Do you think B-List actors are worth the hassle?

[filmmakerguy]

I've got a project I'm trying to get "name" actors in and everyone who's anyone, low A-List to low B-list ignores my e-mails. Their agents, their managers, etc. I've gotten a few responses but it never goes anywhere.

I then go and watch some of the movies that these B-list actors have done over the last few years and they are absolute garbage. I mean they are some really bad movies.

It's to the point that I have to ask myself, are they worth the hassle? Seriously, they couldn't carry a film to theatrical, hell Nicolas Cage barely can. And on top of that, when you see they're in the movie, with the bad track record they've had, you aren't exactly jumping to see their next movie.

The only two benefits I can see to it is street cred with other filmmakers and maybe making it easier to raise a little cash to get it funded.


I then look up a movie like THE GRAND.. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427998
It's got Woody Harrelson, David Cross, Dennis Farina, Cheryl Hines, Chris Parnell, Werner Herzog, Jason Alexander, Ray Romano, Mike Epps and Judy Greer in it. It was shot for $5.4 million and grossed $115k domestically. That's it!

I'm estimating that if they are lucky, they made back half of the domestic numbers, considering theaters keep a large portion. So what does that make some of those actors worth based on the projected returns they bring on their "name".. $10k each? Obviously you don't pay an employee more than what you can make off them. So they are essentially worthless.

I think part of the problem is the internet age. If a movie sucks, it gets buried in bad reviews and negative press coverage the same day it comes out and it doesn't matter who is in it, people will avoid it and it tanks.

The more research I do, the more it looks to be not worth the hassle of trying to get them, and then on top of that, raising that extra amount just to fund it with them in it and then dealing with SAG on top of that for something that will go straight to DVD and likely lose investors money. Seems like the only time it truly is worth it is if they are an A-list recognizable name who can really bring a crowd and possibly give you a shot at theatrical.

Thoughts?

 

[Kholi]

I think it depends on your budget, and the project type.

If you're spending 5 million, then you'd already have enough of a name as a director or producer or whatever to recover your money on a theatrical release (because you'll need it) or you should probably find names.

If you're spending 100K or less, IMO, it's just not that important. Putting that money on screen is much more important

 

[filmmakerguy]

if you got $5 million, then I think it would be dumb not to attach names. Like I said above, A-list stars are worth it and for $5 mil, you could easily get a couple of A-list stars in your movie.

But for $100k-$300k, does it really matter if Michael Madsen is in your film? I'm starting to think it really doesn't matter.

 

[ryan brown]

Wait, how are you attempting to get in touch with these people? By email?? does that mean you're just sending out random emails to actors asking them to be in your film?

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

if you got $5 million, then I think it would be dumb not to attach names. Like I said above, A-list stars are worth it and for $5 mil, you could easily get a couple of A-list stars in your movie.

But for $100k-$300k, does it really matter if Michael Madsen is in your film? I'm starting to think it really doesn't matter.

What? You can get one. Maybe a couple of B-list.

No way an A-list... unless we have different opinion of A list. A list is Denzel, Bruce, Hanks, Pitt, Bale, etc. Those guys are at least 5mil/person... and that's your whole budget.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

To answer your question... yes. They are worth it. They can help sell the film, but more importantly, B-listers are usually quite talented, but not as coveted as A-listers... meaning you get a great performance for the buck. Sure an unknown with lots of talent could do better, but the gamble is insanely greater... and B-listers know how to act. They know how to hit marks, they know the drill. They've done it before. The last thing you need is an unknown actor who doesn't understand direction, or marks, or blocking.

B-listers are talented, experienced people. They are usually more patient and free-going than A-listers too. No picking out green m&m's. You can't ask for more.

 

[Eric Boellner]

I think the problem is the idea that if you attach names to a film, people will see it. If the film is s..t, having George Clooney isn't going to do much for you (it will do something, because he's George f..king Clooney, just not much if the film is s..t). If the film is good and you've got an A-lister in it, the studio can still f..k it up in the distribution. Case in point: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Great film, great cast, less than $4mil in box office.

Name actors can't sell you a film you don't want to see - they can only tip the scales largely in favor of a film you might want to see. Expecting anything more out of box office results is fruitless.

 

[simonpwood]

Case in point: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Great film, great cast, less than $4mil in box office.

What the hell happened with that film though? Was it a lack of marketing / bad press or something? It surely was a great movie, and hopefully it will stand the test of time in the long run.

Lots of great movies that did not do well in the original theatrical release can find a second lease of life with DVD sales, and some can make it into the cult club. Named actors would be your greatest asset in this respect. Look at 'The Big Lebowski', 'The Shawshank Redemption' for example - they tanked at the box office but went on to find an audience later.

If the movie has a good cast you are not guaranteed to get an audience from the get go. But named actors cant hurt if the movie is good, as it may find an audience in time...

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Great film, great cast, less than $4mil in box office.

Great film, great cast. Awful ****ing title though, and unimpressive poster.

But then, I understand them because how do you market something like that? Also, it competed with 3:10 to Yuma.

