Scott F
Pug Life
I dunno....I just spent $10 on a six pack and $8 on two cupcakes.
On the plus side, dinner is served.
District 9 costs 30 mill to make. Elysium cost 100 mil to make. Why?
- Thread starter Gillvane
- Start date
I dunno....I just spent $10 on a six pack and $8 on two cupcakes.
On the plus side, dinner is served.
That's an interesting point of view. But it didn't answer why you despise the money being spent on Brad. The fact that you see a celebrity actor reminding you your not seeing something real has nothing to do with how much money he received. Do famous character actors take you out of the picture because you recognize them?
You said you dislike that a celebrity actor gets a large sum of money and the crew do not. What about that is despicable to you?
macgregor
Veteran
Oh man, you're sadly so right.
EDV
Well-known member
The film crew literally makes the film happen. We are not "an optional commodity" or "a luxury". No film crew. No film! Now how many great films have you seen where the lead actor wasn't a celebrity? I can think of a few. Putting "Tom Cruise" on the lead role may make the film more marketable and more appealing for the public, but the film can still get done without a big name, plain and simple.
We need a union people. Actors are the most abundant commodity on the planet. Literally, Billions out there. Are cinematographers, steadicam operators, Panavision camera operators, etc that abundant? Paychecks should reflect that.
There are plenty of unions. Most Hollywood productions are union. That's why productions often leave L.A. so they can use non-union labor which does just as good a job for a better price.
http://www.film.ca.gov/ProductionTools_GuildsUnions.htm
If you can make a film with no name talent and it's just as good as something with Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise, go for it. Who is stopping you?
Can't you say that about any job? With no hamburger flippers you would not get a Big Mac! So, the hamburger flippers should get as much money as the CEO!
Right?
Except I can find another hamburger flipper tomorrow and I can find another camera man tomorrow. I can't find another Tom Hanks tomorrow.
You shouldn't be shopping at 7-Eleven.
i'm still not following your thoughts here. I really want to understand your point on this. Yes, you need a film crew to make a movie. Yes, great and popular films are made without celebrity actors. Yes, there are a lot of actors. Yes, there are fewer cinematographers etc. So you want better wages? What has that got to do with despising the amount of money a celebrity actor gets. Why is that despicable? What is it about Brad making millions that offends you?
EDV
Well-known member
I don't think an actor ( any actor ) is worth that much. The success of the film depends on many, many factors, not just casting a big name actor. Special FX crew for instance, the technical wizards that make the magic happen also don't earn nearly as much, and without them, the film would not have the same impact.
EDV
Well-known member
Geez man, that was a bad analogy. I take offence to your comparing a steadicam operator to a hamburger flipper. And what's so special about Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise? They're just actors!
Set up an audition for a big movie role, and see how many TALENTED actors show up! I guarantee you'll be surprised!
By the way, I never had a lot of respect / admiration for Tom Cruise's acting. B level at best. And who could forget Seinfeld, the highest paid actor /comedian at one point? To quote from a SNL skit: " I've seen better acting in a Cambodian whore house ! "
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Hmmmmmmm,,,,,,,
On the one hand... one life is worth more than all the money in the world....
On the other hand... no life is more important than the next....
hmmm......
So, from a business perspective.... a film with Brad makes millions more, just because he is known and liked.... what is the cost benefit of this, and at what point would it..... okay we all know the business argument,,,,,
Personally, I know that money would go into a greedy persons bank if not into a "Star's" pocket. I prefer some of that wealth go to movie stars as they spend differently than the average business person (not trickle down theory). As long as crew gets paid fairly, and sadly that does not always happen (which by business logic, stars are often not paid fairly either).
Would be cool to see what Blomkamp does with the money at the end of his life (if he has any by that time).
G
Guest
Guest
I worked at McD's once. It was too hard (meaning: requires much skill and expertise, multi-tasking and anticipation), so I became a film maker.
Last edited:
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
The financial success of a film is only meassured in money though, and that's what this is about.
Brad Pitt has a high pricetag because he sells tickets. It's his face on the poster. If his face on the poster will increase revenue by $100m, then he's worth whatever they pay him.
A star in the lead role isn't always a guarantee, but most of the time it works. There's nothing unfair about it. He creates revenue.
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
[oy]gevalt[/oy]
G
Guest
Guest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El9TYiHl9_M#at=689
Last edited:
Eric Boellner
Well-known member
Only as much, and exactly as much, as he is paid. People complain about stars being overpaid all the time, same with athletes. "Why does Tiger Woods make $100mil for playing golf?" A: Because Tiger Woods has established himself as a marketplace commodity. Does Nike need Tiger to be the face of their new ad campaign? No, but they want something he has, and they're willing to pay him for it.
It's not that Brad Pitt got World War Z to $500mil globally. No one can PROVE that he was directly responsible (particularly, because he wasn't). But there is a market-value association that actors build for themselves, and whatever they're paid is exactly what they're worth paying, because it's a simple agreement between a studio and an actor that his contribution is worth this amount of dollars.
In other words, actors are paid SAG minimum to read lines from a screenplay; to cry, or spit if crying cannot be accomplished. That's the "work" of it. The $20mil is a licensing fee to use their face and name and the added value that those things bring to a film in the market. It's no different from why studios drop $250mil for Avatar and only $15mil for The Hurt Locker. The films are roughly the same thing to the consumer: an two-hour experience they can purchase for $8.38 a ticket. But one has more value in the market than the other, regardless of which crew worked harder: they're not paying for your work, they're paying for your value.
-EMB
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
Let's play with this idea: What if Brad Pitt had starred in last year's JOHN CARTER?
I think it would have been a bigger financial success than with Taylor Kitsch in the lead.
EDV,
Let's say you just got the green light from Universal to make series of movies that has all the markings of a 3 or 4 sequel mega-hit. It's perfect for Brad Pitt and George Clooney. They both like the script and want to do the project. They say they are in for $30M each and a percentage of the gross.
You are now responsible for what could be well over $2 billion in economy. Jobs at Universal, crew, actors, transportation, craft services, marketing, advertising, movie houses, restaurants, printing shops, carpenters, painters, costumes, merchandise companies and their employees, television and internet sales, stock holders and those that invested in the project. You could keep people employed for several years and, entertain several millions of people.
Do you hire Brad Pitt and George Clooney at their rate or do you hire an unknown actor?
And I still don't understand why you despise that an actor gets $30M for a movie. I think its cool that a nobody from Shawnee Oklahoma, who went to Kickapoo High School in Springfield Missouri found his way to the top.
Let's say you just got the green light from Universal to make series of movies that has all the markings of a 3 or 4 sequel mega-hit. It's perfect for Brad Pitt and George Clooney. They both like the script and want to do the project. They say they are in for $30M each and a percentage of the gross.
You are now responsible for what could be well over $2 billion in economy. Jobs at Universal, crew, actors, transportation, craft services, marketing, advertising, movie houses, restaurants, printing shops, carpenters, painters, costumes, merchandise companies and their employees, television and internet sales, stock holders and those that invested in the project. You could keep people employed for several years and, entertain several millions of people.
Do you hire Brad Pitt and George Clooney at their rate or do you hire an unknown actor?
And I still don't understand why you despise that an actor gets $30M for a movie. I think its cool that a nobody from Shawnee Oklahoma, who went to Kickapoo High School in Springfield Missouri found his way to the top.