Jim Carrey was paid $7 million for the original Dumb and Dumber, while his co-star Jeff Daniels — who shared top billing! — made just $50,000. Carrey wasn’t a big star when Dumb and Dumber went into production in 1994 and the comedy’s total budget was just $16 million — so how did he walk away with so much? “They offered him $350,000 to do the movie and he passed,” explains Peter Farrelly.
It’s an easy calculation: how many tickets will that star sell more than if they weren’t in the movie? Based on that you’ll get an amount of dollars you can pay out to that actor.
Which is likely true, but kinda weird to me. I do not have a tendency to select the movies I watch based on the actors. But I assume that isn’t true for most folks. I mean apparently.
I’d wager most people prefer movies with actors they know (and like). For example if Morgan Freeman is in a movie I’m already thinking there’s at least one decent actor in there, so the likelihood of me watching it goes up.
And of course you know what you get usually. If Jim Carrey is in a movie, duh, you get slapstick humor most of the time. Samuel L. Jackson will probably play a cool guy and drop a few f-bombs. Chris Pratt? Probably an action movie with lighthearted humor. And so on.
It’s not only about the actor, but each one has a kind of brand too. And if the actor is expensive the production quality is usually decent.
While I don’t think it’s as straight forward calculation as Norgur thinks, you’re forgetting that star power has marketing reach beyond just name recognition on a poster. People want to hear from them. They give interviews, promote at events and give status to the movie: It will be featured more in media which in itself means that more people will hear about it (even if they don’t choose the movie based on that name) which means they’re more likely to consider seeing it at a later date as they recognize it.
It’s an easy calculation: how many tickets will that star sell more than if they weren’t in the movie? Based on that you’ll get an amount of dollars you can pay out to that actor.
Which is likely true, but kinda weird to me. I do not have a tendency to select the movies I watch based on the actors. But I assume that isn’t true for most folks. I mean apparently.
I’d wager most people prefer movies with actors they know (and like). For example if Morgan Freeman is in a movie I’m already thinking there’s at least one decent actor in there, so the likelihood of me watching it goes up.
And of course you know what you get usually. If Jim Carrey is in a movie, duh, you get slapstick humor most of the time. Samuel L. Jackson will probably play a cool guy and drop a few f-bombs. Chris Pratt? Probably an action movie with lighthearted humor. And so on.
It’s not only about the actor, but each one has a kind of brand too. And if the actor is expensive the production quality is usually decent.
While I don’t think it’s as straight forward calculation as Norgur thinks, you’re forgetting that star power has marketing reach beyond just name recognition on a poster. People want to hear from them. They give interviews, promote at events and give status to the movie: It will be featured more in media which in itself means that more people will hear about it (even if they don’t choose the movie based on that name) which means they’re more likely to consider seeing it at a later date as they recognize it.
Right. How many people saw the sequel without Carrey, and are any of those 12 people in this thread?
You mean the sequel / prequel thing? God that was awful…