The Dimming of Star Power in Hollywood
Today's New York Times carried a revealing article titled "A-List Stars Flailing At The Box Office", which raises some pressing questions facing the movie business today.
Lo and behold, industry insiders are shocked (shocked!) and mightily troubled by the revelation that Hollywood's top stars are not opening films the way they used to.
Could it be that Denzel and Julia no longer merit guaranteed twenty million dollar paydays with every picture? And if so, what precisely has happened?
Here's my own theory: the buying public is not as stupid as Hollywood executives seem to believe. You can get away with feeding audiences substandard product propped up by big names for a while, but in the absence of quality and perceived value, the inevitable happens: you start gradually but inexorably to lose your audience.
This is about as old and basic a marketing rule as you can find, and what Hollywood sells is not immune from it. And a good thing too.
In the midst of all the West Coast hand-wringing, several other factors are floated about: foremost among them, that movies face more competition from other sources of entertainment, and that in light of this, movies are a less important part of most people's lives.
That's a bit of a cop-out, isn't it? I don't think you can blame technology for making movies less important. I think you must blame the movies themselves.
As critic A.O Scott recently attested, Hollywood is relying increasingly on tried and true, youth-targeted formula films to prop up their bottom lines.
Is this focus a sound long-term strategy? I doubt it.
It makes you think: no wonder movies seem less important- the ones Hollywood really pushes aren't even intended for anyone over 21!
And those releases that might appeal to a broader audience- many featuring those big buck names like Crowe, Hanks, and Sandler- are not working so well.
Another hard and fast rule of the film business: no star can prop up a fundamentally inferior vehicle, much less a string of them.
And in my albeit somewhat biased view, our current crop of box-office draws, by virtue of their relative magnetism, are even less equipped to do it than were their more modestly paid predecessors during Hollywood's Golden Age, and directly after.
This comparison only makes the ridiculous pay packages earned by today's top movie names all the more obscene.
If you objectively gauge today's actual on-screen star wattage to what existed in prior generations, and factor in relative compensation adjusted for inflation, you see clearly that the problem is out of hand.
Though I love movies old and new, and have the website to prove it, for me Cary Grant most always trumps George Clooney, Brando in his prime outshines Sean Penn, and McQueen always seems more riveting on-screen than Brad Pitt, while Barbara Stanwyck most assuredly wins my vote over Julia Roberts.
But let's acknowledge that this view may be purely generational, or simply a matter of taste. Even if you believe today's star power burns as brightly as ever, the fact remains that the industry still pays its mega-stars many, many times what past generations have earned.
A conservative guess-timation would suggest that top star Clark Gable in the old studio system might have made about one-tenth of what Russell Crowe now takes in annually. As recently as the seventies, Paul Newman might have earned about a quarter of what Tom Cruise would receive today.
It's also worth noting that neither Gable nor Newman felt themselves badly used at the time- they both lived extremely well, and deserved to. But their pay-checks were more in line with the actual value they brought to the industry. (Actually, in the case of stars locked into studio contracts, you could make the argument they were under-valued.)
This perspective makes it clear that Hollywood needs to re-think their whole business strategy, and fast. Business as usual will no longer cut it.
I still believe the feature length film is potentially the most powerful popular medium we have. To re-capture its relevance, Hollywood will need to take more risks, make smaller, better films which appeal to a broader swath of the public, and on the cost side, dramatically re-adjust star salaries.
Those who don't accept it will risk being replaced by smart, talented up-and-comers who recognize the new reality.
Ultimately, the industry must take a longer view beyond next quarter's P&L, recognize that most of their output today is too safe, stale and familiar , and in response, put the focus back on making movies that reward their coveted viewers' time and attention.
Easier said than done, I know, but remember that Hollywood has been forced to reinvent itself before, most memorably in the late sixties and early seventies. Undoubtedly, with the right leadership, they can do it again.
