Tweet
Why pay an actor $20 M?
With the news of Paramount's "enough-already- dismissal of Tom Cruise, I returned to considering an issue that has always sort of perplexed me...why do studios continue to hand out absurd paychecks to mediocre (but attractive to a certain demographic) talent?
Who is calling the shots here? Oh yeah...agents. But...
Scanning the Box Office Mojo list of the All Time Domestic Grossers (not adjusted)...
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htmIndependence Day...although that could have been the movie that put Smith in that category. The first solid example of a mega-million star making a blockbuster would be Bruce Willis (who ironically started the whole mega-million salary race with Die Hard) with The Sixth Sense at No. 21.
You don't need a name actor to make a successful movie.
Granted, a name will usually guarantee a fairly solid return on the studio's investment, but is the pain really worth it? To paraphrase David Mamet, actors are nothing more than stubborn props. Why give them more of an edge? From accounts, Jim Carrey took a remake of a movie - Fun with Dick and Jane - that had no demand for a remake and managed to ratchet the budget up over $100 M with his prima donna demands. The film returned $110 M on domestic, but was saved by an international BO of $91 M.
The film could have been comfortably been made on just Carrey's $25 M salary with lesser expensive/known actors getting a shot at the golden ring. Hell, if you want to go with names with more talent than Carrey and costar Tia Leone, actors like Steve Carrell and Tina Fey could have been cast for under $10 M...combined.
It seems to me that the studios would be better served grooming unknown or more modest actors and getting out of the rut of spending $30 to $50 M just to cast the picture. When was the last time that you paid to see a movie only because a certain actor was in it?
With the news of Paramount's "enough-already- dismissal of Tom Cruise, I returned to considering an issue that has always sort of perplexed me...why do studios continue to hand out absurd paychecks to mediocre (but attractive to a certain demographic) talent?
Who is calling the shots here? Oh yeah...agents. But...
Scanning the Box Office Mojo list of the All Time Domestic Grossers (not adjusted)...
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htmIndependence Day...although that could have been the movie that put Smith in that category. The first solid example of a mega-million star making a blockbuster would be Bruce Willis (who ironically started the whole mega-million salary race with Die Hard) with The Sixth Sense at No. 21.
You don't need a name actor to make a successful movie.
Granted, a name will usually guarantee a fairly solid return on the studio's investment, but is the pain really worth it? To paraphrase David Mamet, actors are nothing more than stubborn props. Why give them more of an edge? From accounts, Jim Carrey took a remake of a movie - Fun with Dick and Jane - that had no demand for a remake and managed to ratchet the budget up over $100 M with his prima donna demands. The film returned $110 M on domestic, but was saved by an international BO of $91 M.
The film could have been comfortably been made on just Carrey's $25 M salary with lesser expensive/known actors getting a shot at the golden ring. Hell, if you want to go with names with more talent than Carrey and costar Tia Leone, actors like Steve Carrell and Tina Fey could have been cast for under $10 M...combined.
It seems to me that the studios would be better served grooming unknown or more modest actors and getting out of the rut of spending $30 to $50 M just to cast the picture. When was the last time that you paid to see a movie only because a certain actor was in it?
Comment