Are movie stars' salaries justified?

I agree. Good change, and I think it's ready to go.

issue prior to revisions:

Either works for me. But yes, "movie stars" is essential.

Interesting catch.

...and I really think we need to change "actors" to "movie stars" because the issue isn't about struggling or even moderately successful actors. Right?

Are movie stars' salaries justified?

I like the "overpaid" or "justified" route.

From a piece that ran in the NYTimes regarding profitability of big-salaried movie stars:

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.

Here's evidence from a survey cited in the Daily Mail:

Two thirds (60 per cent) thought British Films were as good as Hollywood ones and 80 per cent that movie stars are overpaid.

The online poll of 10,000 film fans was carried out by movie magazine Empire to mark its 200th issue.

I guess the public figure here would be "The British Public."

But seriously, as esperanto notes, the actual issue here really is "Are movie stars overpaid?"

Are movie stars overpaid?

They make a LOT of money, so it's a fair question in my opinion. Enough beating around the bush.

How about "justified?"

I don't think discard it, no. We should develop other issues that cover other positions in the industry, as Esperanto suggests.

So...we're not  ready to discard this, right?

You guys have a good point.

There's nothing to stop us from having additional issues on execs, musicians, grips, agents, etc etc. It's not going to win any awards, but it's relevant and debatable.

Matt - we need issues like the one you just mentioned re: tax incentives for shoots.  I would like to see issues like that.  remember we can always move proposed issues to more specific topics if need be.  as for this issue, it's boring and biased since it singles out actors over corporate execs or musicians.

We don't have any issues yet approved in this sub-topic, although, yes, we do have a lot of film issues in general, both approved and proposed.

In Film>Business, I contend that most business-related film questions wouldn't be of much interest to most people, or even those of us in production. I had a two-hour phone conversation with a producer I work with today about international tax incentives for shoots, and I don't think I'd like to propose an issue about any of that stuff.

This is not the most interesting issue in Film, in my opinion, but it is something that most people can somehow relate to and debate for the Business sub-topic.

I'm not emotionally tied to the issue, but I think it's of sufficient interest. Plus I don't think we can ever have enough issues in Film!

If others are for axing it, I won't put up a fight...

i've sort of gone the other way with this issue as in - is it really all that interesting?  do we have  enough issues in the topic right now that maybe we don't need this one?  thoughts?

I agree. "Appropriate" covers us on both ends. Let's get it approved.

Yeah, this works.

issue prior to revisions:

I think "appropriate" is our best bet here, because it covers both ends. I can say it's inappropriate because my roommate can't pay the cable bill or because Tom Cruise makes $400 trillion, or both.

Are actors' salaries appropriate?

Hmmm, Jacki's approach could work, but I think "adequately" implies "sufficiently," which itself sounds a bit biased.

"Are actors generally paid fairly?" or "Are actors generally paid appropriately?" covers either end of the payspectrum, from struggling types to Jullia Roberts. I guess that any good capitalist would answer "yes"!

"appropriate compensation" just does not have  ring to it, does it?

i can't rid this issue of its bias because it singles out leading actors.

i like:

Are actors paid adequately?  or something like that.  i know you guys don't! 

"Appropriate compensation" sounds neutral enough for me.

How about "appropriate?" That's less biased, I think, and still conveys our question:

Are the top salaries for lead actors appropriate compensation?"

my only problem with this issue is that by asking whether the salaries are fair we are implying that they might not be and i feel like that reveals a bias.  "fair" seems loaded in some way.  i'm wiling to suck it up but i wanted to throw it out there just in case others agree ...

(Sorry about that, it makes more sense with the "the.") I went this route because I, like esperanto, dislike "A-list" as a modifier. It's about the salaries, not the actors.

issue prior to revisions:

issue prior to revisions:

i think marina is on to something.  you can just revise the issue now and the site will automatically save the older version.

This issue moved from another topic. The original issue can be found here

What about something like, "Are the top salaries for actors [too high/fair/whatever]?" Maybe that removes some of the bias inherent in talking about the A List.

I agree, Marina. I think that's a fair way to present the question.

Responding to Jacki's comment about framing, maybe the question should be, "Are A-list (or leading) actors paid fairly?" or "Are A-list (or leading) actors' salaries fair?" That eliminates the set-up.

How about "Are leading actors overpaid?"

Hey Jacki; i revised this before I saw your comment...But that's a good question. is there a better way to word this?

issue revision:

---

Per comments

---

i like adding "A-list" to the issue but of course this issue is terribly framed, right?  it's begging for someone to answer yes.

not sure how to eliminate the bias ... what does everyone else think?

Maybe "Are A-list actors overpaid?" might be the way to go. Assuming we all know what A-list means.

Yes, I think this could be a very interesting question, but "actor" is too broad. Most actors I hire for commercials need a day job to support themselves financially. There is a contract called a 20/20 deal that only a handful of people earn in Hollywood. $20mm against 20% of the gross revenue from the film. When a studio agrees to pay an actor such a lucrative contract, every other person on the project gets hosed. All the other actors usually earn SAG minimum. Of course, asking about that particular deal is then too focused. So modifying this question to somehow focus on the A-list celebrities who are paid millions compared to the underlings who earn a few grand a year from their efforts is probably a better route.

Of course when talking about professional athletes, you could be referring to a Minor League pitcher earning $30000 per year as well as Roger Clemens earning $10 million for a few weeks work.

Does anyone else think this needs changed.

Hmm (to contradict my own previous comment),  It could be assumed from the original question that "actors overpaid" refers to actors with mega-salaries... But I still might modify it with "popular actors" or  even "celebrity actors" so it wouldn't insult folks like esperanto's roommates.

It worked well for "are professional athletes overpaid?"

Yep, this one is way too general. Maybe something like: Should actors' salaries reflect the revenue generated from their most recent films? (Totally; somewhat; not at all).

My roommates are both actors, and let me tell you - they are broke. Are "celebrities" overpaid - now there's a question, though not a very good one. I think this one is a little too broad.