3 ms·

I'm of the belief that the better actors are paid far too much The market decides these things. It's difficult to argue that there isn't enough profit on a mo

I'm of the belief that the better actors are paid far too much The market decides these things. It's difficult to argue that there isn't enough profit on a movie that has grossed over 1.5 billion dollars in three weeks to pay A-list actors A-list salaries. A-list actors don't make that kind of money because movie studios are generous. They make it because their presence puts butts in seats. Sure, the "Star Wars" name would be enough to put butts in seats but without Ford, Fisher and Hamil, this movie would have made less money. If I'm not being forced to pay it, I don't care what someone else makes.

zanny 11y ago
Would the movie have lost more than the amount they paid him, though? I'm pretty sure they could have released a blank tape on the screen, called it Star Wars 7, and made several hundred million dollars. Its hard to approximate the amount of sales exclusively to the presence of a specific actor, versus the reviews, ratings, and social response to good acting.
- LordKano 11y ago
  Obviously, no one knows for sure but let's say that 1% of the people who went to see it would have opted out if the original stars hadn't returned... In three weeks, that is over 15 million dollars just where it's been released so far. Think about China and the rest of Asia. Think about on demand viewing and DVD/Blu-Ray. As I said, we don't know for sure but it's a pretty safe bet that Ford, Fisher and Hamil being a part of this movie will pay for itself in increased revenue.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
jsmeaton 11y ago
> The market decides these things Right, and I think the market is unfairly inflated at the moment, and has been for a long time. Movie ticket prices have more than doubled in the last ~ 10 years. The presence of streaming new blockbuster movies is likely to disrupt the traditional cinema if it is allowed to get off the ground. And that's basically the point I'm trying to make. If movies were to transition into the Steam model where the cost is brought down but has higher reach, the gross is going to go down, and so should the marketing and actor budgets of such films. > If I'm not being forced to pay it, I don't care what someone else makes. Yes, going to the cinema is optional, no one is forcing you to go. But if you want to see a movie within 3-6 months of release you have to pay the cinema ticket price. There is no other option. I don't care how much the actors make, I care how much I pay at the ticket box, which appears to be viciously increasing cycle of actor demands more -> prices go up -> more gross is made -> actor demands more. To account for this, studios are spending more and more on advertising to get people to actually go to the cinema, further driving ticket prices up. And it's the non blockbuster movies that are going to fail. Ticket price is $x regardless of the quality of the movie. The blockbuster budgets are going to price the smaller movies out. No one is going to pay $25 to see something they might enjoy but doesn't have the kind of budget to warrant a cinema viewing. Streaming services that offer these kinds of movies at release date I think will bring the whole scam crashing down.
- massysett 11y ago
  What you're describing already exists: television.
- LordKano 11y ago
  If movies were to transition into the Steam model where the cost is brought down but has higher reach, the gross is going to go down, and so should the marketing and actor budgets of such films. Why would they? Why would a studio decide to reduce their gross and therefore their net by going with a less profitable model? Streaming services that offer these kinds of movies at release date I think will bring the whole scam crashing down. No more than Honda and Toyota put an end to the "scam" of American automakers. One party providing a service or product at a specific price and other parties choosing to purchase or not purchase it is not a scam.
  - jsmeaton 11y ago
    > Why would they? Why would a studio decide to reduce their gross and therefore their net by going with a less profitable model? I don't think the bigger ones will in the short to medium term. But if the gross is lower, then they're also paying less to actors and marketers (streaming services will "freely" market what they think will be popular titles), reducing the overall budget, and reducing the risk profile. The studios themselves may end up making more profits. In any case, that's why I mentioned the smaller budget films transitioning to such a streaming model may force the bigger ones to follow suit. > No more than Honda and Toyota put an end to the "scam" of American automakers. Scam was the wrong choice of word here, but do you understand the point I'm trying to make? A similar analogy that works in my favour is Steam as a distribution channel, undercutting physical disk distributors. Games became a lot cheaper, but the AAA titles still ask for and receive quite a high price comparatively.
    - LordKano 11y ago
      I don't think the bigger ones will in the short to medium term. At some point, in the distant future, it's likely that movie distribution will be radically changed. PPV and streaming from day 1 but that's highly unlikely. For that to happen, alternate means of distribution would need to be more profitable for the studios than the status quo. If movie attendance drops enough that it will bring in more money to partner with Netflix, Hulu or some as of yet uninvented streaming service; then and only then will it happen. We already have the straight to video model for small budget films and Mockbusters. For those, it makes sense. They are made on limited budgets because the producers know that there's never going to be a theatrical release and the target market is very narrow. There's also the wrinkle that digital projectors have lowered the cost of releasing a film. There are no longer film prints to produce, quality control, deliver, track and pickup. It might happen one day but no time soon. A similar analogy that works in my favour is Steam as a distribution channel, undercutting physical disk distributors. Games became a lot cheaper, but the AAA titles still ask for and receive quite a high price comparatively. I can't help but notice that GOG came along and started selling classic games at even lower prices than Steam and ever since, I have seen some excellent Steam sales.

zanny 11y ago

Would the movie have lost more than the amount they paid him, though? I'm pretty sure they could have released a blank tape on the screen, called it Star Wars 7, and made several hundred million dollars. Its hard to approximate the amount of sales exclusively to the presence of a specific actor, versus the reviews, ratings, and social response to good acting.

