Jump to content

Freelance Living Wage


Maxim Ford
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not really Phil, the producer and or director is front and centre in any film debacle, no place for them to hide. The "best boy" on the other hand will not make the papers and be condemned for his poor best boying skills. No one even sticks around to read the now zillions of names in tiny white print as they slowly creep up the screen.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Premium Member

Make the papers? Since when was any multimillionaire producer pilloried for his poor choices?

 

 

We are continuously told that producers don't use their own money very often. The idea that, at any level other than the very lowest, a film producer is any different to the chairman of ICI in this regard is horribly naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The critics rip on producers and directors all the time. Wait until Against The Wild comes out in March. The critics are going to savage me, no one else. Then again since I did the vast bulk of the work, there aren't too many other people left to criticize.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I consider myself a socialist, pro-union, anti-corporation type and even I know a film without a competent producer is akin to a sailboat without a mast, rudder, sail, oars or anchor. There's very little chance of getting to some exotic paradise even if you're the best skipper on Earth. One might consider producers a necessary evil but they are necessary so don't ever delude yourself into believing otherwise or you and that leaky, ill maintained, ill provisioned and ill crewed boat turned garbage scow of yours will end up smashed all to splinters against Reality Reef before you ever make it out of the harbor. (I thought I'd go nautical on this one as there seems to be an angry ocean of denial surrounding our little vessel here. :rolleyes:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

yes profit is legal, but that is because capitalism makes it legal. The workers who made Star Wars did not own it, did not even own 1% even though they did 90% of the work. Others took a 100% of the profit.

 

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.”

Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

 

 

Maxim, I'm interested to know if you can name any country where a communist state (historical or current) has had a beneficial effect on the populace.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Maxim, I'm interested to know if you can name any country where a communist state (historical or current) has had a beneficial effect on the populace.

 

Well again Maxim is a classic commie, just like Canada is overrun with classic socialists. They all believe that socialism and communism is good for everyone....except them. Canadian socialists live in their mansions, drive their expensive cars, go on their cruises, and then harp on all rich folk in Canada for their evil ways.

 

In America the term, "liberal guilt", has sprung up. These are typically wealthy white Americans who have lots of money, they want the inequalities of American society addressed, but they in no way would give up even an inch of their standard of living. This creates a guilt complex. Their lifestyle and their philosophies are in conflict with each other. Michael Moore is a pretty funny example, he rails against corporations and the wealthy in his movies and as a talking head on TV, while admitting that he is personally a member of the 1%. We have his equivalent in Canada, his name is David Suzuki. Super rich "environmentalist" that criticizes everyone for their wealth and misuse of the earth's resources, meanwhile, he's a multi-millionaire and owns several homes.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'champagne socialists'

 

Ha that's a good term for them as well.

 

There are four communist countries left in the world today, Vietnam (ooops), China, Cuba, and North Korea. I'm sure Maxim would feel at home in any one of them. Bye bye Maxim.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Whereas, what, you're rich and don't have any sense of responsibility to anyone else?

I guess he pays his taxes & pays his crew, thats a good start as the higher his profit, the higher percentage gets given to the government to help pay for the poor people who don't pay anything.

 

If everyone was poor, the poor would be very much worse off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but if nobody was rich, or at least as rich as that famous 1%, there would be one less reason why there have to be poor people at all, which is sort of the problem.

 

Economic falsehood. The rich don't cause the poor to be poor. Unless of course you're speaking of an old world economy were the meritocricy is stopped by a ruling class. This would be the situation in many African nations. But in places like Canada, the USA, and the UK, this is not the case.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

"Meritocracy."

 

The problem we have at the moment is that modern society does not adequately reward desirable skills. Instead, it rewards whoever's willing to be the most self-serving, greedy, and narcissistic, with these results:

 

google%20trends%20stock%20market%20crash

 

Fantastic meritocracy, there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know Phil, whenever I read a post from you or Maxim, I can't help but picture a baby in a diaper crying.

 

I don't think there are two bigger moaners, groaners, bitchers, and complainers than you two.

 

Yes Phil, life isn't fair. I hate to be the one to break that to you. There are people that appear to be very lucky, people born into great wealth, and even people that are born with a gene pool that makes them a whole lot better looking than you or I.

 

Yes people with qualities you describe above often do succeed, that is true. However, the fact still remains....in Canada, the UK, and the USA, millions of people over the last 100 years have broken out of the depths of poverty they were born into, and became huge financial success stories. There are too many examples to list.

 

Your idea that there is no hope for people not born into wealth, is a false notion.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you make money by your work, you are an employee, a worker, you do what the producer says, what the owner says, you are not living off profit.

 

If you a producer you make money by employing others to create a film of greater value than the wages you pay the cast and crew. This is profit which results in a few becoming richer in society and others poorer.

 

As the producer has control over the film and not the best boy it is difficult to expect the best boy to take responsibilty for the films failure.

 

Of course if you get the crew and cast to choose the script and director and empower them to make the major decisions they would then be responsible for any shortcomings.

 

Again making up facts about millions of people making social advance when it is shown that social mobility is falling as are wages just shows an intellectual laziness.

 

If you want to know more about my opinions about communism just google "The Road to Gdansk" and "Poland plc" those two films will be able to address the complex histories involved.

 

People who cannot imagine making a film without a boss/producer/owner really do need to liberate themselves.

