No-talent hacks being paid endless amounts of money. [Archive]

Tom Samborski

12-02-2003, 06:31 PM

I just saw that Justin Timberlake and Cameron Diaz earn money somewhere in the $20-25 million dollar range. Britney Spears earns just about the same amount. What is wrong with this picture? About a million things. Some people work their asses off to get paid, there are really good actors who have to work to earn even $25,000 a year. But all these HACKS have to do is to make movies no matter how crappy they are, or lip-sync some really crappy song off their really crappy album, and BAM, they're rich just like that. Those kind of people don't deserve even a cent. Sure, they're famous and drawing all the media attention. But I think the salary of an actor or singer should be based on their talent. If you're an average worker, and you're working really hard- you get a raise. If you sit on your ass, do a little bit of work here and there, you don't get a raise in the everyday workforce. The same should go to celebrities as well IMO.

Grebdron

12-02-2003, 06:38 PM

They are paid according to what they draw. And many people make good livings off of them. Britney's an industry unto herself. Probably employs about 100 people.

I'd say they're worth it. If they sell albums, and put asses in seats when they tour, they'll get paid.

Beeblebrox

12-02-2003, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
But I think the salary of an actor or singer should be based on their talent.

And who gets to define "talent"? You?

I think the system works pretty well. Most famous people, with a few exceptions, got where they are because of their talent. And if they didn't get there because of talent, then they've sustained their stardom with talent. You may not like them but enough people do to keep them on top and rolling in dough. That's true of writers, directors, actors, singers, any kind of creative career.

If you're an average worker, and you're working really hard- you get a raise. If you sit on your ass, do a little bit of work here and there, you don't get a raise in the everyday workforce.

Maybe in Fantasy Land. But the real world is full of people who work hard with little to no reward or recognition, and just as many people who rise to the top based on nothing but their name or their connections. Our current President is a perfect example.

In fact, I'd argue that Hollywood is much more meritocratic compared to the corporate world.

Tom Samborski

12-02-2003, 06:44 PM

The main reason why Britney's an industry to herself is all the sex-appeal and what people see to the eyes. If you look at her concerts, there are endless amounts of visual equipment. I'm pretty sure without it, and without all those big-ass speakers, people would be bored stiff.

It wasn't Britney that put people in those seats, it was her appeal to the eyes. People go to her concerts because they are being sucked in by all the hype and publicity, even if she can't sing for shit.

Tom Samborski

12-02-2003, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Maybe in Fantasy Land. But the real world is full of people who work hard with little to no reward or recognition, and just as many people who rise to the top based on nothing but their name or their connections. Our current President is a perfect example.

You are right on the President, that's for sure. But I'm not talking about recognitions or awards, I'm talking about salary. To me, it's who deserves it enough. The president isn't one of those people.

Grebdron

12-02-2003, 06:47 PM

But they're STILL going to see Britney. Regardless of what you think about her, enough people pay to see/hear her for it to be profitable, even while shelling out 25 million just to her. Somebody should get that money. What, you think the promoters should?

Beeblebrox...how did a thread about people in Hollywood making too much money spur you on to discussing Bush?

Please don't let yet another thread degrade into how bad you think everything right is.

Tom Samborski

12-02-2003, 06:50 PM

I think the money should go to the venue, technicians, and promoters who organized the event to have her perform. Talent-wise, I think a person like Spears deserves, um, 0.000000001% of the ticket money.:D

Quite a few people enjoy Britney's music. But in my mind, more people think her music is crap.

Grebdron

12-02-2003, 06:57 PM

But the venues, technicians, etc. all make a decent living off of the performers.

Whether or not you think she's talented, or even the majority of people think she's untalented, enough people do to make it profitable for a LOT of people.

Think about it. There are somewhere around 400 million people in the US. If a vast majority, say 90% of those people think Britney's a hack, that still leaves 40 million people that are willing to pay...to see Britney. Or buy her album. Or buy some fucking doll made in her likeness.

