[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 | | When reality hits everyone in the community and the tax breaks | are repealed or not renewed, the industry moves on to the next | city that the actuaries have told them will cut them a great | deal.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)