Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
That’s x 4800 (approx.), Jacob. Added to which the US had a trillion dollars worth of hardware and infrastructure, and trained manpower standing by.
It’s hard to hire that sort of stuff in on a zero-budget basis. Though one does doubt the Pentagon, given a $31M-dollar invasion to do (St Pierre & Miquelon?), could manage it on budget and without unnecessary casualties.
You can’t usually make much of a movie for $31m these days either. Clint is well known for his extremely frugal film-making. His films always come in ahead of schedule and under budget. In Hollywood that is virtually unheard of. As to whether he could apply this frugality to a war, that is another question.
You can’t usually make much of a movie for $31m these days either.
I disagree strongly. That sum won’t fund top megastars, the most elaborate sets, or the most intense special effects – but if a film has a credible plot, compelling characters, and interesting dialogue, it will do well.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, for instance, cost $15 million and grossed over $128 million in the US (and £686,386 in the UK).
Directors who can’t make good low-budget films lack imagination.
Hey now, Iraq is a bad example, no one would have invaded _them_ for profit.
But for 31m you could invade an awful lot of countries successfully. A substantially smaller number might be held on to, but given the rotten management of those, you rather think that the locals would support anyone that would enforce a little basic order, and wasn’t a homicidal lunatic.
For the rest: invadeable but not holdable. I fancy a little viking raiding, anybody else?
If you spent the $31m on a good mercenary outfit, there are probably quite a few African countries you could take over.
-Chris H
Most of the easily-knocked-over outfits in Africa haven’t been knocked over because nobody with half a brain wants to knock them over.
Still, I seem to recall some South African outfit managed to bring a modicum of sanity to Liberia (or maybe it was one of the other hellholes) for a modest expenditure, before they got shut down by the UN.
Okay, I will qualify with a “You can’t make much of a movie in Hollywood with $31m”, Hollywood’s cost structure being what it is. It is perfectly possible to make good movies for considerably less if you do it somewhere else.
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa
Nowadays you can’t invade very much with 31m$.
Some 150b$, i.e. x 50 – has been spent so far in Iraq.
Maybe Clint would have done a better and less expensive job of it.
Grenada? Clint made a movie about that lil enterprise.
That’s x 4800 (approx.), Jacob. Added to which the US had a trillion dollars worth of hardware and infrastructure, and trained manpower standing by.
It’s hard to hire that sort of stuff in on a zero-budget basis. Though one does doubt the Pentagon, given a $31M-dollar invasion to do (St Pierre & Miquelon?), could manage it on budget and without unnecessary casualties.
If you spent the $31m on a good mercenary outfit, there are probably quite a few African countries you could take over.
You can’t usually make much of a movie for $31m these days either. Clint is well known for his extremely frugal film-making. His films always come in ahead of schedule and under budget. In Hollywood that is virtually unheard of. As to whether he could apply this frugality to a war, that is another question.
I disagree strongly. That sum won’t fund top megastars, the most elaborate sets, or the most intense special effects – but if a film has a credible plot, compelling characters, and interesting dialogue, it will do well.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, for instance, cost $15 million and grossed over $128 million in the US (and £686,386 in the UK).
Directors who can’t make good low-budget films lack imagination.
What about the isle of Man/Ellan Vannin? I hear they have good money-laundering contacts.
Sark/Sercq – pop 600?
Tuvalu – before it (apparently) sinks?
St. Kilda? (Atlantic, not Melbourne)
“If you spent the $31m on a good mercenary outfit…”
Yes. Rumsfeld should have outsourced the Iraq job.
Hey now, Iraq is a bad example, no one would have invaded _them_ for profit.
But for 31m you could invade an awful lot of countries successfully. A substantially smaller number might be held on to, but given the rotten management of those, you rather think that the locals would support anyone that would enforce a little basic order, and wasn’t a homicidal lunatic.
For the rest: invadeable but not holdable. I fancy a little viking raiding, anybody else?
“I wonder what particular country he had in mind.”
Maybe California?
Beck. thirty-one mill would only cover setting up the Democratic Republic of Carmel these days…
If you spent the $31m on a good mercenary outfit, there are probably quite a few African countries you could take over.
-Chris H
Most of the easily-knocked-over outfits in Africa haven’t been knocked over because nobody with half a brain wants to knock them over.
Still, I seem to recall some South African outfit managed to bring a modicum of sanity to Liberia (or maybe it was one of the other hellholes) for a modest expenditure, before they got shut down by the UN.
That amount could get Zimbabwe out of the hands of the murderer Mugabe very easily.
It seems that £14 million will buy you the British government these days.
Okay, I will qualify with a “You can’t make much of a movie in Hollywood with $31m”, Hollywood’s cost structure being what it is. It is perfectly possible to make good movies for considerably less if you do it somewhere else.
Bollywood, for example. At some point, I expect they will start to make mainstream movies,