Nobody's going to buy a doll made in Becky, the drive-thru chick at Wendy's image.

Britney sells...Britney is perfectly entitled to reap the benefits.

Jon Lyrik

12-02-2003, 06:57 PM

I think it's ridiculous that many actors get payed $30 million while generally the directors get almost zilch, at least in comparison.

Why the hell do they need these massive salaries? They are already multi-millionaires.

Grebdron

12-02-2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
I think it's ridiculous that many actors get payed $30 million while generally the directors get almost zilch, at least in comparison.

It's the same thing...

The very successful directors, teh ones people pay to see, make the big bucks. The less successful directors make less.

People aren't going to go see a movie cause Grebdron's directing. But if I get Tom Cruise to star...that will draw.

The right people are making the money, whether we think they're good or not.

Tom Samborski

12-02-2003, 07:01 PM

The fact that Britney Spears is Britney Spears is the only reason people are going to see her at the concerts. The fact that she has a lot of people to keep her salary going simply shows that those people are mindless. The fact that a lot of people have extremely shitty tastes in music is why Britney Spears is getting paid lots of money.

Grebdron

12-02-2003, 07:03 PM

That's entirely possible, Tom.

Don't get me wrong...I don't like her music either. And have never bought anything with Britney on it.

But people are.

Even if it is just for her looks, or the sexy image she's selling...what makes that different from a supermodel?

Jon Lyrik

12-02-2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Grebdron
The very successful directors, teh ones people pay to see, make the big bucks. The less successful directors make less.

People aren't going to go see a movie cause Grebdron's directing. But if I get Tom Cruise to star...that will draw.

Yeah, I know. Only directors like Spielberg or Bruckheimer/Bay or George Lucas get salaries in mass doses.

And the latter ain't true. I'd pay to see it. :)

Grebdron

12-02-2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
And the latter ain't true. I'd pay to see it. :)

Let's see...you, my g/f (maybe), my family, and a dozen or so schmoes.

My flick might gross $200.

I'm on it!

Beeblebrox

12-02-2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
You are right on the President, that's for sure. But I'm not talking about recognitions or awards, I'm talking about salary. To me, it's who deserves it enough. The president isn't one of those people.

I'm talking about salary too. It's very simple. In Hollywood, salary is based on demand. The more in demand you are, whether it's the audience or studio execs, the higher you get paid. And like any kind of demand, you can only control it to a very limited degree (marketing, promotion) and the rest is up to the audience.

Tom Samborski

12-02-2003, 07:31 PM

From the perspectives seen in this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the salary is based on taste. Executives in Hollywood could hire a talking piece of shit that craps ice cream, and it would be making $25 million a year- because people had the same tastes as executives. They wouldn't go to see it because of talent, they would see it simply because it was a log who could talk. Everyone has different tastes, and that's why I think there should be tougher executives who see the big picture. Executives who actually see the talent, and not because of the person's "Hollywood" appeal. It's like an overweight actress who is a really great actress getting turned down in favor of a really skinny actress who couldn't act her way out of a paper pag. This goes to show how shallow Hollywood is, these celebs are making money because of their looks, their name, and not their talent.

Executives are shallow. People are shallow.

Grebdron

12-02-2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
Executives are shallow. People are shallow.

Thread closed. Everything that needs to be said is summed up in that one line.;)

Beeblebrox

12-02-2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
Everyone has different tastes, and that's why I think there should be tougher executives who see the big picture.

No, what you're asking is that everyone in the world bend their decisions around YOUR taste (which, believe it or not, is not the definitive standard of talent).

People like what they like, and it's not your place to tell them any different, just as it's not anyone else's place to decide for you what you should and shouldn't like.

