So, I was reading the paper today and in the editorial section was an article written by a local person about the horrific amount of money spent to make the Matrix trilogy (in the $350 million range). She brought up the two miles of highway built especially for the films, the pricey SFX, and so forth. She then suggested how the money could have been better spent building clinics for the poor, putting kids through school, etc.
Every once in a while, this arguement will arise. While I certainly agree with the writer on most points, I also know that the people who have $350 million dollars to spend making three movies aren’t likely to give it away. They want to invest their money and make even more money. Yes, it would be nice to help thousands of needy people, there’s just no money in it. At least in the short run.
You can bet your ass that much of that money is putting kids through school, paying for housing, putting food on tables, all that good stuff that money does. Filmmakers are big employers. What a rube!
maybe the makers of the matrix trilogy arent helping the poor, but they are giving alot of people jobs, building that highway for example must of employed over 500 people. Thats the silver lining.
They’re supplying a demand. It’s their money, they earned it, and they earned the right to do whatever they want to do with it. If they wanted to create the largest papier maché dollar bill in history with all of the money they made with this movie, it’s not our place to stop them. We can complain about it, obviously, but it’s not our place to judge their decisions.
It’s not “their” money. The Matrix movies were financed by investors. The money wasn’t sitting in a big pile waiting to be spent, it was brought together because the prospect for a good investment existed. If the movies hadn’t been made, the money’s owners would have just invested it elsewhere.
Well, maybe some of the investors will donate their individual profits to charity. In any case, does it make sense for art and entertainment to be put on hold because there are poor people in the world? To me, the existence of poverty suggests that we (meaning the USA, for all you Dopers who don’t have Americanocentric worldviews) need to do something about our tremendous military spending in order to spend money on education and tax cuts for the lower and middle classes – but that’s a whole 'nother discussion.
Arguments like these are incredibly simplistic and indicate almost zero understanding of economics. The movie generated economic impact to the areas where it was made (construction and other film related jobs), economic impact in marketing, economic impact in every theater, movie rental outlet, video game outlet it touched. It did feed thousands of people. Not to mention the money that the people earned on the movie got to spend in other segments of the economy. If you just take money and give it away (in food) then there is likely less of a positive economic impact.
One can certainly make all sort of arguments of the artistic merit of the final product, or whether Keanu Reeves should get a zillion dollars for looking good and mediocre acting, or even that the money could have been better spent on other things. But to reduce the argument to food vs Matrix is ridiculous.
While I don’t have a problem making people feel guilty for gross misuses of their money, you really have to think about what the world would be like if everyone only did what was most humanitarian with their resources. We’d have no music, movies, television, toys, sports, art, festivals, lawn care, or restaurants. Most of the sciences and literature would also disappear.
Agreed, Achernar. Art is a necessity too. And I guess you could include The Matrix in that category if you’re in a good mood.
It doesn’t come before sustenance, of course. But the investors bought into the movie in the hopes of making a profit (which apparently many of them won’t). The profit motive isn’t as engaged when it comes to helping the needy, and it’s just not as glitzy as helping make a movie.
This question reflects an incredibly naive understanding of economics. (not to bash the OP, I know they were commenting on an article)
This is how many people seem to think the economy works: a giant pile of money drops out of the sky every year and we the people must decide how best to spend it. Thus, you have your Matrix vs. feed the hungry arguments.
In reality, all money that gets spent must originally be generated by PROFIT. If you build something for $2 and sell it for $10, you have just ADDED money to the pile. You did not waste $2, you created $8 out of thin air. It’s really quite amazing. The person who bought the item did not lose the $8 either because to them, the item is worth $10. If you decided to give that money to a homeless person instead, you added no money to the pile, you just redistributed.
Certainly the Matrix is a money-making project. Every dollar they make in profit gets added to the country’s total GDP. And more GDP means more jobs and a higher standard of living. (and if the profit margin is extreme, more padding for the fat cats’ pockets)
Now, if they lose money on the project, they would have been better off giving it to the homeless. But there are still differences between accounting losses and actual losses.
Here is my totally callous view.
In 50 years, I think the Matrix will be remembered as one of the great movies of our time (whether or not you think it’s any good). Very few people are going to remember how many people died of hunger in the US this year or last year or next year or etc. in 50 years. Societally, the expenditure is worth it.
If that makes sense.
It’s not up to the people who make the Matrix. It’s up to consumers. If people gave their ticket money to charity, that would create jobs, make the world a better place, and improve everybody’s lives.
I have to disagree with this. Increasing the GDP is not of itself a good thing. If the money goes underneath someone’s mattress, that benefits nobody. If it is spent on good works, that may benefit many people. In between there is a wide range of worthwhile and non-worthwhile uses. Spending it dropping bombs on people and spending it on medical research both create jobs, but do not have equal social value.
[quote]
Very few people are going to remember how many people died of hunger in the US this year or last year or next year or etc. in 50 years. Societally, the expenditure is worth it.
If that makes sense.[/qute]
You have to try pretty hard to actually die of hunger in the US. In fact, almost all such cases are long-term alchoholics who substitute booze for food, and wind up malnourshed because what they aren’t eating contains stuff they absolutely must have to live
I would say that they are helping the poor, indirectly. They are creating tons of jobs, and selling lots of tickets. Both pump money back into the economy, which creates more jobs, ect.
You know what? Pick up a damn economics book!!! I’m sick of walking into these stupid-ass “lets give all the extra money to the poor” threads started by well-intentioned people with no understanding of where money actually comes from.
Here’s a term to look up - investment. That means to put money into something with the expectation of getting something more valuable out of it. While I’m not advocating the removal of social services, try to understand that large sums of money are put to better use on endeavors that create more jobs (even if they seem stupid like movie making) that reduce the number of poor people, not distributed amongst the poor people to keep them perpetually locked in a welfare state.
-Instead of the Matrix Trilogy, give it to the poor
-Instead of that big expensive corporate headquarters lets give it to the poor
-Instead of buying a flat screen HDTV lets give it to the poor
-Instead of stealth bombers lets give it to the poor
-Instead of a Mercedez plant that makes cars for rich people lets give it to the poor
-Instead of letting billionares invest it in creating new companies, lets just give it to the poor.
-Instead of building pizza stands, let’s give it to the poor
-Instead of creating stores and factories, give to the poor
-Instead of anyone actually working for a living, let’s just give it to the poor
Pretty soon, there’s nothing left to give to the poor and then we’re all poor.
