[HN Gopher] Tom Hanks on the Rewards and "Vicious Reality" of Ma...
___________________________________________________________________
Tom Hanks on the Rewards and "Vicious Reality" of Making Movies
Author : cocacola1
Score : 47 points
Date : 2023-05-28 17:50 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.newyorker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.newyorker.com)
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Read the whole piece, and while a few anecdotes are interesting,
| such as the underwater scene in Splash... I don't feel like I
| learned anything useful.
|
| Oh, maybe that some movies aren't appreciated immediately, but
| that seems rather obvious. Maybe I'm getting old, haha.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| The viscous reality of movies is that the movie industry has
| honed to a fine degree paying almost zero taxes and is insanely
| predatory to anyone not unionized, willing to do literally
| anything to save a penny...all the while pushing feel-good PR
| stories on social media about stuff like Pedro or Keanu buying 5
| Guys for the crew.
|
| The industry negotiates tax breaks for the production, with
| locals envisioning actors and crew staying in local lodging and
| renting equipment locally, hiring local catering companies,
| hiring local carpenters, yadda yadda. Jobs for local workers,
| spending at local businesses!
|
| Reality: they'll rent a parking lot, rent trailers from the
| cheapest company they can find that likely is from multiple
| states over, hire an out-of-town catering company that at best
| gets food from the local sysco distributor, and all the crew are
| flown in, with few locals able to work many jobs because they're
| not union. All the equipment will be rented from the cheapest
| rental house - almost certainly not the most local one.
|
| When reality hits everyone in the community and the tax breaks
| are repealed or not renewed, the industry moves on to the next
| city that the actuaries have told them will cut them a great
| deal.
|
| Rinse, wash, repeat.
| scoofy wrote:
| The issue is that the product is scalable, desirable,
| profitable, and the work can be done by _almost_ anyone.
|
| 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.
| cratermoon wrote:
| The Simpsons episode "Radioactive Man" nailed this.
| furyofantares wrote:
| This is just a response to the title of the article and nothing
| whatsoever to do with its contents, right?
| gamblor956 wrote:
| I've worked on a number of Hollywood productions.
|
| 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).
| breck wrote:
| You can think the industry is a mess (I think it is because of
| copyright, predictably: https://breckyunits.com/a-mathematical-
| model-of-copyright.ht...) but also appreciate the article.
|
| Tom Hanks is a master at the craft and shares an enlightening
| and unique perspective on movie making and life.
| rgbgraph wrote:
| A master of what craft? Fast entertainment?
|
| 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.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Never cared that much for Hanks as an actor. I recognize
| that he's had tons of critical acclaim but he just doesn't
| do much for me.
|
| Of the ones I've seen, the only Hanks movie I really like
| is _The Money Pit._
| mslate wrote:
| The only piece I don't understand: why are actuaries involved?
| cratermoon wrote:
| When your movie is thin retelling of another movie (think
| Kurosawa's "The Hidden Fortress" v Lucas' "Star Wars"),
| actuaries can help make sure the retelling is just enough
| different from the original to avoid a lawsuit.
| ok_dad wrote:
| Do know what actuaries do? That's not what they do.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Yeah, actuaries look at statistics and determine relative
| financial risks and benefits of a particular course of
| action. In the example I gave, the course of action is
| "remake 'The Hidden Fortress' as a space sci-fi fantasy
| movie" and the actuaries plug in various values for
| copyright and intellectual property lawsuit risks and
| costs, potential revenue from the new movie and give
| predictions for what level of copying (or other risky
| behavior) is acceptable to reduce costs below the
| projected revenue without risking a costly lawsuit. Or
| maybe they just recommend buying the rights as cheaper
| than the potential cost.
| borski wrote:
| Parent likely meant accountants or tax advisors / attorneys.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| They have to buy insurance against events that would derail
| production. DeForest Kelley was denied a role in
| ST:Generations because he was deemed an uninsurable death
| risk.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Completely false. Kelley turned down appearing in
| ST:Generations, despite a large payday.
|
| "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.""
| denverllc wrote:
| A bit dark, but maybe they're factoring in the expected
| lifetime of the stunt crew into the budget?
| smcin wrote:
| Saves on return transportation.
|
| Like in 'Pitch Black'.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| archive.org:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230528201546/https://www.newyo...
| fractallyte wrote:
| It's a shame he distanced himself so completely from, arguably,
| one of his best movies: Joe Versus the Volcano (1990)
| (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099892/)
|
| Hanks: _' Rubicon No. 3, the critical reaction to it--which is a
| version of the vox populi. Someone is going to say, "I hated it."
| Other people can say, "I think it's brilliant." Somewhere in
| between the two is what the movie actually is.'_
|
| JVtV is extremely polarizing: people either love it, or hate it.
| But there's no 'in-between' here - a lot of people just don't
| 'get it'. John Patrick Shanley made a very personal, quirky
| movie, full of metaphor and wisdom - and it's _great!_
| dingusdew wrote:
| [dead]
| da02 wrote:
| Any analysis you would recommend of JVtV? Does the volcano
| represent that Joe has to overcome the imagined fears that is
| preventing him from growing in life?
| lumost wrote:
| Does it need to? The whole premise is that he hates his
| "relatively" cushy factory management job enough to think
| jumping in a volcano is a better use of his life.
| joering2 wrote:
| I wonder if there is a worse way to go? I mean even getting
| your skull crushed in car accident seems lights out in less
| than a second. Jumping into a volcano I can imagine you
| stay alive for some 10 seconds or so before you obviously
| pass out but not before tasting lava in your stomach.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-28 23:00 UTC)