Yes, we all wish to fail in a way where we are capable of taking 100 million of our own disposable income and burning it in a pyre for our own entertainment. (While simultaneously not giving a shit how the smoke and fire from said pyre impacts our neighbors)
Good on Coppola I guess for enjoying immense wealth to the point that burning a small nation states annual budgets on his pet projects is an achievable goal for him. This puts him in the same realm as FIFA when they released their own god awful film United Passions.
Good on Coppola I guess for enjoying immense wealth to the point that burning a small nation states annual budgets on his pet projects is an achievable goal for him. This puts him in the same realm as FIFA when they released their own god awful film United Passions.
Not to get all trickle-down, but he didn't burn it, right? It went to other people. It's arguable that this is a far, far better outcome than it continuing to be locked up in a high priced vineyard.
Speaking only for myself here - I have seen trailers for the movie. And I didn't have any idea what the hell it was about. The trailer is so vague. Or maybe it's the concept of the movie itself is so vague, that I have no idea what it's about, or why I should care. The trailers have utterly failed to sell the movie to me.
I've been curious to see it for reasons that are similar to the ones Tycho gave.
I have friends who work in film. Something on this level is going to employ a lot of people -- exponentially more than just a director and star actors.
Even beyond that, this person made a piece of art that he wanted to make. That's exciting. Some of my favorite albums were from bands who had just gotten out of a contract. They self-financed their own music. The result was gloriously indulgent music created to satisfy themselves first and their fans second.
This looks like a chance to see the same process play out in film. It's an exciting concept, at least to me.
Of all the things ultra wealthy people do with their money, making some art that turns out to be bad is so far down the list of offensive privilege.
Heck, rich people spending money actually doesn't bother me at all. Even yachts! I mean, emissions and running over fish and stuff is bad. But the concept of "rich person spends their money" is not offensive to me. I'd rather they spend it on frivolities (which do, in fact, employ people at least) than sit on it or, as is most common, use it to extract yet more wealth from other people.
Better that people not be super rich, sure. But if they are? I do not care one bit if they want to fund dumb movies or whatever.
Yeah, I'd heard about that. I don't think anyone here thinks Coppola should be celebrated. That this is a megaflopolis makes that a lot easier, of course.
And I'm pretty sure terrible people are going to be terrible, no matter how they are (or are not) spending their money.
If memory serves, I believe Mr. Coppola ploughed a fair percentage of his Godfather money into making Apocalypse Now, which was ruinously expensive because, apart from having massive sets destroyed by hurricanes etc. in the Philippines, the man had to pay real money for all those choppers and what-have-yous, because the US military only lends that shit free of charge if the film's message is considered "pro-US military", which, you know, Apocalypse Now is decidedly not.
I'm afraid I don't know enough about the current movie or anything surrounding it to offer any further insight, just thought that I'd point out that Mr. Coppola has some some prior form in "Fuck it, Imma toss my money into making the movie I want to make".
"We programmed him to think only of crime!" - Enrico Matassa
If someone buries a box of cash in their yard then it causes deflation and everyone else’s money becomes worth more. It doesn’t really matter what someone does with their money, unless they put a hit on me
Of all the things ultra wealthy people do with their money, making some art that turns out to be bad is so far down the list of offensive privilege.
Heck, rich people spending money actually doesn't bother me at all. Even yachts! I mean, emissions and running over fish and stuff is bad. But the concept of "rich person spends their money" is not offensive to me. I'd rather they spend it on frivolities (which do, in fact, employ people at least) than sit on it or, as is most common, use it to extract yet more wealth from other people.
Better that people not be super rich, sure. But if they are? I do not care one bit if they want to fund dumb movies or whatever.
An Economics textbook had a historical example of a local government that decided to tax yachts (it was a coastal locality that made boats), figuring that the only the wealthy would be affected.
The wealthy quickly decided no one really needs a yacht and some of the area's boat makers ended up laying off their middle class employees instead.
I also have a friend that spent a few years working on a yacht after getting burned out of lab work. She ended up paying off her grad school student loans much faster than if she'd stuck to lab work between the salary and tips from bartending for various celebrities.
