We’re just going to have to agree to disagree. It’s a matter of opinion. On your side is you, and on my side is me and the numerous professional critics I’ve heard praising the superb acting in any number of independant movies in which the cast are being paid a pittance compared to the type of actors the OP is talking about.
To quote you, “you miss the point.”
I’m not saying actors in independent movies can’t be great. I never said that nor do I believe anything close to it. It’d be a silly notion to think if you knew me, considering I probably watch at least 10 indies for every studio movie. What I’m saying is that the number of great actors divided by the general population gives you a miniscule little tiny percentage. As a secondary point, I’m just saying that big-name actors are generally a lot better than they get credit for, even the “bad” ones. Go pluck a guy off the street and put him in a scene with Keanu Reeves, and there’s a 99.999% chance that Keanu is gonna come off looking like Sir Laurence Olivier.
If you really want to keep a small set of big-name actors from making huge paychecks for each performance, here’s what you do: Whenever you’re considering going to a movie, look at who’s starring in it. If it has a bunch of actors who usually make a lot of money for each role (which basically means that it has actors that you’ve heard of before), don’t go to it. Instead, go to a film with unknown actors, who are presumably not making much money for their roles. Whenever you’re considering watching a TV show, look who’s starring in it. If it stars actors who usually make a lot of money for each role (which basically means that it has actors that you’ve heard of before), don’t watch it. Only watch TV shows with unknown actors. Whenever you’re considering going to a play, look at who’s starring in it. If it has actors that you’ve heard of before, don’t go to it. Only see plays with unknown actors.
If everyone did this, it would very quickly eliminate any reason for producers to pay actors huge salaries. If producers knew that famous actors didn’t bring in any additional viewers than unknown ones, they would soon decide to quit paying the famous ones large salaries. What? You say that you want to watch certain famous actors? Well, then you will have to tolerate them having large salaries. You can’t have both people demanding that famous actors star in the movies, TV shows, and plays they see and actors not making large salaries. It’s as simple as that.
This thread is about the money and if I’m reading him right, one of the points that **Guanolad **was making is that the huge sums some actors make is not as a consequence of scarcity of the commodity “great acting ability”.
It may well be the case that the number of people with “great acting ability” is is small as you assert. However, if Indie actors that are great are not making a huge amount of money, then the scarcity of great acting talent is not the reason some actors make huge amounts of money.
Consequently, the point that **Guanolad **makes is a good one, in the context of this thread, and your point about scarcity of great acting ability is a non sequitur.
Uhhg, read the damn OP for fuck’s sake. He says “all they do is act.” I’m saying that’s a rarer commodity than he realizes.
Actually he asks why they get paid millions when all they can do is act. And the answer, as I have clearly explained, cannot lie in acting ability since there are great actors (as you have admitted) in Indie films not being paid millions. Your point is a non sequitur
:rolleyes: I’m sure he was making a distinction between a guy who gets 2 mil for a studio picture and a guy who gets 85 grand for an indie. I mean, his OP was so well thought-out and nuanced and all . . .
Damn. I always get that wrong.
Let’s see if I understand. You’re saying “it’s easy for me, so it’s easy for everybody, only for some reason there’s lots of people (which I’ve observed firsthand) who don’t find it easy at all.”
Am I the only one who thinks that’s not very logical? It’s like me saying “I have no problem visualizing things in 3D, so people who can’t do it or who think it’s difficult are…” what? Liars? Morons? Gullible?
The fact that acting is “easy for you” doesn’t mean it’s “easy.”
Apparently so. It still surprises me, because it doesn’t involve an innate talent, like singing or art or whatever - it’s just talking like normal. How hard can that be?
I think it was Katherine Hepburn who said that “Acting isn’t hard; Shirley Temple could do it when she was five.” 
Still, when you see someone who really isn’t a very good actor it makes you appreciate the skills of those who can.
I think you’re either vastly overrating your own ability, or you don’t understand what good acting is. You say the only reason you’re not a big Hollywood star is because you’re too ugly, but are you really uglier than John C. Reilly, Steve Buscemi, and Kathy Bates? I find that hard to believe.
