Slumdog Millionaire by Danny Boyle

Jim Klatt said:
If the average person in the usa made thousands of trillions per year then he should.
But they don't, 2.5 million dollars is more than most people make in their lifetime so your argument doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

But, like the Slumdog kids, he agreed to a relatively low price for a starring role. I'm sure in hindsight, he wishes he'd held out for more. But you can wish in one hand and shi* in the other and see which fills up first.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
No, I'm pretty sure that breaks some laws. BIG difference.
Click to expand...

Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it is not wrong, especially when you are talking about what is legal or not illegal in one of the poorest slums in the world.

Sure, they can get away with it legally, but it's still exploitation and still dishonorable. More so considering the subject matter of their film.
 
its like getting labor in china on killbill they pay nothing for it the labor... just how this world works i mean it sucks by any means but thats show biz. ;-./
 
CallaghanFilms said:
But, like the Slumdog kids, he agreed to a relatively low price for a starring role. I'm sure in hindsight, he wishes he'd held out for more. But you can wish in one hand and shi* in the other and see which fills up first.
Click to expand...

But he was paid FAR in excess of what is considered to be a decent wage for acting services to begin with. Also, he had an agent who negotiated fairly for him with the studio and got what he could. These people were uneducated, and probably would have been happy to work for food. The onus is on the producers, who know what they should be paying them but didn't. That is exploitation. Sweat shop labor. Whatever you want to call it.
 
Lookit...

If Fox Searchlight wants to throw these Indian child actors a bone (in the form of a bonus)...good on them. That would be a standup thing to do. But it shouldn't be viewed that the kids "deserve It" cause contractually they don't.

Lucas went back and gave James Earl Jones a sizable bonus after the initial success of Star Wars...not because he had to, but because he wanted to.
 
spidey said:
yeah now it comes down to the producers if they want to be nice.
Click to expand...

They should've been nice to begin with instead of lining their own pockets with what they should've paid their actors. Look...I wouldn't be as upset if these were extras, or actors in one scene, but they were in at least HALF of the films running time. They WERE the movie.
 
and i agree with you but thats how some movies are made. should the people working on killbill got paid minimum wage for building huge sets YES! but they didnt. only the state side team got paid normal film wages.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
:evil:So should we give Manhattan back to the Canarsee tribe?:evil:

People the world over make less-than-smart financial decisions every day. Live and learn, baby.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between someone making a bad decision out of risk taking or plain stupidity, and someone taking advantage of another person's weak position to get them to do valuable work. These kids were taken advantage of, and they didn't know it.
 
i know hopefully the producers will see that they did this and give the kids either more money equal to the other actors or a percentage. i agree the movie with out them is no where as good or believable.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
:evil:So should we give Manhattan back to the Canarsee tribe?:evil:

People the world over make less-than-smart financial decisions every day. Live and learn, baby.
Click to expand...

Your rationale assumes the philosophy or opinion of the person who does the exploiting or victimizing. Taking advantage of somebody else's lack of knowledge or understanding and then turning around and saying, "we had a deal", is morally repugnant.
 
The stinkiest thing is that they were told that they would have educational trust funds until 18, and they haven't even seen that established yet. That was part of the contract according to the parent(s).
 
Bottom line is this.

Economics are Economics are Economics.....

India is a country of the richest and the poorest in the entire world.

So, don't blame the filmmakers for India's absolute inhumane inequality.

With that said, yes, the producers can do the human thing and give up some money to the people who made the film what it is.

Otherwise it really is exploitation.
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
Bottom line is this.

Economics are Economics are Economics.....

India is a country of the richest and the poorest in the entire world.

So, don't blame the filmmakers for India's absolute inhumane inequality.
Click to expand...

But they are just perpetuating that inequality by paying their child actors far below what their work is normally valued at in the industry. Saying that's just the way the world is is not an argument (not saying you are guilty of this ESTEBEVERDE). If Abraham Lincoln had just said 'that's the way the world is' I wouldn't be having this conversation with any of you.
 
Batutta said:
But they are just perpetuating that inequality by paying their child actors far below what their work is normally valued at in the industry. Saying that's just the way the world is is not an argument (not saying you are guilty of this ESTEBEVERDE). If Abraham Lincoln had just said 'that's the way the world is' I wouldn't be having this conversation with any of you.
Click to expand...


No. You are mistaken about that.

The wage they were paid was the prevailing wage of the local economy.

If they pay higher and higher they will make but a ripple but if more and more do it then it causes huge problems of inflation.

India needs to equalize from within.

They are on the road but there is much racism and classicism that needs to be sorted.

I am speaking purely about Micro and Macro Economics.


Lincoln made his decisions based on Economics as much as he did about anything else. Maybe even more so.


I understand your anguish and most certainly feel your pain but regardless of what they pay those lads it will not change India. India has to make changes within.


Another way to look at this is if Indian wages are nominally on par with US or Canadian or UK etc... India will loose almost all of it's business all things else equal.


Just the way it is.


Now, when Indian GDP per capita is closer to ours then we are cooking with gas and indeed they will actually demand higher wages than US, or EU, or UK stars as their market is several orders of magnitude larger than ours!

It would be almost a 180 degree reversal of sorts! :beer:
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
No. You are mistaken about that.

The wage they were paid was the prevailing wage of the local economy.
Click to expand...

Which was wrong, unless everyone on the set there was also paid those wages. I can assure you they weren't. They should have been paid the prevailing wage of a 15 million dollar production.
 
Batutta said:
Which was wrong, unless everyone on the set there was also paid those wages. I can assure you they weren't. They should have been paid the prevailing wage of a 15 million dollar production.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works.

If they were paid the same then it would have been a 35 million dollar production done in LA or Canada.


Sorry Man.

But if you want to shoot your next film in India and Pay US or EU or UK wages they will more than gladly accept!


Se la vie.


But perhaps they can parlay this into something more....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top