For me it has always seemed weird that for the last half century or so, the people we pay the most are the entertainers: actors, musicians and sport-stars. More middle class actors and fewer crazy rich actors sounds good to me. I would rather have more people being able to make a decent living off their craft than a few with more money than they know how to spend.
That's an excellent point.
- Is acting ability as unevenly distributed as athletic ability?
- Would Black Mirror be better if every episode had Jodie Foster or Jake Gyllenhaal in it? Or is it possible that using less well known actors would not negatively impact viewership?
I thought about this quite deeply and researched it a bit during my graph theory & complex network classes. Whether it is routers redirecting traffic or popularity, it is all scale free (ok not everything is, but a lot of things are).
I guess the question is: what value is popularity? If Miley Cyruses increase in cost doesn't warrant the increase in revenue, then it's not worth it. If it does then it is. It sounds like the market is re-calibrating a little.
As an aside, what a fucking incredible show that is. Mind bending shit.
Only question that matters is, “Are you not entertained?!”
Sadder part's probably the loss of social capital for being a third-rate whatever. Lot fewer folk-song sing-alongs around the living room upright these days. Lot fewer cousin-bands playing at family gatherings. Ya know?