misc Screw Hollywood—let’s make our own movies!

It's hard to believe that people with 54 million dollars in the bank got a chance to make a series. I guess there really is hope for the little guy. It's amazing how lightning keeps striking in the same place over and over. Did you know that every person with immense wealth is incredibly creative, and every person of average income is terribly uninventive? Does Netflix even know that anyone can amass 5x that number of YouTube subscribers with a single million dollars in promotion? Obviously the Gees don't. It's common knowledge in my circles. Yet it's proof that they deserve an up front offer of more than 40x what the director of Blair Witch was paid AFTER his film was successful.

Hopefully the creatives that get hired to invent their show for them get paid at least enough to take one vacation a year at one of the locations they animate.

In case anyone is missing my point, you can just buy your way to the front of the line. Poor guy writes a Tale of Two cites, nice try buddy, cleanup in isle 3. Rich guy comes up with breakthrough concept "I'll go on vacation and drink" and it's a 10 million dollar up front offer.
 
In case anyone is missing my point, you can just buy your way to the front of the line. Poor guy writes a Tale of Two cites, nice try buddy, cleanup in isle 3. Rich guy comes up with breakthrough concept "I'll go on vacation and drink" and it's a 10 million dollar up front offer.

I really enjoy reading these posts!....I get to read what the writers write.
 
Last edited:
I really enjoy reading these posts!....I get to read what the writers write.
I honestly can't tell if you didn't understand my post, or I didn't understand your post. Obviously every amateur writer isn't writing the greatest novel in classic literature, but on the music side, I've definitely seen people compose incredibly sophisticated symphonic work, and then live in poverty while Dj Khalid (a multimillionaire musician who can't play any instruments, or produce, or sing, or do anything except shout his own name) walks away with millions in rewards for hiring a DJ to play a sample loop for him while he yells "I Is the best, I is the best!" or most of the time he just yells his own name, and then that's his only contribution.


I've seen clips where this 75 IQ guy with almost 100 million dollars explains that even though he isn't smart enough to make music, he knows that people want to listen to music, and that is the real artistry, knowing that. So he takes his huge wealth, and buys up actual artists, and then simply plasters his name all over their work.

Here on the other hand, is one of the composers that worked with me last year on my project.


this video has 9 views. He's a classically trained pianist that can compose entire orchestra scores, mix and produce them. He went to college, got a degree, worked for years, and gets paid absolutely nothing. Ever. He's just barely surviving, with no fans, no money, and no hope.

Meanwhile Dj Khaled gets paid millions of dollars every time he tells another musician to "make some beatzzz" This is because he's rich, not talented, not smart, not anything. Rich people get paid for being rich. Smart people without resources get marginalized unfairly.

I hear a lot of people respond to stimulus like this with the answer "so, life isn't fair" which sounds idiotic to me, not because it's untrue, it's obviously true. It's just that for intelligent people, saying something is broken isn't the end of the topic. We try to fix things, we try to understand what's wrong. We try to come up with new ways to overcome challenges. We don't just look at a broken machine and say "that's how things are supposed to be" If Benjamin Franklin had seen one person after another being fried by lightning strikes in belltowers and just said "well, lightning hits people sometimes, must be how things are supposed to be" then you'd be writing this post on parchment instead of on the internet.

If you watch the recent documentary about his life, you'll see that there were actually a lot of people saying that. They tried to stop him from installing lightning rods on churches, because they thought that god was "throwing lightning bolts at sinners to punish them" like I said, sounds idiotic.

When you judge intelligence by wealth, which is what many people do, you can bet that every crack dealer is "smarter" than every physics professor. It should be a red flag if your logic leads to conclusions that are obviously incorrect.
 
Intelligence doesn't mean you deserve anything ..

A big part of success is simply if people enjoy working with you or not.
Also I would say that being able to recognize and sign talent - is itself a talent.
 
Intelligence doesn't mean you deserve anything ..

