I don’t see what John Cusack has to do with anything. He’s not a leading man. His name above the title doesn’t do anything for the studios. Whether he’s a better actor, better looking, nicer guy, etc. is irrelevant to the question. Which actor brings more fannies to the seats?
There are only 2 other actors with Cruise’s bankability, Tom Hanks and Harrison Ford.
They are worth every penny they get.
… And they do it for the money!
I’m just saying the guy doesn’t impress me-way too bland.
Cruise
Oh right, Tom. And I suppose you made Endless Love, Risky Business, Losin’ It, Cocktail, The Firm, Days of Thunder and the two Mission: Impossible movies for their artistic qualities? Tom Cruise is perhaps the most overrated and overpaid actor in film history. Yes, he’s inprobably good-looking, but can’t we just have a picture of him in the corner of the screen and let someone who can act well consistently have his parts?
I’d like to jump in here for a moment.
I’ve had lunch with TC and a, to remain unamed, publisher from Dallas and I can tell you he is anything but a prick. More like a kid in a candy store. Very polite, very personable. But he’s human. If you had people sticking mikes in your face everywhere you went asking you the same stupid questions, you would eventually say something that would rub some people wrong. Out of all the millions of words Tom has been quoted on, you chose the ones that made him sound like a prick. If I had everything on tape that you said for the last 10 yrs I bet I could make you sound like a jerk, too.
A pet peeve of mine is people somehow thinking that people in the movie industry should (fill in your thinking here). They are not public services, they are not community standard setters. They are corporations. Corporations act in their own best self-intrest. That intrest is to make money. Not art. To that end, they calculate how much an individual can bring to a theater and offer to pay him/her accordingly. (see astorian’s last post here)
John Cusack is a fine actor, maybe better than Tom, but, bottom line, he can’t fill seats like Tom can. Like it or not that’s a fact of life!
$2.5 Billion dollars. You rich arrogant bastard.
And since Otto slipped under me, I’d like to add that actors don’t control artistic quality, the director does.
Great movies have been make on much more flimsey premises than the ones you menyioned.
Um…“mentioned”.
Oh, I’d say he’s said other things which make him sound like a prick. “I’ll sue someone who I think said I’m gay because being thought of as gay might hurt my image as a macho action star” leap to mind. That’s not a direct quote but then I don’t have a copy of Tom’s filing in front of me.
Of course actors contribute and perhaps even control artistic quality. But that’s not the point I was making. Cruise claimed that he’s never done work for money. I took that to mean that he’s never taken a role in a movie just for a paycheck, and I don’t believe it.
I’d say he means he never held down a REAL job like the rest of us.
(OK, maybe not)
Let’s see, other possible answers:
“Absolutely not. I think Hollywood way over-compensates. I’d like to be making the SAG minimum or just above for what I do–afterall, I’m just a pretty face.”
“Fair? Do you have any idea how much taxes come out of those colossal salaries?!”
“No, please pay me less.”
Imagine, if you will, that your job was only guaranteed for 6 or 12 months, and then you were looking for work again? And, if you’re last job didn’t go so hot–it’s not like the only way a potential future employer will know is by talking to HR at your old company. A Hollywood flop gets plastered all over the news all around the world. People can look up the box office like checking their own bank balance and see if your last project didn’t make the dinero and so goes your salary…
Are the salaries excessive? Perhaps. Ok, probably–just like sports-salaries that are in the stratosphere, but as mentioned before, salaries are based on bankability and filling theater seats. If you can guarantee to make a studio back their expense and then some, you can earn colossal salaries.
As far as doing it for the money, I suspect what he means is that he never took a real stinko project just because they offered him big money. You might criticize some of his movies as crap, but imagine what he’s turned down. Probably not one of us has any idea just how many scripts get passed his way. Furthermore, he can now afford to pick and choose projects, so it’s not about money…$2.1, $2.2 billion–what’s the diff when you’re talking amounts that high. He can pick the one he wants to do and have fun with, and it doesn’t have to be a money issue…
Besides, it’s such a double-standard that people criticize those in artistic fields for earning a living at “art”…the minute they start earning good money for doing something creative that they love doing, everyone seems to decide they have the right to call them “sell outs.”
Have to say, that for me personally, no matter how humble or honest I like to try and stay, I’d never turn down a raise from my boss–even if I didn’t feel I ‘earned’ it, and I doubt any of you would either–let alone announce to the world you didn’t deserve your salary!
Hey, I didn’t say that was the only thing he has said that came off prick-ish - just that the OP chose a prick-ish sounding quote. As an actor, I don’t think he’s that great, and there are certainly better, many better. But as a human, I find he is a great guy. So he’s cute - you gonna hold that against him? Too many people lose site of the fact that ‘news’ (and entertianment news) is entertainment. They want controvercy. It goes to ratings and their saleries.
This, of course, is completely false.
warmgun
Well, yeah, you kinda did say that.