The wealthy quickly decided no one really needs a yacht
I'm immediately skeptical of a wealthy person having a realization like this. The more likely scenario feels like they just incorporate in a tax haven with a company that owns the yacht that they had built in another tax haven and loans it to them for a nominal fee.
The wealthy quickly decided no one really needs a yacht
I'm immediately skeptical of a wealthy person having a realization like this. The more likely scenario feels like they just incorporate in a tax haven with a company that owns the yacht that they had built in another tax haven and loans it to them for a nominal fee.
In this case, I don't think it's as complicated as that as
1) if that kind of thing happened, the companies building the yachts still would have maintained business and not had to lay off workers and
2) As I learned from my friend that worked on a yacht, people who don't have their own can rent one from someone that does because no one who owns one uses it all the time. A lot of her best paydays were from when various celebrities rented out the yacht for parties and she shifted from normal duties to bartending. The tax was only on the purchase of yachts, not their use, so anyone put off by the new expense still had pretty easy access to one if they still wanted it.
Could be worse. Kim Jong Il, dictator of North Korea, kidnapped a director and actors to make films for him. At least in this case people made good money off it.
The wealthy quickly decided no one really needs a yacht
I'm immediately skeptical of a wealthy person having a realization like this. The more likely scenario feels like they just incorporate in a tax haven with a company that owns the yacht that they had built in another tax haven and loans it to them for a nominal fee.
In this case, I don't think it's as complicated as that as
1) if that kind of thing happened, the companies building the yachts still would have maintained business and not had to lay off workers and
2) As I learned from my friend that worked on a yacht, people who don't have their own can rent one from someone that does because no one who owns one uses it all the time. A lot of her best paydays were from when various celebrities rented out the yacht for parties and she shifted from normal duties to bartending. The tax was only on the purchase of yachts, not their use, so anyone put off by the new expense still had pretty easy access to one if they still wanted it.
The way I always heard it was that when governments try to tax yachts, rich people just fly to other countries to buy their yachts.
Could be worse. Kim Jong Il, dictator of North Korea, kidnapped a director and actors to make films for him. At least in this case people made good money off it.
The wealthy quickly decided no one really needs a yacht
I'm immediately skeptical of a wealthy person having a realization like this. The more likely scenario feels like they just incorporate in a tax haven with a company that owns the yacht that they had built in another tax haven and loans it to them for a nominal fee.
In this case, I don't think it's as complicated as that as
1) if that kind of thing happened, the companies building the yachts still would have maintained business and not had to lay off workers and
2) As I learned from my friend that worked on a yacht, people who don't have their own can rent one from someone that does because no one who owns one uses it all the time. A lot of her best paydays were from when various celebrities rented out the yacht for parties and she shifted from normal duties to bartending. The tax was only on the purchase of yachts, not their use, so anyone put off by the new expense still had pretty easy access to one if they still wanted it.
The way I always heard it was that when governments try to tax yachts, rich people just fly to other countries to buy their yachts.
I could also see that. I forget when the example from the textbook happened but it was also more concerned with the local effects of such a tax, not the yacht market as a whole.
Ultimately while yachts are an economic multiplier in the way that any physical product is an economic multiplier they're not as good a multiplier as something that everyone else has access to. The rich will never buy enough yachts to make up for the rate at which regular folk buy sandwiches.
Ultimately while yachts are an economic multiplier in the way that any physical product is an economic multiplier they're not as good a multiplier as something that everyone else has access to. The rich will never buy enough yachts to make up for the rate at which regular folk buy sandwiches.
Which is - in general - why trickle down ultimately doesn't work. Or why "trickle" is an appropriate name. Though "crumb tumble" might be a better one.
The only thing "good" about rich people buying yachts is if the alternative is that rich people won't spend their money and will just accumulate it. They're going to accumulate no matter what, so it's better that they accumulate it and spend it. Taxes are a good way to ensure that, though rich people are always going to seek a way to game the system. That's a big part of how they get and stay rich.
Imagine having the stature and resources to see the world and say, "no, not this one," and then switch worlds. What's the opposite of selling out? When we figure out what it's called, that's what happened here.
Reminds me of one of my absolute favorite passages he wrote many, many years ago.
