http://www.forbes.com/home/business/2007/0...tarpayback.html

Interesting article isn't it? I know it's a business and the dollar profits are the bottom line for the studios, but we all know Johnny(and others) have taken roles that didn't have the $20 million paycheck, too. I think most actors that are interested in their craft will take a reduced fee for a film/role that they feel strongly about---don't think Johnny rec'd $20 million for The Libertine. OK, off my soap box now--


-Donna

It is an interesting article. For the most part, I do notthink Movie Stars/Actors and actresses warrant the high paychecks they receive. They are doing their job and honing their craft. I know Johnny has not always received such big paychecks. He is not in it for the money he is in for his craft. He loves the challenge and the creativity of acting or creating a character, his creation.

I am also off of my soapbox now :rolleyes:


Yvonne in LA :writing

A lot of this always shows me one of the very sad things about the industry.

And that is that the performing Arts is not a done deal. I wish that the men and women that tend to want to turn the business into a formulaic, flow chart that gives resounding forecast into business trends would learn to listen (or maybe just read) Irving Berlin's There's no Business like Show Business.

There's some movies out there that don't make it to the Blockbuster status or the profitable status and yet they were very good movies. Or even the bad ones like Gigli why didn't it do better? Seriously. It had some, what I call 'gimmicks', as a part of it's selling point-but it failed. It's easy to say "well it was just a bad movie" (which it was) but there's some gawd awful films out there that after you do see it you wonder..."was it the hype?"

Is it the hype? The Actor? The Title? Is it the muses?

And that is just it...who knows? It is always a gamble. But when you read articles like this and read, or hear, or watch interviews with some of the movers and shakers in Hollywood I'm always amazed at how they think that the money in show business is so predictable. It isn't. It's a gamble actually.

Editing to add-It's not a soap box for me actually-It's actually a part of what I majored in. One of the very first things a Theatre/Production class teaches is "sometimes you're a hit and sometimes you're not."

Good points Hibblette and I also think there are "machines" behind some of these films and sorry to say, behind the scenes deals made with critics, theaters, etc. I don't have any facts, it's strictly my opinion. As you stated, there have been too many films hyped that just don't deserve it, and some other films that deserved better.

I sometimes think the critics make their minds up before they see it. And sometimes it's on a negative level.

Other times they also get caught up in the hype.

Take for example Heaven's Gate actually that movie is one of the primo examples of how all the hype, all the stars, and yet it just was a miserable movie.

I still say-if it doesn't have something compelling about the story then ... it will not at least hold up to the test of time.

Quality, in other words.

And a lot of times these studio's forget about that. Eh, I'll even say it about the Independant Filmmakers.

Now I am getting on my soapbox.

And to the question of this thread-if the producers and studios are willing to pay these actors and they've got agents that can make these deals then I say, "what's the problem?"

I'd rather see it go to the actors then to the guys that think the film industry is a cash cow.

And sometimes, as in every business out there, things are bought or made for the sole intent and purpose of losing money on the books.

Yep. There's that too.

I believe it was Missouri Breaks when this was first brought to my attention.

Of course maybe the actors did that and maybe it was just an article with big names in it.

But yea-that's what the whole premise of The Producers is about.

LOL Yes and gee I love the original version of that movie...what fun.


But it is show BUSINESS and it's made up of corporations that just happen to make movies. ;)

Hmmm...interesting topic. I just finished reading Intimate Strangers: the Culture of Celebrity, in which the author contends that a lot of the so-called "Hollywood mystique" has to do with the outrageous salaries movie stars make. And that goes back to the very early days of Hollywood right up to the present. It's part of the fantasy - that anybody can go from a nobody to a somebody in the movie biz. The potential for ascent from obscurity to super wealth and fame seems to happen randomly, as if by magic. We, the public, love that! (Almost as much as we love the descent part!) Making movies is a corporate enterprise now, but the people who support it - who buy the tickets and go to the movies - are quite happy to see their favorite celebrities succeed, and succeed in a BIG way.

You know the money the actors made use to not be that big a deal. Truly.

That wasn't brought to light until that time that Brando was offered and he accepted one million for his role in Superman.

My thing is that the studios make boo coos of money off of us and they push the actors out there as their spokespeople. You better believe the actors deserve it. To a lot of these studio heads the fact that they are humans means very little to them and each individual is simply a dollar figure. The "corporations" could care less that Depp or Pitt or Cruise or Aniston or Dunaway or Nicholson may have issues with family or health issues or just moral issues about the whole facade thing. They don't care. And that's when it comes down to the individual him/herself. Their choices. And when they loose favor (ie Robert Downey, Jr. one of the most primo actors of this day and age) then there's this huge garbage pail that they are shoved into. Figuratively speaking of course.

