Calgary gets a film studio.

[rage2]

Kinda cool that we're getting a film studio here, but my question is, why are taxpayers funding this?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Film+studio+built+Calgary+Foothills+Industrial+Park/9922347/story.html

Quote trimmed for relevance:


Calgary’s long-planned film studio now has a home in the city’s southeast industrial area. At the Banff World Media Festival Monday afternoon, Luke Azevedo, Commissioner for Film, Television and Creative Industries of Calgary Economic Development, announced the location of the $22.8-million facility. It will be built on 8.5 acres of land at 5750 76 Avenue S.E. It is scheduled to open in fall of 2015.

The facility, now called the Calgary Film Centre, will include 50,000 square feet of sound stages, 20,000 square feet of warehouse space and 15,000 square feet of office space.

Calgary was the last major centre in Canada that did not have such as facility for its film industry, said Paul Bronfman, CEO of William F. White International, which will be the anchor tenant of the facility.

The studio will be funded using $5-million by the province, $10-million from the City of Calgary, $6.8-million from Calgary Economic Development and $1-million from William F. White.
The primary tenant using the facilities will be contributing 4.4% of total costs. WTF?

[dirtsniffer]

Originally posted by rage2
Kinda cool that we're getting a film studio here, but my question is, why are taxpayers funding this?

The primary tenant using the facilities will be contributing 4.4% of total costs. WTF?

Complains that the cities economy has a single driving force. Complains when the city tries to diversify economy.

makes sense.

[rage2]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
Complains that the cities economy has a single driving force. Complains when the city tries to diversify economy.

makes sense.

I have absolutely no problems with diversifying the economy. I have no problems with giving this film studio short term tax breaks to entice them to the city. What I have a problem with is taxpayers funding the majority of the costs to bring a business to the city, costing them nothing, while they profit off of it. It's not even a loan, it's a handout, pure and simple.

Would you be opposed to taxpayers funding a billion dollar automotive plant so that GM can build cars here with no strings attached?

The cash handout up front makes it so that the businesses does not have to take any risks. They could leave after a year when it realizes that there's a reason why a film studio doesn't work in the city, and we've wasted $21.8m.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Frankly, I'd much rather see the City use its mandated 1% "Arts" budget for things like this, that will have a positive long-term economic impact, than for building giant blue rings. Filming in the Calgary area is becoming more and more popular and it seems like a small supporting studio makes a lot of sense.

[speedog]

rage2 makes a great point - I'm sure every business owner would like a deal as sweet as this one.

[A790]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
Frankly, I'd much rather see the City use its mandated 1% "Arts" budget for things like this, that will have a positive long-term economic impact, than for building giant blue rings.
:werd:

[BerserkerCatSplat]

The more I read about it, the better this sounds. The facility is being built by a non-profit org that uses gov't financing to start projects with the intent that they be self-sustaining with the intent of diversifying the local economy. They have a committed anchor tenant (that helped finance the project as well), making it highly unlikely the facility will sit unused, and having the studio available to smaller independent filmmakers can only be a good thing for the local film community and industry.

Nobody's going to be getting rich from this particular venture, but I like that the City is investing in something that will bring a completely new industry to Calgary.

[AG_Styles]

Slippery slope imo if we start using tax payer money to help fund private for-profit businesses.

look at what Quebec and Toronto are doing for the tech industry.

ex:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/blacklist-the-test-for-ubisoft-toronto-game-developers-1.1388627

“The province gave Ubisoft $263 million to secure a $500 million investment. “

unless the province is getting a large share of the profits as well which is not the case since the profits are shuffled to Ubisoft HQ in Paris before distribution to other studios.

I agree with using that arts budget to fund business startups though. It just has to be set up in a way that if the govt helps fund it, they have to be able to recoup the funds they put into said venture. Or else as tax payers, we all lose.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by AG_Styles
Slippery slope imo if we start using tax payer money to help fund private for-profit businesses.

Then you should be happy to know that the facility is being built by an NPO.



Calgary Economic Development is a not-for-profit corporation funded by the City of Calgary, private sector, community partners and other levels of government, and managed by an independent Board of Directors.