Every creative act is open war against The Way It Is. What you are saying when you make something is that the universe is not sufficient, and what it really needs is more you. And it does, actually; it does. Go look outside. You can't tell me that we are done making the world.
Posts
Good on Coppola I guess for enjoying immense wealth to the point that burning a small nation states annual budgets on his pet projects is an achievable goal for him. This puts him in the same realm as FIFA when they released their own god awful film United Passions.
Not to get all trickle-down, but he didn't burn it, right? It went to other people. It's arguable that this is a far, far better outcome than it continuing to be locked up in a high priced vineyard.
At least this is a glorious flop. They probably spent a half billion dollars (after marketing) on The Flash.
I have friends who work in film. Something on this level is going to employ a lot of people -- exponentially more than just a director and star actors.
Even beyond that, this person made a piece of art that he wanted to make. That's exciting. Some of my favorite albums were from bands who had just gotten out of a contract. They self-financed their own music. The result was gloriously indulgent music created to satisfy themselves first and their fans second.
This looks like a chance to see the same process play out in film. It's an exciting concept, at least to me.
Heck, rich people spending money actually doesn't bother me at all. Even yachts! I mean, emissions and running over fish and stuff is bad. But the concept of "rich person spends their money" is not offensive to me. I'd rather they spend it on frivolities (which do, in fact, employ people at least) than sit on it or, as is most common, use it to extract yet more wealth from other people.
Better that people not be super rich, sure. But if they are? I do not care one bit if they want to fund dumb movies or whatever.
Flops are a net wealth transfer to the workers (even the wealthy actors are worth couch change to the funding class).
Eat the rich, one bad move at a time.
https://www.indiewire.com/news/breaking-news/francis-ford-coppola-groping-megalopolis-video-1235029909/
He wasn't just "spending his money making art", he was doing typical rich creep things.
Yeah, I'd heard about that. I don't think anyone here thinks Coppola should be celebrated. That this is a megaflopolis makes that a lot easier, of course.
And I'm pretty sure terrible people are going to be terrible, no matter how they are (or are not) spending their money.
I'm afraid I don't know enough about the current movie or anything surrounding it to offer any further insight, just thought that I'd point out that Mr. Coppola has some some prior form in "Fuck it, Imma toss my money into making the movie I want to make".
An Economics textbook had a historical example of a local government that decided to tax yachts (it was a coastal locality that made boats), figuring that the only the wealthy would be affected.
The wealthy quickly decided no one really needs a yacht and some of the area's boat makers ended up laying off their middle class employees instead.
I also have a friend that spent a few years working on a yacht after getting burned out of lab work. She ended up paying off her grad school student loans much faster than if she'd stuck to lab work between the salary and tips from bartending for various celebrities.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
I'm immediately skeptical of a wealthy person having a realization like this. The more likely scenario feels like they just incorporate in a tax haven with a company that owns the yacht that they had built in another tax haven and loans it to them for a nominal fee.
In this case, I don't think it's as complicated as that as
1) if that kind of thing happened, the companies building the yachts still would have maintained business and not had to lay off workers and
2) As I learned from my friend that worked on a yacht, people who don't have their own can rent one from someone that does because no one who owns one uses it all the time. A lot of her best paydays were from when various celebrities rented out the yacht for parties and she shifted from normal duties to bartending. The tax was only on the purchase of yachts, not their use, so anyone put off by the new expense still had pretty easy access to one if they still wanted it.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
The way I always heard it was that when governments try to tax yachts, rich people just fly to other countries to buy their yachts.
I could also see that. I forget when the example from the textbook happened but it was also more concerned with the local effects of such a tax, not the yacht market as a whole.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
Which is - in general - why trickle down ultimately doesn't work. Or why "trickle" is an appropriate name. Though "crumb tumble" might be a better one.
The only thing "good" about rich people buying yachts is if the alternative is that rich people won't spend their money and will just accumulate it. They're going to accumulate no matter what, so it's better that they accumulate it and spend it. Taxes are a good way to ensure that, though rich people are always going to seek a way to game the system. That's a big part of how they get and stay rich.
Reminds me of one of my absolute favorite passages he wrote many, many years ago.