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.
Entirely unsurprising, but I’m still very tired
those who take financial risks are rewarded the most
That's the problem, the people who actually make the thing get nothing but the rich fuckers who restrained the project every step of the way and hindered the actual creative process in favour of profit are the only ones who benefit.
I truly don’t know if the world will ever reach a point where we can have a genuine conversation about shit like this. It always seems to evolve into the average person taking the side of the business person and arguing that the “complainer” knew what they signed up for
Every conversation about exploitation gets derailed by capitalist apologists repeating the same set of talking points while deepthroating the boat. Sad
"They were asking for it. Did you see what they were wearing? A uniform for christ' sake" -average person discussing any form of employee exploitation.
That’s a boycott from me towards his future movies
Curry Barker - YouTube Creators Who Have Made the Jump to Hollywood 
And yet not having enough finances can be a financial risk
...nor do the wealthy ever have any negative outcomes. If their investment fails, they start asking for government bailouts or filing insurance claims. There's never any actual risk. Just different directions from where they get their money.
Reminds me of Musk's infinite buying strategy:
Levchin was at a friend’s bachelor pad hanging out with Musk. Some people were playing a high-stakes game of Texas Hold ‘Em. Although Musk was not a card player, he pulled up to the table. “There were all these nerds and sharpsters who were good at memorizing cards and calculating odds,” Levchin says. “Elon just proceeded to go all in on every hand and lose. Then he would buy more chips and double down. Eventually, after losing many hands, he went all in and won. Then he said “Right, fine, I’m done.” It would be a theme in his life: avoid taking chips off the table; keep risking them.
Moral of the story: Be rich enough to keep trying
The Martingale strategy lmao
My theory is that nazi musk has ruined every social interaction he's ever had
No no you see you can only take a “risk” if you are a serious person with capital to lose 
The artists and crew took their own risk of doing this film and not doing something else that made even minimum wage. Putting in money you get in your sleep is not a risk.
the "risk" they take is that if it fails they might have to become a worker
Oh look, turns out it"s a class thing and there are no good/bad generations
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 
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
nominative determinism strikes again
??? 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
She didnt get ripped off, she got paid a fair wage for her work, yet now pretends she didnt.
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
people just want work and don’t care too much where it comes from
can't afford to care
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.
as always, piracy stays winning.
it's hilarious to me when the studio reputation management campaigns come out and act like the people on the high seas are stealing money from the key grip and the hair & makeup people. like those people ever get points, even on these "startup" type indie projects.
nope, it's all just shoestring corner-cutting on labor allowing the "investor" to brag about how they 10-100x'd due to their shrewd strategy of "having a bunch of money already".
Go ahead, just say you wanted to be the millionaire. Thats what you wanted.
When you put time and reputation on a film are you not also taking financial risk? If the film flops then odds are you will get less work, and less paying work. This art director was treated like an unpaid intern.
Wow hexbear comments section goes so hard.
The financers/producers openly dissuaded union work because of the "tight budgets." As a result, the workers got fucked over while the financiers made out. I wonder how a film with such a tight budget, was able to afford the kind of marketing that allowed it to catapult to this kind of breakaway success story? I guess its just that good of a movie, word of mouth right? Marketplace of ideas, surely not a concerted effort by various sectors of the movie industry to promote a union-busting film, to lend legitimacy to a new business model that ensures even more technical trades get forced to take lower wages in order to return profits to those who took "financial risks."
Indie films dont have the same level of engagement as larger blockbusters by unions, particularly the crew union IATSE. The unions just dont really keep track of indie movies. They also have a lot of pull with american production and distribution companies. So the movie was made for 750k, and sold for 15m (what a roi!) to a Canadian distributor, bypassing american union reach, and the distributor took on marketing. They used "guerrilla marketing" tactics to lend some bona fide to the low budget.
There have been a lot of films in recent years made for exceedingly low budgets, using this indie movie loophole and trying out various other tactics like filming in Las Vegas where union penetration is lower, though this often still leads to the crews seeking out and organizing union contracts. None so far has been this big of a success, so Obsession is being pushed in every which way. Its the realization of a long project by movie production companies to skirt union oversight. This always leads to more dangerous conditions and lower wages across the board.
I dont know about you all, but I'm never watching this shit ass movie, and I will never watch anything by this director/production company, if I can help it.
Is he the dingus who said The Simpsons invented the monkey's paw tale?
It is, though he didn't technically say that but clearly didn't mention the base story so it's safe to assume he's totally unaware of it. He also said "live TV" when referring to a Simpsons rerun.
Wow
Just. Wow.
I have got to get my shit together and find a financier for my movie, Death by Cloud
Read the actual statement instead of falling for ragebait.
New tagline material?
Difficult to have any enthusiasm for any "indie boom"
Obsession bad now Kane ParSONS the first 21 year old man would never smh
Do we know if his contract had backend points? This reads a lot differently if he came out of this with a percentage of that $300m versus whatever flat dollar amount he was paid.
At the very best it's still capitalist ideology, but it's a difference of trying to justify himself not paying an artist what they deserve, versus justifying why his bosses didn't pay that artist what they deserve.
In any case if he made any significant amount off this he should throw a bone to anyone that didn't.
