Skewed and a million ways to look at this, but still interesting...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2015/12/22/hollywoods-most-overpaid-actors-of-2015-johnny-depp-leads-denzel-washington-will-ferrell/

That site broke my browser for a while... but I was there long enough to get the gist. Perhaps this goes some way to showing that big names are not so much the pull anymore. That it isn't they that the movie-goers go to see.

I know I couldn't care less who is in a film. I look at the concept and the storyline. I did like Depp recently in Black Mass but then I would have watched that film anyway. I also believe that an actor asking for a fraction of Depp's wage could play the part just as well. Decent casting director should be able to find someone.

Are people sold on big names these days or have we evolved past this silly idea?

Actors used to matter in the late 90s - early 2000s. Now they matter less and less.

I agree with Dustin. I too don't care who is in the movie. I would never go watch a film just because actor X is in it.

I don't think the idea has changed.

I simply think they're aren't any stars like there used to be.

Same thing with directors...you used to look forwards to the new Spielberg film etc.

Now there's no one particularly .

No decent music artists either.

Or artists.

No decent philosophers either.

Or spiritual leaders.


There's some fairly good chefs, though.

I think good tv is where actors really shine these days.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Are people sold on big names these days or have we evolved past this silly idea?

I don't think they'll ever get past this silly idea. If some big name attaches themselves to a script then suddenly it becomes something. Other names will attach themselves and what was just words on paper becomes a go. Ideas can be great, but it's stars that sell movies. I can't see that changing anytime soon.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I don't think the idea has changed. I simply think they're aren't any stars like there used to be.

I think they're a bit too accessible now. Before their appearances were rare. Gossip mags were few and far between. These days they are hard to avoid.

It does seem today's stars aren't quite as glamorous as the stars of old, but I suspect nostalgia plays a large part in this.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Same thing with directors...you used to look forwards to the new Spielberg film etc. Now there's no one particularly .

I disagree there. Tarantino, Nolan and Fincher regularly part my pert cheeks from my sofa to my local cinema.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films No decent music artists either.

I'm kinda with you there.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Or artists.

Can't argue with that. One guy springs to mind, though he's hardly Picasso or Dali. Grayson something, I'd look him up but I really don't feel strongly enough to be arsed to.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films No decent philosophers either.

Not a fan of baldy bloke then. See above for reason for lack of name.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Or spiritual leaders. There's some fairly good chefs, though.

Well that's alright then. Oh, Alain de Boton, just came to me, via my better half.

I'm going to finish my turkey sandwich now. Thank Christ that's over for another year. I still don't like turkey. Or tinsel. Shiny snaky barstards. Baubles are bollocks as well.

R

Quoted from rendevous I don't think they'll ever get past this silly idea. If some big name attaches themselves to a script then suddenly it becomes something. Other names will attach themselves and what was just words on paper becomes a go. Ideas can be great, but it's stars that sell movies. I can't see that changing anytime soon.

I wasn't referring to selling scripts, but the selling of tickets at the cinema. The stats in the link go some way to showing that big names are not the draw they once were. Maybe another pirate playing Jack Sparrow, perhaps as an old man, while his (on screen) son takes over, will sell just as many tickets.

I think it's far more about the quality of the end product these days. Just because a name is in something doesn't make it good... whereas in the past, people idolised other people, it now seems that the human race has evolved past this hero worship type of behaviour.

I found it to be fake math.

Okay - e.g., Star Actor only returns $6 for every $1 dollar spent on them. Two parts of the equation are missing.

What would the return have been without the star. e.g., if you replace Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible does the ratio go up (e.g., from 6 to 1 to 7) or down (e.g., from 6 to 1 to 5 to 1), etc.

It ignores the concept of gross sales. Let's say Cruise is 6 to 1 for Mission Impossible. But that is a $300 million gross vs an expense of $50 million for a profit of $250 million. - i.e., 6 to 1. Would a producer prefer an actor that costs $1 million and grosses $10 million for a profit of $9 million (i.e, 9 to 1) - I don't think so.

I do not watch films for the most part based on who is in them (although there are exceptions - i.e., I would watch any Nicholson, Hackman, Eastwood, Hanks, etc.).  But I am pretty sure the studios are not attempting to throw money away. They have pretty good metrics on who fdrives people to theaters.

In the old days, actors were basically owned by the studios.  They were heavily promoted by the studios and any behavior by the stars considered scandalous was heavily guarded by the studios and buried. Like being gay for example. Most info on these stars were all about building them up as glamorous and God like. Not so anymore. With all the media and news outlets today, everything is out in the open, no matter how bad, so the public sees that they are just average schmucks like the rest of us. Some just happen to get rich along the way. My thoughts on it.  :)