Question: Do actors deserve as little money as possible for their work?

A

AmateurFilmmaker

Disclaimer: This is written primarily targeting "A-list"/more successful/well-known actors.

Maybe it's just me, but I hate the idea of actors being paid millions of dollars and receiving acclaim for having the least blood, sweat, tears, and involvement in the entire feature film making process. Any of them who are able to "make it big" in Hollywood and earn millions, are entirely a lottery winner with bars of gold stuffed up their behind --in my opinion. I feel like I have a personal gripe with them.

From my understanding they show up to set later than everyone else involved, leave before everyone else, screenplays are written in simplified ways and are made to tell a story visually as opposed to using much dialogue --which takes tasking dialogue away from any of the actors to have to memorize/read, which is a nominal task to begin with-- and overall tend to want to go through hell and high water to get into the position in the first place since it's the ultimate "sweet ride" to them if obtained.

Some feature films take years to go from an initial idea to being released to the public. Actors involved in the project show up for the better part of it from what I understand. I also feel the skill of being able to "act" isn't very admirable to begin with. Playing pretend for a living isn't something I see as life changing, moving, and awe-inspiring.

With my brief comments being said, I don't believe they deserve to get paid large sums of money for what they do. I also wish they wouldn't be as admonished for the nominal work I perceive them doing. What's your take on things? Do you agree? Disagree? How do you view less idolized/obscure ones that have worked on your projects --if any? Ever dealt with any of the ones I've described? An "A-list" star? "B-list"?
 
Last edited:
AmateurFilmmaker said:
From my understanding they show up to set later than everyone else involved, leave before everyone else,
Click to expand...
Your understanding is incorrect. Of course the “media” like TMZ
report every time an actor acts like an jerk. But they do not
report every time an actor shows up on time and acts like a
professional. They show up when they are needed and leave
when they are done. Sure, sometimes actors come in after
the crew has been working for hours and often they leave before
the crew strikes the set.
AmateurFilmmaker said:
screenplays are written in simplified ways and are made to tell a story visually as opposed to using much dialogue
Click to expand...
Film is a visual medium. There is usually less dialogue in a movie
than in a play not because A-list actors don't want to memorize lines. --which takes tasking dialogue away from any of the actors to have to memorize/read, which is a nominal task to begin with-- and overall tend to want to go through hell and high water to get into the position in the first place since it's the ultimate "sweet ride" to them if obtained.

AmateurFilmmaker said:
I also feel the skill of being able to "act" isn't very admirable to begin with. Playing pretend for a living isn't something I see as life changing, moving, and awe-inspiring.
Click to expand...
This is really odd. what to writers do? We make up stuff for a living.
What do filmmakers do? We pretend for a living. The very job of
making a movie is pretending.

AmateurFilmmaker said:
With my brief comments being said, I don't believe they deserve to get paid large sums of money for what they do.
Click to expand...
That's fine. They make studios a LOT of money and you believe they
do not deserve a large portion of that. Seems odd to me.
AmateurFilmmaker said:
I also wish they wouldn't be as admonished for the nominal work I perceive them doing.
Click to expand...
A strange, contradictory comment. You admonish them for making too much money and for a skill that you say isn't admirable to begin with but you don't want them admonished.
AmateurFilmmaker said:
What's your take on things? Do you agree? Disagree? How do you view less idolized/obscure ones that have worked on your projects --if any? Ever dealt with any of the ones I've described? An "A-list" star? "B-list"?
Click to expand...
I have worked with A-list and B-list actors. Most a very professional
and take their job seriously. Like any group there are some jerks. Do
you know of any profession that doesn't have it's share of the lazy or
rude or unprofessional?

The general public makes their movie going choice on the actors. I feel
they should be paid accordingly. I strongly disagree that pretending
for a living isn't moving or awe inspiring. It may even be life changing.
I have pretended for a living my entire working life. Starting in special
make up effects and continuing into writing and directing I pretend that
the impossible is possible. And I have been moved and inspired by actors
who pretend for a living.
 
We live in a greedy culture and try as hard as we can to never pay people what they're worth.

If we could get away with paying a-list actors less - We would be paying them less!!! And then the fat cat investors would have even more money for themselves :)
 
Take ‘Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides’ as an example. The producers paid Johnny Depp $55m, almost 20% of the total budget. The film went on to gross well in excess of $1 billion, over £700m in profit. Would the film have been as successful without Depp? Would it have been any kind of a success without him? Probably not. If I were one of the producers on this movie, I’d be thinking that the $55m investment in Johnny Depp was well worth it.
 
I really don't know why it was said that I admonish them. My original post seems to talk about how I think of what they do as nominal, and not deserving of much reward.

The people in the movies don't necessarily bring in a guaranteed audience, as there have been a number of feature films made that feature "A-list" talent that flopped.

Also to say acting and managing the entirety of a feature film being made is equal is ridiculous --in my opinion. Managing a team --including talent-- of hundreds of people, figuring out marketing/advertising campaigns, and insuring all aspects of pre-production/production/post-production are carefully seen through is many times more taxing on ones mind, body, and soul than "playing pretend" in my opinion.
 
AmateurFilmmaker said:
Also to say acting and managing the entirety of a feature film being made is equal is ridiculous --in my opinion. Managing a team --including talent-- of hundreds of people, figuring out marketing/advertising campaigns, and insuring all aspects of pre-production/production/post-production are carefully seen through is many times more taxing on ones mind, body, and soul than "playing pretend" in my opinion.
Click to expand...

This person that is "managing the entirety of a feature film" is the producer, right? I don't think anyone would suggest that producing a multi-million dollar feature is easy. But, you have to be realistic. How many times have you thought "Hey! This movie was produced by (insert name here)! I have to go see it!"? It's the actors who draw in the audience. It's them that the audience is paying to see. They deserve the big money.
 
AmateurFilmmaker said:
I don't believe they deserve to get paid large sums of money for what they do.
Click to expand...

Neither does anybody! They're not paid those large sums for "what they do", actors are paid those large sums because it's a good investment. Would anyone pay Schwarzenegger $30m purely for his acting ability? Of course not ($30 maybe!) ... but would you invest $30m to get $60m (or more) of revenue? As an investor, of course you would, you'd jump at the chance!

G
 
I get paid large amounts of money for what I do. It certainly wasn't always that way.

But here's some food for thought, if there is no way for someone to advance in their career -- often monetary compensation being the gauge of that advancement -- what would entice someone to continue pursuing that career?
 
mad_hatter said:
Take ‘Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides’ as an example. The producers paid Johnny Depp $55m, almost 20% of the total budget. The film went on to gross well in excess of $1 billion, over £700m in profit. Would the film have been as successful without Depp? Would it have been any kind of a success without him? Probably not. If I were one of the producers on this movie, I’d be thinking that the $55m investment in Johnny Depp was well worth it.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, how much of that ballooned figure did the movie studio actually take in as a profit? Theater, distribution, and whatever else cuts plus the budget to make the movie and millions to market/advertise it may have had their profits looking a lot slimmer than you suggest.
 
Relax.

This question is more relavant for bankers who played the moral hazard card (taking the profit as bonus and letting tax payers pay for their loss).

It's not like the actors steal it from you...

Although, from a philosophical point of view: what is too much and what is as little as possible?
Maybe $55 million was as little as possible? :P
 
I know what you, mean. Look at how easy these actors have it. Absolutely no pressure on them at all.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_HuFuKiq8U
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top