5 ms·
> you'll have fewer crazy rich actors but more middle class actors For me it has always seemed weird that for the last half century or so, the people we pay th
by anon4242 7y ago
> you'll have fewer crazy rich actors but more middle class actors
For me it has always seemed weird that for the last half century or so, the people we pay the most are the entertainers: actors, musicians and sport-stars. More middle class actors and fewer crazy rich actors sounds good to me. I would rather have more people being able to make a decent living off their craft than a few with more money than they know how to spend.
- koolba 7y agoI don’t particular care who gets what cut as long as the content itself is worthwhile. Could be a mega budget blockbuster with $100M of special effects or a low budget indie film. Only question that matters is, “Are you not entertained?!”
- chillacy 7y agoA lot of that has to be technology. You can entertain a few thousand people at a time with theater. You can entertain billions with cinema. I can only assume the wage distribution reflects that.
- throwaway2048 7y agoInstead its going to be more crazy rich executives and large investors.
- asark 7y agoYou can't make being a first-rate anything-recordable-or-broadcastable worth less than it is without getting rid of the tech that enables recording and/or broadcasting. First-rate ate all the value of the second-rates and down, and then some. Doesn't mean the talent has to get as much money as they do, I guess, but the money'll still be there. Sadder part's probably the loss of social capital for being a third-rate whatever. Lot fewer folk-song sing-alongs around the living room upright these days. Lot fewer cousin-bands playing at family gatherings. Ya know?
- anbop 7y agoIt's because entertainer's product can be distributed to infinite numbers of people, each of whom have finite amounts of time. If I am going to spend 1 hour watching basketball, I am going to want to watch Lebron James. I'd rather pay $5 to watch a basketball game where he is playing vs. being paid $5 to watch a basketball game featuring absolutely excellent, but not world-class, players. I similarly am very discriminating about movies, music, etc. and will pay $6.99 to rent an Amazon movie vs. watching a free one on Prime because I have such limited movie-watching time. The rewards go to the top because the eyeballs go the top.
- nailer 7y ago> If I am going to spend 1 hour watching basketball, I am going to want to watch Lebron James. That's an excellent point. - Is acting ability as unevenly distributed as athletic ability? - Would Black Mirror be better if every episode had Jodie Foster or Jake Gyllenhaal in it? Or is it possible that using less well known actors would not negatively impact viewership?
- mettamage 7y agoWhether it is or isn't as unevenly distributed, popularity is! Popularity is a scale free network in fact. Simply check your Facebook friends (or that of your aunt if you don't have FB) and you're quite likely to see a couple of outliers. I thought about this quite deeply and researched it a bit during my graph theory & complex network classes. Whether it is routers redirecting traffic or popularity, it is all scale free (ok not everything is, but a lot of things are).
- nailer 7y agoGood point & totally agreed about popularity. People may want to see a TV show because someone popular is acting in it (using the Black Mirror example, Miley Cyrus was in an episode of the last season). I guess the question is: what value is popularity? If Miley Cyruses increase in cost doesn't warrant the increase in revenue, then it's not worth it. If it does then it is. It sounds like the market is re-calibrating a little.