[AG_Styles]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


Then you should be happy to know that the facility is being built by an NPO.



yup, but will this lead ultimately to the same path as the 2 has-been provinces in the east? no idea and I hope not.

ultimately, as long as tax payers see a positive return on the investment in the end since the idea of the NPO was to secure the millions of dollars in lost film and tv work.

[rage2]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
Then you should be happy to know that the facility is being built by an NPO.
Not quite.

"The studio will be funded using $5-million by the province, $10-million from the City of Calgary, $6.8-million from Calgary Economic Development and $1-million from William F. White."

CED is funded partially by our tax dollars. But let's ignore that for a second, and assume that there's no tax dollars involved, taxpayers are still on the hook for 66% of the costs.

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like the idea of having a film studio here, there's lots of benefits there. I'm just against the idea of using public funds that benefits private enterprises directly with no associated risks. It's the same reason why I'm against our tax dollars funding a new sports arena for the Flames.


Originally posted by AG_Styles
ultimately, as long as tax payers see a positive return on the investment in the end since the idea of the NPO was to secure the millions of dollars in lost film and tv work.
You want to see a positive return on investment? Bring on the tax breaks. This will ensure that the private business' best interest is to turn a profit and pocket more money, while the city gains from the trickle down effect on our economy.

Funding an initial investment is throwing money away, with zero risk to the private business. It's not even a loan!

[speedog]

Is the new business venture a non-profit? From the news article "Calgary Economic Development has spent four years on the project, establishing a non-profit corporation to study and support the idea" - sounds like the facility/land/building will be owned by this non-profit corporation.

Anchor tenant will be William F. White International which most likely is a for-profit corporation - guess the question is whether or not the William F. White International corporation would've acquired/built this facility/land/building on their own if it weren't for this arrangement.

[AG_Styles]

Originally posted by rage2

You want to see a positive return on investment? Bring on the tax breaks. This will ensure that the private business' best interest is to turn a profit and pocket more money, while the city gains from the trickle down effect on our economy.

Funding an initial investment is throwing money away, with zero risk to the private business. It's not even a loan!

agreed, but PR/confidence-wise, it doesn't have the same impact as saying that a lump sum will be funded from the start. Just have to see how this plays out. It is a sweet deal though to get that much investment money backed by tax payers. I'm kinda jealous!

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by rage2

Not quite.

"The studio will be funded using $5-million by the province, $10-million from the City of Calgary, $6.8-million from Calgary Economic Development and $1-million from William F. White."

CED is funded partially by our tax dollars. But let's ignore that for a second, and assume that there's no tax dollars involved, taxpayers are still on the hook for 66% of the costs.

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like the idea of having a film studio here, there's lots of benefits there. I'm just against the idea of using public funds that benefits private enterprises directly with no associated risks. It's the same reason why I'm against our tax dollars funding a new sports arena for the Flames.

Are you confusing NPO and NGO? Receiving tax dollars doesn't disqualify it from being a non-profit organization as far as I know, and CED is the driver behind building the facilty.

I completely agree with you on the stadium issue, but I consider that a different debate than the one at hand. The film studio is a chicken-and-egg thing - For a film studio to make sense, you need a film industry. But to grow a large enough film industry, you usually need a studio. Sure, over decades we might eventually have enough of a local scene make it a reasonable venture, but this way they kick-start the industry at the cost of a few tax dollars and gain a brand new source of income for Calgary. The Flames (and hockey/major sports in general) is already a well-established, profitable venture in Calgary and they just want free tax money so they can make more money faster with less risk.

I'm against frivolous spending and abuse of taxpayer dollars, but I wholly support City diversification initiatives.

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by rage2
The primary tenant using the facilities will be contributing 4.4% of total costs. WTF?

I'm not sure what the problem is. Clearly they're leasing the space. They just also happen to be providing a portion of the financing to the NPO that will own & operate the facility.

[01RedDX]

.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by rage2
Kinda cool that we're getting a film studio here, but my question is, why are taxpayers funding this?


Good question. The Alberta Government (my employer) is currently LEASING the "Film Alberta Studio" in Edmonton so we can do research and development work in it. Think about that for a second.