Tom Samborski

12-02-2003, 07:46 PM

I'm not telling people to bow down to me and stop listening to Britney Spears music. But I stand by the final line in my previous comment. If I were in charge of Hollywood, I wouldn't send in the troops to make people stop listening. But I stand by the final lines in my previous post. It will never happen, but I think that someday the time will come when people finally realize the true hidden talent that lies beneath the cake layers of shit. Maybe someday people will stop being shallow.

Filmmaker99

12-02-2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
I think the system works pretty well. Most famous people, with a few exceptions, got where they are because of their talent. And if they didn't get there because of talent, then they've sustained their stardom with talent. You may not like them but enough people do to keep them on top and rolling in dough.

I have to respectfully disagree. Many famous people get lucky with a break (and some slept their way to a break -- yes, it does happen), and this break led to more work until their charisma or sex appeal enabled them to get the right role to "break out."

That's not to say that it's all about luck. It isn't. But I know quite a few actors who are much more talented than many of our stars, but they are not famous. (A couple of the actors in my movie, for example.)

I can name a number of stars who are very mediocre actors, but since I work in Hollywood and the movie business, I won't do that here. I'm sure many of you can think of a few stars, male and female, who are not endowed with enormous acting talent. BUT, what they probably have instead is a lot of sex appeal & charisma, and THIS is key to who becomes a star or not.

After all, that's what we respond to on some level, whether we realize it consciously or not. And most people aren't really conscious about that.

Filmmaker99

12-02-2003, 07:54 PM

[i]Executives are shallow. People are shallow. [/B]

Exactly. It's easy to blame execs in Hollywood, but they're only giving us what the public will pay for. Thus, the rise and fall of various movie stars. If people stop spending $10 to go see 'so & so' at the movies, the studios and execs can't rely on that star to finance and sell their movie. So either the star takes a salary cut, or eventually, that star falls out of favor to headline movies.

I won't get on a rant here, but if the public was not such a slave to what the studios make and market, and went to support more independent films (that usually have better actors), we'd actually SEE more of these good actors rise to higher visability.

Beeblebrox

12-02-2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Filmmaker99
I have to respectfully disagree. Many famous people get lucky with a break (and some slept their way to a break -- yes, it does happen), and this break led to more work until their charisma or sex appeal enabled them to get the right role to "break out."

Actress A may sleep with someone to get a part. But that doesn't make the audience want her. Actors have to create that demand on their own. And it's the people who do that well that make the salaries that TS is talking about, not some producer's girlfriend who scored Victim #1 in Scream 4.

The reality is that the vast majority of successful talent is more talented than the vast majority of struggling talent. It's probably less true of actors and singers than it is directors or writers, but it's still true.

Filmmaker99

12-02-2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Actress A may sleep with someone to get a part. But that doesn't make the audience want her. Actors have to create that demand on their own. And it's the people who do that well that make the salaries that TS is talking about, not some producer's girlfriend who scored Victim #1 in Scream 4.

The reality is that the vast majority of successful talent is more talented than the vast majority of struggling talent. It's probably less true of actors and singers than it is directors or writers, but it's still true.

No, the audience will only want 'Actress A' if they see her enough times and she can break out, with casting people in LA, and then ultimately with the public.

As far as directors & writers, yes, I would agree with your above statement. With actors, I don't. It also depends upon how you define "successful talent" vs. "struggling talent." By and large, the level of actors on primetime television has gone up over the past decade, in my opinion. The cast of "West Wing" for example, are all excellent and talented.

But actors who are not on TV or in film regularly...I know a lot of them. Many I know can blow away a number of stars in talent. But they haven't "hit it," gotten their break, or don't have enough of the sex appeal that is so important for movies. Sex appeal is not as important for supporting roles on TV, but it still is important for the lead roles.

Nate6

12-02-2003, 08:12 PM

The way it is:

People want their Britney, and as long as she continues to exist, she'll reap money off of being plastic and retarded. Otherwise, we'd be Communists.

