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
[–] 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
    •