A big part of success is simply if people enjoy working with you or not.
Also I would say that being able to recognize and sign talent - is itself a talent.
I didn't say it did. The examples I gave were both of people who were highly intelligent, AND worked hard for years, Franklin, and Szymon respectively. I didn't say people should get paid for being intelligent, It's just that they frequently work very hard, and get paid a fraction of what people who don't work hard and were far less talented get paid. That's commonly excused away with rationalizations about how if someone is wealthy, there must be a good reason for that, they deserve more for an hour of their time than someone else does for 1000 hours. Sometimes that's true. Most wealth in all societies throughout history is handed down generation to generation though, and that's one of many places where this logic falls apart completely. No person deserves to be treated better or worse, based on things they had no control over. We do it all the time though, and excuse our behavior with nonsense phrases like "that's the way the cookie crumbles". Would you have respected Ben Franklin if he saw those lightning strikes and just shrugged and said "Whatever dude"?

Being able to recognize talent is sort of a talent. You know which books you read are good right? So why aren't you in charge of all the authors? Because without money, no one considers "knowing what you like" to be a valuable commodity. Being able to sign talent is not in and of itself a talent, that's wrong. Any moron with a million dollars can sign someone, and the most talented person on the planet with 0 dollars can't sign anyone. Compare that with actual talent, which can exist with or without money, and you'll see the difference. Who is the better writer, Aaron Sorkin or Lil Wayne? If you go by money, Lil Wayne is the better author.

Money is not talent, but people conflate it, and it results in people with very meager skills, such as knowing what music sounds good, being rewarded more than the actual creators, who must solve problems 1000s of times more complex.

I got onto this particular rant due to a phone call from last evening. I was talking with one of my friends, and we were discussing how difficult it is to get our work out there, something that you should be familiar with.

He was telling me about how rich his parents were, and I asked how it happened. He said that 30 years ago or so, some politicians had made some promises that if elected, they would make the economy better for farmers. Eric's parents had inherited about 900 acres of farmland. This program had the bright idea of paying people with land to not farm it, artificially inflating the value of land that was being farmed. So his parents signed up for the program, and for decades they have been receiving checks for not farming the land.

They are worth about 16 million dollars now. Neither one of them has done any work in 30 years, and they get paid more than 20x the average local full time salary, for NOT doing anything. Just sitting there. So I do feel like Szymon (the classical composer I posted above) gets the short end of the stick, working as hard as he can and getting ground into the dirt for his efforts, while people that don't work, aren't smart, and contribute nothing to the world are soaking up millions. But perhaps they are just very "talented" at inheriting farmland.

As far as success being a reflection on how much people enjoy working with you, I think that sounds right, but isn't correct in practicality. One of the main guys at SP had to leave recently. We were really good friends, and had a great time hanging out together, building, writing, composing, creating. It was everything he wanted to do in life. But he started running short on rent money, and he had to quit. He told me later that he had gone to work for a guy who had him running a dimmer switch for a stage. But that guy had a bar that his father had bought for him, and so was able to pay my friend enough to make rent. I don't blame him for leaving, I'm just saying that your point doesn't necessarily hold up under scrutiny.

In addition, I've seen both sides of this. I was worth several million in my early 20's. Before I invented a technology, I had lived in poverty. And I had plenty of friends, maybe 20. After I started making 25k a month though, that 20 turned into 400. Girls at parties would just run up to me and ask me if I wanted to go somewhere, no pickup line required. Here's the thing though, I was exactly the same person. The money was the only thing that had changed, but suddenly, everyone thought I was amazing. Once at a party a group of people was crowded around me, and several people I had never even met got into a fight about who could talk to me. It was surreal. I stopped the fight, and asked them. "You seem to be really excited about talking to me, why? What do I do here? Why am I rich? How did I accomplish this. The first one of you that can answer, you can hang out with me for the rest of the night." Nobody knew. They had no idea why they wanted to talk to me, they just knew I had money, and was therefore better than everyone else. How stupid can you get. I had security throw the entire group out, and told them fighting wasn't allowed in my building.

