Movies and Video Games

Post Reply New Topic

Is it okay that we are putting so much money into making movies or video games when that same money could be used to save people? Like to cure diseases or help third-world countries?
Just asking.
(I'm not being bitter, it's just that a thought came across my mind that we are putting a lot of money into something where we stare at a screen for more than an hour and people whom are involved are getting so much recognition for it. Music is a similar subject.)

For instance, The 2009 Film Avatar was made with $237 million.
The Dark Knight was made with $185 million.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was made with $250 million
That's just listing 3 movies.

In June 2009 Ubisoft reiterated that major titles for PS3/X360 cost $20-$30 million to make and that games for the next-generation may exceed $60 million.

A lesser known movies like, There's Something About Mary was made with $23 million.
A movie you probably never heard of, Mom and Dad Save the World was made with $14 million.
Imagine dozens of movies with budgets of over a million are being made by the month and most of them are hardly pieces of art, at least by an aesthetics stand point. I know art is subjective but would you consider Meet the Spartans (Budgeted at $30 million) a piece of art that deserves all that money put into it? I guess it depends on the director if they can spread the money between contributing said money into their next movie and contributing to helping the world be a better place.

As I said, I'm not bitter, this is actually something I want to get into but I don't know about the money studios are putting into these movies. These movies are pretty expensive considering that the final products is just starring into moving pictures.

I think this goes for entertainment in general. Everything is so expensive to make, but isn't entertainment supposed to be just something to pass the time? Maybe this is why our economy is so bad is because entertainment is expensive to make now. Everything is expensive to make.

I say this once again, this is something I genuinely want to work in and this is just a thought that passed my mind.

-----------------------------
Nevermind, I got a very good opinion from someone who wants to become a director.

I think entertainment is really important to people and when a movie like The Dark Knight come out, they make a lot of money and in many ways are the only part of the economy working.
Yes, the money could be used to help people, but it wouldn't, it would just sit in the studios, so I think it's better if it's circulated. An average blockbuster film employs thousands of people who would be unemployed without it
So it does help people. - A friend who wants to become a director

Last edited by KingLes98 on 16 Nov 2011, 3:42 am, edited 5 times in total.

It's okay

It wouldn't even sit in the studios. The only reason studios have those gigantic budgets for blockbusters is because so many people buy them (in the form of tickets or DVD rentals or ownership). If studios spent a fraction of the money, they would also get a fraction of the sales and that would be the end of that.

I realize there are exceptions. Movie nerds here can probably list off the top of their heads a dozen low budget movies that made enormous amounts of money and big budget movies that flopped so badly they were a serious financial net loss for the studios. But these are the exceptions. If they were the rule, studios would simply stop spending so much. But entertainment consumers reward them for spending a lot (Avatar) most of the time so it continues.

And your friend is right: for every studio exec making gigantic amounts of money, there are thousands of people making decent if modest salaries off these movies. You can see their names at the end of the credits if they even get credit at all.

KingLes98, have you given all your money and belongings to the poor and needy? Never spend any money that you earn on anything for yourself but only for the benefit of others?

Oy way is it always the Xtians that argue against helping the poor.
It would be great if the charities were bigger than the studios.

It would be great if the charities were bigger than the studios, voluntarily. If it's by force then it's not charity.

Nobody brought up force.

Not yet, but it seems to me a default corollary whenever people bring up such things as freedom of choice for buying and selling, especially when a "better" option is presented alongside. I have nothing against helping the poor and I try to do so myself whenever I can afford to, such as volunteering or working for charities, donating food, etc. Often enough I've needed help and I try to give back when I am able to do so. People should do whatever they personally can to help those less fortunate, but why should people also not be allowed to watch movies or play video games or otherwise contribute to economic stability so that there are still more possibilities of employment so that there need to be less poor people? You probably know the phrase, "give a man a fish, and he's fed for one day; teach him how to fish and you've fed him for life." True that these industries do not require that many workers, which is probably part of why they were selected as examples, but even so there are job opportunities as sales clerks even if a person isn't industrious and persistent enough to teach themselves the programming languages needed to be hired in production of software. If such industries were to be disbanded on quasi-moralistic grounds of "that money could be spent better!", then not only would people not be able to waste money playing Mario or watching Outlander, but also it would mean many people would not be able to work and that would increase the number of unemployed workers seeking employment and thus make it even more difficult for people to find employment.

Yes I have a few times but I don't need to prove anything. But I am not saying movie studios should give all their money to the needy. This thought accured when I was watching the Nostalgia Critic talking about Batman Forever (I think it was, some Batman movie) and he said "Wow! Think about how much money they could have spent saving starving third world countries instead of the special effects."
But why the personal questions? I don't think I'm any better than anyone else, I said about 3 times that this was a random thought and nothing more, and I actually am very passionate about video games and movies. I already found personal enlightenment in this subject, I've learned that movies and video games help stimulate the economy.
But maybe you are right, maybe I'm being ignorant with this post. I'm sorry if I am and I won't do it again.

I don't really mean for anything to be personal, but think of this: The lump sum of money spent on food given to third world countries, would that food last a finite amount of time or indefinitely? Now, if the money were used to build economic infrastructure to allow for those people who are currently starving to be able to afford to eat, then would they be more likely to be able to eat for a finite amount of time or in continuance?

Many people think they will be well and healthy forever. Many people wish to be amused. And very few people in the advanced industrialized countries give a flying fig about the misery of the third world.

ruveyn

Third world countries is not the only topic here but I agree with all what you said. Anyways, here's an opinion from an old wise friend from a broader perspective that I find interesting and think I should share:
==================================
"It's not just the movie and music industry, fortunes are spent everywhere : beautifying cities, building sport stadiums to house overpaid athletes, asinine reality shows and soaps on TV, ....
The list is too long and even worse is what's wasted on war and armament and public funds disappearing due to corruption.
At least about some of those things it can be said that they encourage economic growth and secure jobs but the wastage is great.

We all lead our little lives and we all spend money on things we don't really need but I think that none of us would enjoy leading an austere life and we tend not to think about those who are worse off.

I agree with you, if there were a way to use part of that capital were it is really needed (a special tax or so), the world might slowly turn into a better place. " - HolderM (From Skype)

Hey lets make a deal and only jump down people throats on arguments the actually make.
I think a more constructive Idea would be a entertainment company that supports sustainable growth in the third world
as part of its business plan instead of getting riled up about arguments people may not make in the future.
a not for profit game company would be a great idea. a Digital salvation army.

Why is it that people assume they rile me? It's fairly rare for me to actually feel angry, but I get told by others that I'm angry quite a bit. I think it funny actually, especially when people say that they are seeking to anger me, practically proclaiming it with trumpets and fanfare even sometimes, and yet I'm not.



That would indeed be cool.

Tone is an issue that we all have trouble with (humans not just aspies)

Already exist.

But you will find that games are horrendously millionaire projects for a good reason. The big label games are multi-disciplinary as heck and require quite the labor. Game labels not focused on profit tend to bring poorer products, and that's the reason you are not playing them.