If not, why? They're costing the company an arm and leg!
If I see a film that had a budget of 30m, does that include the actors' paychecks?
I don't think so, but I've always thought it's crazy that they pay actors millions of dollars.
[quote]I don't think so, but I've always thought it's crazy that they pay actors millions of dollars.
Why? The studios make billions of their backs.
[quote]Why? The studios make billions of their backs.
Most movies would become a hit even without certain actors in the lead roles.
Yes, a film budget includes all above-the-line costs for talent directly engaged on the project.
[quote]Most movies would become a hit even without certain actors in the lead roles.
Doesn't matter. You need actors to create the films. No actors = no movie.
Yes, R6. But you can get unknown actors and still have the same results. You don't need to pay millions to an actor just because he/she has a "name".
[quote]You don't need to pay millions to an actor just because he/she has a "name".
A "name" gets bums in seats. People are more likely to flock to the theater for a name than a nobody.
Nowadays the actor has far less pull than in the old days of Hollywood. People don't go to see name actors today. They go to see the subject matter of the film.
Not necessarily, R8. Most action and superhero movies have a built in audience. They become hits no matter who is in the lead. You can find a cheaper actor and save a few millions. It's really just a risk. A "name" might greenlight a project but if the movie stinks, it stinks. An actors name won't save it. Pitt, Depp, Smith are not an insurance that the movie will do good anymore but they still get millions.
names actors are dying out, studios are not paying the super salaries anymore because very few people can bring in the people
name some bankable stars under 40, there are very few.
I hardly go see movies because of story line or certain directors/studios/producers.
If they don't put good and interesting actors in the main roles the movie usually sucks. Many factors to make a good movie, but you just can't pull off an interesting movie without talented actors.
If you have a good song, good musicians, a great bandleader and the singer can't tell the story with their interpretations, artistic expressions and personality, the song looses half of it's magic.
Funny how Data Lounge attacks (rightly, I hasten to say) overpaid CEOs and profit raking corporations.
Many big name actors ARE overpaid. Sure they might be part of a movie you enjoyed, but do these deserve those millions and millions of dollars? IMO, no.
Crew and other production staff also work hard and only get a fraction of the money.
Actors who are paid millions are in the 1 per cent.
[quote]Actors who are paid millions are in the 1 per cent.
yes we are
If a movie makes over a billion and an actor makes 20 - 50 million, I am not complaining. Esp not if the movie is good and the actor gives a great performance. Mostly the actors are the ones who bring people into the cinemas in the first place anyway.
plus actors bring press....cast an unknown and you can't get them on talk show or magazine covers
But you can use the same argument for overpaid CEOs, r15 and r16.
If some corporation makes a billion dollars in profit, say, you could argue that the CEOs are entitled to their $80 million salary.
It is the exact same thing.
NO ONE works hard enough for the millions of dollars CEOs and some actor are paid.
They are equally in the 1 per cent.
R16, if the studios have millions to waste on one actors salary then they most certainly have the money to waste on advertisement and to push an unknown actor into the limelight. The money they would save would go to advertisement. And when Hollywood wants to push an actor down the publics throat they do a great job.
what's so bad about the 1 percent? drop the crazy class envy and work harder!!