I HATE seeing people like Britney Spears making so much money. I DO NOT think she deserves it. Fight with me all you want on that point, I won't bend. We have doctors in the frontlines fighting AIDS in Africa. We have teachers working in inner-city schools trying to give students better lives. We have social workers trying to fix the lives of the mentally challenged, and children who have been molested by their parents. DON'T tell me that Britney Spears deserves better pay than these people. I just don't see it, and I worry about anyone who does.

That said, the money DOES have to go somewhere. If the people who live on this damn continent want to give Spears all this money for her "singing" and her "virginity" and her silicone boobs, then, it's her money. It may not be fair, but life isn't fair, and that's the society we live in.

Celebrities who make this money DO, however, have the opportunity to help those who are less fortunate. Do they have to? No. But I applaud those who do.

Beeblebrox

12-02-2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Filmmaker99
[B]But actors who are not on TV or in film regularly...I know a lot of them. Many I know can blow away a number of stars in talent.

A lot of people have acting ability, as far as it goes. But when I say "talent" I'm talking about something more.

I work in the business too and the actors I meet who have what it takes to be stars are few and far between, maybe a handful. And most of them do, in fact, go on to find success. I worked with Mandy Moore when she was 12 years old. She could sing, sure, but lots of people can sing. But she had something else and it was evident even then.

Those that don't have it, well, you could put them out there until the cows come home and they may work steadily, but they won't become Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise no matter what kind of breaks or opportunities they get.

Jerk Shapiro

12-02-2003, 09:50 PM

What really pisses me off are people on reality shows who end up making lots of money and shit. Especially when they didn't even win said show! Geez! You lost! You're not supposed to get a record deal!

Rated R

12-02-2003, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Nate6
The way it is:

People want their Britney, and as long as she continues to exist, she'll reap money off of being plastic and retarded. Otherwise, we'd be Communists.

I HATE seeing people like Britney Spears making so much money. I DO NOT think she deserves it. Fight with me all you want on that point, I won't bend. We have doctors in the frontlines fighting AIDS in Africa. We have teachers working in inner-city schools trying to give students better lives. We have social workers trying to fix the lives of the mentally challenged, and children who have been molested by their parents. DON'T tell me that Britney Spears deserves better pay than these people. I just don't see it, and I worry about anyone who does.

That said, the money DOES have to go somewhere. If the people who live on this damn continent want to give Spears all this money for her "singing" and her "virginity" and her silicone boobs, then, it's her money. It may not be fair, but life isn't fair, and that's the society we live in.

Celebrities who make this money DO, however, have the opportunity to help those who are less fortunate. Do they have to? No. But I applaud those who do.

This post right here sums up how I feel about this situation only put in a much more eloquent way than I could have done. Kudos Nate6, this is the best post I have read in a while. No actoor, writer, director or anyone in the entertainment industry should be making more annually than those who save lives like Doctors, etc.

I mean, I honestly think that I am a better actor than many of those in Hollywood today, but am I in any position to make it to their plateau, no...not at the moment. And I have no idea how I would reach it. But you know, I don't want the money, well I would like to be financially stable and have a nice movie collection and a nice tv...that's about it. I want to create, and I want it to be seen by everyone...and I think that feeling is lost in Hollywood . Money makes the world go round, and I don't like that at all, but I am forced to accept it due to where I live and the values presented by the government and the society around me.

Will I change the way of the world? I doubt it, but I'd like to think that I can rise above the system, at least in my heart, it may be the only way for me to save my soul...

Zebra 3

12-03-2003, 01:07 PM

This thread reminds about the old-timers outdoor NHL game that was held last week in Edmonton. The legendary former Canadiens Guy Lafleur along with another legend, former Oilers Wayne Gretzky gave interviews throughout the week prior to the main event, and Lafleur mentioned that he found it strange that so many who complained about ticket prices, overpaid players, and overall poor hockey that's in the NHL today are continuing to go to the games.

