Or perhaps there's so much loose capital sitting around with no purpose that it's just driving up valuations of companies to ridiculous levels because then folks would just be dumping fake money into questionably valued ventures.
"But you guys make toast, on-demand, in only one city."
"Exactly, toast on-demand!"
Actors are the truest of commodities. Many can do it, and it's not hard.
When Hollywood 'invests' in an actor, they create the actors Brand, which the actor - then owns.
Once an actor becomes familiar with American/Global audiences, then their Brand is worth a lot.
Surely, it requires some hustle on the part of the actor - but were it not Clooney, it could have been any one of thousands of others. He was more or less 'chosen'.
Think of how many people's very intelligent work goes into creating big films - and that the surpluses mostly go to the person with the easiest job. And FYI - I understand there are such things as 'great actors' who are not commodities.
Alba and Clooney are products created by Hollywood, who just happen to own the 'IP' to their own faces.
At least with athletes ... at least there is a fair amount of credible competition for those who make it to the top.
That's peak HN for the day.
There are tons of great actors that you can hire to do something for peanuts. They're such a commodity that tons of talented actors don't even do it full time.
I live across from a 'Community Playhouse' in Montreal. Some of it is terrible, but some of it is magnificent. Almost zero of them are employed in the industry full time. It partly has to do with the fact it's all in French, and that means 'smaller market' - but it could just as easily be in English and the same would apply.
I'm not confusing them.
An actors brand is built when they are given roles, by their appearances, which could have just as likely gone to other actors.
Their subsequent 'familiarity/likeability' is what gives them their power.
Not their talent.
The 'supporting' things that actors do to support their brand, like doing junkets - is not hard. Yes, doing 12 hours of interviews for a few days every year can be a little stressful, surely, but all the actor do is people polite and just a big gregarious and that's it.
Anyway, in case you're not - top actors are the exact opposite of a commodity. Their careers are about making them unique. Are you really arguing that you can take any movie, replace the actors with any other actor, and it will still do equally well financially? Because if you are, I'm not sure where to go from there, because it's such a preposterous claim.
There is a massive surplus of good actors, which is why there are tons of decent films and plays with great acting wherein the actors are paid little.
Go to a film festival. Most films are not that good actually. Lot's of hiccups in the stories, production etc.. But you'll always see a ton of good acting along with some bad.
And there are tons of decent actors who can't do it full time. My neighbourhood is full of them.
Except some get paid exponentially more than others for their supposed commodity. Just like many consumer packaged goods. You’re proving her value with your insult.
They don't get paid for their 'acting'. The acting part is a commodity.
They get paid for their 'appearance' in the same way celebs an get paid a fortune for sponsoring a product, or making an appearance.
For every single role that's played by an A-lister - there are a considerable number of other - great - actors that could have played that role, but the business economics are better with a 'familiar brand'. That's what fills the seats.
'Tom Cruise' fills seats. He gets paid a fortune.
A great actor, equivalent in talent to Tom Cruise - but who is unknown, is paid a normal salary.
I'm surprised so many here haven't seemed to grasp this.
Again: Gol Gadot was paid $200K for Wonder Woman. Considerably less than the secondary male role 'Chris Pine' - who is famous.
Next instalment - she'll be paid millions, and more than Chris Pine (if he were to be in it, but won't obviously, but imagine he could).
By the 'actors are paid for their talent' logic - Gal would have had to increase her 'acting ability' by quite a lot. 'Magically Gal Gadot becomes a better actor than Chris Pine and gets paid more than him'.
Obviously this is not the case.
Gal Gadot is now inexorably tied to the Wonder Woman brand.
She knows she can force the studios to pay her millions, because people want to see her as Wonder Woman (as they already have) - not an unknown quantity. It's it's therefore rational for the studios to pay her millions, and not have to make a huge bet on an unknown. (And FYI - he WW launch was a pretty big gamble - new actress, new brand etc.)
There are quite a number of actresses that they could have chosen to play Wonder Woman. Surely, some a better fit than others, but it's not rocket science, it's a comic book role. It's just a job. Only 'one' can be chosen. That person, if they do their job halfway well (and the other parts of the movie work out) will be paid millions in the future in the case of Hollywood comic-book serial.
Gal is 'the face of Wonder Woman' for at least a while.
But in subsequent versions of 'Wonder Woman' - she will be paid millions.
Has her 'acting ability' magically improved?
No. But 'her face and personae' are now existentially linked to the character 'Wonder Woman'. Audiences want to see that.
So she'll be paid millions.
Are there actors 'better' than Gal Gadot who could play WW? Of course there are. Probably many. So why not pay them $200K instead of paying Gal 'millions'? Because it's not 'talent' that's the issue in the equation.
The #1 deciding factor in the investment of films over $10M is not the script, not the director, not anything else - it's the actors that are involved.
You need to have 'highly recognizable' actors on board (or the budget to do so) otherwise it's not investable - because audiences want to see familiar faces.
Do you honestly think that 'George Clooney' is such an amazing actor, that there aren't 1000 other people 'as good as him' that could have played his roles well?
Of course there are. There are tons of great actors out there. But they're not household names.
So the question is: given that there are tons of actors better than Brad Pitt out there - how does Brad Pitt even get a single role? Because he's the 'living brand' of 'Brad Pitt'. The living brand of 'Brad Pitt' is what audiences want, which was created by putting the actor in previous roles.
Most athletes are paid very commensurately relative to their actual skill, of course, it's easier to be objective in measuring that.
What matters in film is 'the recognizability of the face/personae'.
What you don't understand is that actor recognition or brand isn't superficial, or unimportant, or a scam, but serves several important functions. Try to figure out what they are - not everyone but you are idiots.
I am however surprised that so many people think 'highest paid actors' == 'best actors'.
And yes, 'brand value' of an actor is absolutely 'superficial' to the nature of the film as a work of art - obviously it's incredibly important (the most important thing) to a big movie in terms of a business, which is why they are paid $$, and it's rather obvious from my comments. I don't for a second disagree with the decision to put 'Brad Pitt' in a big film wherein he might not be 'the perfect fit'. But 'Brad Pitt' is a mediocre actor at best.
so you're saying actors are not commodities?
> What matters in film is 'the recognizability of the face/personae'.
yes. yes you are.
An actor's 'brand value' is not a commodity.
Their 'talent' is.
There are very few 'big name actors' that can fill seats.
There are tons of good actors out there.
Not everyone can act, but frankly, there's a role for everyone, it's not rocket science. Even 'Wayne Gretzky' (I'm betraying my age here)- when he was on SNL - was so wooden, so ridiculous - so absolutely bad at acting - that it was hilarious they basically worked his terribleness into the bits - and voila - magic.
Think about it: what other 'job' can someone get paid a zillion dollars for that in many cases requires zero training? Zero experience?
Many famous actors 'worked hard' and 'studied acting' - but many of them did not. They just got a gig one way or another, showed up, and 'acted into the camera'. Tons of roles are like this. Leading roles in dumb movies, or other ones.
Of course - some roles are inherently hard, and props to the amazing character actors out there - some are geniuses. But skill is not always necessary, depending on.
Personally I would have cast Ronda Rousey as WW but Gal did a fine job and I am looking forwards to the next instalment.
Have you seen her act???
Also she'd suffered two very embarrassing back to back losses, neither of which she'd handled very gracefully, and had basically lost her image as a bad-ass.