I don't see how it's any different to Football (eugh!) where blokes who would most likely be binmen, carpet fitters or insurance salesmen in another life can be paid £100k a week to chase after a ball. These industries are all self perpetuating with salaries that increase year on year like Moore's law.
With regards to technology and equipment, costs really can get out of hand very quickly. Film stock alone can be ludicrously expensive, add to that the hire cost of decent cameras, lighting and grip equipment.
Well, that's one difference from football, then: at least more money does buy you more gear (and even "Brokeback Mountain" probably had vapour-trails and so on removed in post-production) and thus, in theory, a better end-product -- though diminishing returns can of course set in. Whereas with football, as long as you're paying Eric Cantona or Jimmy Greenhoff or whoever the current superstars are, enough that they can give up their day-job and be full-time footballers, presumably extra money on top of that doesn't really cause them to produce better-quality football. (And how come, given that TV plays such a massive part in popularising the sport and lionising its stars, it's the TV people paying the clubs in order to televise their matches, and not the other way round?)
Peter
Previous Topic
Index
