>This is a real screenshot from an 8 ep TV show with a $480m budget.
I don't like those weird comparisons of budget/quality when you know full well the cgi budget is 50k done in an indian farm and most of the money goes to the actors/directors
>>221388329>most of the money goes to the actors/directorsThe reason is that actors and directors can't be paid in residuals like they would be for a Hollywood movie since everyone knows that Netflix slop makes no money.
>>221388365Nah, the actual reason is delusional capitalism scaling that's not designed to support the capitalism delusion scaling. An actor will make 1 million, the movie/series will be successful and make 300M, and then they'll be called for the sequel.And the actor will say>Well, because you made 300M, now I want 10M for my contract for the sequel!There is little other jobs in the planet out of the 10 thousand jobs that you can do, that will agree to an increase of 900% on your salary.Even asking for 2 million is a %100 increaseThe model is not unsustainable. What's unsustainable and doesn't compensate, is that if a movie flops, the actor doesn't get a massive decrease on pay for his next project.
>>221388592>if a movie flops, the actor doesn't get a massive decrease on pay for his next project.Yes, they do though?
>>221387516so the problem is they don't light the actors the way they would be lit if they were standing out there in the open sky with the sun, right?
>>221388719Absolutely not on proportion of the increase, no.If they did, which would be reasonable, after multiple flops (like, 2, not 10) the actor wouldn't get any work.You'll get 1M, then a hit, 10M, then a flop, back to 1M, then a flop, 100k, then a flop, 10k, then after another flop you'll find some other line of work and you can't work as actor anymore.That would be a sustainable model, sure.That's absolutely not reality.Sidney Sweeney had 4 consecutives, back to back flops and she's still getting work
>>221388813>Sidney Sweeney had 4 consecutives, back to back flops and she's still getting work
>>221389208Madame Web (February 2024)Americana (August 2025)Eden (August 2025)Christy (November 2025)
>>221387516oh hi jonathan how's your sex life
>>221387516They produce in 295p now?
>>221388329you don't seem like you know anything, you just sit there 24/7 posting slurs in your mom's house
>>221387516I have no evidence for this but I suspect budgets are just made up
>>221387516>if a movie or show cost a lot to make, then every frame needs to look expensive
>>221388813 Actors have no Star power anymore even if they are popular or in a lot of stuff.No one goes to see a film because they like an actor if the film otherwise looks mediocre (let alone bad).Even the biggest star on the planet doesn’t deserve more than a million dollars
>>221387516>directorsTV (even prestige TV) directors get paid shit. And they don't care about the visuals of the final product, all they care about is get the damn thing finished on time and moving on to the next one.The producers are the real money grabbers.
>>221387516This is where I dropped the final season. I'm never watching it again. The previous season we had a dimension tear hole through reality. Then they drop all of that and have these two goons fight over the anorexic girl. Pure cringe.
>>221387516If the depth of field was narrow enough to have the guy's shoulder in the foreground be that blurry compared to the other guy's in focus face, shouldn't the far background be 10x as blurry?
>>221390057You are dalit.Us Pakis are bros!
>>221390115Why'd you post a pic of the audience for this garbage?
