Whenever I find myself watching stupid movies or TV shows, I think “Well, at least they kept some people employed.”
Is one mother of a film worse than 10 films at a tenth of the budget each? That is, is it the absolute or percentage profit you object to?
True, though I’m not sure how much it helps the most needy. But that’s a nitpick. Although again, it’s interesting to note that despite the large box office this movie has made, it apparently isn’t going to make a profit.
This thread sort of deals with what you guys are talking about.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=189088
Well, it may not help the most needy, but by providing jobs it keeps some people out of that category. So, there are less “most needy” to worry about.
Saying “the horrific amount of money spent to make the Matrix trilogy” indicates a deep lack of understanding about the topic. It gives the impression that we take 350 million one-dollar bills, set them on fire, and poof a Matrix movie falls out of the sky!
Every dollar that is spent goes to someone else for doing their job. Those people, in turn, spend the money again, and so on.
Let’s call it the amount of money circulated to make the Matrix trilogy instead, and see if that puts a more accurate face on the picture. Only then can we begin to discuss this intelligently.
But when they make movies like Carrot Tops “Chairman of the board”, you begin ask yourself if anyone who had anything to do with that movie should be rewarded with a paycheck! 
Anyone else have an almost irresistable urge to track down the woman who wrote that letter and slap her repeatedly? Let’s face it: what this comes down to isn’t her social conscience speaking, it’s the fact that she didn’t like the movie, and is trying to make people feel guilty for disagreeing with her. Bah. Condescending bitch.
Let’s see.
The producers of The Matrix
Hired people to make the film. Not just the stars but thousands of people to build the sets and such. Purchasing the materials to build the sets also provides jobs and revenue to the providers of those goods and services. Don’t forget feeding and housing the crew of the picture adds a great deal of revenue to the area in which the film was made.
Then there are the distribution of the film. This employs many people from the studio and all the theatre circuits AROUND THE WORLD. This helps people in any small town with a movie theatre that plays the film. Don’t forget the theatre workers. Someone must tear your Matrix ticket in two and point you to the auditorium. So all the movie theatre workers plus any related businesses. From buying ads in the local paper, to the makers of the candy and popcorn and soda, to the construction of theatres, and trucks to move all this stuff around the country.
By stimulating the WORLDWIDE economy the producers of the film help poor people because at almost every step of the way there are taxes collected. Both on the items bought for the making of the film and during the run of the film but payroll taxes on the employed. Maybe those taxes will be used to put kids through school and build clinics.
Then of course The Matrix is art. The quality of that art is debatable but the fact that it is art, is not. Some people find watching The Matrix movies moving, and mind expanding. That also has value.
Make the Matrix
For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have The One.
That was brilliant, Achernar. Please don’t tell me I’m the only one who got it…
$350 million wasn’t spent on the poor.
How much was?
-k
Heh, I suppose you’re right. OK, assuming people don’t stuff the profit under their mattresses, then profit benefits the economy. And even if it IS stuffed under mattresses, it isn’t doing any HARM.
Also I was completely ignoring the other social benefits various ways to spend money. Certainly art and education are intrinsically good things to spend money on regardless of economic impact.
The poor will be with us until the end of time. Why should they get our entertainment money? Our Mission To Mars Money? Any or our money? So they have more incentive to stay at home watching Jerry Springer? Screw 'em. Let 'em get jobs if they don’t like poverty.
OK I’m not really that much of an a-hole. I would give them some money…to be sterilized! If ya can’t afford kids, don’t have 'em! :o
Yikes.
I’m not sure if this makes me an a-hole, but your post made me laugh out loud.
There is a certain truth to this. The trend seems to be to treat the poor as if they are some untouchable class that requires welfare and charity. When you give money to a panhandler you are basically subsidizing his lifestyle of hanging around the subway trains with a tin cup. Like any charity or welfare, you want to help people in the short term without providing a long term disincentive to work. What poor people need are opportunies to work, not someone to support them for the rest of their lives with handouts.
No, although others may not have gotten it as swiftly.
And if they’re working full-time and they’re still poor, well, fuck 'em.
Yeah, and if they had kids, and then lost their jobs, well, what do they think orphanages are there for?!
Sheez. Poor people are so clueless. :rolleyes:
Groan.
Yes, I also got it right away.