• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    271 year ago

    How the fuck can they be so greedy?

    They make bazillions of dollars per year (if not per month), and they are unwilling to pay just a bit of money for extras.

    Fuck film execs, I hope there is another strike.

    • 567PrimeMover
      link
      fedilink
      151 year ago

      We reach a new, comical level of greed, and then they find a way to top it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      Because we live in a system where paying more for doing the right thing will get fired and sued for lost profits as a CEO. If you run a publicly traded company, you are legally beholden to make the decision that yields the most profit, full stop.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            I’m as cynical as anybody else and there was a time I also would have repeated it as well.
            But… show me the law. Show me where it says this.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                31 year ago

                Your phrasing was “legally beholden” which suggests to me that a law exists requiring directors and officers to choose the most profitable path. The wikipedia page you linked does not mention any such law. It describes a type of lawsuit that investors can bring against those running the company.

                • Bleeping Lobster
                  link
                  English
                  51 year ago

                  Perhaps they didn’t use the right words. Iirc the correct term is ‘fiduciary duty’. A publicly traded company has a fiduciary duty to create value for shareholders.

                  The duties of some fiduciaries have been codified, for example, the statutory duty of skill and care which is imposed upon trustees by section 1 of the Trustee Act 2000 (TrA 2000) and the relationship between company directors and the company under the Companies Act 2006

                  https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/fiduciary-duties

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    21 year ago

                    Good find. I did some quick googling on this (so take it a grain of salt) and found the following:

                     A breach of fiduciary duty occurs in a variety of situations, such as when the fiduciary puts his own interests before the company and shareholders or when the fiduciary engages in other behavior that could be detrimental to the company and shareholder interests, such as embezzling company funds.  
                    

                    I have not dug too deeply, but what little I’ve found says that the fiduciary must act in the best interests of the company and shareholders. As a cynic it is easy to interpret this to mean ‘make as much profit as possible’, which is kind of the point of investing. A look back at history sadly reenforces this.

                    But fiduciary duty doesn’t give one a free pass to break other laws like child labor or slavery. Yes many companies still do as evidenced by sweatshops around the world. But if one is acting in the best interests of the company, one should not be doing such things even though they are obviously profitable.

                • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  They are only legally beholden to do what their shareholders collectively want. While it’s not necessarily just for profit, if the shareholders are only demanding more profits, that’s how the company will behave.

        • @Rhoeri
          link
          English
          01 year ago

          There will be no sources provided because there are no sources to prove it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I wouldn’t want to deal with additional background characters either even if they played the role for free.

      It’s just more contracts to be signed, more people on set, more potential things that don’t go as planned. Its a lot of extra work and organisation needed for something that pretty much no normal viewer would notice if done at least semi professionally.