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.