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).

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks 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.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 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.

[–] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 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.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks 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.