6 ms·

The more interesting piece is how the name 'Jessica Alba' always before the title every time it is mentioned. Because what would they do without star power? N

The more interesting piece is how the name 'Jessica Alba' always before the title every time it is mentioned. Because what would they do without star power? Note: George Clooney's billion dollar sale of a brand new Tequila company. And we work hard on algorithms?

no_wizard 9y ago
Every vertical has its outliers. Wonder if Clooney ever saw all those tech billionaires from the 90s and thought to himself “and I did general hospital for this!?!”
- bdcravens 9y ago
  E.R. GH was a daytime soap.
  - no_wizard 9y ago
    Correction! Thank you for that I clearly don’t know my dramas from my soaps
wavefunction 9y ago
If you can bootstrap yourself into being George Clooney you too can sell water with additives to people for megabux. Or perhaps there's so much loose capital sitting around with no purpose that it's just driving up valuations of companies to ridiculous levels because then folks would just be dumping fake money into questionably valued ventures. "But you guys make toast, on-demand, in only one city." "Exactly, toast on-demand!"
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  "If you can bootstrap yourself into being George Clooney" Actors are the truest of commodities. Many can do it, and it's not hard. When Hollywood 'invests' in an actor, they create the actors Brand, which the actor - then owns. Once an actor becomes familiar with American/Global audiences, then their Brand is worth a lot. Surely, it requires some hustle on the part of the actor - but were it not Clooney, it could have been any one of thousands of others. He was more or less 'chosen'. Think of how many people's very intelligent work goes into creating big films - and that the surpluses mostly go to the person with the easiest job. And FYI - I understand there are such things as 'great actors' who are not commodities. Alba and Clooney are products created by Hollywood, who just happen to own the 'IP' to their own faces. At least with athletes ... at least there is a fair amount of credible competition for those who make it to the top.
  - coryl 9y ago
    How do you assess that actors are chosen and not rewarded for their skill like athletes?
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      Gal Godot - a decent actress - was paid $200K for her role as 'Wonder Woman'. Huge film. But she was paid just like any other of the 'talent' on the crew. But in subsequent versions of 'Wonder Woman' - she will be paid millions. Has her 'acting ability' magically improved? No. But 'her face and personae' are now existentially linked to the character 'Wonder Woman'. Audiences want to see that. So she'll be paid millions. Are there actors 'better' than Gal Gadot who could play WW? Of course there are. Probably many. So why not pay them $200K instead of paying Gal 'millions'? Because it's not 'talent' that's the issue in the equation. The #1 deciding factor in the investment of films over $10M is not the script, not the director, not anything else - it's the actors that are involved. You need to have 'highly recognizable' actors on board (or the budget to do so) otherwise it's not investable - because audiences want to see familiar faces. Do you honestly think that 'George Clooney' is such an amazing actor, that there aren't 1000 other people 'as good as him' that could have played his roles well? Of course there are. There are tons of great actors out there. But they're not household names. So the question is: given that there are tons of actors better than Brad Pitt out there - how does Brad Pitt even get a single role? Because he's the 'living brand' of 'Brad Pitt'. The living brand of 'Brad Pitt' is what audiences want, which was created by putting the actor in previous roles. Most athletes are paid very commensurately relative to their actual skill, of course, it's easier to be objective in measuring that. What matters in film is 'the recognizability of the face/personae'.
      - princeb 9y ago
        > The #1 deciding factor in the investment of films over $10M is not the script, not the director, not anything else - it's the actors that are involved. so you're saying actors are not commodities? > What matters in film is 'the recognizability of the face/personae'. yes. yes you are.
cscurmudgeon 9y ago
> And we work hard on algorithms? There are mathematicians (and scientists) who work harder than most programmers and are poorer than most programmers.
- ProAm 9y ago
  It's probably just a rounding error
  - j7ake 9y ago
    150000 / year for fresh graduate versus 30000/year for fresh PhD student is not a rounding error.
    - dagw 9y ago
      How to you end up making only 30000/year with a PhD in a subject where graduates make 150k? Even post-doc positions tend to pay more than that. Everybody I know that has a STEM PhD and went into industry earns a lot more than I do.
      - drchickensalad 9y ago
        PhD _student_
    - varjag 9y ago
      150K isn't anywhere near the stated "most programmers".
      - j7ake 9y ago
        Sorry you're right I was thinking of salary of Stanford undergraduate first job in Bay Area versus stanford PhD student .
- lovich 9y ago
  Agreed, the amount of effort you put into something has never decided how much you got paid. Only the value you can convince others you bring changes your compensation and that is only loosely coupled to effort put in
dwringer 9y ago
I will be perfectly honest, I found this hilarious because I clicked the link without even thinking about it, closed it almost immediately, navigated away, came back, and didn't even remember having clicked on it until seeing it greyed out in the list of topics. Apparently (granted, this is just one data point) they can generate click-through without even requiring conscious involvement on anyone's part.

