Stars = Fading?
Author: AF Duncan
August 28th, 2006
Another solid article on what’s become a small obsession around these parts: the changing economics of Hollywood.
So, do audiences really care who stars in a movie?
Movie industry executives may be forgiven for thinking that the Viacom chairman was mad to let Tom Cruise go after a 14-year relationship simply because Mr. Cruise seemed a little off balance. After all, the movies made by Viacom’s Paramount Pictures studio and the actor’s production company earned more than $2.5 billion at the box office.
Yet, if you ask economists and other academics that study the movie industry, Mr. Redstone’s decision was, in financial terms, spot on. The best reason to get rid of Mr. Cruise or, for that matter, Mel Gibson, or Lindsay Lohan, is not their occasional aberrant behavior. They, like most marquee names in Hollywood, are simply not worth the expense.
“Who knows what went through Mr. Redstone’s mind?” said Jehoshua Eliashberg, a professor of marketing, operations and information management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. “But one can’t discard that the reason is that it doesn’t make economic sense to pay him all this money.”
Mr. Eliashberg is part of a growing cadre of academics studying how movies are made, financed and distributed. Most are finding that the studio’s assumption that big stars will increase a movie’s bottom line is simply wrong.
- Related Articles:
4 Responses to “Stars = Fading?”






August 28th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
In recent years, many “stars” have been taking on lower paying roles in “little” films- which, despite their presence, won’t become hits because the movies just don’t have mass appeal.This is fair enough- because the movie ITSELF should always be the “Star”. People go to see Captain Jack, not Johnny Depp… it’s not like there aren’t other actors who could play the role( admittedly, some would be worse and some would be better- but that’s for the audience to decide. And the audience doesn’t always agree, anyway- just talk to a group of James Bond fans…)
August 28th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
I disagree with all of this. Most people don’t see Nacho Libre because of Jared Hess. They go for Jack Black. People don’t see Erin Brocovitch because it was in any way a good movie, they just like seeing Julia Roberts play the exact same fucking goddamn horse toothed annnoying as fuck limited range of emotion self indulgent self impressed entitled piece of shit character she ALWAYS plays!
Sometimes the movie, or characters can sell themselves. See: Comic Book Movies. Most of the time, the dumbed down public need to know that a bad actor with no range, say Keanu Reeves, will be there to make them feel comfortable.
Say what you want about Cruise, I think he’s a fucking looney toon, but he sells tickets. Look at War of the Worlds. I didn’t see it because of him, MOST people in America saw it. Why? Because he was in it.M:I-III did fine considering how bad MI:2 was.
August 29th, 2006 at 7:03 am
Yeah, I don’t totally agree with the article, either. This just seems like another H-wood…trend probably because there really aren’t too many “bankable” stars around. The pendulum will swing back at some point. I just wish they would make better, more interesting movies.
August 30th, 2006 at 7:22 am
Better more interesting movies? Are you fucking nuts? That’ll never work!
We need polar bears.