When you work in corporate America for as long as I have, it's easy to pick holes in financial logic. For entities that are all about the bottom line, it's an interesting exercise to see where pennies are pinched and where money is burned. And since "profit" trumps all, they often sacrifice more for the "product" than they do for the employees that make and design it, so its not odd to see salaries stagnate and perks eliminated, while they freely spend and waste to "improve" the product.
Which brings me back to The Bourne Legacy; which was just an overbloated shitshow of celluloid. The Bourne series was a pretty good moneymaker for Universal, so it's not a complete surprise that they'd provide the filmmakers carte blanche during production. But having said that, come the fuck on. I couldn't help but notice there was scene after unnecessary scene, location after unnecessary location just for the sake of grandeur. Did we really need to see agents die in actual Pakistan and South Korea when the scenes/locations had zero bearing on the plot? Why bother shooting those scenes at all? And how expensive was it to go shoot these extraneous scenes? The movie had numerous places where costs could have been cut, and it wouldn't have affected the crappy movie one way or another. But, on the flip side, I guarantee you Universal counts how many sheets of paper are used in every copy machine in their home offices. Throw tons of money at the product and watch it waste away, but cut overtime for some overworked dude because the crappy product shockingly didn't make enough.
I'm not really sure how to get to my overall point here, but I suppose I can't stand when corporations bitch about the bottom line, fire workers, while wasting money on unnecessary "improvements" to their "product." There's a happy medium to be had here, but they have no desire to search for it. Until then, corporations still aren't people, Mitt.
No comments:
Post a Comment