Heavenley

12-03-2003, 01:38 PM

Yes many of these celebrities get paid ridiculous amounts of money....................unfortunately life isn't fair and will never be fair, but that's life. :(

Rated R

12-03-2003, 02:10 PM

But that's life? Yeah, I guess it is...but it doesn't have to stay that way! I mean if we could actually function collectively as a society, then we might all be able to have the same opportunities as one another. God damn, I hate this world sometimes. Sorry, I am starting to veer off the course of movies.

To Money Grubbing Celebrities: Accept less money for your work, you have enough that you could work for free the rest of your life if you aren't completely stupid with your money! If you could see it in your pea-sized brains that money isn't the most important thing in life, yet enough to crush those who don't have any, then just take a pay cut down from 10 million per movie to 5 million...is that such a bad request?

The Postmaster General

12-03-2003, 02:33 PM

It's like how McDonalds burgers aren't really that good, but they are the most sold burgers in the world.

SykkBoy

12-03-2003, 04:14 PM

Wow, a lot of money envy happening here...

If a celebrity's talent, image, ability, etc. earns the studios, the bosses, etc. a lot of money, why shouldn't they be rewarded for that? Why shouldn't THEY be the ones who profit? If I'm a salesman, I'm based upon my earnings performance, so why should a performer, an actor/actress or athlete be any different?

The "if I ran a studio..." thing is mainly bullshit. If you run a studio, you are responsible for insuring the studio is making a profit. YOU are accountible to the board of directors, investors, etc. The entertainment business is just that, a business. Sure some celebs can ride a wave of previous success into mediocrity, but that can only last so long. Once your name on the marquee stops bringing in the crowds, it's downhill and straight to video work from there...

Britney Spears, while not my cup of tea, brings in a lot of revenue (regardless of the reasons) so why shouldn't she profit from that? Isn't she the "sales person" earning a commission? Why should the technicians, promoters, etc. make all of the money? They wouldn't have a job in the first place if not for all those tickets being sold...she's known to give away millions per year to charities...how much have YOU given? I know my contributions are dwarfed by hers, that's for sure.

How much of rants like these are based upon jealousy and envy? I'd say a majority.

Grebdron

12-03-2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by SykkBoy
Wow, a lot of money envy happening here...

If a celebrity's talent, image, ability, etc. earns the studios, the bosses, etc. a lot of money, why shouldn't they be rewarded for that? Why shouldn't THEY be the ones who profit? If I'm a salesman, I'm based upon my earnings performance, so why should a performer, an actor/actress or athlete be any different?

The "if I ran a studio..." thing is mainly bullshit. If you run a studio, you are responsible for insuring the studio is making a profit. YOU are accountible to the board of directors, investors, etc. The entertainment business is just that, a business. Sure some celebs can ride a wave of previous success into mediocrity, but that can only last so long. Once your name on the marquee stops bringing in the crowds, it's downhill and straight to video work from there...

Britney Spears, while not my cup of tea, brings in a lot of revenue (regardless of the reasons) so why shouldn't she profit from that? Isn't she the "sales person" earning a commission? Why should the technicians, promoters, etc. make all of the money? They wouldn't have a job in the first place if not for all those tickets being sold...she's known to give away millions per year to charities...how much have YOU given? I know my contributions are dwarfed by hers, that's for sure.

How much of rants like these are based upon jealousy and envy? I'd say a majority.

Which is what I've been saying all along.;)

Rated R

12-03-2003, 07:15 PM

Wouldn't call what I feel envy, just bewilderment that Doctors and Teachers who are way more important in the grand scheme of things are paid less than those in the entertainment industry...oh well. Now I supppose you could say that I could stop spending money on entertainment, but I can't. I love it too much, so if that makes me a hypocrite, well damn, I'm a hypocrite. I love movies, but I don't agree with the monetary aspects of it.