LordKano 11y ago
Obviously, no one knows for sure but let's say that 1% of the people who went to see it would have opted out if the original stars hadn't returned... In three weeks, that is over 15 million dollars just where it's been released so far. Think about China and the rest of Asia. Think about on demand viewing and DVD/Blu-Ray. As I said, we don't know for sure but it's a pretty safe bet that Ford, Fisher and Hamil being a part of this movie will pay for itself in increased revenue.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

jsmeaton 11y ago

> The market decides these things Right, and I think the market is unfairly inflated at the moment, and has been for a long time. Movie ticket prices have more than doubled in the last ~ 10 years. The presence of streaming new blockbuster movies is likely to disrupt the traditional cinema if it is allowed to get off the ground. And that's basically the point I'm trying to make. If movies were to transition into the Steam model where the cost is brought down but has higher reach, the gross is going to go down, and so should the marketing and actor budgets of such films. > If I'm not being forced to pay it, I don't care what someone else makes. Yes, going to the cinema is optional, no one is forcing you to go. But if you want to see a movie within 3-6 months of release you have to pay the cinema ticket price. There is no other option. I don't care how much the actors make, I care how much I pay at the ticket box, which appears to be viciously increasing cycle of actor demands more -> prices go up -> more gross is made -> actor demands more. To account for this, studios are spending more and more on advertising to get people to actually go to the cinema, further driving ticket prices up. And it's the non blockbuster movies that are going to fail. Ticket price is $x regardless of the quality of the movie. The blockbuster budgets are going to price the smaller movies out. No one is going to pay $25 to see something they might enjoy but doesn't have the kind of budget to warrant a cinema viewing. Streaming services that offer these kinds of movies at release date I think will bring the whole scam crashing down.

massysett 11y ago
What you're describing already exists: television.
LordKano 11y ago
If movies were to transition into the Steam model where the cost is brought down but has higher reach, the gross is going to go down, and so should the marketing and actor budgets of such films. Why would they? Why would a studio decide to reduce their gross and therefore their net by going with a less profitable model? Streaming services that offer these kinds of movies at release date I think will bring the whole scam crashing down. No more than Honda and Toyota put an end to the "scam" of American automakers. One party providing a service or product at a specific price and other parties choosing to purchase or not purchase it is not a scam.
- jsmeaton 11y ago
  > Why would they? Why would a studio decide to reduce their gross and therefore their net by going with a less profitable model? I don't think the bigger ones will in the short to medium term. But if the gross is lower, then they're also paying less to actors and marketers (streaming services will "freely" market what they think will be popular titles), reducing the overall budget, and reducing the risk profile. The studios themselves may end up making more profits. In any case, that's why I mentioned the smaller budget films transitioning to such a streaming model may force the bigger ones to follow suit. > No more than Honda and Toyota put an end to the "scam" of American automakers. Scam was the wrong choice of word here, but do you understand the point I'm trying to make? A similar analogy that works in my favour is Steam as a distribution channel, undercutting physical disk distributors. Games became a lot cheaper, but the AAA titles still ask for and receive quite a high price comparatively.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    I don't think the bigger ones will in the short to medium term. At some point, in the distant future, it's likely that movie distribution will be radically changed. PPV and streaming from day 1 but that's highly unlikely. For that to happen, alternate means of distribution would need to be more profitable for the studios than the status quo. If movie attendance drops enough that it will bring in more money to partner with Netflix, Hulu or some as of yet uninvented streaming service; then and only then will it happen. We already have the straight to video model for small budget films and Mockbusters. For those, it makes sense. They are made on limited budgets because the producers know that there's never going to be a theatrical release and the target market is very narrow. There's also the wrinkle that digital projectors have lowered the cost of releasing a film. There are no longer film prints to produce, quality control, deliver, track and pickup. It might happen one day but no time soon. A similar analogy that works in my favour is Steam as a distribution channel, undercutting physical disk distributors. Games became a lot cheaper, but the AAA titles still ask for and receive quite a high price comparatively. I can't help but notice that GOG came along and started selling classic games at even lower prices than Steam and ever since, I have seen some excellent Steam sales.