 

A film crew needs a producer like they need a chocolate teapot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

 

Your idea that there is no hope for people not born into wealth, is a false notion.

 

That's not my idea.

 

My idea, if you want to know, is that there are much reduced prospects for anyone who isn't willing to be a complete narcissist. I am aware that my unwillingness to exaggerate and oversell (that is, to lie) is a significant disadvantage, but that's sort of the point: my sense of self-worth is not reliant on my knowing that I am richer than some benchmark individual. I'm just not that competitive. Life would be nicer if more people felt this way.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to know more about my opinions about communism just google "The Road to Gdansk" and "Poland plc" those two films will be able to address the complex histories involved.

 

Thanks. I don't have the time to watch your films, unfortunately, so perhaps you could just tell us which Communist states you think have produced a fair and equal society.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you make money by your work, you are an employee, a worker, you do what the producer says, what the owner says, you are not living off profit.

 

 

 

But I do both. I do the work, and run the business. If I don't make a profit, I have no earnings.

How does that fit in?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to know more about my opinions about communism just google "The Road to Gdansk" and "Poland plc" those two films will be able to address the complex histories involved.

 

People who cannot imagine making a film without a boss/producer/owner really do need to liberate themselves.

 

A film crew needs a producer like they need a chocolate teapot.

 

This is seriously some of the most hysterical stuff posted on the interweb today. I mean really, is there a Hall Of Fame section on the forum?

 

Such a classic line, "If you want to know more about my opinions about communism just google...." Brilliant Max! Brilliant!

 

I would love to see this film set Maxim envisions where there is no "boss."

 

"A film crew needs a producer like they need a chocolate teapot." There's no point in posting a retort, this stuff is just so damn funny. Post some more Max please!!!

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not say that people would not have different roles. There would be decision makers.

 

The company can run by directors it can have bosses but also can be owned by its workers, or society, not just private individuals or shareholders.

 

A film can be owned by all the people working on the film, they can have a say in its exploitation, but it's script can be written by the script writer, the film directed by the director and shot by the cameraman.

 

Lots of films have been made by collectives, cooperatives, art funding bodies and nationalised film organisations. There was no employer/producer/ in the way that you think is essential. Is this because you cannot understand the concept ? Or because you like a system where people do not have film making ability get to make films and keep all the profits?

 

They employ the people with talent to do the work but take the rewards and control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I do both. I do the work, and run the business. If I don't make a profit, I have no earnings.

How does that fit in?

Do you understand the concept of profit?

 

If you are employing a person and they are producing product of for example $500 per week and you pay them $250 you are making a profit of $250 .

 

If you employ enough people that you do not need to do any work yourself you are a 100% capitalist

 

If you have to work to survive , but hire out a little gear, or employ an assistant and cheat him a little on his wages you are 90% a worker. Even in the hard core communist countries there were small capitalist enterprises.

 

What is needed is democratic control of the gigantic financial corporations that are bleeding society white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. I don't have the time to watch your films, unfortunately, so perhaps you could just tell us which Communist states you think have produced a fair and equal society.

 

 

 

Without time time and study no wisdom. Since the fall of the communist states they have all become vastly more unfair and unequal societies. Since the failure of Social Democracy in the UK Britain has become a more more unequal society.

 

Therefore it is safe to say they were more equal and fair, (this explains the increased popularity of the communist parties in these countries)

 

There were terrible problems in the Communist countries but also some advances. Liberation for women, full employment, housing for all, food and heating for all. In countries with histories of fascism, autocracy and poverty.

 

They failed but as capitalism is failing we will have to try again but better. I suspect that revolutionary change in the USA in the next 50 years will be a game changer,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you understand the concept of profit?

 

I'm not sure you do.

I'm not an employer-I have been- but I have to make a profit. I have to sell my work for more than it costs to produce. That's profit. Am I cheating my suppliers by paying them less than I charge? Does that make me, what, 49%, 51% capitalist, or are you just changing the percentages to justify your own interpretation?

Edited by Mark Dunn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Without time time and study no wisdom.

 

Liberation for women, full employment, housing for all, food and heating for all. In countries with histories of fascism, autocracy and poverty.

 

 

I have time for study, but I usually choose unbiased sources.

 

Perhaps you can explain why all four of the current Communist regimes in the world, and a large proportion of the historical ones, have appalling records on human rights?

 

Why is it that they are all One Party states, and dissent is not tolerated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

OI!!

Tim said "No Politics"!

 

However, I would just like to point out that as inevitably pre-determined as atomic decay will two aspects be brought into a thread like this:

 

1. Someone will mention Nazi Germany

2. Someone will assert that the only way their opponent can be taken seriously is after they have thoroughly studied so-and-so's work, which is inevitably:

 

A. Obvious Drivel from Page/Frame 1

B. Is so far-reaching that it would take months of full-time study just to determine that somewhere in the hundreds of paragraphs/frames might be a factual and contributory statement.

 

I always respond from a QA checking perspective:

 

If pages say, 1, 300, 500, 800 and 1,600 (selected at random) all contain complete rubbish, it is a not unreasonable assumption that all the other pages will too.

 

It's like a manuscript for a book, or a film script: If the submit-ee's eyes start to roll or glaze over halfway down the first page; they're never going to get past page 1.

 

The the submit-er will complain that the submit-ee "didn't give it a chance."

To which the answer is: "Why? Is there some reason to expect it's suddenly going to get better?"

It's not like an auditon, where you have to allow for stage fright....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...