Obviously, I'm a bit prone to angry ranting. I'm a bit surprised to see you jump to Khaled's defense though. You personally have displayed more talent than he ever did. I mean, in your recent film, you were smart enough not to jump in front of the camera and start yelling your own name into the lens. Do you think it's right that he gets literally 100's of times the opportunities you get, even though you could likely run circles around him if you had a fraction of his funding?
 
Last edited:
I also understood your post... LUCK has a way of finding certain people... LOL. It really does. I used to think -- when I was in my 20s -- that you made your own luck and? To a certain degree... That's very true. But I've seen way too many people who couldn't write their way out of a paper sack along with all kinds of other occupations get extremely lucky.

I knew a guy in the Navy that? By all rights? Should have been kicked out after having been caught doing quite a few things that were indeed against regulations but I swear... This guy could have stolen an aircraft carrier and parked it on his front lawn and the Navy wouldn't have even slapped his hands.

It ain't all talent... LOL.

Some of it is political... Some of it is the way YOU ARE YOURSELF... How you present yourself. How others see you.

Some of it is luck.
 
Last edited:
As far as success being a reflection on how much people enjoy working with you, I think that sounds right, but isn't correct in practicality. One of the main guys at SP had to leave recently. We were really good friends, and had a great time hanging out together, building, writing, composing, creating. It was everything he wanted to do in life. But he started running short on rent money, and he had to quit. He told me later that he had gone to work for a guy who had him running a dimmer switch for a stage. But that guy had a bar that his father had bought for him, and so was able to pay my friend enough to make rent. I don't blame him for leaving, I'm just saying that your point doesn't necessarily hold up under scrutiny.

And is that what success is? Running a bar that your dad bought? Or what.. success is making more than X dollars?
 
Last edited:
So if you were on disability that would be a success story?
No. I don't want to be on disability. I could be as I have 40% hearing loss from jumping out of helicopters for years...

I grew up POOR. My brother and I had to poach deer out of season with a borrowed .22 rifle just to eat.

My needs are few and far between plus? I don't live beyond my means. To me? Success is being able to ride 100 miles in any direction just because I want to.

Stop... Go inside a convenience store and buy myself a bottle of beer. Drink it. Get back on the road and ride another 100 miles.

I've been in a house fire and LOST EVERYTHING once and I do mean EVERYTHING.

I'm a lucky guy.
 
So if you were on disability that would be a success story?
I keep THINKING about your question... LOL. To be honest? I don't even understand it.

EDIT: But I will say... Success is anything you want it to be. Just like beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder. My success probably isn't your success and vice versa.

Nothing wrong with that... And? One's IDEA of SUCCESS can constantly evolve.
 
Last edited:
I keep THINKING about your question... LOL. To be honest? I don't even understand it.

Well you initially said "Food. Clothing. A place to sleep. Gas in my bike and $20 in my pocket at all times."
People on disability can have all of that - but it's not successful or fulfilling.

IDK maybe I'm saying that success has to involve some sort of independence, purpose in life, or achievement of a goal.
That a key part of your success is that you earned those things.
 
Last edited:
Well you initially said "Food. Clothing. A place to sleep. Gas in my bike and $20 in my pocket at all times."
People on disability can have all of that - but it's not successful or fulfilling.

IDK maybe I'm saying that success has to involve some sort of independence, purpose in life, or achievement of a goal.
And to YOU that might be the case... But it certainly is NOT for a ton of other people. LOL.

Sure, there was a time years ago when I defined success very differently from how I define it NOW.

Evolution. It took me all these years... About 15 years ago to really define success for ME.

I've known plenty of people on disability in my life... I've helped many of them because they in fact were NOT able to consistently pull $20 out of their pocket 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They couldn't get on a bike and ride 100 miles in any direction. They didn't have a bike and they sure as hell didn't have enough money to pay for gas.

For me? Success is being independent. I've already achieved plenty of the goals I made for myself. Sure, I still have some left to achieve but I'll survive if I do not achieve them.

My purpose in life? I try to PAY IT FORWARD for lack of a better phrase.

I get what you're saying but to be honest? I think your perception might be a little too confined... Being on disability ain't FREEDOM and to me? FREEDOM is a huge part of success.
 
Back
Top