Tom Wilson, won't sign BTTF stuff but he takes royalties…..
-
jmbwithcats — 12 years ago(July 06, 2013 10:38 PM)
That's a ridiculous argument.
Web
www.jmberman.com
Fcbk
https://www.facebook.com/catnipdream -
ExplorerDS6789 — 12 years ago(July 06, 2013 11:34 PM)
No, it isn't. Why should you still be getting paid for something you did 30 years ago? In the case of retirement pensions, you've worked for 30 years and b68built up a sizeable chunk of change to live on. When you work on a single project, you're paid for it at the time. Do you think the families of the architects who built the Empire State Building received residuals every time somebody set up an office there?
-
ExplorerDS6789 — 12 years ago(August 21, 2013 12:38 PM)
Probably, but those things are different from a movie. A novel is written by one person, sometimes two, then it gets published, then it gets sold in stores. The store, the publisher AND the writer profit. Same with the cure for cancer. If one person creates it, then gets it mass produced, b68then sold in drug stores, all of the above profit. In the case of a movie, it involves numerous people with numerous pieces of equipment. In addition to movie theaters, video stores and production companies profiting, so do the principal actors, the director, producers and writers do too, but what about the people who operated the equipment that made the movie? They shouldn't be left out.
-
kjwilliamslcsw — 12 years ago(August 21, 2013 06:57 PM)
They should be left out. There are hundreds of different people that could have operated the cameras or built the sets. But there is only one author and on person per role that made it successful. That's why they deserve the checks afterwards.
I think I am taking all of this rather well. -
ExplorerDS6789 — 12 years ago(August 22, 2013 12:12 AM)
You probably haven't heard about this, but during the Oscars this year, there was an outcry of people wanting some respect thrown the way of the special effects artists, hence a lot of people put an image of a green screen as their Facebook profile pic in recognition. This is because the FX departments on these movies are getting ripped off. They're being underpaid to create the graphics and animation that becomes mindless eye-candy in all the aimless blockbusters coming out these days. These movies make a mint, but how much do you think the FX people get? Barely a fraction.
I take it you're a member of the 1%? That seems to be your mode of thinking. -
ExplorerDS6789 — 10 years ago(April 22, 2015 05:49 PM)
You are an idiot.
Because someone else wasn't (in your baseless opinion) paid adequately, it means the actors also shouldn't be paid adequately? That's your solution?
Moron.
Actors are OVERPAID. Nobody on earth deserves $20M a pop for standing in front of a camera and reciting dialogue that someone else wrote, for 12 hours a day, a few months a year. That's just ridiculous. Residuals are crap too. The only people who should get residuals are the studio and the distributor. The cast and crew were paid way back when. They don't need to continue getting money for something they did years ago.
Tell me, are the families of the workers who built the Hoover Dam getting a percentage of the profits made from people visiting the dam and taking the tour?
Are the relatives of the architects who build the Empire State Building getting a kickback for every office that sets up in there? How about the families of the people who built the Brooklyn Bridge or the Golden Gate Bridge? Do they get money every time someone crosses?
Therefore, why the hell should someone continue to get money for something they already did and got paid for?
beep Hollywood! -
TheManInOil — 10 years ago(April 22, 2015 03:39 PM)
How is it hypocritical for him to accept payment for his work and not give you something you'll sell to make money from his work? He doesn't owe you anything. What the beep is with people thinking this guy owes them autographs?
-
jmbwithcats — 10 years ago(July 19, 2015 12:39 PM)
It's called having gratitude for the people who made you rich and famous
www.jmberman.com
Online Mews, Reviews, Poetry, Music, and Ideas -
nazcarfanatic24 — 10 years ago(September 02, 2015 12:05 AM)
It's not ridiculous, not every actor makes it big so they take residuals for every gig(even the big ones) because they never know if they will get major roles again due to typecasting, or whatever reason. Take Tony Todd for example, a brilliant theatre trained actor, who on rare occasions has been allowed to showcase his acting abilities, but has been typecast and now has to rely on residuals from his major work(candy man movies) and money for guest roles and voice acting roles, which isn't that much, and has to last the actor a couple months and support their family. Tom Wilson has to rely on his royalties from bttf because he has a family, it doesn't mean he can't hate the movies that made and killed his career. Luckily he was in a major movie last year called The Heat.
-
joecooper89 — 9 years ago(July 08, 2016 11:53 AM)
How is this even an argument? Actors are often presented with multiple contracts when working in film/television/commercials, they can either opt for the full upfront salary or the they can opt for a reduced payment but with added royalties.