Do movie producers analyze actors by their cost vs…
0 reactions
Do movie producers analyze actors by their cost vs projected ticket sale increase like Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill in Moneyball?
By that I mean, do they compare the cost of the actor to the statistical average of how much they individually have increased the revenue of their past movies in order to decide which actors within their budget will have the greatest chance at maximizing potential earnings?
I was just thinking about why a mid tier movie like Rampage or Jungle Cruise would hire The Rock, the most expensive actor possible—probably so expensive that a significant portion of the movie's budget is burned on just getting him. It seems like a stupid decision when he's not even really that great of an actor (in fact, some might call him a *bad* actor).
But thinking about this further, these movie producers aren't stupid, they wouldn't spend all that money on him if they didn't think he'd be worth it. Maybe if you go back and look at The Rock's recent movies and compare their total budgets, total box office earnings and average critic/audience ratings you can get a pretty good estimate on how much extra revenue he individually generates for the movies he stars in, regardless of how good or bad the movie is.
Then if that average increase in revenue is greater than the cost of The Rock, it is therefore a good idea to hire him as a kind of insurance, no matter how shitty the movie ends up being it'll still sell a decent amount of tickets just for having his face on the poster.
This line of thinking can of course be applied to other big actors as well.
#movies #video
By that I mean, do they compare the cost of the actor to the statistical average of how much they individually have increased the revenue of their past movies in order to decide which actors within their budget will have the greatest chance at maximizing potential earnings?
I was just thinking about why a mid tier movie like Rampage or Jungle Cruise would hire The Rock, the most expensive actor possible—probably so expensive that a significant portion of the movie's budget is burned on just getting him. It seems like a stupid decision when he's not even really that great of an actor (in fact, some might call him a *bad* actor).
But thinking about this further, these movie producers aren't stupid, they wouldn't spend all that money on him if they didn't think he'd be worth it. Maybe if you go back and look at The Rock's recent movies and compare their total budgets, total box office earnings and average critic/audience ratings you can get a pretty good estimate on how much extra revenue he individually generates for the movies he stars in, regardless of how good or bad the movie is.
Then if that average increase in revenue is greater than the cost of The Rock, it is therefore a good idea to hire him as a kind of insurance, no matter how shitty the movie ends up being it'll still sell a decent amount of tickets just for having his face on the poster.
This line of thinking can of course be applied to other big actors as well.
#movies #video
| 4,000 mlx | |
| 7 | |
| 0 |