Apparently the film industry isn't that big if they can't basically GIVE the space away we already have.

Congratulations are in order to whoever came up with this scam. Somebody got paid good money to provide nothing of value! :banghead:

[Go4Long]

I guess the question is where does a better ROI lie...the film studio or the hockey arena.

It's hard to say that you don't support tax money being spent on an arena but you do support it being spent on a film studio if you're really looking out for the best INVESTMENT of tax dollars.

Any company would build an office here if we as taxpayers were paying 2/3's of the costs...it would be silly not to.

[ExtremeSi]

Too bad about the location, 5750 76 Avenue SE. Must have gotten some cheap land there.

[RedDawn]

The plan isn't to benefit directly from the success or failure of the facility's tenants.

It's about the constant flow of people into that facility. Those people need:

- Places to live
- Places to eat
- Places to be entertained

...which all result in a large increase to local businesses as these people spend their money. We may not benefit directly from what the facility produces but we'll reap the rewards indirectly.

Same idea as the Stampede. Charge a small admission fee to let people in because you know they're going to be spending a lot more once they've entered your area.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
They have a committed anchor tenant (that helped finance the project as well),

My only question is, Brazzers or Bang Bros?

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Calgary Casting Couch, of course.

[rage2]

Originally posted by RedDawn
The plan isn't to benefit directly from the success or failure of the facility's tenants.

It's about the constant flow of people into that facility. Those people need:

- Places to live
- Places to eat
- Places to be entertained

...which all result in a large increase to local businesses as these people spend their money. We may not benefit directly from what the facility produces but we'll reap the rewards indirectly.

Same idea as the Stampede. Charge a small admission fee to let people in because you know they're going to be spending a lot more once they've entered your area.
Again, I'm not arguing the economic benefits at all. There's always going to be benefits with any new business into the city. I'm simply trying to understand why there's such a good feel vibe to this project, yet city council and the public are opposed to the new arena, which the Flames even haven't detailed or asked for money.

Let me ask the question another way, for those that are OK with spending tax dollars on this facility. Hypothetically speaking, if the Flames owners decide that they want the city's help in funding a new Arena, would you be in favor of your tax dollars going towards that?

For the record, I don't believe either project should be taxpayer funded, but I am in favor of short term preferential tax credits to offset initial investments against future revenues. Taxpayers funding private businesses is a slippery slope, and this is from a long standing Flames season tickets holder.

[Unknown303]

There should be tax credits or incentives for these types of developments, they shouldn't be funded through taxes.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Unknown303
There should be tax credits or incentives for these types of developments, they shouldn't be funded through taxes.

But it's non profit, so it's ok. (just like FIFA)

[01RedDX]

.

[Unknown303]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


But it's non profit, so it's ok. (just like FIFA)

Non profit still pay people salaries, bonuses etc. Look at the AESO for example.

Although with a Fifa reference I am assuming extreme sarcasm.

[rage2]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
The difference is, one is a fledgling industry here, and the other is well-established.
But on the other hand, the fledgling industry is a huge financial risk, with no guarantees whatsoever. Meanwhile, the well established business is dealing with an aging infrastructure where it will trend downwards if there's no updates. So you would *think* that the safe bet is to spend money on the arena.

Loss of economic impact from a downwards trending industry is worse off than the economic impact from a new industry where we don't know how much it will grow.

[Mibz]

I have no idea how I feel about this, but so far it's been a really good discussion. Can't wait for it to degenerate.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by rage2

But on the other hand, the fledgling industry is a huge financial risk, with no guarantees whatsoever. Meanwhile, the well established business is dealing with an aging infrastructure where it will trend downwards if there's no updates. So you would *think* that the safe bet is to spend money on the arena.

Loss of economic impact from a downwards trending industry is worse off than the economic impact from a new industry where we don't know how much it will grow.

I see where you're coming from, and I agree to an extent - your feelings on the subject will hinge upon your opinion of the risk/reward involved and your views on how government spending should work.

