[timmaxw]

> Non wealthy people are largely not willing to pay ... what it actually costs to make them

The general public pays enough money to pay the artists' salaries, plus the marketing budget and all the other costs. Otherwise Hollywood would go out of business.

[BobaFloutist]

Yes, but the artists salaries are typically insufficient to actually support their lives. Hollywood exists because enough people are excited enough by the idea of working for Hollywood that they're willing to accept fairly subpar working conditions and pay to get a chance to do what they love. Art is almost universally subject to a "passion tax".

[FireBeyond]

Perhaps some of those people aren't quite as talented as they would like to think they are?

I'm not sure how that creates an obligation in the, uhh, 'non-wealthy', that they just don't appreciate art and should be paying those people more by paying more for media.

There's plenty of room in Hollywood budgets to make a movie that doesn't require the leads to make $30M each while underpaying extras. I think you're railing at the wrong "enemy".

[BobaFloutist]

I'm not railing at anyone. I'm saying that if people want more of a say in what kind of art is made, they need to be willing to spend more money on art, and spend it more thoughtfully. If they're only willing to spend very small amounts of money, and only on art that has been thoroughly vetted by the wealthy taste-makers, then they're only going to get what they wealthy taste-makers think is good.

[eszed]

Sorry, the GP has it right. I've worked in that industry, and (like lots of other industries) there's plenty of money (even selling the output at "normal people" prices) sloshing around to pay everyone involved a decent wage. Instead, most of the proceeds are extracted by the people who have the most power. That this will (in the long-term) cripple the entire enterprise (I think we're already seeing it) is not a concern for those making the money now.