Entirely unsurprising, but I’m still very tired
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026
129 points (98.5% liked)
Slop.
869 readers
562 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hexbear dont fall for misinformation ragebait challenge (IMPOSSIBLE):
Kind of a shitty reduction of his entire statement, so one can do ragebait. His actual statement isn't some out of touch thing, but an explanation of how the money gets shared and why. Hes not talking about himself.
He also wasn't a millionaire or someone who financed the movie with daddys money, as far as Im aware, so I dont know where users get that idea.
Not to mention the vast majority of the money doesnt go to him, but to the supplier, who paid millions to have it in cinemas and stuff. The supplier takes almost all the profits.
I dont know how much he has personally made, but I reckon if it was enough to pay out bonuses, those bonuses would first go to people who were either volunteering or people who were on set for the entire period of production.
On top of that the art director took a job in an indie film where she got paid 300$ a day. She was fine with the rate until the movie saw success. She didnt get ripped off, she got paid a fair wage for her work, yet now pretends she didnt.
Edit: here is her statement
nominative determinism strikes again
The coal miners didn't expect to strike gold, so they didn't get ripped off when the mine owner took it all.
To be fair technically they're just as ripped off as when it was just coal
??? the post image actually pretty well summarises his statement. So god knows why you're really worked up about this.
Sounds like you’re a true leftist
If your labor earns millions for the people who didn't do the labor and you aren't paid the resulting profits that is robbery, this is a basic position for anyone claiming to be anti-capitalist.
Yeah, it's a very strange attitude for a long time Hexbear user to have, I think they got fixated on the idea of this being "ragebait" and raged so hard about that themselves that they ended up forgetting basic leftist principles and basic facts about how capitalism works.
$300 a day?! Slave fucking wages!
Honestly these artists bring the rest of us down. It’s $2000 a day for me, and I’m not in Hollywood. I’m booked for months.
I’m paying a tattoo artist $250 an hour.
Why are people working on films for nothing!
The industry is so fucked right now that people take non-union work at shit wages with no benefits. people just want work and don’t care too much where it comes from. that’s what her last line about flipping the project refers to, if the production turned union partway through, that number increases drastically and the workers gets benefits. the producers then argue they can’t afford that but that’s besides the point
can't afford to care
precisely. 300 dollars a day is better than 0, even if it’s a pittance compared to the union compensation
i guarantee you that you're making that money because of who you know, not what you know. That isn't the same as saying you don't know skills worth that value, I'm saying you would not receive even a fraction of that value without whatever connections got you to where you are. See Jabril's comment for more
There are only a certain amount of jobs made with a budget that will pay this each year and there are many more people who need work than how many those can hire.
$1500-$2000 day rate is a normal rate for an industry professional who is booked for months but there are probably dozens or hundreds of people for every role in every city who are not getting those rates which is why you are booked out for months. Those roles are going to you but the dozens of other people who need work are forced to accept less or else they won't be hired over the dozens of others who will accept it.
And sometimes are forced to find work outside of their skillset and specialty just to survive, further hindering their ability to leverage professional skills for a professional income as employers wonder why a skilled [whatever] worked at Amazon for however many months or years instead of practicing [skill]
If the film had a small budget it's not like the worker who took out a few months to work on it for $7000 has taken on much less risk than the writer or producer that chipped in $50,000. This is capitalist apologia. The risk the art lead had was if the movie flopped they might not get much work ever again, leaving them destitute and having to pick up work elsewhere. The same risk that someone who offered up a little seed capital to kick the project off.
The art lead got paid 300$ per day. They were not on set for several months. They did not offer up a little seed capital, they took a job and got paid a pretty good wage. Especially for a movie that had a budget of 250k.
None of this is capitalist apologia, as Curry Barker is not in control of distribution of the movie. The distributors retain the vast majority of profits.
Having saved up some unknown amount of money that one can pour into a passion project does not make one a capitalist.
Keep up the union busting! What we need now isnt solidarity, its quibbling over the meaning of words