Dramatically cutting top stars' inflated salaries is only a beginning- but a necessary one.
For close to 2,000 outstanding titles on DVD, visit www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com.
To see John's weekly video recommendations, go to www.reel13.org
Follow John Farr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jfarr02
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You pretty much got it when you wrote that the studio are aiming the crap they want to pass for movies at kids and that their biggest mistake because the population is aging. In an aging population it a long term recipe for disaster.
The movies these days are utter crap for the worse or one trick pony made to last one week on top of the box office for the best. This weekend it was the Final Destination 3d gimmick on top a few months ago it was Harry Potter and I would wage that between the two release not a single movie lasted more than a weekend on top of the box office.
Cheap crap made to last from Friday to Sunday and not a day more because we got that new crap to sell you next Friday. In a way the industry is now releasing what we use to call "Direct to DVD" movie in theater just to make publicity for the DVD/Blu-Ray release. The next logical step would be to start giving away movies as free download on the net and sell the extra on DVD just like Micheal Moore did last year!
Sorry I don't agree that star power is diminishing. Denzel and Julia had zero advertising for their movie which plays a BIG part these days in getting people to notice ones films. Also Brad Pitt please is a classic example of reality tv which is immensely popular and playing it up for the reality tv crowd. Julia and Denzel can disappear from the public eye, have limited or no advertising for their movies and still pull 18 million just based on people seeing their faces on a poster. They also are famous just as themselves not as part of a brand. I think people these days need to seperate reality tv stars from the movie stars who actually guard their privacy. Brad Pitt for example is a reality tv star, Kim K can get a highly rated show and make money due to little or no talent and definitely no star power. Its the reality tv concept and its not fair to actual talents to compare them to people who put their lives on display
Hello, John,
Great article, as ususal. You've tapped into one of the many problems in Hollywood. I agree with you on the salary issue. But more importantly, I believe the fim industry suffers more due to the prevailing attitude that movies-goers are simplistic, un-interested, thrill seeking dolts.
But I think this "trend" of remakes and CGI will disapate (hopefully).
Thankfully, I'm a documentary junky so it doesn't affect me as much. There are still good films being made but maybe their isn't enough publicity made about them. Perhaps, as you mentioned, cutting a salary and re-investing the money in advertising.
Although, I could go on about this subject, I believe this could be step in the right direction.
But don't dispare, John, Good Art Never dies, it just takes a break from time to time.
Take care!
Star power has very little to do with it. There is a tremendous amount of acting talent available these days, but very few motion picture vehicles deserve such talent. Only a few comments on this story have made reference to the writing, but the writing is the single most influential part of the success of a film. The unrelenting emphasis on youth in Hollywood has led the big shots to focus all resources on acquiring young writing and producing talent, and for the most part, the payoff just isn't there. A mature writer can bring great "stuff" to the youth-skewed studio bias, but rarely can a young writer bring great "stuff" to something that would interest an audience of mixed years. Depth of characterization, dialogue, and story comes with the combined sensibilities of the younger and the older, and that's what we are missing these days. Even the "B"-est of the "B" movies of the old days had good story telling. We have some exceptional acting talent out there, in every age group, but for the most part they are wasted on the formulaic, frat-boy-oriented, special-effects-laden crappola that passes for entertainment today. Bring back the writers! Bring back the character actors! Bring back the joy of filmmaking that "old" movies and foreign films exemplify. Bring back the stories, for cripes' sake!
See John Farr's Profile
I could not agree with you more.
story and script are vital.
but maybe if we paid the stars a little less and the writers a little more, we'd get better-written movies.
Yes! I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's the point. The financial as wellas the artistic balance has become skewed, and as a result, the plot -- if any-- is against the audience.