FYI, there was an article in the New York Times yesterday about the poor results achieved by the summer movies that starred A-list actors. The article quotes an economist who argues that the big stars are not worth the $20 million salaries. And there are some movies that have done well without any big-name stars.
Because with more actors who could guarantee a profit, they’d make more movies and thus increase their total profits. The number of movies made, especially now, doesn’t have a real limit.
If agents didn’t cause an at least 10% increase in salary, they wouldn’t exist, would they?
Maybe your question should be “why do celebrities make so much?” There is a big difference between a celebrity and an actor.
As soon as an actor stops making money for other people, he won’t get the big salary anymore. You have to consider also that an actor who can bring in millions for other people deserves more not just because he is acting, but because of his celebrity. People come to see him, not a random person, even if someone else is a better actor. The cast of Friends, for example, earned huge salaries but they also made lots of money for other people.
Should we cap an actor’s salary at, say, $1 million per movie, even if having his name attached to the picture makes hundreds of millions for the producers? The money a movie makes is going to someone. Why shouldn’t the actors get their fair share? Producers don’t want big names because their acting is better, they want big names because the make more money that way. Most terrific actors live quite modestly and have relatively short and/or sporadic careers.
I have a suggestion. Go look up the name of a legitimate agent, call him or her up, and ask for an audition. See what happens. Do this for a couple of agents if you want.
You sound just like a lot of parents I knew when my daughter was acting. “My kid can do it, we just haven’t gotten around to it.” My observation was that acting at the professional level is easy if you have it, and impossible if you don’t. I won’t talk about great acting, just acting enough to make a bunch of money.
When my daughter first auditioned at an open call, she was asked to say “I love Cheerios.” That was enough for them to filter out somewhere over 95% of the kids who were there. If you’ve ever been in a room full of professional children, the difference between them and regular children is very clear.
No, it is not just talking normally. Some people have charisma, and some people don’t. SA’s quote is right on - Shirley Temple had it to the extreme. If you really want to see if you have it, go to an agent.
“I’m not an actor, I’m a movie star!” - Peter O’Toole, My Favorite Year
They don’t get the extra pay for their acting ability.
They get it because of their ability to draw an audience. This has nothing to do with their acting ability.
Will Smith is not a great actor. He isn’t terrible but he isn’t great. He has tremendous appeal. White audiences love him. Black audiences love him. Men love him. Women love him. So he gets the big paycheck.
Well, why don’t you take it up and find out? If it’s so easy, we should expect you to be raking in the big bucks pretty soon. Don’t tell us you’re ugly; that’s no excuse. As has been pointed out there are many unattractive but very successful actors.
I’ll bet good money you’ll fail miserably, though, because here’s the fact, Jack; it’s a lot harder than it looks. But by all means, prove us wrong.
Of course it isn’t. Actors don’t talk like normal AT ALL. They make you think they are, but they aren’t. If they talked the way people normally do they’d look like retards on screen - eighty percent of what they said would have nothing to do with the movie, they’d be mumbling, repeating themselves, and you’d barely be able to hear them. Dramatic dialogue is generally very different from natural speech.
Holy crap, people, I didn’t say I was amazingly award-winningly good at it, I just said it was easier than a lot of people seem to think.
I don’t want to be an actor. I’m not ugly, as Cisco twisted my comments into, but I have no charisma, and the camera does not love me. I move awkwardly and am completely inappropriate for any role you can imagine. I would be out of place as a background extra on Big Bang Theory.
What I am saying is, having been around actors a lot in the past fifteen years, they can’t seem to grasp the most basic fundamental of talking like a real person does, even though everybody talks like a real person does every day! It should be the easiest thing in the world to translate one to the other; I know I can do it, so why can’t everybody else?
Now everyone is claiming that such a thing is not easy, but haven’t articulated why it’s such a difficulty. I would love to hear an explanation.
Please note, I realise there are such challenges as laughing convincingly on cue, or crying at the drop of a hat, which I admit are talents that take some experience and skill.