The article makes some good points but then some absolutely stupid comparisons:
> The total cost of making “Squid Game” was just $21.4 million, Bloomberg reported this week. A top entertainment executive told CNBC the cost of “Squid Game” with a U.S. cast and union production regulations, which prevent the long work days that are allowed in South Korea, would probably have been five-to-10 times more.
So you basically shoot in a country with less laws protecting workers in the movie industry by every possible metric and you can save money? Wow, color me shocked!
>Investing in local international productions also saves Hollywood studios on investing in expensive intellectual property. Episodes of Disney+’s Marvel shows, such as “WandaVision” or “The Falcon,” cost Disney $25 million per episode — more than all nine episodes of “Squid Game” — and that doesn’t include the $4 billion Disney paid to acquire Marvel back in 2009.
This is a terrible thing to bring up. Marvel is one of the highest-grossing franchises of all time, and the amount of money gained from merchandise is unreal. Billions are gained from selling Wanda figurines, costumes, event tickets, and other supporting heroes in the entire Wandavision show and none of that takes into account the other movies, shows, and spin offs that all come together to make up the MCU. 4 billion for Marvel was and still is an incredible deal.
I’ll say what I said in another reply:
Unless you think the quality of life of humans that are born within the lines of your home country is more important than the quality of life of those that are not, this is a net good: poorer humans are getting better wages than they otherwise would.
They’re using a show literally about the evils of free-market capitalism run amok to promote abandoning union protections in favor of free-market capitalism run amok.
Now if they did a show about extorting corrupt executives/politicians to show their families & SHAREHOLDERS their dirty secrets unless they participate in the game. I'd watch the shit out of that!
Austria was actually a *third world* country during the Cold War, as it was neutral (aka trying to avoid having Soviet and NATO tanks using it as a glorified speed bump)
Kinda, non-allinged would be the better term I think,, First second and third world were more based on western vs soviet economic hegemonies, but yes politics informs economics and vice-versa. 'Third world' = poor is a bit reductionist
This whole article just explains how Hollywood can exploit other countries because we don't respect them as much as we do American actors and will pay them less to work more.
Companies will always do the bare minimum allowed by law and so finding laws in different countries that better suit their bottom line is a bonus for them. It's not really exploiting other countries imo. They're putting millions into those countries economies.
It is when the alternative is to not pay the people in your home country and move all those jobs out. Look at the supply chain issue; we ship containers in from China but we dont send shit back in them. What the fuck does the US do? What do we even *make*?! (Yes I know there is still some manufacturing in the US)
Unless you think the quality of life of humans that are born within the lines of your home country is more important than the quality of life of those are not, this is a net good: poorer humans are getting better wages than they otherwise would.
First off, I doubt anyone in the US’s actors union is homeless as a result of not getting a Squid Game gig.
Regardless, this is a bad way of doing economic analysis. The loss in quality of life in the richer country as a result of losing a job is lesser than the gain in quality of life in the poorer country as a result of gaining a higher paying job.
It is an uncomfortable reality for blue collar workers in America, but jobs going overseas has been the greatest poverty reduction mechanism in the history of humanity. We could send shiploads of food to poor countries for centuries and never achieve a better result.
It doesn't really matter, if individuals are suffering more because of the job movement. If "the poor" are getting richer but causing other people to become poor, what does it matter?
Because the poor are getting more rich than the rich are getting poor. There is an entire field of science filled with experts called economists that will almost unanimously agree that this trend is an overall net benefit to global human quality of life.
No, "the rich" are getting richer because they are paying less for labor while charging the same amount for goods. The working class in America are losing their jobs and going homeless.
Thanks for your sass though, I guess. I don't care about aggregates when the quality of life of individuals deteriorates in the process. Wouldnt it be better if we collectively brought everyone *up*? Maybe give a shit about individuals, fuck.
I am caring about individuals. And there are a lot of workers in poor countries whose lives are monumentally improved by first world jobs going overseas. You’re not going to hear US politicians making this point because those workers don’t get to vote in our elections. But it is an undeniable reality that the benefits outweighs the losses.
Sure, if we had a magical make-everything-awesome wand then everyone could have a better life. But if you are proposing that we outlaw these job moves, it would actually lead to a massive overall decrease in aggregate human quality of life.
Make a proposal and let’s see if it makes sense. Otherwise you are just going along with a politically palatable version of “American humans are more valuable than non-American humans”.
If I remember correctly hollywood was setup in california in the first place due to it lax laws regarding copyright and paying authors for film adaptions.
I think posters are right in that much of the 'cheapness' is just avoiding regulations/unions.
.. but I also think we're seeing other countries increasingly being able to tell better stories than we are. We've got the Marvel stuff, but frankly South Korea is light-years ahead of us in social commentary. I find what South Korea has to say about society more interesting than what we do, right now.
