Say it Isn't So Arnold (1 Viewer)

[Steven L]

If Arnold's commentary increases sales of the DVD, thereby making the company more money, why shouldn't he be paid for it?

 

[Matthew Kiernan]

Something to take into consideration: Who's to say Schwarzenegger even asked for that amount? Artisan may have just offered him the $75,000 just to guarantee getting him the studio. It's also possible that they HAD to pay him. Many stars have it written in their contracts that if they have to (or let's just say "are requested to") do any more promotional appearances than are required by contract, then they should be paid for it and this is, more or less, a promotional appearence. I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying that it's possible this could be contractual (it could also just be naked greed, no doubt).

You'd be surprised to hear that a lot of talent not near Schwarzenegger's box office level have been paid for commentaries. Once word got out that Warners paid Dustin Hoffmann $5,000 to record commentary for SPHERE, all of a sudden people started expecting to get paid. Not everyone does, but a lot more than you think do.

 

[Sean Oneil]

I agree with the whole 'love of the art' perspective, but if the studios are using the commentary tracks as a selling point, (and they are) and if Arnold was to do the commentary for free, then the studio would have gotten all of the profits to themselves. Is that a fair proposition?

Arnold does the commentary track for free, and Artisan earns an extra $100,000 or so in increased DVD sales. Is that fair? I don't think so at all. At least paying Arnold $75,000 kind of evens everything out, and Arnold does not get 'USED' by the studio execs.

 

[Kimmo Jaskari]

The guy is a highly paid professional actor. Why should he give his time away for free?

Every professional deserves to be paid for his work. In fact, you could argue that by giving your services away, you place little value on them. Why then should anyone else value them more than you do?

I'm sure he doesn't need the money, but I firmly believe he deserves a fee, if only symbolically.

I love my work, but I still expect to be paid for work I do that benifits my employer. His participation on the commentary track clearly benifits the studio, so he deserves to be compensated for his time.

I believe he gladly donates his time and effort for charitable causes, for instance, as I feel celebrities should. A commentary track on a DVD is not charity though, it's work, and for work you should get paid. If not, you're being used.

 

[Stu Kobak]

Hey guys, I just want to point out again that creative principals share in auxilliary rights revenues. So, given that 75k is insignificant to Arnold, and the going argument is that he should be recompensed for his "work," any increased DVD sales profit in effect in part goes to pay Arnold.

Stu

 

[Morgan Holly]

I've worked on around 50 commentary tracks. The most we ever paid anyone was $500. One person's agent asked for $10K, we said no thanks. He ended up doing it for free. A lot of people do say no though, perhaps $75K can change anyone's mind.

 

[Carl Johnson]

It's kinda silly to suggest that Arnold is greedy for making 75k on a commentary. That would be no different than my boss offering me a $50 gift certifiate for spending a few hours working my day off.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I'm not saying that Arnold (or anyone else) shouldn't be compensated for his time, but for $75k, shouldn't they have asked for some preparation? It totally seemed like he was doing it cold. How long does it take to record? An afternoon maybe? I'd say $5000 would be the MOST anyone should be paid, and we're talking top-billed stars here.

 

[Brad_W]

First, I think actors/directors/even Bob "the lighting guy" (from the lame lame lame In The Mouth Madness commentary) should be paid. It is time that they could be working on something else. Even Mel Gibson derves to get paid for his crappy/boring/uninformative commentary that he did for Braveheart! Arnold shouldn't get paid 75K though, but definately get paid. It's work, why should someone not get paid for their work? Or are you saying that because they are wealthy and doing a commentary would be fun that they should not get paid?? I think not.

 

[Sean Oneil]

Even of residuals are involved, the studio will no doubt get a bigger cut of those residuals then Arnold will, so the commentary fee does help even things out.

If the studio were to just give away free copies of 'Total Recall SE' then there might be an argument here, but they are not. They are charging money and using Arnolds commentary track as a selling point to make that money.

Arnold is no sucker.

 

[James D S]

The only way I would loose respect for Arnold is if someone offered him 75K for talking about a movie and he turned it down. I know I would not, so why on earth would I expect it from anyone else.
(Besides, I would not be surprised if the SAG required compensation for participating in a DVD production like this.)
As far as the amount of money, WHO CARES? Welcome to free capitalism. While you enjoy your stay, don't begrudge others the same right to make money on the fruits of their labor.
Just say, "Arnold, you lucky dog," and move on.
(BTW, I thought the Conan commentary was hilarious, albeit unintentionally, I'm sure. It wasn't "informative" but entertaining as hell. )

 

[Patrick Sun]

"Whatever the market will bear."

 

[Stu Kobak]

You can argue back and forth about the merits of being paid for anything that can be construed as work. Patrick, I am a firm believer in the market place----if you don't like the price or the product, don't pony up. But I still believe there are times to give something back. Give something back to movie fans. Give something back from the great good fortune one has had. Can I really condemn Artisan or Arnold for paying and taking? Condemn must be too strong a word. However, as we chip away at the strands of innocence and purtity that remain, however few, we make the world a dried out place. I am far too philosophical about the issues of special edition pay-offs. The Video Business article
http://www.videobusiness.com/news/1...itions_snag.asp
that talks about the possible possible reduction of future special editions lays it out pretty well.
Stu

 

[Michael Lee]

Stu-
As you know, I always value your opinion on all film and DVD quality. I am not sure if I would ever pay you for it though. Although seeing that you have been a member of this forum for nearly 32 years, perhaps your time is worth the money .