The arena, in my view, is an established facility with a long-term ingrained revenue stream. It's a for-profit business - if the revenues from its activities have not been used in a manner that allows the ownership to expand their facilities as needed, then that's not a failing of the City and their involvement should be limited. It's not a startup, the City giving them money isn't going to attract a massive influx of employment into the stadium-facilities industry. Yes, they will have more seats and can sell a few more tickets, but that's only a percentage increase overall in tax revenue, and not a discernible increase in employment (outside of the short-term gains during the construction phase).

The studio represents an entirely new segment of employment and revenue for Calgary. A bigger arena isn't going to attract new segments of professionals to Calgary, a film studio has a far, far better change of making that happen. To me, it makes sense that City dollars be used to jump-start a fledgling market - "stimulus" can be a bad word in economics and politics, depending on your views on the subject, but I firmly believe that there are cases where a short-term influx of tax dollars can lead to measurable, noticeable growth and a long-term increase in tax revenues to offset the initial investment. Using an NPO to run the show softens the blow somewhat, and running it as a diversification-driven program means that "profits" from the studio get channeled back into new diversification projects if this one is successful - that's the kind of sustainable investment I like to see when it comes to projects like this. Is there risk? Absolutely, but I understand that there are no guarantees in business, be it private or public sector. To me, it makes more sense for the City to be interested in creating a new industry rather than shoring up an existing one that should already be self-sufficient. Not to mention that the tenant wants into the Calgary badly enough to put money towards the facility they're going to lease, so the risk of the venture seems relatively low.

With that said, if a company had been running a film studio here for years and came to City asking for money to build a new one, I would have the same opinion as I do towards the stadium funding - if they need City support, a loan would seem like the better plan.

[AG_Styles]

Originally posted by rage2

But on the other hand, the fledgling industry is a huge financial risk, with no guarantees whatsoever. Meanwhile, the well established business is dealing with an aging infrastructure where it will trend downwards if there's no updates. So you would *think* that the safe bet is to spend money on the arena.


^ this.

The other side is that a small industry needs help and support to grow. It is a definite risk that could or could not have pay offs at the end. I think the main thing Rage is pointing out is that how using that tax payer money will generate a lower risk investment on an unknown. And that's where the tax credits come in as an incentive rather than a lump sum at the beginning with no assurances.

maybe there's more to the agreement than released?

[syscal]

Government and non-profit team buy land and build a warehouse to expand an industry.

Prior to building they already have a tenant willing to pay leasehold improvements.

Where is the problem here?

As for a new Flames arena? I hope to hell my tax dollars don't get thrown toward that. People can watch them lose from the Saddledome just fine.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by rage2


Let me ask the question another way, for those that are OK with spending tax dollars on this facility. Hypothetically speaking, if the Flames owners decide that they want the city's help in funding a new Arena, would you be in favor of your tax dollars going towards that?


Where is my publicly funded race track damn it! :whipped:

[Xtrema]

Vancouver get cheap labor. We don't. You can pay $20/hr and still nobody wants to work at that low rate (at least in food biz).

Even they got a free studio, the production cost would be so high here that we are not competitive with other regions.

[rage2]

Originally posted by syscal
Government and non-profit team buy land and build a warehouse to expand an industry.

Prior to building they already have a tenant willing to pay leasehold improvements.

Where is the problem here?

As for a new Flames arena? I hope to hell my tax dollars don't get thrown toward that. People can watch them lose from the Saddledome just fine.
This post pretty much sums up my "problem".

Taxpayers pay for private businesses to potentially increase economic stimulus, OK.

Taxpayers pay for private businesses to sustain economic stimulus, not OK.


Originally posted by Xtrema
Vancouver get cheap labor. We don't. You can pay $20/hr and still nobody wants to work at that low rate (at least in food biz).
Don't worry, there are lots of ppl with art degrees lining up to get $20/hr jobs that's related to their degrees. :devil:

[sexualbanana]

It's been pointed out earlier but William F White is an anchor tenant (like a Shoppers or Safeway in a strip mall). There's no mention of whether they'll get any kind of equity of the entire film studio or of their portion (which can be argued is just construction and design cost of their own facility), so it's unfair to guess either way.