no_wizard 9y ago

Every vertical has its outliers. Wonder if Clooney ever saw all those tech billionaires from the 90s and thought to himself “and I did general hospital for this!?!”

bdcravens 9y ago
E.R. GH was a daytime soap.
- no_wizard 9y ago
  Correction! Thank you for that I clearly don’t know my dramas from my soaps

wavefunction 9y ago

If you can bootstrap yourself into being George Clooney you too can sell water with additives to people for megabux. Or perhaps there's so much loose capital sitting around with no purpose that it's just driving up valuations of companies to ridiculous levels because then folks would just be dumping fake money into questionably valued ventures. "But you guys make toast, on-demand, in only one city." "Exactly, toast on-demand!"

alexasmyths 9y ago
"If you can bootstrap yourself into being George Clooney" Actors are the truest of commodities. Many can do it, and it's not hard. When Hollywood 'invests' in an actor, they create the actors Brand, which the actor - then owns. Once an actor becomes familiar with American/Global audiences, then their Brand is worth a lot. Surely, it requires some hustle on the part of the actor - but were it not Clooney, it could have been any one of thousands of others. He was more or less 'chosen'. Think of how many people's very intelligent work goes into creating big films - and that the surpluses mostly go to the person with the easiest job. And FYI - I understand there are such things as 'great actors' who are not commodities. Alba and Clooney are products created by Hollywood, who just happen to own the 'IP' to their own faces. At least with athletes ... at least there is a fair amount of credible competition for those who make it to the top.
- coryl 9y ago
  How do you assess that actors are chosen and not rewarded for their skill like athletes?
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    Gal Godot - a decent actress - was paid $200K for her role as 'Wonder Woman'. Huge film. But she was paid just like any other of the 'talent' on the crew. But in subsequent versions of 'Wonder Woman' - she will be paid millions. Has her 'acting ability' magically improved? No. But 'her face and personae' are now existentially linked to the character 'Wonder Woman'. Audiences want to see that. So she'll be paid millions. Are there actors 'better' than Gal Gadot who could play WW? Of course there are. Probably many. So why not pay them $200K instead of paying Gal 'millions'? Because it's not 'talent' that's the issue in the equation. The #1 deciding factor in the investment of films over $10M is not the script, not the director, not anything else - it's the actors that are involved. You need to have 'highly recognizable' actors on board (or the budget to do so) otherwise it's not investable - because audiences want to see familiar faces. Do you honestly think that 'George Clooney' is such an amazing actor, that there aren't 1000 other people 'as good as him' that could have played his roles well? Of course there are. There are tons of great actors out there. But they're not household names. So the question is: given that there are tons of actors better than Brad Pitt out there - how does Brad Pitt even get a single role? Because he's the 'living brand' of 'Brad Pitt'. The living brand of 'Brad Pitt' is what audiences want, which was created by putting the actor in previous roles. Most athletes are paid very commensurately relative to their actual skill, of course, it's easier to be objective in measuring that. What matters in film is 'the recognizability of the face/personae'.
    - princeb 9y ago
      > The #1 deciding factor in the investment of films over $10M is not the script, not the director, not anything else - it's the actors that are involved. so you're saying actors are not commodities? > What matters in film is 'the recognizability of the face/personae'. yes. yes you are.

cscurmudgeon 9y ago

> And we work hard on algorithms? There are mathematicians (and scientists) who work harder than most programmers and are poorer than most programmers.

ProAm 9y ago
It's probably just a rounding error
- j7ake 9y ago
  150000 / year for fresh graduate versus 30000/year for fresh PhD student is not a rounding error.
  - dagw 9y ago
    How to you end up making only 30000/year with a PhD in a subject where graduates make 150k? Even post-doc positions tend to pay more than that. Everybody I know that has a STEM PhD and went into industry earns a lot more than I do.
    - drchickensalad 9y ago
      PhD _student_
  - varjag 9y ago
    150K isn't anywhere near the stated "most programmers".
    - j7ake 9y ago
      Sorry you're right I was thinking of salary of Stanford undergraduate first job in Bay Area versus stanford PhD student .
lovich 9y ago
Agreed, the amount of effort you put into something has never decided how much you got paid. Only the value you can convince others you bring changes your compensation and that is only loosely coupled to effort put in

dwringer 9y ago

I will be perfectly honest, I found this hilarious because I clicked the link without even thinking about it, closed it almost immediately, navigated away, came back, and didn't even remember having clicked on it until seeing it greyed out in the list of topics. Apparently (granted, this is just one data point) they can generate click-through without even requiring conscious involvement on anyone's part.