There's no reward without risk. The producers who put the money up to fund the production of the film took the risk, and reap the rewards. The moment you accept a "day rate" you agree to the terms, there's no bitching about the exact terms that you agreed to.
A lot of people are talking about how the assistant made almost no money relative to the success of the film. This is what I think.
Itβs generally gauche not to treat your tribe. You can appeal to meritocracy and capitalism all you want, but people are social animals. We notice large disparities, especially when the winner clearly did not create all of the conditions that produced the outcome.
From a purely epistemic standpoint, it is obvious the success of the film was not proportional to the risk the producer took. In a world with global distribution and increasing returns to scale, one film can absorb attention that might once have been spread across ten similar films. The reward gets concentrated, but that does not mean the underlying contribution became ten times greater.
A lot of people who build products or provide services do not seem to understand this. They look at the outcome and assume it perfectly measures value created. It does not. Winner-take-most markets distort the relationship between effort, talent, risk, and reward.
That is why some redistribution makes sense even before you start talking about morality. The scale of the reward often reflects the structure of the market more than the actions of the winner.
And beyond all that, there is a basic social expectation that predates capitalism. When someone came back from a successful hunt, they fed the tribe.
@JoshRaby You never disclose these things. Every time I have moved from one job to another, I always played up how much I was previously making. Every single time I have jumped at least 50%. She should be using this as leverage for the next opportunity, not crying. Retards!!!!