If I'm reading it correctly, the CED will be managing the film studio as a whole. And their mission is to promote Calgary as an ideal place for business investment (ie the film trade). The industry itself isn't exactly fledgeling. In fact, the absence of adequate film lots is actually a major reason why productions leave Calgary to film other portions. In terms of geography, Calgary has access to a lot of different topographies that productions can have access to, and the tax credits offered are very attractive. It's when on-location filming becomes unfeasible that these productions need a film lot to do their work in, and Calgary didn't have one, which would force them to move to Vancouver or LA. Having a studio in town plugs a revenue leak for the local film industry.

You're comparing them to the Flames who would reap the benefit of a publicly funded stadium because ultimately they would end up owning and managing it. This film studio, unless I'm mistaken, could and would remain managed by the CED. The only thing I am cloudy on is where the money to the CED goes.

[finboy]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
Frankly, I'd much rather see the City use its mandated 1% "Arts" budget for things like this, that will have a positive long-term economic impact, than for building giant blue rings. Filming in the Calgary area is becoming more and more popular and it seems like a small supporting studio makes a lot of sense.

It would be nice to see, this helps create jobs AND art, and calgary already has a great film industry here

[Toma]

And this my friends is how the rich get richer.

Wealth transfer UP. lol

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Toma
And this my friends is how the rich get richer.

Wealth transfer UP. lol

Starving artists man. Sometimes you need to offer a carrot to producers to bring work in.

And it could capitalize on the fact that we look like a lot of American cities. Film here, produce here, lowers costs.

Look at the FX network show "Fargo". Set in North Dakota, filmed here. Billy Bob Thorton is in it. Its really, really good. They filmed a Las Vegas hotel scene at hotel arts. The small town Fargo store fronts are in Inglewood. I have recognized a bunch of Canadian actors that got roles. Not to mention Canadian film crew etc. And the show is very popular.

Far less of this money will end up in the pockets of rich producers as opposed to billions the auto execs would vacuum up if given half the chance. Its a good industry that's forced to run very tight margins. Little room for waste.

[ExtraSlow]

who decides that filmmaking is a "good" industry and that giving subsidies to this industry makes more sense than subsidies to other industries?

Serious question.

[J-D]

Originally posted by Toma
And this my friends is how the rich get richer.

Wealth transfer UP. lol

Nowhere near as bad as something like funding a public stadium though. The film industry has some pretty tangible economic benefits associated with it. Lots of support staff, tradespeople, and even municipal income from permits and licensing. Of course, this is assuming it will be used - but I think Fargo and Christopher Nolan coming down a few times now is a pretty promising start.

[rage2]

Originally posted by J-D
Nowhere near as bad as something like funding a public stadium though. The film industry has some pretty tangible economic benefits associated with it. Lots of support staff, tradespeople, and even municipal income from permits and licensing. Of course, this is assuming it will be used - but I think Fargo and Christopher Nolan coming down a few times now is a pretty promising start.
You could argue that a stadium would have the same benefits, at an even bigger scale. More concerts, events, conventions, all your economic benefits of the film industry would apply just the same here.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by rage2

You could argue that a stadium would have the same benefits, at an even bigger scale. More concerts, events, conventions, all your economic benefits of the film industry would apply just the same here.

We already have that capacity though. Sure, the venue could be nicer but I don't think we are losing out on concerts because our stadiums are not brand new. Hell, best concert I ever went to was Big Sugar at some shithole bar.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by rage2

You could argue that a stadium would have the same benefits, at an even bigger scale. More concerts, events, conventions, all your economic benefits of the film industry would apply just the same here.

So, theoretically, if a new stadium allows the owners to put on an extra concert, how does that concert benefit the Calgary municipal government in a direct fiscal manner?

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by frizzlefry


We already have that capacity though. Sure, the venue could be nicer but I don't think we are losing out on concerts because our stadiums are not brand new. Hell, best concert I ever went to was Big Sugar at some shithole bar.

There are actually a lot of big acts that couldn't come to Calgary because of the design of the Saddledome (Timberlake, is the one I know right off the top of my head but there are others), didn't work well with the way their stages were designed. So it actually kind of is costing us.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Yeah there have been a number of acts that played Edmonton instead of here due to the design of the Dome.

