Sure, so long as you’re cutting all the expenses out of the revenue too, and not just union dues. The whole trick of this chart is to make pretend like writers, actors, etc are only getting 0.01% slices of the pie and the studio keeps the rest. When the actual actors (as opposed to the union itself) are going to be a big chunk of that revenue, as are the actual writers, editors, special effects, sets, costumes, etc, etc.
The point the chart is trying to make (I assume) is that if you’re dealing with such a small part of the pie, it’s not actually worth arguing over unless you’re just being greedy.
If you gave all of those unions 100% compensation increases it would now be 0.06% of studio revenue. Tell me with a straight face you think that their margins are so tight that sharing up that percentage of revenue would suddenly make movies an unprofitable venture.
Sure, so long as you’re cutting all the expenses out of the revenue too, and not just union dues. The whole trick of this chart is to make pretend like writers, actors, etc are only getting 0.01% slices of the pie and the studio keeps the rest. When the actual actors (as opposed to the union itself) are going to be a big chunk of that revenue, as are the actual writers, editors, special effects, sets, costumes, etc, etc.
The point the chart is trying to make (I assume) is that if you’re dealing with such a small part of the pie, it’s not actually worth arguing over unless you’re just being greedy.
If you gave all of those unions 100% compensation increases it would now be 0.06% of studio revenue. Tell me with a straight face you think that their margins are so tight that sharing up that percentage of revenue would suddenly make movies an unprofitable venture.