71–77 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.
> 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.
"Except some get paid exponentially more than others for their supposed commodity" 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 playe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gal Godot - a decent actress - was paid $200K for her role as 'Wonder Woman'. Huge film. But she was paid just like any other of the 'talent' on the crew. But in subsequent versions of 'Wonder Woman' - she will be paid millions. Has her 'acting ability' magically improved? No. But 'her face and personae' are now existentially linked to the character 'Wonder Woman'. Audiences want to see that. So she'll be paid millio…
> The #1 deciding factor in the investment of films over $10M is not the script, not the director, not anything else - it's the actors that are involved. so you're saying actors are not commodities? > What matters in film is 'the recognizability of the face/personae'. yes. yes you are.
An actor's 'brand value' is not a commodity.
Their 'talent' is.
There are very few 'big name actors' that can fill seats.
There are tons of good actors out there.
Not everyone can act, but frankly, there's a role for everyone, it's not rocket science. Even 'Wayne Gretzky' (I'm betraying my age here)- when he was on SNL - was so wooden, so ridiculous - so absolutely bad at acting - that it was hilarious they basically worked his terribleness into the bits - and voila - magic.
Think about it: what other 'job' can someone get paid a zillion dollars for that in many cases requires zero training? Zero experience?
Many famous actors 'worked hard' and 'studied acting' - but many of them did not. They just got a gig one way or another, showed up, and 'acted into the camera'. Tons of roles are like this. Leading roles in dumb movies, or other ones.
Of course - some roles are inherently hard, and props to the amazing character actors out there - some are geniuses. But skill is not always necessary, depending on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gal Godot - a decent actress - was paid $200K for her role as 'Wonder Woman'. Huge film. But she was paid just like any other of the 'talent' on the crew. But in subsequent versions of 'Wonder Woman' - she will be paid millions. Has her 'acting ability' magically improved? No. But 'her face and personae' are now existentially linked to the character 'Wonder Woman'. Audiences want to see that. So she'll be paid millio…
Your understanding is sophomore. You haven't uncovered a secret - this is common knowledge. What you don't understand is that actor recognition or brand isn't superficial, or unimportant, or a scam, but serves several important functions. Try to figure out what they are - not everyone but you are idiots.
I am however surprised that so many people think 'highest paid actors' == 'best actors'.
And yes, 'brand value' of an actor is absolutely 'superficial' to the nature of the film as a work of art - obviously it's incredibly important (the most important thing) to a big movie in terms of a business, which is why they are paid $$, and it's rather obvious from my comments. I don't for a second disagree with the decision to put 'Brad Pitt' in a big film wherein he might not be 'the perfect fit'. But 'Brad Pitt' is a mediocre actor at best.
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.
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.