J
jenny
Guest
i got better legs than him[/QUOTE
Ok a little exaggeration is always good xx
J
jenny
Guest
No just not interested... interested in more important stuff ... footballers are not important ..their salaries could save millions
B
Bad_Influence
Guest
To be fair they only get paid what they are worth to the business. If you are going to suggest that the money could be better spent, then you are suggesting that actors should not be paid millions for making films, or top CEOs should not be paid fortunes for managing big organisations.
Market demands in sport are the same as for any business, consumers demand a high quality product and to supply that, the company has to pay for the best people to supply that quality. If one company (club) doesn't pay high wages, another will, and the ones who will are the ones who succeed. It's simple supply and demand.
J
jenny
Guest
I expect It's a question of priorities for me , not being a football supporter , but enjoying films etc .. It's just football to me seems like buying the best players usually from other countries ,seems to mean the richest teams get the best player . is this a money thing and not a sport thing ? ..
J
jenny
Guest
you is who said ?im worthless
B
Bad_Influence
Guest
It's an ENTERTAINMENT thing.... just the same as the film industry.
Football clubs pay for the best players to gain success, win trophies, get more supporters (hence sell more merchandise).
Movie makers hire the best directors/producers/actors to get more people to watch the film.
J
jenny
Guest
Yes ok I agree ...It's a shame that the obscene salaries can't go to support people who are suffering though ...
B
Bad_Influence
Guest
Sorry I can't agree. Take away all entertainment and the world would be a sorrier place. I do agree they are over-paid but understand the business motives. We could say it would be nice if kings and queens of the poorest countries stopped amassing fortunes and instead gave it to the people who are starving, but sadly it seems it's easier to hand out the begging bowl to richer nations. Life IS unfair on many levels and always will be.
J
jenny
Guest
Words you are not suffering stop whinging no one is taken in by it grrr xx
U
unacosa
Guest
not really how it works tbh
B
Bad_Influence
Guest
Yes it is. It's entertainment
U
unacosa
Guest
i didn't say it wasn't entertainment? i said "movie makers hiring the best directors/producers/actors to get more people to watch the film" isn't how it works.
B
Bad_Influence
Guest
Really???? Please explain.
U
unacosa
Guest
because it's not as simplistic as "studio comes up with film idea > let's hire steven spielberg or martin scorsese and leonardo dicaprio > we rich now". most films are developed independently of a studio or a production company and then brought to them and pitched and a lot of times the writer will want to direct too and they often do if hat's the case, even if they've never done it before so aren't "a name". and a lot of times they'll go through multiple smaller production companies that are going to allow for more freedom, and then later it'll be sold to a bigger studio for distribution.
even franchise things that studios own don't really just go like that generally. it's more good marketing and relying on the franchise name, and the film quality most of the time now. like the first recent it film, basically a totally unknown cast and a fairly unknown argentinian director and it made $700m cause they hired people that were right for it, and not just "the best names" and they marketed it well, and it was a good film. look at how marvel make choices for directors that seem weird and surprising like the russo brothers, or anna boden and ryan fleck, or james gunn, or jon watts or taika waititi, or colin trevorrow and j.a. bayona directing jurassic park sequels. most people won't have heard of them but they're "right" for the film and not just a studio going for "the best" big name director. i'm guessing when you say the best you also mean a big name to bring people in, but just look at will smith's career the last decade to see that being a big name doesn't mean as much as it might have once because it's not a sign of quality anymore. look at some of the sh** he's done like focus or bright, or something like collateral beauty, that had will smith, edward norton, keira knightley, kate winslet and helen mirren in it, and was slated and made like $80m. guy spends more time doing youtube these days. avatar was the highest grossing film ever for a decade and it's two leads were sam worthington and zoe saldana.
tl;dr version: it's not as basic and simplistic as you think it is. there are lots of variables.
even franchise things that studios own don't really just go like that generally. it's more good marketing and relying on the franchise name, and the film quality most of the time now. like the first recent it film, basically a totally unknown cast and a fairly unknown argentinian director and it made $700m cause they hired people that were right for it, and not just "the best names" and they marketed it well, and it was a good film. look at how marvel make choices for directors that seem weird and surprising like the russo brothers, or anna boden and ryan fleck, or james gunn, or jon watts or taika waititi, or colin trevorrow and j.a. bayona directing jurassic park sequels. most people won't have heard of them but they're "right" for the film and not just a studio going for "the best" big name director. i'm guessing when you say the best you also mean a big name to bring people in, but just look at will smith's career the last decade to see that being a big name doesn't mean as much as it might have once because it's not a sign of quality anymore. look at some of the sh** he's done like focus or bright, or something like collateral beauty, that had will smith, edward norton, keira knightley, kate winslet and helen mirren in it, and was slated and made like $80m. guy spends more time doing youtube these days. avatar was the highest grossing film ever for a decade and it's two leads were sam worthington and zoe saldana.
tl;dr version: it's not as basic and simplistic as you think it is. there are lots of variables.
B
Bad_Influence
Guest
I never suggested it was simple. I merely said that they hire the best (most popular) and that will almost guarantee better box office figures. People WILL go to the cinema to watch Brad Pitt / Angelina Jolie / Tom Hanks etc simply because they are in it. They will go to see a film simply because it is directed by Spielberg.
It is interesting you chose IT to prove your point.... The original is one of the most iconic horror films even made, based on a book by one of the best horror authors ever, and starring Tim Curry giving one of the best acting performances in a horror film ever. Any remake had a lot to live up to and while they used mainly unknown actors... the pre-release marketing was huge. It was never going to fail.
No NAME guarantees a hit, but it does help, whether you like to admit it or not.
It is interesting you chose IT to prove your point.... The original is one of the most iconic horror films even made, based on a book by one of the best horror authors ever, and starring Tim Curry giving one of the best acting performances in a horror film ever. Any remake had a lot to live up to and while they used mainly unknown actors... the pre-release marketing was huge. It was never going to fail.
No NAME guarantees a hit, but it does help, whether you like to admit it or not.
G
Greatscott
Guest
well i will say this point that people complain how much footballers earn and the money is generated from Broadcasting rights, Match day revenue, Sponsorship, Merchandise, Transfers, Prize money etc..... if the clubs didn't exist the money wouldn't go elsewhere as the money would not exist as the owners of the clubs would invest elsewhere