Million for ‘Brand New Day’ | Exclusive Box Office (www.thewrap.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/movies@piefed.social
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Non-paywalled link.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 months ago (15 children)

He's part of the labor, yes. Do you think he's 100 million dollars worth of the labor? Because the answer is obviously not. Again, I don't fault the young actor for making his bag in a system that he didn't build but now he's got 100 more million than he did previously and now he's responsible with how he uses his power.

Labor deserves more money and the owning class far, far less - yes. How many VX artists worked this film and how many of them are working reasonable, heathy hours at a thriving wage with good healthcare and good vacation time? How many grips and costume hands and makeup artists and and and ad infinitum that aren't making money commensurate with Tom Holland's pay rate and is that fair? Dedicating your life to a film for a year is definitely worth a premium, but not such a premium that other people suffer and that's my only point. It's the same thing as CEO's. 100 million is 20 people never working again for the rest of their life, or 1000 people making a decent wage for a year. If he made 100 million 1000 other people didn't get a fair wage (or didn't get a fair portion of the profits if we're being generous).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I would say he probably is 10% of the value of the movie yeah. I am all for living wages and all that jazzand there should be windfalls for all involved in creating something huge but there is no suffer here- Tom gets it or Sony do so I am all for talent getting paid more than corporate would like

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I don't believe those are the only two options, maybe they are in the current political system. I couldn't accept 100 million if I worked with people I knew weren't getting paid adequately, even if I thought I did 10% of the work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    They are the options though, he can then share his if he wants which others have done or mandate a minimum or something but that is for unions to do.

    I absolutely could, the alternarive being for neither to have it and it be kept.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago

    I think that's narrow-minded but maybe I'm being naive. As neither one of us are in that position we can only continue to speculate. But until major actor throws their weight behind a union they are effectively a part of the owner class. You can't have 100 million dollars and not be a part of the owning class, at some point you stop being a worker and I think that amount is when you no longer have to work while still having a good life (like 5 mil). If the options were keep it or lose it to the owners, you're right keeping it is the better option.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    I agree they'd underpaid but I really don't think Tom Holland's commission is cutting into the crew's pay. Plus, almost no one cares who worked on it and plenty DO care who acts in it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    At some point it is a zero sum game, money getting paid to shareholders is money not being paid to salaries. The CEO making 250x the line employee is money not paid to those line employees. That means Tom is also getting paid money that others aren't.

    Again, no fault of his own but I'm highlighting he can do something about that now if he wanted to. And people do care about who acts in the films but they equally care about the VXwork and the costumes and the script. They don't necessarily care about the crew but they should be paying for those necessary components regardless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I'm definitely not defending Hollywood pay scales here, I'm just saying lead actors bring in viewers in a way that John Smith in previz does. You might have some people hyped for the next WETA flick but you'll have 1000x more who go for the cast

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago

    I agree and respect that perspective. I think it's true. I'm just interested in pointing out progressives (or people who want wealth inequality to go down) should reflect on if someone getting 100 million is a good thing or a bad thing. 100 million out of the owner's pockets is good, but if all that does is create another hundred millionaire owner then we have to judge that person based on their actions moving forward on if it was a net good or net bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (4 children)

    You are just the crab mentality made manifest. Everything you are is just what the owning class wants you to be. Sad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    This really isn't a hard concept to understand, I don't know why you're struggling and reaching for shortcut approximations of who I am as a person to grasp this. Do you cheer when another billionaire is made? When Elon Musk became a trillionaire did you cheer? What is the difference between that and cheering when a multi-millionaire becomes a hundred millionaire? It's weird that you think I'm "the crab mentality manifest" when it's an owning class person becoming more wealthy and therefore a part of the owning class.

    I want everyone everywhere to make +100k, I cheer for my friends and the random people I encounter online when they get a job or get a windfall or begin to gain some wealth. This isn't that, this is a fundame ntally ultra wealthy person getting more ultra wealthy and I'm even conceiting that I actually have no qualms with what he acquired or how he acquired it I'm just simply stating it's weird were cheering for people who we don't know as good, progressive people getting the very thing that could continue to oppress people.

    At some point the person benefiting from the system either influences the system to improve or becomes a part of the oppressing system. Idk why you're struggling with that as if Tom Holland earned every dollar of that 1000 family salary in a year and is a shining example of a worker breaking free of their chains. The goal isn't every individual gets rich and breaks their chains, the goal is we collectively stop making and applying chains to begin with - we collectively and systemically stop requiring people to get filthy rich to have a good life.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    How are you not getting this? Tom Holland is not an owning class person because he's well paid for his work. Being an owner class means owning the means of production. The people that pay Tom Holland are the owner class. Because they own the means of production, I.E the movie studio. This isn't complicated. You're trying to pretend it is because you're trying to rip down workers so that you can protect the owners. That's patently obvious.

    Everything you say here is a betrayal of the working class. The working class is an all equally paid, they're paid fairly for their labor. As the most important part of the labor of the film he deserves a fair portion of the film's proceeds. Considering the massive amount of money the film has already made, plus the massive amount it will make in the future, nothing he is getting now is undeserved. But you like the pathetic crab you are want to tear him down to protect the people heating the pot. That's gross.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    You can't have a hundred million dollar net worth and not be a part of the owning class, you don't understand what a million dollars means and that's okay. You again, would defend the pay of a CEO by this same logic, or Musk or Bezos. I would say that 100 million dollars should be more equitably distributed among all the workers on the film, or at least more of the profit of the film distributed among the workers.

    You would mock people online arguing for your benefit because you seem to like actors being ungodly rich or something, you're not really making a cohesive argument. So I'll stop here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Of course he's worth that much. The movie made way more than that and he was by far the biggest part of the movie.

    Your argument here betrays your anti-labor thoughts. You're sitting here making an argument that you should pull down one worker instead of pulling down the owner. If you think the digital artist should be paid more I agree, another workers not at fault for that though. It's the owner who's at fault for that. You are thinking like a bitch ass scab.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    No, I don't believe anyone is worth 1000x another person's labor. That doesn't make me a scab, that makes me a socialist at worst I guess but it's weird for you to come in throwing names around. You're not here to have a discussion, nor further the cause, you're here to rage and induce rage - at least by your last comment.

    You can't receive 100 million and remain a part of the working class. Owning that much money makes you a part of the owning class. And unless Tom went from a reasonable net worth (<3 million) to this, then be was a part of the owning class before hand too. I'm only suggesting he should be leveraging his power to benefit the workers that made the value 100 million was able to be extracted from (and obviously a ton more for the rest of the owner class).

    I'm just pushing back on the portion of society we seem to give too much lenience to - the famous - when at some point they become a part of the problem. I can't cheer for anyone getting a multi-generational wealth windfall unless I know they're getting rid of it as fast as possible otherwise all I'm cheering for is the creation of more wealth inequality. Accumulating this much money should be akin to someone getting poisoned, from a societal perspective as it corrupts the soul unless addressed rapidly.

    I'm responding in good faith but I won't continue if your behavior doesn't improve because, again, you seem more interested in stirring the pot than actually helping the movement and having a conversation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent