|>>|| No. 28817
Obviously the production companies don't care about the films they're making beyond "is it a profit turner?", but I think it's fair to assume the director, Steve McQueen, did. He also directed 2008's misery marathon Hunger, which had nothing to do with Hollywood and made very little money, relatively speaking, and there a plenty of smaller productions still being made, even in the cinematic multiverse-cum-hellscape within which we find ourselves. As such I don't find your statement that "Nobody is willing to spend that money on something that enriches the culture... but doesn't make a penny." to hold much water. Making films is expensive, time consuming and difficult and all companies in all industries are wary of losing money, I don't see this as being some They Live like revalation the same way you seem to. As for comparing Hollywood to the fossil fuel industry, I find that silly and melodramitic. How do you compare the harms of one to another?
But you're just thinking of the financing. Numbers don't make films, people do. I know that sounds trite, but you're all acting as if any film that makes money is morally bankrupt. Even in the most seemingly hollow example of this, Ghostbusters 2016, I'm sure some people working on it, both behind and in front of the camera though "this is a good thing for women in the sciences". I've no doubt Sony Pictures weren't arsed, but they're just stumping up the cash. Artists have been given patronage since forever, are you going to toss the contents of the Louvre in the Seine River now too?