31–40 of 77 posts
Whenever some person or company calls themselves "Honest", "Trustworthy", "Wholesome", etc I immediately start thinking that they are going to overcharge me for something. In this case, it seems my heuristic worked well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
? There are tons of great actors that you can hire to do something for peanuts. They're such a commodity that tons of talented actors don't even do it full time. I live across from a 'Community Playhouse' in Montreal. Some of it is terrible, but some of it is magnificent. Almost zero of them are employed in the industry full time. It partly has to do with the fact it's all in French, and that means 'smaller market' -…
You're confusing talent and building a brand. The latter is the more difficult bit. If you still question the value of branding consider who built the first apple computers and who ended up becoming the superstar.
I'm not confusing them.
An actors brand is built when they are given roles, by their appearances, which could have just as likely gone to other actors.
Their subsequent 'familiarity/likeability' is what gives them their power.
Not their talent.
The 'supporting' things that actors do to support their brand, like doing junkets - is not hard. Yes, doing 12 hours of interviews for a few days every year can be a little stressful, surely, but all the actor do is people polite and just a big gregarious and that's it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
? There are tons of great actors that you can hire to do something for peanuts. They're such a commodity that tons of talented actors don't even do it full time. I live across from a 'Community Playhouse' in Montreal. Some of it is terrible, but some of it is magnificent. Almost zero of them are employed in the industry full time. It partly has to do with the fact it's all in French, and that means 'smaller market' -…
That's not because acting is easy or because there's a surplus of good actors. That's because acting doesn't pay shit unless you're really, really lucky. For a show that takes a dozen people a couple months to prepare and sells maybe a few hundred tickets, the financials are pretty stark.
There is a massive surplus of good actors, which is why there are tons of decent films and plays with great acting wherein the actors are paid little.
Go to a film festival. Most films are not that good actually. Lot's of hiccups in the stories, production etc.. But you'll always see a ton of good acting along with some bad.
And there are tons of decent actors who can't do it full time. My neighbourhood is full of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Actors are the truest of commodities. Many can do it, and it's not hard. That's peak HN for the day.
? There are tons of great actors that you can hire to do something for peanuts. They're such a commodity that tons of talented actors don't even do it full time. I live across from a 'Community Playhouse' in Montreal. Some of it is terrible, but some of it is magnificent. Almost zero of them are employed in the industry full time. It partly has to do with the fact it's all in French, and that means 'smaller market' -…
Whenever some person or company calls themselves "Honest", "Trustworthy", "Wholesome", etc I immediately start thinking that they are going to overcharge me for something. In this case, it seems my heuristic worked well.
I have a similar reaction to any website that calls itself "truth(whatever)", "fact(whatever)", or anything along those lines. So far, every time I've investigated it, my suspicion has been justified. Of course, the grandaddy of them all was Pravda .
That's interesting: Does Honest Co. make Honest Tea? Because last time I was looking at Honest Tea (or however it may be spelled), every variety had added sugar. Which is not good: https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Sugar-Gary-Taubes/dp/030... . If their sweetened tea is any indication, they may be caught in the uncanny valley where normal people still drink soda and people who've gotten the news about sugar won't d…
Honest Tea's name comes from how their ingredients are sourced. They never claimed for it to be good for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you can bootstrap yourself into being George Clooney" Actors are the truest of commodities. Many can do it, and it's not hard. When Hollywood 'invests' in an actor, they create the actors Brand, which the actor - then owns. Once an actor becomes familiar with American/Global audiences, then their Brand is worth a lot. Surely, it requires some hustle on the part of the actor - but were it not Clooney, it could hav…
> Actors are the truest of commodities Except some get paid exponentially more than others for their supposed commodity. Just like many consumer packaged goods. You’re proving her value with your insult.
They don't get paid for their 'acting'. The acting part is a commodity.
They get paid for their 'appearance' in the same way celebs an get paid a fortune for sponsoring a product, or making an appearance.
For every single role that's played by an A-lister - there are a considerable number of other - great - actors that could have played that role, but the business economics are better with a 'familiar brand'. That's what fills the seats.
'Tom Cruise' fills seats. He gets paid a fortune.
A great actor, equivalent in talent to Tom Cruise - but who is unknown, is paid a normal salary.
I'm surprised so many here haven't seemed to grasp this.
Again: Gol Gadot was paid $200K for Wonder Woman. Considerably less than the secondary male role 'Chris Pine' - who is famous.
Next instalment - she'll be paid millions, and more than Chris Pine (if he were to be in it, but won't obviously, but imagine he could).
By the 'actors are paid for their talent' logic - Gal would have had to increase her 'acting ability' by quite a lot. 'Magically Gal Gadot becomes a better actor than Chris Pine and gets paid more than him'.
Obviously this is not the case.
Gal Gadot is now inexorably tied to the Wonder Woman brand.
She knows she can force the studios to pay her millions, because people want to see her as Wonder Woman (as they already have) - not an unknown quantity. It's it's therefore rational for the studios to pay her millions, and not have to make a huge bet on an unknown. (And FYI - he WW launch was a pretty big gamble - new actress, new brand etc.)
There are quite a number of actresses that they could have chosen to play Wonder Woman. Surely, some a better fit than others, but it's not rocket science, it's a comic book role. It's just a job. Only 'one' can be chosen. That person, if they do their job halfway well (and the other parts of the movie work out) will be paid millions in the future in the case of Hollywood comic-book serial.
Gal is 'the face of Wonder Woman' for at least a while.
Whenever some person or company calls themselves "Honest", "Trustworthy", "Wholesome", etc I immediately start thinking that they are going to overcharge me for something. In this case, it seems my heuristic worked well.
I have a similar reaction to any website that calls itself "truth(whatever)", "fact(whatever)", or anything along those lines. So far, every time I've investigated it, my suspicion has been justified. Of course, the grandaddy of them all was Pravda .
Also the Guardian used to occasionally publish an article selected from a foreign newspaper, not sure if they still do. The North Korean ones were hilarious. Probably still would be. Just goes to show real thoroughgoing, unremitting brutality sometimes does work.
Whenever some person or company calls themselves "Honest", "Trustworthy", "Wholesome", etc I immediately start thinking that they are going to overcharge me for something. In this case, it seems my heuristic worked well.
Is there a dedicated name for such looming mistrust phenomenon? (apart from common sense? :p)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Actors are the truest of commodities. Many can do it, and it's not hard. That's peak HN for the day.
? There are tons of great actors that you can hire to do something for peanuts. They're such a commodity that tons of talented actors don't even do it full time. I live across from a 'Community Playhouse' in Montreal. Some of it is terrible, but some of it is magnificent. Almost zero of them are employed in the industry full time. It partly has to do with the fact it's all in French, and that means 'smaller market' -…
Anyway, in case you're not - top actors are the exact opposite of a commodity. Their careers are about making them unique. Are you really arguing that you can take any movie, replace the actors with any other actor, and it will still do equally well financially? Because if you are, I'm not sure where to go from there, because it's such a preposterous claim.