There are lots and lots of movies which invested that and more and lost big time. Some of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biggest_box-office_bom...
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.