Nowadays, people don't go to the movies as often or rent from their local blockbuster; instead, they either stream online, or get a VPN and torrent older movies for private viewing. The economy for this art form will shrink over time if we don't take action to support it.I suggest the American Film Institute, if you are looking for a place to donate to support the art of cinema.https://www.afi.com/support/Thank you for your attention,Anon
>>1403251Pay actors a lot less and the budget will last longer. Make less degenerate movies. Stop shoving agendas down our throats.
>>1403251People are always going to want to tell a story, if they have an idea for one and really want to share it. People have been doing that for thousands of years. The only thing that's changed is the technology that's used to share those sparks of creativity.A lot of the films made nowadays are only made to turn a profit. These are the kinds of movies that will suffer from this "shrinking economy" you describe, OP. Movies that are an actual attempt to convey someone's idea for a story will always continue to exist, because there will always be people with creative ideas.
>>1403255You are a very, very stupid person.
>>1403304But he's right on all points
>>1403304Actors are the court jesters of yesteryear. Their entire job is to entertain, not create "thought provoking edgy art that makes you feel something or pushes the boundaries of societal normalcy". Real life is our reality, we just want to laugh when we watch entertainment. We also don't want to hear our court jesters using their psychopathic ability to pretend to be something they're not in order to elicit emotions with their amaaaazing skills of mental manipulation to steer us towards what one Bernaysian director wants us to think. Beyond Vaudeville, Hollywood is and probably always was way too self-important and manipulative, I'm very happy more people are waking up to that fact. And as far as salary, no one person needs to make $20M for a few months of work. Pay him a few hundred dollars an hour if he's particularly skilled like any other skilled labor, and charge less at the box office. Pumping these idiots up as some icons of society is ridiculous.
>>1403251>rental good>streaming badStreaming's the same as renting from a blockbuster, dumbass. Either way the movie company gets a flat fee, renting's a crappy way to support movies.
>>1404263If movies were affordable there wouldn't be such a large demand for torrents. Charging me $30 per ticket because Tom Hanks needs to buy another island for his illicit activities is fucking ridiculous. Pay him a standard SAG wage with a slight increase for name recognition, and charge $5 at the box office. His contribution wasn't any more important than anyone else that contributed to the making of the film. Someone else could have played that part, he was lucky to have the work. No other industry has a pay scale like that, and the concept of paying residuals and royalties for books, film and music forever is also ridiculous. You did a job, you got paid for it, the producers made their money off the tickets, and if I buy a disk or a printed book I'll gladly pay a small price for the materials and overhead, not for Hanks to get another 50 cents because I bought it. You don't need to pay actors every time someone watches them on screen. It's literally kikes creating a whole industry to find ways to make money by doing nothing. Much the same as JEWelry, shiny baubles that shouldn't cost much more than glass or resin.
