Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7776545" data-attributes="member: 2525">Look when I said averages I meant averages. When I said it's not a hard and fast rule I meant that too. OF COURSE you can cherry pick opposite examples, that's what it means to have averages and not a hard and fast rule. But ON AVERAGE movies which get assigned bigger money tend to be better than movies that do not. Indeed, movies that do not you usually don't even see...they end up not even making it to a movie theater, and if they do they get a short run and are frequently forgotten. Bigger budgets tend to get you better actors and better acting has a meaningful impact on movie quality. Bigger budgets tend to get you better directors and ADs and better directors and ADs have a meaningful impact on movie quality. Bigger budgets tend to get you better cinematopgraphers and editors and those people have a meaningful impact on movie quality. This is true for pretty much every industry and it's true for the Entertainment industry as well - being able to hire the best in the field tends, on average, tends to postively impact the quality of the products in that field. And if you disagree and think there are "far more cheap good movies than expensive good movies" give me some objective data showing that which isn't cherry picking a handfull of examples. It would make HUGE news in the Entertainment industry, which is full of analysts who would salivate over such objective data and which would dramatically change the entire industry if it were true because they could make so much more money if they could spend less to make more.</blockquote>

Verification