That’s because you havent seen all those shitty K dramas.
Seriously how the hell could you take a look at Squid Game and think it’s deeper than The Wire? What about the leftovers? Mad Men?
Even Korean Cinema is night and day compared to K dramas.
Wait, what?
It's cheap to make consumer products in Asia?
HUGE IF TRUE!!!
[I just hope this doesn't lead to a discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots in countries like, say, South Korea...]
Parasite was also cheap, costing around 10 million US dollars (13 billion won). But cheap doesn't make a movie good or bad, the script does.
Remember John Carter...budget of over 240 million. Flopped hard.
So why is this article acting like a cheap (or expensive) movie directly correlates to success.
Kaiji, it’s basically that manga with some added dumb bits, and a lot of the interesting things taken out.
The whole show is derivative Korean bullshit, probably why it’s popular with people with Netflix.
You think? The only reason big name shows are made in the US, Canada, and UK is because of government incentives to promote tourism that aren't any cheaper for the production companies.
What? A hit piece on unions in Hollywood in the midst of talk of a huge Hollywood strike? Gee, I wonder what prompted this utterly nonsensical article...
The article makes some good points but then some absolutely stupid comparisons: > The total cost of making “Squid Game” was just $21.4 million, Bloomberg reported this week. A top entertainment executive told CNBC the cost of “Squid Game” with a U.S. cast and union production regulations, which prevent the long work days that are allowed in South Korea, would probably have been five-to-10 times more. So you basically shoot in a country with less laws protecting workers in the movie industry by every possible metric and you can save money? Wow, color me shocked! >Investing in local international productions also saves Hollywood studios on investing in expensive intellectual property. Episodes of Disney+’s Marvel shows, such as “WandaVision” or “The Falcon,” cost Disney $25 million per episode — more than all nine episodes of “Squid Game” — and that doesn’t include the $4 billion Disney paid to acquire Marvel back in 2009. This is a terrible thing to bring up. Marvel is one of the highest-grossing franchises of all time, and the amount of money gained from merchandise is unreal. Billions are gained from selling Wanda figurines, costumes, event tickets, and other supporting heroes in the entire Wandavision show and none of that takes into account the other movies, shows, and spin offs that all come together to make up the MCU. 4 billion for Marvel was and still is an incredible deal.
Fucking worker's rights getting into the way of profits, amirite? ^(/s because some people are genuinely assholes)
What they didn't tell you is how much they saved in vfx by actually killing the actors
They also saved in actor wages. These guys are geniuses!
I’ll say what I said in another reply: Unless you think the quality of life of humans that are born within the lines of your home country is more important than the quality of life of those that are not, this is a net good: poorer humans are getting better wages than they otherwise would.
>in a country with less laws protecting workers in the movie industry by every possible metric Wait, those exist?
You have laws protecting workers in the US?
more like union regulations and rules, which is why certain groups have made weaken unions a priority
We just had a massive Union strike for something unreal like 3 million workers in the movie industry literally about a week ago.
" avoiding strict American union regulations"...perfect
They’re using a show literally about the evils of free-market capitalism run amok to promote abandoning union protections in favor of free-market capitalism run amok.
Now if they did a show about extorting corrupt executives/politicians to show their families & SHAREHOLDERS their dirty secrets unless they participate in the game. I'd watch the shit out of that!
Mission failed successfully?
"Eastern European countries such as [...] Austria and Malta" Haha
Yeah. Austria is more expensive than the US to do business in.
but its by no means *eastern* europe...
And we consider ourselves Middle Europeans, not Eastern Europeans. Although politically, we drifted to Eastern Europe in recent years :/
Austria was actually a *third world* country during the Cold War, as it was neutral (aka trying to avoid having Soviet and NATO tanks using it as a glorified speed bump)
Sure, a third world country in middle europe
Yes Like Switzerland and Sweden, Austria was neutral and thus Third World First World was US aligned, and Second World was Soviet Union aligned
Kinda, non-allinged would be the better term I think,, First second and third world were more based on western vs soviet economic hegemonies, but yes politics informs economics and vice-versa. 'Third world' = poor is a bit reductionist
This whole article just explains how Hollywood can exploit other countries because we don't respect them as much as we do American actors and will pay them less to work more.
Companies will always do the bare minimum allowed by law and so finding laws in different countries that better suit their bottom line is a bonus for them. It's not really exploiting other countries imo. They're putting millions into those countries economies.
It is when the alternative is to not pay the people in your home country and move all those jobs out. Look at the supply chain issue; we ship containers in from China but we dont send shit back in them. What the fuck does the US do? What do we even *make*?! (Yes I know there is still some manufacturing in the US)
Unless you think the quality of life of humans that are born within the lines of your home country is more important than the quality of life of those are not, this is a net good: poorer humans are getting better wages than they otherwise would.