 

[Stu Kobak]

Michael:
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
Stu

 

[Sean Oneil]

You have to look at it this way, if Arnold did not get that $75,000 it would simply have been $75,000 more sitting in some studio execs' bank accounts. I don't know why anyone would feel that the marketers are entitled to that money, while the talent should just be 'charitable' to the fans by doing a commentary for free?
Stu, I completely respect your views, but the only situation where Arnold could be expected to do a commentary for free, was if the studio did not plan to turn right around and make a profit from Mr. Schwarzenneger's generosity. Arnold know very well that Artisan would in fact turn around and sell their product with his commentary, and attempt to turn a profit from it -so he charged them accordingly.
This does not make him any less of an artist. In fact, it helps to set a precedence where performers or artists will be paid money that marketers and studio execs would have otherwise gotten.
If commentary tracks disappear, it is only because the studios feel that they can no longer cut a healthy profit from including them on their DVD releases, and would have much less to do with the artists/performers greed then the studio's/executive's greed.
In my opinion, by picking on the actors/directors or talent over this issue, you are picking on the wrong guys, Stu. It is the studio execs who should be criticized, and Artisan paying $75,000 for a commentary track only shows just how interested they are in turning a profit -as they must have expected to make some serious money off it's inclusion in order to cover that considerable expense
I don't think the studios are in this business for the goodwill toward the fans, but rather by the exploitation of the fans interests. That's Hollywood.

 

[Stu Kobak]

Actually, Sean, I am equally or more unhappy with Artisan paying Arnold the bucks. Did you read the Video Business article that was linked? There's good logic on your side and on everyone's side who believes artists should be paid for their work. I agree. There's no purity of thought in my line of thinking, only purity of motive. I think commentary tracks are valuable, not only from a commercial point of view, but from an hisstorical perspective. If they go away because they become too expensive or not profitable for releasing entities, well, in the end, it's the public that loses out.

Stu

 

[Phil Florian]

Wasn't this whole issue a portion of why there was a potential actor's strike this year? They were getting cut out of too many money making opportunities due to various mediums (Internet, DVD, etc.) and they felt they needed to get a slice of the sweet pie. I think probably will be only an issue for old movies, like Total Recall but not as much so for new flicks. New contracts will no doubt contain wording to include DVD commentary, DVD "Behind the Scenes" footage, and other such interviews and this may not be an issue (as much). Older movies will be the problem and thanks to Ah-nold, the bar has been raised enough that we won't be hearing from too many high priced commentaries...which may not be a bad thing. Personally, I would rather hear from the director, who had more of a "big picture" view of things, vs. an actor who was on the set only for their scenes and had little or nothing to do with pre- or post-production.
I also agree that many commentaries are lame. Some are just pitiful play by plays, which are only useful if the person in the room with the movie on were blind. Then it is very helpful. I don't think a lot of folks do much prep (thus the "This is happening...now this..."). I actually liked the Big Trouble in Little China commentary, but it was pretty clear that there wasn't even much talk between John and Kurt before the taping...it sounded like they met in the room, turned the movie and recording devices on, and off they went. For them, it was fun because they had nice relaxed chemistry. Others it is a bore.
I like non-involved folk's commentary, too. There are some neat commentary tracks by scholars on some of my favorite Hong Kong discs, Hard Boiled Criterion and Dragon Inn being prime examples. They give a lot of information and perspective about the film, but are actually (in the latter two examples) excited about the work.
Yes, I am sure they are paid, but not so much that no other content will make it on to the disc.
I don't think the big fear mongering posts hold a lot of clout. If there is one constant in the universe, it is the ability for an artist to go on and on about their art. While some high profile actors won't be showing up in tracks due to cost, I doubt we will be missing George Lucas or Peter Jackon commentaries for their upcoming movies. It just doesn't fit the artistic personality (IMHO).
Phil

 

[Sean Oneil]

Purity of motive is a great thing, I agree with you completely. Money tends to corrupt art.
But unfortunately, the studios do not finance movies purely out of love for the art. Besides that, we are talking about funding for a commentary track which was done well after the original production.
I agree with you on all points, except I believe that Arnold was right to ask for so much money from Artisan, because it keeps the studio in check -kind of like Arnold saying "well, I sees dat you aah goinkg to szell dee commentarry to make money, szo of coause, I vill have to chaahge you more money to do zatt szoa I du nutt feel like you aah takeing advaantige uf me" ? ? ?
I got a chuckle out of that line from a "studio exec" in that Video Business article ...it said "Thay are killing the goose that layed the golden egg" LOL! And just who exactly was the benefactor of these golden eggs? Who gets by far the biggest piece of said eggs? The studios do.

 

[Kyle Milligan]

Give the guy a $500 gift certificate to his favourite department store (as a courtesy) and buy him lunch and send him on his way.

If he's not interested in doing it for free, leave him out of it. That goes for everyone.

I agree that Ahnuld's commentaries are not among the best, but 75K seems outrageous (and not likely true either).

But if it were true, who do you think pays for it in the end? Yep. Us. That 75K could be spent far more wisely than that, and if it comes down to that, I'd just as soon only have the director on board, who's more than likely happy and willing to do it for free, considering it's promoting and breathing new life into his/her film.