Jon Lyrik

12-04-2003, 03:43 PM

Beeblebrox

12-04-2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Rated R
[B]Wouldn't call what I feel envy, just bewilderment that Doctors and Teachers who are way more important in the grand scheme of things are paid less than those in the entertainment industry...oh well.

You make an important point here, RR. I don't think this animosity comes from jealousy. I think it comes more from a sense of injustice, that income and wealth should somehow be based on who "deserves" it more. But wealth has NEVER been based on that.

But there are greater disparities that somehow sneak under our radar that never engender the kind of outrage leveled at celebrities. For example, 60% of this nation's wealth is inherited. 5 of the top 10 wealthiest people in the world were born into it (and also happen to be siblings). Did they do anything to deserve that money? Paris Hilton will have more money when she turns 21 than most of us will make in a lifetime. Does she deserve it?

If we're going to be outraged, if we're going to do something about disparities of wealth, then there are better place to start than performers.

MarkItZero

12-04-2003, 04:55 PM

Perhaps those of you who havent figured it out yet should take an Econ course. In chapter 1 you will learn about 'Supply and Demand'. That should answer all of your questions.

Lynn7

12-04-2003, 06:02 PM

Tom,
This was a great topic. You know, I've often thought like that too and yet these actors and singers face a lot of obstacles on their way up- they get booed off the stage or passed over,etc. Some of them finally make it and become millionaires but many more don't. I admire anyone, whether in entertainment or business who keep pushing toward their goals. Britney has been at this since she was little and worked hard before she was ever famous. I don't like her singing but she is a great dancer.

My main complaint is that once there is a successful actress or actor, they are cast in all of the good roles. I know it's supply and demand but it is tiring to see the same people over and over in films, especially cause it's distracting from the story line. I might go to see Mona Lisa Smiles if it wan't Julia Roberts again, but I don't think I can watch her in another movie. That being said, I'm sure because she is in it it'll make a lot of money.

Quiver

12-04-2003, 07:14 PM

My reply is mostly gonna be directed at the original rant, which basically said that undeserving, or "untalented" actors were getting more money than more talented actors (if I misconstrued the rant, forgive me - it's been a long day)

The best way I can sum this up is by comparing it to one of my other loves - Wrestling (Easy Greb, this wont last long;) )

In the WWE, there is a wrestler byt he name of Chris Benoit, who is universally recoginzed as probably one of the best technical grapplers in the world today. However, he is continuously overshadowed by other less talented grapplers like the Rock and Steve Austin. Why? Because their talents are different from his. They may not be as great of in-ring technicians as Benoit, but they are great on the mike, and have alot of charisma. This makes them more marketable to the public.

The same can be said for Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake. Their singing may not be as grand as some others, but they have a very marketable look and persona which caters to many people around the world. I think that Steve Buscemi (sp) is a really great actor, but he is not marketable as a big name star in major motion pictures because he does not have the "look", or that "it" element that audiences crave. He may be one of the best supporting actors around out there, but he will never star in a big time hollywood epic, earning him millions of dollars, whereas someone like Julia Roberts, who has somewhat less talent than him, will continue to get big roles because she clicks with what people want.

All in all, I guess I just re-hashed what alot here have already said. Hope I did not waste too much time.

(Seriously tho, what is it about Julia Roberts that makes her such a big star? I dont think she's that hot, and her roles always seem to be playing the same character...but maybe that's just my opinion)

Beeblebrox

12-04-2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Quiver
They may not be as great of in-ring technicians as Benoit, but they are great on the mike, and have alot of charisma. This makes them more marketable to the public.

That pretty much sums up what I said only I think you made the point better than I did.

(Seriously tho, what is it about Julia Roberts that makes her such a big star? I dont think she's that hot, and her roles always seem to be playing the same character...but maybe that's just my opinion) [/B]

I think it was women that made Julia a big star, not men. So her "hotness" has nothing to do with it. It's a comination of the roles she's chosen for herself (a very underestimated talent) and her vulnerability or relatability on screen.