Thread by @cory_fitz

The studios are not stealing millions from the cast and crew. That money does not "belong" to the people who worked on the film - they were paid for their work. It belongs to the studios that took a chance on Obsession and marketed it and got it into thousands of theaters

Let's imagine an alternative - all films are owned collectively by the people who worked on them. No evil corporations. Where would the money come from to market the films? Perhaps they get a bank loan?

1) many films fail to turn a profit, so many film crews would be saddled with debt they couldn't repay, 2) banks don't want to lend to things that don't have a good chance of making money, so risky indy films simply wouldn't make their ways to theaters

I think it's reasonable to hope that Focus and Blumhouse give the people who worked on Obsession nice bonuses - but even if they don't, they have a great resume now and will make much more money in the future

The problem isn't the profit motive or capitalism - they're working pretty well here. More collective ownership or union bargaining is just going to lead to more expensive productions and fewer interesting movies getting made

I do, however, think there's an argument to be made for more government investment in the arts - perhaps grants or something