How do you assess that actors are chosen and not rewarded for their skill like athletes?
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.