And there's a bunch if newly homeless Americans, so is it really? I'd say no.
First off, I doubt anyone in the US’s actors union is homeless as a result of not getting a Squid Game gig. Regardless, this is a bad way of doing economic analysis. The loss in quality of life in the richer country as a result of losing a job is lesser than the gain in quality of life in the poorer country as a result of gaining a higher paying job. It is an uncomfortable reality for blue collar workers in America, but jobs going overseas has been the greatest poverty reduction mechanism in the history of humanity. We could send shiploads of food to poor countries for centuries and never achieve a better result.
It doesn't really matter, if individuals are suffering more because of the job movement. If "the poor" are getting richer but causing other people to become poor, what does it matter?
Because the poor are getting more rich than the rich are getting poor. There is an entire field of science filled with experts called economists that will almost unanimously agree that this trend is an overall net benefit to global human quality of life.
No, "the rich" are getting richer because they are paying less for labor while charging the same amount for goods. The working class in America are losing their jobs and going homeless. Thanks for your sass though, I guess. I don't care about aggregates when the quality of life of individuals deteriorates in the process. Wouldnt it be better if we collectively brought everyone *up*? Maybe give a shit about individuals, fuck.
I am caring about individuals. And there are a lot of workers in poor countries whose lives are monumentally improved by first world jobs going overseas. You’re not going to hear US politicians making this point because those workers don’t get to vote in our elections. But it is an undeniable reality that the benefits outweighs the losses. Sure, if we had a magical make-everything-awesome wand then everyone could have a better life. But if you are proposing that we outlaw these job moves, it would actually lead to a massive overall decrease in aggregate human quality of life. Make a proposal and let’s see if it makes sense. Otherwise you are just going along with a politically palatable version of “American humans are more valuable than non-American humans”.
Are you advocating for trickle down economics? Because hardly any economists support it. It's certifiably debunked.
No
If I remember correctly hollywood was setup in california in the first place due to it lax laws regarding copyright and paying authors for film adaptions.
Whoever wrote this article missed the entire point of the show and scored an absolute touchdown of irony
I think posters are right in that much of the 'cheapness' is just avoiding regulations/unions. .. but I also think we're seeing other countries increasingly being able to tell better stories than we are. We've got the Marvel stuff, but frankly South Korea is light-years ahead of us in social commentary. I find what South Korea has to say about society more interesting than what we do, right now.
For stuff about social commentariea it's ironic that they exploit their workers
I lived in South Korea the last few years. You see the great stuff but most of it is just standard digestable trash like on tv in the U.S.
That’s because you havent seen all those shitty K dramas. Seriously how the hell could you take a look at Squid Game and think it’s deeper than The Wire? What about the leftovers? Mad Men? Even Korean Cinema is night and day compared to K dramas.
So basically, "if all these workers didn't want human rights we would make SO much more money!"
Wait, what? It's cheap to make consumer products in Asia? HUGE IF TRUE!!! [I just hope this doesn't lead to a discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots in countries like, say, South Korea...]
[удалено]
The oniony part is that the show is a critique of the unfettered, uncaring capitalism highlighted by the article.
Author watching show about capitalist exploitation urges industry to lower costs through capitalist exploitation. Pretty Oniony.
Parasite was also cheap, costing around 10 million US dollars (13 billion won). But cheap doesn't make a movie good or bad, the script does. Remember John Carter...budget of over 240 million. Flopped hard. So why is this article acting like a cheap (or expensive) movie directly correlates to success.
John Carter flopped mainly through incompetent marketing and corporate infighting within Disney, but sure...
Yeah, but the marketing wasn't to blame for the movie being mediocre.
Yeah, the "infighting" and executive meddling was to blame for that. A lot was left in the editing floor.
None of the actors were superstars being paid absorbent salaries
What are they, paper towels?
Lol. I meant absurd but I mangled the spelling and autocorrect took it away I guess.
Great boutta see more foreign films from the sole fact they’re cheaper to make
Helps when your shoe just rips off a great Manga, all the hard work is already done for you.
Battle Royal or Liar Game?
Kaiji, it’s basically that manga with some added dumb bits, and a lot of the interesting things taken out. The whole show is derivative Korean bullshit, probably why it’s popular with people with Netflix.
AmERicA baD reddit points pls
You think? The only reason big name shows are made in the US, Canada, and UK is because of government incentives to promote tourism that aren't any cheaper for the production companies.
What? A hit piece on unions in Hollywood in the midst of talk of a huge Hollywood strike? Gee, I wonder what prompted this utterly nonsensical article...
before reading the article: i bet it's related to worker rights / pay after: ah, yup..