>>211531919
Anon you replied to.
If you want to talk philosophically.
Art is always a money sink in most cases, people do need to pay their bills, but the governments often subsidize art because it's a way for the country to seem more powerful
>look how good our people are at everything
for example.
Now economically take the writers strike of the mid 2000s.
Every single writer went on strike in the writers guild. They all demanded more wages.
Well add inflation on top of it, you now have added an extra 100k dollars to the film cost for one writer congrats.
Same for actors, stage hands, audio engineers, filming engineers etc.
Meanwhile using OPs literal example.
The director and producers wrote the entire script. things like this saved a lot of money.
Everyone in the movie didn't have to sound good either remember they dubbed EVERYTHING in Italian films on purpose. Because it was cheaper to have a beautiful face on screen and a beautiful voice in the booth.
Nowdays you need the actor to do everything, which makes a more expensive actor.
I digress, every cent adds up, every single cent.
and no amount of money can make a good movie.
Art is subjective, the cheapest movie ever could have more soul than the most expensive movie ever and often times it does.
Case and point.
The horror movie Antrum, while not being exceptionally good left me pleasantly surprised
after decades of bad horror movies.
It was absurdly low budget.