[Toma]

We had a booming film industry. That's how I met Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, John Cusack, and several more many many years ago.

Its a stupid idea. They stopped major activity here because it flat out costs too much compared to other places.

If it doesn't create profit or benefit the province in terms of revenue, we have no business funding crap that is non sustainable without hand outs, and when if it becomes sustainable, we get nothing concrete from it except then prospect of 'jobs'.

We should be pouring money into real, needed, and socially beneficial research, solar, wind, high speed trains, etc. Not frivolous crap.

[Xtrema]

I think it's nice to try. But the problem with Hollywood is you are fighting with other cities to provide giant incentives to get production.

For example, NZ spent $500M (or ~25% of the production cost) to get Cameron to film the next 3 Avatar films there.

Is that the kind of business we want to court?

[J-D]

Originally posted by rage2

You could argue that a stadium would have the same benefits, at an even bigger scale. More concerts, events, conventions, all your economic benefits of the film industry would apply just the same here.

Except Stadiums tend to create minimum wage part time jobs :rofl:

[rage2]

Originally posted by J-D
Except Stadiums tend to create minimum wage part time jobs :rofl:
And filmmaking jobs aren't?

[Mista Bob]

Originally posted by rage2

And filmmaking jobs aren't?

Yeah but you get to tell all your buddies you are in the credits for 3.5 seconds!

[spikerS]

I don't have a problem with using some tax payer money for something like this, but only in the following situations.

Property taxes did not increase more than the national rate of inflation
there is a direct and measurable return on the investment in the terms of money coming back
that the city and province are not providing more than 50% of the required funds
and lastly, that the amount of money coming back to the city is directly tied to the amount of profits are realized by the tenants.

really, I am agreeing 100% with Rage2 in this. This deal stinks. For the amount of people this benefits, and city hall whining about how there is going to be a $5m deficit in the budget, this kinda shit pisses me off.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by Toma
We had a booming film industry. That's how I met Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, John Cusack, and several more many many years ago.

Its a stupid idea. They stopped major activity here because it flat out costs too much compared to other places.

If it doesn't create profit or benefit the province in terms of revenue, we have no business funding crap that is non sustainable without hand outs, and when if it becomes sustainable, we get nothing concrete from it except then prospect of 'jobs'.

We should be pouring money into real, needed, and socially beneficial research, solar, wind, high speed trains, etc. Not frivolous crap.

Notable movies that have filmed in and around Calgary in the last 10 years, according to IMDB:

Inception, Bourne Legacy, Hell on Wheels, Fargo, X2, Paschendaele, Heartland, Wild Roses, Tom Stone, The Marine, Resurrecting the Champ, Brokeback Mountain, and Christopher Nolan's Interstellar.

Granted, the presence of a film studio would not guarantee that the production would have stayed in town, but it could be a powerful asset in persuading them to keep the production in town.

[e31]

I've got an idea for a movie i'd like to pitch.

Imagine you are in a warehouse full of cars: classic cars, historic cars, rust free beauties. All of them have their own safe little corner to hold out from the winter storm raging outside the window. You turn to the warehouse-keeper, a formerly unemployed actor, and remind him to put a battery tender on one of the vehicles. As you leave the warehouse and hop into your AMG AWD winter assault automobile, you pinch yourself thinking "they'll catch onto this scam any week now". Then you laugh out loud, knowing that some dumb movie industry assholes are subsidizing your winter car storage.

Filming schedule will require this space from October to May, every year because of planned sequels.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by rage2

And filmmaking jobs aren't?

Film industry is absolutely not minimum wage jobs. Skilled jobs, tons of trades. Filming goes on for months employing local trades and skills for that time.

A big concert is one night and the talent brings their own roadies to handle most of the setup.

I'm not necessarily pro studio, we do get a lot of studios filming here as is. But to suggest a big venue concert or event once a month comes close to employing the number of people even one movie does during months of filming is pretty laughable.

You know that endless list of names after a movie you have to sit through before you find out the big tease for the next Avengers movie? Yeah none of them got paid minimum wage. Except maybe the assistant caterers.