Well kinda like actors, writers can make a ton of money, but most don’t.
Why wouldn’t it? If actor A wants $20M for the part, and Actor B is just down the block, why wouldn’t the execs go and offer it to B for $10M? If Actor A has some unique properties that Actor B doesn’t have, then we don’t truly have a large supply of actors that the movie makers are interested in. But if either one can be expected to fill the same # of seats, then we have two workers competing for the same job; that should bring wages down.
That’s as may be, but a done deal means the execs were willing to pay whatever the agent asked for. If the agent asks too much (i.e. more than “fair market value”), the deal doesn’t happen.
What about it isn’t “free?” No government interference, no central planning, just buyers and sellers interacting of their own free will: sure sounds like a free market to me. That each transaction contains varying attributes (e.g. actor really wants the part cuz it’s cool/breakthrough so he’ll do it for less, there’s an agent/union representing the actor, etc.) doesn’t make it an un-free market.
By the way, just to corroborate what people are saying about the OP’s premise being faulty to begin with with some data:
Actors don’t make a lot of money.
Median hourly earning of actors in 2006 was $11.61. Also “Annual earnings data for actors were not available because of the wide variation in the number of hours worked by actors and the short-term nature of many jobs, which may last for 1 day or 1 week; it is extremely rare for actors to have guaranteed employment that exceeded 3 to 6 months.”
You’ll notice that these are all areas where mass media make it possible for a single person to entertain millions. By contrast one lawyer can only handle so many clients, and one doctor can only treat so many patients.
Where a single person can take a large fraction of the market, you have a winner-takes-all market, where slight differences in ability make huge differences in salary. If the entire NBA went off to Galt’s Gulch and were replaced by benchers, the entertainment value of the NBA would be virtually unchanged. So this system has a few big winners and lots of losers with mediocre salaries.
You see the same kind of thing going on with CEO pay. And as IT progresses, more and more professions will be able to have one guy handle a large number of clients. So this winner-takes-all template will only increase in frequency in the future.
Yeah, I was talking about in the world of $100+ million movies.
I think it’s a lot easier than it’s made out to be. The problem is most actors aren’t especially good at it, so the fact that so few are good creates the “acting is hard” statistic by default.
I think Hollywood has to reign in its excessive paypackets. I don’t mind actors getting paid more than other professions, but the sheer gargantuan nature of the elite level paypackets is just getting too ridiculous.
Why? Who are they accountable to? You?
Unlike a public official who is accountable to the taxpayers, or a CEO who is accountable to his company’s shareholders, actors are accountable to exactly no one. You have no ground to stand on with such a complaint.
They will get paid whatever the market allows. If you want to reign in actor pay, stop going to movies and convince everyone else in America to do so as well. They won’t get paid anything, because movies won’t exist anymore.
If it’s so easy, you try it. Go out and get a Hollywood contract.
I’ll wait.
It’s not that easy to get a license as a taxi driver in NYC, either. Doesn’t mean driving’s hard. Cartels and cartel-like behavior matter.
I don’t want to be an actor, thanks. It seems to be too hard to find employment as an actor.
But I have acted on stage, and things that many people found difficult I found to be very easy to do. Having said that, I know I’d encounter some challenges that didn’t come as naturally, but I believe it would not have been difficult for me to break those barriers down and improve my techniques.
I’m not saying it’s the simplest thing ever, I just don’t think it’s quite as difficult as it’s made out to be by some.
That seems to be a bit sarcastic.
They are accountable to me, because the ridiculously high cost to make a movie is partly due to actor’s paypackets, which reduces the number of movies made, and reduces the work available for great directors and writers, which means great ideas don’t get realised, and we all miss out.
Just stop it with the 30mil paypackets, and reign it back into the $1mil maximum. I think that is a reasonable wish.
You have absolutely no clue. The worst actor you’ll ever see in a widely distributed movie is a thousand times better than what an average person could do. Go spend some time on a few ultra-low or no-budget sets and your opinion will change so fast your head will spin. And these are typically people who shined in their high school and college drama classes, which were full of people who were better than the average person just by virtue of wanting to hone their skills. I’ve been studying acting and working in films for 6 or 7 years now and I suck compared to pretty much any Hollywood star. And I’m way better than pretty much anyone who is just starting out.
There are probably more legitimately gifted neurosurgeons in the world than legitimately gifted actors.
Step 1: Be a great actor
Step 2: Lock yourself in a box in the basement of an abandoned building in the middle of nowhere and tell no one
Step 3: Producers will be prying that box open to offer you money before sunup
Substitute “write a great script” and lock that away instead of yourself, for those who say selling a script is too hard.
I do. I’ve been involved in filmmaking and theatre for the past 15 years.
Maybe I’m not aritculating myself very well. I will clarify my stand.
I am NOT saying: Acting is easy, anyone can do it, it’s a mug’s game.
I AM saying: Acting is not as difficult as people think, all you have to do is learn your lines, be in the moment, and speak naturalistically.
I had considered trying out to be an actor, but it was more of a hobby for me than a career choice, so I never pursued it. Though I have done a little bit here and there. All amateur productions, though, for what that’s worth.
Unfortunately I am not as unfeasibly handsome and charismatic as an actor needs to be, even for a character actor, which is a huge count against me. Plus, I live in the arse end of the world.
But what I have seen, as I have observed all the amateur and professional productions that I have been involved in, is that a lot of actors don’t seem to have figured out the “naturalistic” side of things. And to me that’s the easiest part. To me that’s just so surprising, I can’t understand it.
I hope you come and see me in the movies
Then I’ll know that you will plainly see
The biggest fool that ever hit the big time
And all I gotta do is act naturally
Being a tennis pro is not as difficult as people think, all you have to do is learn the rules of the game, and get good at hitting the ball over the net in bounds on the other side of the court.
Very few things is life (if any) are difficult enough to warrant multi-million dollar salaries just because the job is so darned hard. However, difficulty is not the only factor that comes into play when people get paid. And, just because something is hard to do doesn’t mean a person deserves a lot of money for it.
Because what it’s about at the very top end of town is mostly name recognition and familiarity and fashion. There is only room for so many Brads, Harrisons and Arnolds. If you could somehow dump onto the market a large number of other famous actors instantaneously, my guess is that it would quickly whittle down to about the number there is now: people only have time to absorb so many movies and so much gossip.
You miss the point. One can find superb acting in independant movies. Its common to see supporting actors who act better than the stars they supporting. There are any number of household name actors who have been famously wooden.
The money is proportional to the extent to which one is a drawcard, not the extent to which one can act. You can say acting is hard and good acting is a scarce commodity, both of which may well be true, but they are not statements relevant to the topic, since they don’t correlate to the money.
No, I don’t. The point is that good actors are extremely rare, and even the “wooden” big-name actors are far better than people realize. As far above the average person as an MLB player is above your aunt Sally.
Well, if we’re gonna stick exactly to the topic it’s going to be a short thread, because it’s kind of a dumb question. Big-name actors make a lot of money because they generate a lot of money. Duh.
FYI, it’s rein in (as in horses’ reins), not reign in (as in a king’s reign).