 

[maranfilms]

As long as the b- list actor doesn't think he's A- list, your fine. Many egos with this biz as you know. Not to say their all the same but many are. Also, many b-list actors still work regularly by doing radio, tv, appearances and such. So many of the better ones can choose what they want to do for income. Now when it comes to A cory Haim (rip) He was good in his day, but got all screwed up, then when he finally tried to make a come back, it didn't work to well, because he never lost his damn ego, no one wanted work with him for more than a day or two because he was an ass most of the time and his ego was way too big.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Lots of great movies that did not do well in the original theatrical release can find a second lease of life with DVD sales, and some can make it into the cult club. Named actors would be your greatest asset in this respect. Look at 'The Big Lebowski', 'The Shawshank Redemption' for example - they tanked at the box office but went on to find an audience later.

Lebowski and Shawshank were directed by the Coens and Frank Darabont. I think a better comparrison to anything a member of this board could make would be Donnie Darko.

 

[filmmakerguy]

at the time of filming, they didn't use famous actors in any of these movies....

blair witch project
Slumdog Millionaire
Paranormal Activity
The Exorcist

District 9
​

Halloween
Hellraiser
last house On The Left
city of god
clerks
The Night of the Living Dead
Napoleon Dynamite
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
Mad Max
The Outsiders
porkys

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

at the time of filming, they didn't use famous actors in any of these movies....

blair witch project
Slumdog Millionaire
Paranormal Activity
The Exorcist

District 9
​

Halloween
Hellraiser
last house On The Left
city of god
clerks
The Night of the Living Dead
Napoleon Dynamite
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
Mad Max
The Outsiders
porkys

Exceptions of course. Totally possible, but when looking for distribution, on the business side , I can list you more crappy films with names that have been sold.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

at the time of filming, they didn't use famous actors in any of these movies....

blair witch project
Slumdog Millionaire
Paranormal Activity
The Exorcist

District 9
​

Halloween
Hellraiser
last house On The Left
city of god
clerks
The Night of the Living Dead
Napoleon Dynamite
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
Mad Max
The Outsiders
porkys

The Exorcist was a 10 million dollar movie (in 1973, which would be 48.5 million dollars today), directed by the guy who made The French Connection, based on a novel and written by the novel's author, starring Max von Sydow in the title role. How did that film make that list?

And Slumdog Millionaire and District 9?

You can't compare your film with movies like District 9 unless you've got someone like Peter Jackson producing.

The problem you're facing as an independent filmmaker is not to make a great film, or to make a film at all. It's to sell the film you're making to a distributor.

 

[Eric Boellner]

Great film, great cast. Awful ****ing title though, and unimpressive poster.

But then, I understand them because how do you market something like that? Also, it competed with 3:10 to Yuma.

Yeah, the title was probably fought to the death over. I love it, but I can see how it'd be a red flag for most audiences.

I think it actually had a pretty marketable concept - it's about the guy who killed Jesse James. They just undersold it, if you ask me. It did great its first few weeks in limited theatrical, and then they started doing a slow push and my guess is that they didn't market it nearly enough and freaked out when its per-screen dropped.

Another good film, though not at all comparable to Jesse James, was Black Death. Magnolia really f..ked the pooch on that one.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Yeah, the title was probably fought to the death over. I love it, but I can see how it'd be a red flag for most audiences.

I think it actually had a pretty marketable concept - it's about the guy who killed Jesse James. They just undersold it, if you ask me. It did great its first few weeks in limited theatrical, and then they started doing a slow push and my guess is that they didn't market it nearly enough and freaked out when its per-screen dropped.

Another good film, though not at all comparable to Jesse James, was Black Death. Magnolia really f..ked the pooch on that one.

It's a great film, no doubt. But I think Casey Affleck really got screwed on that one.
His character was really the lead and title character, but Brad Pitt got all the attention because he was the star. For some reason Casey got nominated for a supporting oscar too, but I'm guessing that's because maybe they thought he had a better chance of winning that...

Maybe that was the problem with the marketing too? They tried to sell a Brad Pitt western with the word "assassination" in the title, when it was really a Casey Affleck movie, and more of a drama than a classic western?

 

[filmmakerguy]

Exceptions of course. Totally possible, but when looking for distribution, on the business side , I can list you more crappy films with names that have been sold.

Yeah they've been sold but that doesn't mean they broke even or even close to it. They probably sold at a huge loss because they spent millions on talent that really doesn't bring a crowd.

 

[Chris Messineo]

Daniel Stern did the narration for my last short film and I have nothing but awesome things to say about him and the whole experience.

It would have been easier to go with a local actor, but working with Daniel was something I will never forget and hearing his voice in my film will made me forget all of the pain of the contractual process.

 

[vcassel]

It's to the point that I have to ask myself, are they worth the hassle?

Well, and this isn't directed at you, but in a general and objective sense your question runs both ways. "Do you think indie or micro-budget level directors are worth acting for?" Films and directors at that level carry a general set of complications (assuming that you're not working on a project at the studio level here). I suppose you could see how that might widen the gap on connecting with the talent you're hoping to snag. Of course it all comes down to the story and characters you have on offer, if not the money and experience.

But, y'know, tenaciousness wins the race.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Daniel Stern did the narration for my last short film and I have nothing but awesome things to say about him and the whole experience.

It would have been easier to go with a local actor, but working with Daniel was something I will never forget and hearing his voice in my film will made me forget all of the pain of the contractual process.

Dude that must have been an awesome experience. Didn't he do the narration on THE WONDER YEARS?