And yes Karen I love the original Producers, I'm a huge Zero Mostel fan. The man was outrageous. He was also one of those that the "corporation" never quite caught onto. Pity, in my opinion.

The mega salaries may be in higher dollar amounts these days but the first Hollywood movie stars made enough money to support lifestyles that were nothing to sneeze at either. The Mary Pickfords and John Barrymores and Rudolph Valentinos helped create the mystique that movie stars live larger than life. I don't think they complained, nor did their fans. In fact, I think even today anyone who wants to make it in Hollywood isn't interested in making it small; everybody wants to make it big. Ergo, I can't imagine they're allergic (to use Johnny's term) to the wealth and status that comes with using, and being used by, the star-making machine, which includes publicists, agents, studio heads and the fans. Nobody's being duped, IMO, and the public is complicit in the whole deal. So nobody can say they were 'almost an innocent bystander'! B)

I don't think it's a matter of stars making huge amounts of money---they wouldn't make that much if the population stopped seeing films. It's the same with professional athletes. The bottom line is as long as fans pay the money to see the films, actors will receive hefty salaries that these fans want to see.

I must admit, until DVD's came out showing all the behind the scenes features about the films, I thought actors were overpaid. However, after see what actually goes into a film, now I don't think they are overpaid. Look at the magazines, etc. that showcase "stars". What bothers me about this article, and it's spreading like wildfire on the net, is that it comes across as implying that Matt Damon is somewhat more popular or better of an actor than others based on his returns. I know that isn't what the article actually states, but look at some of the headlines on the internet covering this. I'm really surprised at Forbes as I think this is really a ridiculous type of "list" to put out there. Do they think studios will say "Let's get Damon instead of Depp" because he gives more value for the dollar? I sure hope not!(No offense to Damon, I enjoy some of his films, but can't hold a candle to Johnny's ability)

The downside is that once you're "box office" your face is pushed out there more and more as Hibblette has said. I think overall Johnny has a good handle on it all, he's well aware he can be "off" the list at any time. What's sad is some of these younger actors that are messing up their lives(Lindsey Lohan), and aren't able to handle their "fame." Just looking at Johnny's life, his personal and professional battles along the way, he seems to be very grounded now. It's great he's achieved what he has, still is making films and doing it "his way" within the system.

Interesting discussion and I personally think that salaries of actors might actually decrease in the future with the legal downloading of movies, pod-casts, film to DVD bypass the theater etc. the studios are scrambling to increase their profits. Johnny might not ever again be able to make the hefty salary he made this year-his CJS fueled a speeding train for him and Disney. He earned every bit of his fee and royalties. The press is creating the myth that Damon is a better box office investment than Depp-I see it as two actors who are quite skilled but are suited for certain roles. Remember Terry Gilliam's film "The Brother's Grimm" Damon tried comedy and he failed miserably he is not funny-but Depp could have pulled off the character and if Depp tried to pull off the Bourne role it would not work. Movies have always been big business and I am thankful that we have such a wide selection of films for our consideration when it comes to spending dollars for tickets. B)

As I see it, there is a bit of a problem when it comes to choice ~ and this is true of the publishing business as well ~ when what's put before the public to 'choose from' is controlled by a few corporate giants. The selection becomes their formula and works for their agenda, ie., net profit. Such a limited mind set usually leads to playing it safe and using established talent instead of taking risks on anything or anybody new. Nobody's willing to invest in pushing the envelope too far, even with independent films, IMO. I think there's sort of a closed loop in terms of which projects get the green light and which don't. A lot of the movies out there are pretty dull and predictable and repetitious. We all know how hard it was for Johnny to get Disney to accept his vision of Captain Jack, and if they (Disney) hadn't had some other tried & true projects to fall back on I seriously doubt they'd have taken a chance on Johnny's CJS. There may be a lot of 'new' movies being made, but it's important to keep in mind the scope of work in film we're not being given a chance to see.

Parlez I agree with you in but in my area there are four theaters which have a fairly decent selection of independent films and usually I can find something each weekend that I want to see. You are right about some pretty awful movies but I usually avoid them. I am usually more irritated with the lack of manners of some of the other patrons in the theater than I am with the film itself. :angry:

Lucky!! We just got our first art house theatre here - a very grassroots enterprise that's run on a shoestring. BUT one of their first films was "The Namesake"! :claphands

Oh don't even get me started on that one!

