Crazy story. One man die poor while an Hollywood elite made millions from his own story.
Great way to tell how unfair this world is.
May he rest in peace.
Great way to tell how unfair this world is.
May he rest in peace.
With 250k you can't even buy a decent apartment in a decent area in Paris
Why would you want to send him back to Iran?
Ya he could've gone anyone and live as hermit, but this doesn't make the story less unfair.
He has gotten way less compared to what he has generated for the movie industry.
Well I meant that he would willingly want to do so himself instead of living in an airport.
But as to why France would want to? Because they don't want this guy living in their airport, and he's Iranian that's his home. He could have a real life there.
I think it's fair to be handed a check while other people make the movie, it's a good chunk of money. If he didn't have skills to allow him to earn money to afford a real apartment along with the movie money, yes he should have "been a hermit" in a smaller village or gone back to Iran. It's a ridiculous story to live in an airport for 18 years, he was a hermit there too.
You mean in the section following his (short lived) claims that he was actually Swedish?
This is one of the more shallow insights I’ve seen on HN recently, and is quite offensive.
Just saying
The production has decided to invest 60 million dollars, these money are going to be wasted ok? They have to do the production, pay the actors, technicians, marketing, royalties etc.
Whatever is the case, BEFORE the movie is out, they lost 60 millions. That's what an investment is, losing money in the short term, with the intention to make more on the long run.
So, in any case, someone smarter than me and you, decided that this guy story is worth, at the very least, an investment of 60 millions dollar. THIS IS MY POINT!
The fact that they did more money, good for them, no problem at all that's their business. If nobody went to see the movie, they'd lose 60 million dollars. Not a big deal, cause the production will make not 1 movie but plenty, so from a diversification point of view, they're covered. They can make the 60 million or more in the next movie if this would've had a bad result.
Is that clear?
Replying with the fact that movie lose money too, doesn't change anything upfront. Cause the production spent 60 millions, so for them IS A MULTI MILLION DOLLAR STORY
Why are you so angry at others not spending more than the $250k they did when apparently you spent none?
I'm always amazed how people are so quick to demand others give to some cause when not giving even a penny.
So it's not irrelevant. It demonstrates quite clearly the issue. Once you understand why you gave zero, you're closer to understanding why someone else didn't give a million.
We're talking about a Hollywood production making 220 millions, not a couple of people running a show for a small town of 300 people.
You do understand that this is exploitation right?
Paying someone 250k and profiting 220 millions?
I'm not on the position to give anything to the guy because he was not asking for it.
Since the Hollywood production made a fortune on his, they could've at the very least provided him with a normal life for the time he was around.
Exactly. It's always those with the most excuses about why they won't spend their own money on something who are loudest about wanting to spend other's money on it. Again, "Once you understand why you gave zero, you're closer to understanding why someone else didn't give a million".
>Paying someone 250k and profiting 220 millions?
Profiting $220M? This is complete nonsense. The movie cost $60M to make. It had a box office ticket sales of $220m. Those ticket sales are not "profit" - some goes to theaters, some goes to pay back the $60M + interest. Some is spent on marketing. Calling revenue profit is untrue no matter how you slice it.
And the exposure the movie brought to the story likely added far more to helping the man than the money they paid for him.
You have a very misguided understanding of this.
>You do understand that this is exploitation right?
Yes, if we could just ban making movies about any topic unless everyone in the entire chain is provided a life of luxury then we'd all be just fine. Except movies bringing many important issues to the wider masses would not happen, and there would likely be more, not less, exploitation in the world since no longer could filmmakers choose important social topics, because some internet troll isn't happy about people not being paid millions.
So, if you really want to help people, and not just rant about spending other people's money, get out there, donate, spend time, or whatever, helping those around you.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33582060
Also, actors don't get paid if the movie doesn't go well? How about the technicians, crew, marketing etc?
Lol
Sometimes they don’t. It depends on what deal they are on. Heh, you need to follow your own advice you gave to some random person on this website some days ago. You should google before you say something.
There's something called contracts and not all actors are paid in the same way. "LOL" as you said.
Paris itself no, but in the metropolitan area (where most people actually live), 250k€ gets you a nice appartament in a nice city well connected to Paris. Especially 20 years ago's 250k€.
According to the BBC, he used the 250k to move out of the airport [0]. He moved back to the terminal a few weeks ago before dying there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal
Was it to much to give, lets say, even 1 million to this guy? It would've been less unfair at the very least.
Outside of the popcorn movies, 90% of a proper movie are the stories behind. All bio movie have a powerful story to tell... Not the always available Hollywood plot: world in danger -> bad guy to fight -> Americans to save the world -> we'll live in peace and prosperity
A movie costs a lot more.
Have you considered the fact that if he was given a choice of royalty payment (for ex. 10K advance and rest royalty) vs $250K cold hard cash, which one he would have opted for anyway?
I know what I would have opted if I was in his situation.
60 mil budget, they could've increased easily to lets say 61 or 65 and let this guy pocket the difference (1 to 5 mil)
What if the stars that got paid millions would've instead cut their own profit for a small amount (eg. 100k) each, that would've provided the man with a reasonable amount of money, while at the same time they wouldn't even feel the difference.
If really there was any budget constraint.