Performers don’t contribute to the quality of their own performances and the productions in which those performances appear? Are you seriously suggesting this?
Many people say both athletes and movie stars are overpaid.
Ironically, 50 years ago both groups were barely scraping by. Slave labor would be an accurate description of their situation. We look back on those times and feel pity on the brilliant players and actors of yesteryear who could barely make ends meet but would be multi millionaires today. And we look at the multi-millionaires of today with scorn. Why is that?
The thing that I find humorous is the fundemental difference between high priced actors and athletes: ticket prices. It’s almost as if the cause and effect are reversed for the two. An athlete is paid based on ability and then ticket prices are set accordingly. But ticket prices stay the same at a movie and WE decide if the actor is good or not…thus justifying their price increase by the studios.
It’s strange, actually. If ticket prices went up like sports tickets did, studios would go bankrupt.
No, I didn’t. The ‘from’ is understood (…you chose <from> the ones…).
So now you are saying they contribute to their own performances rather than the artistic quality of the film?
Still, the answer is no. They contribute to their own performances but the director has the final say as to how they will perform a scene. It’s the directors job. That’s why studios hire them. They are like conductors. Can you imagine how a symphony would sound if each musician played a piece any ol’ way he or she wanted?
And as for the ‘Artistic Quality’ of a film this involves, (in no particular order), the: Producer, Director, Cinematographer, Editor, Screenwriter, etc…
Actors **do not ** control the artistic quality of a film unless they are also the director.
They can affect it with bad acting and to a lesser degree with good acting.
warmgun, I think you’re making it too black and white.
A director generally won’t tell an actor, “ok raise your right eyebrow on this beat, and curl your lip after you say that, and give me that little tic you do at the end.” He’ll just say, “play this scene as a psychotic.”
That’s an over-simplification, but I think you get the picture (so to speak).
He trusts the actor - his fellow artist - to contribute to the artistic value of the scene. While the director has final say on the mood of how a scene should be played, and it what goes in the final cut, the actors are very much contributing to the artistic qualities of a film.
I think Tom has been PRODUCING most of his own flicks lately and he (Tom) hand picks the director and oversees the development of the script.
Tom stars in Tom Cruise movies. John Cusack stars in John Cusack movies. Tom couldn’t do what John does and John couldn’t do what Tom does. (John as Maverick or Ethan Hunt? or Tom as any Cusack character?)
While you are absolutely correct about how athletes and actors were basically made slaves of their respective systems (in Hollywood it was known as “the Studio System” and it took Olivia De Haviland to break that deal up; In baseball it was the reserve clause).
However there is really is no difference between ticket prices and salaries. Ticket prices are determined strictly by what people are willing to pay. Ticket prices are not determined by what athlete’s or actors are paid but are determined by how much more revenue they bring the steam/studio. There are some fundamental differences. Movies play at several venues competeing against other movies, generally meaning there is rarely a shortage of avaiable tickets and increased demand can be met accordingly. However, pro sports generally have limited numbers of available seats, so if demand goes up (say by signing a margquee player), the only real option is to raise ticket prices.
A interesting question is why are more popluar movies prices the same on the ir opening weeke d as movies that have been out for a month or so?
As for the OP. Tom Cruise makes a movie and it grosses $150. If without Cruis it makes $100 million then I would sya Cruis is worth a cool $50 million for that movie. But given the risk and such I guess $25 million is fair.
Tretiak, to further that discussion on Tom Cruise’s worth, did you know that he’s in the Guiness Book of World Records? He has starred in five consecutive movies that have grossed over $100 million in the theatres, which no one else has ever done. So either he really is an actor worthy of the money he’s making, or he’s just another schmo who happens to be insanely lucky in picking good movies to star in.
Tretiak
Well, no. First, please tell me why it’s a good business decision to pay TC fifty million if you assume that he will add fifty million to the gross. That’s the same return for you with fifty million more in risk. You’d never do that, especially if you were a smart wealthy movie executive.
Second, you are talking about “gross”. You even said the word. Gross means before cost of goods sold. The theater takes a biiiiig slice of the screen gross. I think it’s close to half. Advertising costs come out of that gross number as well. So if a movie grosses $150, it may have netted $75, and that’s being generous. The difference in net in the two movies you describe is 25 million. Now it doesn’t start to look like such a good deal for the studios.
The conventional wisdom is that stars like Cruise “open” a picture. They are responsible for a bangup first weekend, and then the movie floats on its merits (or sinks under the lack thereof) after that. If Cruise in a typical Cruise picture can get ten million people to come out and plunk down eight bucks, he is worth about 25 million. More specialized minds than ours have done the math.
To further muddy the waters, Cruise in particular is very popular overseas. With many big-budget films, the studios don’t really make dollar one until they start distributing the thing worldwide. More influence for Cruise, more justification for his paycheck.