John, you're wrong about a few things. Hollywood needs to cover more ground but not in each film. Their problem has been that traditional hollywood fare is TOO broad. It's the story that "everyone" can relate to, but it ends up that no one relates to it. If you look at Independent film offerings you will find that most of your assumptions meet a brick wall. Example 500 days of Summer- a great romantic comedy, that is the most truthful rom com ever-from a boy's POV. What we need, is a more expeditious process for financing films outside the hollywood conglomerate system. There are tons of great scripts out there, it's just that they're laying around and aging in desperation, (the average script takes 5-10 years to get made). And by the time someone actually buys it they want total power to change everything. So, the writer's voice gets torn out, and is replaced by cynical know nothing producers who implement notes from the studios who want the big stars. The answer is greater infiltration of the market by independent fare (which means more advertising), which by definition is fresher, lower budget, more individualistic, and less marred by studio interference. And as evidence, take a look at the Oscars, most of the films are independent. You are so wrong about the best days of cinema being in the past. We can bring in a new wave.
What about the agents?
I think a real part of the problem is that once these actors become 20 million per picture stars, they become a one-note song. If it worked before, lets do it again and again and again. Plus, you have to realize at some point, people want something new, including new stars.
Apparently, Brad Pitt has no problem filling seats.
See John Farr's Profile
does he, and more to the point, will he fill enough of them to command these inflated salaries? I doubt it, and I hope not.
I think you guys are missing the reality that there are 2 different movie going audiences.
1-people who go to see a movie. These are folks who see a particular movie that they're interested in and go to the theater. They only go to see movies they like and are extremely disappointed when the movie isn't good. Most of the people posting comments on this article fall into this group and are the minority of the American movie going audience.
2-People who go to the movies. This group of people are much less discerning about the movie and enjoy the movie going experience. They are going to the movies this weekend and what they see doesn't matter as much, but they are going to see something. This is the majority of the audience. Typically they are younger (trying to get away from the parents for a couple of hours) They are the core of the business, so you'll make movies that appeal to them.
Actors make $20million/picture because if you mention a movie that you're interested in seeing the first question most people ask is 'Who's in it?' The star of the movie for most people will determine whether or not they go to the movies.
See John Farr's Profile
yes, but you're only as good as your last picture. and there haven't been too many of those lately.
Good is not as important as profitable especially when it comes to salaries. Meryl Streep has been the consensus 'best actress' for a few decades. She acts in a lot of quality movies but she is not the highest paid because her movies don't make as much money and don't 'open' the way other actors' movies open. In the theaters, the studios make most of their $$$ the first 2 weeks, when they receive the lion's share of profits, their percentage of the take decreases the longer the movies runs. Again the people who go to movies 3-4 times a month, every month aren't as particular about the movies they see as long as it's entertaining. My retired father goes to the movies practically every weekend. He saw 'Up' and thought it was very good. He also thinks almost every comic book and action movie are very good too. Most people aren't looking for cinematic masterpieces everytime they go to the movies, they just want to be entertained. I'll read Toni Morisson, Alice Walker, James Joyce and other works of literature, but I also enjoy John Grisham.
Yes! I absolutely agree...and about time someone made a comment about the ridiculous pay actors get nowadays. I sometimes think how, as di we get ourselves to this point? I sometimes wonder how I'll explain it my kids when they get a bit older....
Ok, so if say you are a Cardiac Pediatric Surgeon working in an emergency room, on call 24 hours a day, you will get paid a good wage (will take a while to pay off all university loans if you have them though), and if you are a nurse you will get paid a moderate or at best a liveable wage....same goes for most other professions..architecture, planning, policy, journalism engineering, academia, law etc etc - BUT if you PRETEND to do those jobs on TV or film, yep, that's right just PRETEND - hey you can be richer than you could ever know what to do with (and you don't have to be able to 'pretend' to do them very well!)
It's a sad state of affairs in my opinion.
See John Farr's Profile
the pay scale is out of hand for sure, and it will come down I think.