We have an independent theater in my town, too so I'm able to see some of these smaller films, too. I think with the advances in technology, more films will be made on smaller budgets.

Yes The Namesake was awesome-I am anxiously waiting for the DVD release. If The Black Book, Away from Me or Waitress makes it your way check them out.

A little off topic here, but I've heard good things about La Vie en Rose as well.......

Yes that is on my list plus Becoming Jane-but I return to work tomorrow so will need to Netflix some of the films I want to see. Sorry off topic! :huh:

I wasn't saying actors of the past didn't make big money what I said was it wasn't that big a deal to the fan or even to the tabloids.

And in my opinion the whole thing about "corporation" is that they do look at the money figure of the star and not the talent. And quite frankly that has always pissed me off.

Also the "corporation" does not respect the audience. And they really don't understand their audience. I don't believe for one second that when Pirates suddenly was the mega hit that it was did they sit back and say, "Well hmmm, I guess the audience caught on to the great storyline, the acting (especially Johnny's characterization) and the sheer fun of it all." What they saw was the bottom line....the $,$$$,$$$,$$$.00.

But when you talk to people about that movie one of the first things out of their mouths is either how amazing Johnny's Jack was or how much they enjoyed the crazy story or the fun that they had. And it takes a whole lot of talent (from many people) to do this.

This is why we get formulaic movies. Seriously.

I know it's frustrating for us movie fans, but movie making is a "for profit" business. They are in it for the money. We all are. I don't work for the fun of it or the artistic reward I might get. LOL

Most all profitable businesses look at the bottom line and what will give them the most return. Shoot, IKEA makes you bring your own bags to put the stuff in that they sell you. They know the customer will do it. (Not me, that's when I stopped buying there, but plenty of people find that an acceptable business practice.)

While movie making is a business involving "artists", they have to make money or there would be no money to fund any movie making at all. If audiences (customers) didn't reward the film making corporations by paying money to see the bad and stupid movies... sooner or later they would stop making them. Not because they weren't good, but because they weren't profitable. Same with stores that demand you bring your own bags to put their merchandise in.

OK..lol off my soapbox and off to the non rewarding, but money generating business world. LOL

Well, the following opinion comes from a 'bag lady' - I always bring my own bags to grocery stores and shops - so ye be warned! ;)
It would be very sad indeed if everyone was spending their precious time, attention, talent and energy working just for money. If that's the only reason and the only reward, well, I just can't imagine how it could sustain a person for very long. Even the worst jobs have something to offer - some measure of potential for creativity and/or growth - aside from the money. That's my hope anyway! I would hope everyone could find (or bring) something to their worklife that's more rewarding than the paycheck, because the paycheck, at the end of the day, just isn't going to cut it.
My two cents, for what it's worth, which just about matches my salary! :P

Studios have to make money or there's no money to use to make more movies. lolol

I'm loving this discussion!! :claphands
I remember the days of Photoplay and Movie Star and even the more respectable Look magazines, and how entrancing the pics and stories of 'movie stars' were to me. From what I've read, even from the earliest days of Hollywood there came to be a frenzy of interest on the part of the fans to see and read stories about the larger-than-life faces they saw on the screens at their local movie houses. With the advent of the talkies audiences started to erase the boundaries seperating themselves from the actors on the screen. A huge close-up of a talking head, as it were, brought with it a new level of intimacy. The fans back then had almost no concern or respect for the actors as a private individuals; what they wanted were mythic, fantasy "stars", and that's what the studios and stars gave them. I think part of the fantasy always had to do with money and how big a salary said stars could claim...not merit, or earn, but claim. The more outrageous, the better!
So I'm sticking to my view that the fans are and always have been invested in the whole fame-and-fortune thing that Hollywood uniquely provides. The tabloids today are still big business, still feeding off said fantasies and delivering the goods. They wouldn't be there without the consumer-fan, who seems to have a resolute and unyeilding need to look! (guilty guilty guilty!) And I don't think the actors themselves have changed that much either; they still have a resolute and unyeilding need to be one of those talking heads who will be seen up there on the silver screen. Desire and Fantasy. Who does it better than Hollywood!?!

Sure it's a business but unlike most businesses you cannot predict how an audience is going to react or how the whole world is going to react. And some of the greatest films that have raked in the money has been those films that took a chance. Ever once in awhile it happens, someone gets away with gambling and it's always a breath of fresh air. Like Johnny's Cap'n Jack. He took a chance, the studio obviously believed they were taking a huge chance and they were sweating bullets-and in the end they won out. But you know what it could have bombed. It's always a 50-50 chance, especially when a big studio is involved.