Named Actors Important Anymore?

M

mrl72

In the day and age of VOD and self distribution models, is having a named actor in your low budget film as important as it used to be?

I read another article recently that star power is not a factor for putting bums on seats in theaters anymore.

Curious what others think?
 
mrl72 said:
Curious what others think?
Click to expand...
If you get a chance I'd like a link to the article you read.

You mix two different things in your post; VOD/self distribution and
“bums on seats in theaters”. If the author of the article is saying star
power isn't as important as it once was to get people into theaters I
don't see how you can compare that to low budget self distributed films.

For self distributed films star power is rarely an option. But having a
name actor sure helps.
 
Star-power works if you are making a film that appeals to the fans of previous work that whatever name actor you are choosing is. It would be much more efficient and make far more sense to invest that money somewhere else, but if you already have enough money to support the film, a known name isn't bad. Usually A-list actors will charge A LOT (unless they're your close friend), so if you're going to try to get anyone in your movie, get a B-movie actor in there.
 
names are very important for distribution deals. Honestly...its hard to get someone to watch anything that doesn't have people in it that they at least recognize.
 
We have to staff more folks when we get a release with A Tom Cruise or Robert Downey, jr. than with other actors. Much of it is due to the:
A) Types of movies they choose to be in
B) Amount of advertising done for the film (based on -- )
C) Amount of financing the filmmaker could raise due to the name actor being on board.

It's much more about initial investment potential than about butts in seat, which tend to happen as a result of B more than A.
 
We have to staff more folks when we get a release with A Tom Cruise or Robert Downey, jr. than with other actors. Much of it is due to the:
A) Types of movies they choose to be in
B) Amount of advertising done for the film (based on -- )
C) Amount of financing the filmmaker could raise due to the name actor being on board.

It's much more about initial investment potential than about butts in seat, which tend to happen as a result of B more than A.
 
bez said:
names are very important for distribution deals. Honestly...its hard to get someone to watch anything that doesn't have people in it that they at least recognize.
Click to expand...

You could always attach the name of someone famous to the film. Ever seen those [insert famous movie director] here films that barely did anything concerning the film except maybe contributing a small amount of money and allowing their name attached to the production? That's another thought. :D
 
ChimpPhobiaFilms said:
You could always attach the name of someone famous to the film. Ever seen those [insert famous movie director] here films that barely did anything concerning the film except maybe contributing a small amount of money and allowing their name attached to the production? That's another thought. :D
Click to expand...

It's not quite that simple.
A. You couldn't afford an A list "producer" credit.
B. Even if you could an A lister is only going to put there stamp on something that is going to get seen and that doesn't run the risk of ruining their brand. if you have under a couple million dollar budget it would be a miracle to get someone who's making 10 million a year name attached.
 
bez said:
It's not quite that simple.
A. You couldn't afford an A list "producer" credit.
B. Even if you could an A lister is only going to put there stamp on something that is going to get seen and that doesn't run the risk of ruining their brand. if you have under a couple million dollar budget it would be a miracle to get someone who's making 10 million a year name attached.
Click to expand...

Nobody said it had to be an A-lister :D

It could be some B or C-movie director with a decently sized cult following.
 
This article is an economic analysis that states no one knows anything (quoting Goldman) and it states that even star power would not necessarily make a movie successful. This commentary, however, suggests that, while no one knows anything, star power can lessen the risk - IOW, a star could make a movie lose less money.

Hope it helps.
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
This article is an economic analysis that states no one knows anything (quoting Goldman) and it states that even star power would not necessarily make a movie successful. This commentary, however, suggests that, while no one knows anything, star power can lessen the risk - IOW, a star could make a movie lose less money.

Hope it helps.
Click to expand...

Makes sense, because a name will help media to pick up news on the movie.
 
Named actors will *always* be important, however if a director is established enough and well known enough .. like nolan or tarintino.. they are a named director and that can be just as good
 
sfoster said:
Named actors will *always* be important, however if a director is established enough and well known enough .. like nolan or tarintino.. they are a named director and that can be just as good
Click to expand...

I would say Harvey Keitel is a known actor :D But i totally agree with you
 
GuerrillaAngel said:
A known name, any name, is a far more useful marketing tool than your own name.
Click to expand...

Not for the last music vid I shot. Had a load of people enquire about the director (me) because my name was the same as a Hollywood 'name' actor. I say 'was' because unfortunately he didn't make it to the end of last year.

After all the attention I had, am now thinking of changing my name to Angelina Jolie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top