We've come a long way from the days when studios owned people like cattle and actors cranked out hundreds of pictures that looked obviously like contract obligations. A lot of those old Hollywood actors were miserable because of the studios.
Perhaps actors today make too much money for doing a fraction of the work past actors did but at least now the film industry is not a sweat shop anymore.
I will take the "cranked out pictures" over any movies made in the last fifteen years any day!
They ACTUALLY act in the old movies. Take a look at the top ten movies out now.
Most are high tech blue screen features, animal cartoons, or low budget love story fillers. The only decent movie out with a human interest storyline is Julie & Julia.
The top actors today care more about flipping their many multimillion dollar properties, or salaries, perks and vacations. Very few now care about delivering a half decent performance. They need to give more top roles to people who can REALLY act like Depp, Penélope Cruz, Amy Adams, and other new talent.
Also, way to much nepotism is killing movie quality. They need to give the hook to Hollywood no talent tailcoat riders. The studios and producers need to rotate some NEW blood in and drop people who can not act or are burnt out.
See John Farr's Profile
well, the old stars hardly led torturous lifestyles, and more good movies overall were made then, without question.
Sweat shop or not, those actors who made it big during the studio system didn't have it that bad. They lived the high life and gloried in it. Most of them came from broken homes and would have wound up slinging hash or filling your tank at the gas station if it hadn't been for the studios.
I have stopped watching "Hollywood" films for several reasons. The money seems to go into the wizzbang technology and very little into updated, interesting, and well told stories. The "stars" are even less interesting to me as well. I much prefer independent, and foreign films anymore and I think the best actors are all in Britain. These are trained actors, not just stars. They have real acting chops and know how to use them.
See John Farr's Profile
I share your sentiments...
the brits still love and revere language, story, and script...
I, too, agree with you wholeheartedly. The difference in acting between Americans and Brits is startling. Even British actors with the most insignificant parts in a British film are extremely good.
And I agree completely as well--British (and Australian) actors really disappear into their roles and become the characters. The star syndrome is somewhat antithetical to that (the star's 'charisma' is supposed to supercede or enhance the role). And Hollywood has lost the art of storytelling--which is the essential element to drama.
See John Farr's Profile
amen!
One more thing. Could the irritating quantity (not quality) of remakes have anything to do with it? Seriously, in the past few years, we've seen remakes of "The In-Laws", "Halloween" and "Hairspray". I've read that there's a "Revenge of the Nerds" remake in the works.
It's always possible to come up with a new story, you know. And it doesn't have to star "the hottest new person".
See John Farr's Profile
I agree.
but most believe re-hashes are safer bets financially.
Great article as usual. One exception IMO to the rule that today's stars are under-talented and over-payed is John Malkovich. I just saw him in The Great Buck Howard, and even though the movie wasn't great, as usual his performance made it an enjoyable movie. I don't think I've ever seen a movie with Malkovich that wasn't worth watching. Not only is he a great actor but he picks roles in movies that are interesting and well written not just the usual Hollywood garbage.
See John Farr's Profile
I agree tho sometimes his judgment fails him...but what an actor.
OSme of Malkovich's performances I enjoyed but I just find him too smarmy on most occasions and really don't care fo him at all.
The problem is that the command decisions are being made by guys with MBAs rather than MFAs, and their current track record reflects defaulting to stuff with proven track records because they don't want to take any risks. Hence, we're treated to SAW XXIII and TERMINATOR 9: SKYNET'S JUST GREEDY.
See John Farr's Profile
you're dead right.
I never thought I would ever say this but I just prefer to wait for the dvd or cable showing of the film. For 2 people to buy tickets and popcorn you could easily spend $40. Then you get to listen to people make cell phone calls, talk to their friends or text on their phone - which is extremely distracting for those who are in the rows behind them.
It takes a lot to get me into a theater - and I usually just reminded why I quit going out to movies.
And - why is it that there are a core of about 10 actors who are in EVERYTHING?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
