[flagged]
They hire a local production company, it's usually the same company cuz they're the best here but it's a non trivial amount of money going in locally.
One of the shows paid the owner of the convenience store to shoot some exterior shots at his spot. They painted a mural for the movie, then repainted his whole building after they were done along with cutting him a nice check.
They definitely eat food from all the neighborhood spots.
There's certainly plenty of shady BS in hollywood but I think you're painting with too broad a brush.
I think the previous comment was to say the majority doesn't get spent locally. Sure some does, but a lot less than many would expect.
Industries like this are natural monopolies where connections matter much more than talent.
The ability to extract value out of people in these scenarios is quite sickening.
It’s not just getting a good script it needs to be the right scrip at the right time, which can actually be filmed on an appropriate budget.
A huge issue is you need a large team of world class people that all work together, and then the movie ends in a few weeks or months and all those people need to find work on the next project. Actors, costumes, lighting, props, etc generally end up being very expensive sub contractors which you need to schedule together because a studio has trouble just paying those people year round. So now each of those subcontractors is going to be one of a handful of people/companies also need enough work to keep going etc etc.
And all of that isn’t even considered actors, post production, test audiences, promotion, etc.
You can make indie films for pennies. The fact that so many studios fail is exactly my point. Films are so easy to make, that you create an arms race in production costs.
If there were no major studios, our theaters would still be full of fine feature films.
You may personally enjoy many indy films more than what comes out of major studios but they’re niche products that mostly appeal to a specific and relatively small audience. If you want wide appeal costs really do spiral both for the film and just as importantly advertising it.
> The overwhelming majority of indie films are unprofitable.
We should expect this in this type of industry! My point is only that if the big studios were to go away, the film industry would still survive and reconstitute itself very quickly. The only reason why it's so difficult to make a profitable movie, is that there is limited, very expensive, access to getting a film in front of people. There are still large audience who seek out film, but the number of films they can consume is limited... this leads to a virtually unwinnable arms race to get people's attention.
Studios need to spend "$35.9 million on average" on marketing alone, which is an obvious nod to the fact that the industry is a natural monopoly: https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-cost1.htm
Movie theaters are happy to show independent films that have significant buzz. And several independent films have done so, but that’s such a small percent of total independent films as to suggest it’s hard.
Pretty much all of what you said is false. Especially the part about tax breaks, since that isn't how film tax incentives work...film tax incentives are statutory, with little to no options for negotiation, require audited records of local spending, and usually have other requirements (such as "cultural" content for French tax incentives).
Tom Hanks is a master at the craft and shares an enlightening and unique perspective on movie making and life.
Tom Hanks is a master of perfectly playing an unbelievably dull character -- with just enough subtle quirk that a half-awake audience can project their half-baked sensibilities onto.
No different than the New Yorker, that wafts on for ages -- that only someone looking too hard can find merit in.
Yes. Is that not worthy of respect?
I'm not saying he's a John McCarthy or Linus Torvalds. Many people can be masters, not all masters have to pivot the world.
Of the ones I've seen, the only Hanks movie I really like is The Money Pit.
"In The Fifty-Year Mission: The Next 25 Years oral history of Star Trek by Mark A. Altman and Edward Gross, DeForest Kelley explained that he was disappointed that Dr. Leonard McCoy and his crewmates only appeared in one scene, commenting: "When I read the script and saw we were only in the first ten minutes, I thought it was best to pass and go out with [Star Trek] VI." At that time, Kelley didn't know that Nimoy also said no and he admits, "I certainly wouldn't have done the film without him in it.""
I’ve seen accounts that the cost of his insurance was a factor in his rejecting the film (he wasn’t denied a role), but most accounts I’ve seen focus on his (and much of the TOS cast’s) issues with the structure of the story and the roles they would have had in it, and how they were much happier having The Undiscovered Country as their last film in their roles.
Like in 'Pitch Black'.