Are Stars Worth It?

Movie stars are currently overpaid. The market is correcting itself. Studios do cast stars as a safety measure. But the movie business is not now and has never been a rational business. Those who do it by the numbers, the stats, the research and crunching the potential boxoffice gross in Eastern Europe are doomed to fail. This NYT story quotes a lot of outsiders who are talking about measuring something that is unmeasurable.

Comments

[Mark Rutland]

The NYT article is, I think, a serious piece on some tough (creative and financial) questions. We may disagree with some of the ideas that are quoted, but they are not lunatic. Are they?
Allow me to be very candid: who don't know what they are talking about? Who (and what) are you talking about?

[Anne Thompson]

I cast no aspersions on the NYT's seriousness. And convincing the studios to pay less for movie stars is fine by me. Here's what I am trying to say. Obviously, the studios currently pay the top movie stars far more than they are worth, and this article cites statistics that show that. No argument here. I am not calling anyone lunatic. What I mean is that well-meaning academics and statisticians often apply their reason and formulas to a business that is by its nature illogical, irrational and probably crazy. It defies rationality. I remember when the Coca Cola company bought Columbia Pictures and did a study on what was the best way to guarantee producing a hit. They spent a lot of money to find out the obvious: make a sequel. The movie business bets on sequels and movie stars for a reason: to get butts in seats. This summer the boxoffice was glutted with animated features, while a movie boasting a bonafide movie star outgrossed everything else by a wide margin: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. There are big differences among movie stars who get people to check out a movie whether it's good or bad (Will Smith), a star who carries a movie by sheer talent and skill (Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind or Gladiator), and a star who represents quality (Jodie Foster). These differences of star value defy measurement. Oh yes, there's another truism about the movie business: nobody knows anything.

[Mark Rutland]

Sorry if it sounded like I was suggesting that you had doubts on the NYT's seriousness. And thank you for your answer. I think it sheds light in your argument. In the essential, of course, I agree.

What I think it's also important to notice is that star power (and, for that matter, finances) are always tough to measure. For instance: let's forget the theme parks, Disney, everything; let's say that Johnny Depp "transformed" the 225 millions of "Pirates" into 407 millions. What about the box office of 120 millions of "The Devil Wears Prada": what can we say of its star, Meryl Streep, and a movie that cost only 35 million? The key word, of course, is "only".

I know you are not contesting this point. Again, as you say: sometimes, the "differences of star value defy measurement". I just want to stress that these are also good questions to analyse. Thank you again.

[Wallace D]

Stars get paid too much. The motion picture industry is in a state of transition and re-defining itself amidst a new world of technology.

Movies costs too much to make and most of them are boring. Hollywood should pay celebrities a flat rate to star in movies, say, 2-3 million. They won't go hungry.

If the film makes a profit (most don't) the celebrity can get a % cut or whatever works best.

If the film bombs, they have their base pay which is much more than what the average American makes in a year unless your're a Bill Gates etc.

Oh, celebrities aloso enjoy over-inflated egos and the intoxication of name and fame as fringe benefits. Maybe celebrities should tighten their belts and live a more austere lifestyle on thier 6 million a year, 2-picture deal.

Hollywood has to go back to the studio system from the old Irving Thalberg days where stars were contracted say, on a 3 piture deal. If the films do well, great. If not, the studio must axe the star. Simple.

This may sound draconian but being a celebrity is a "karmic" gift from God Himself and should not be abused. After all, there are many talented wannabes waiting in the wings to present really good movies for the new, spiritual generation.

[Kathy Smith]

Tom Cruise made his money the hard way; he worked hard to entertain the whole world.  If he hadn't done it successfully time and time again in the number one spot at the box-office, another icon would.  He hasn't, like some politician, manipulated economics to force people to buy tickets, he just makes sure he is doing a great job in "A" projects that will thrill and entertain people, so that they will choose his films, knowing they are going to have a great time. That means people in the foreign market... and the people in Burbank.