Are they? Star salaries are in the stratosphere, and show no sign of falling, despite the studios' attempts to reign them in. Mel Gibson was paid $25 million to do "The Patriot" (and a rumored, but never substantiated, $40 million for "Lethal Weapon 4"), Ah-nuld was paid $22 million for "The 6th Day,", Tom Hanks earned $20 million for "Cast Away," and Harrison Ford recently signed a deal that may get him $25 million. Even Leelee Sobieski gets $1 million per flick; J-Lo gets $6 million per. No doubt Julia Roberts price (now $20 million per) will go up, now that she has an Oscar. Are they worth it? Maybe Hanks and Ford are, as just about everything they do turns into gold. Ah-nuld may be past his prime, as "6th Day" tanked. Gibson and Ford turned chick flicks ("What Women Want" and "Six Days, Seven Nights", respectively) into hits. Give us your opinion. Are these big guns (or even lesser stars) worth the big salaries paid to them?

I think the whole system is a little bit too big for its own good but I personaly can't fault the stars that much. After all, if you knew that millions of people came to see a movie just because you were in it; and knew that the studio heads got $200 million from your flick when all they did was sit in their offices; wouldn't you want your share of that $200 million pie. I think the biggest problem is the fact that no one's price ever comes down when their fame does. The reason is because the salarie's are so well publicised no one wants the loss of status that comes with no longer being worth what they once were.

Well, as Steve Martin remarked at the Oscars...

"Tom Hanks took the shortcut to stardom. All his movies were hits."

:-)

Not all, Shadow (and Steve Martin, if he reads these posts.) Anyone remember "Joe Vs. the Volcano," "The Man With One Red Shoe". "Turner and Hooch". Hanks has been on a real roll lately, though.
A lot of stars take back end deals. Nicholson took $6 mil up front for "Batman", but because he had a piece of the merchandising (and of "Batman Returns," even though he didn't appear in it) his paycheck was $60 million, highest ever for a single film.

Sure Hollywood can make obscene profits but not oil companies

The diference is that nobody needs what hollywood produces. If you don't want to go to the movies you don't have to. On the other hand most people need a car to live in the modern american society. Durring winter you also need heat in your house. The laws of demand and supply apply to movies/videos because if they get to be too much people stop buying them, the consumers control the price. Oil is not subject to the same economic rules. Even if the price goes up the reletive demand stays the same because people still need to heat their houses and drive to work.

Chris Tucker-$20 million for "Rush Hour 2"??? Give me a Break!!!

20 MILLION DOLLARS? Who does he think he is, Chelsea Clinton?

Where has Chris Tucker been. While it is good to not oversaturate the market when you become a big star so that people won't get sick of you, what has he been doing for the past 3 years? He hasn't been in one movie since Rush Hour (1998). Is anyone going to remember him when Ruch Hour 2 comes out?

Whatever made New Line pay Tucker such an obscene amount is beyond me. Chan maybe, but Tucker is annoying, obnoxious, and not much of an actor.

In any case, I agree entirely that movie stars are paid too much. Their relative value to society and their medium is insignificant, especially when one considers how many other talented actors are out there making far less. However, so long as movie studios perceive famous stars as being box office draws, they will see them as valuable to films, and pay them accordingly. I don't think that this is actually the case (are the Lord of the Rings films going to fail because they have no Fords or Roberts in the cast?), but then studio execs don't listen to my (or any of our) advice

Whatever made New Line pay Tucker such an obscene amount is beyond me. Chan maybe, but Tucker is annoying, obnoxious, and not much of an actor.

It was because according to the theater polls more people came to see part I because of Tucker than Chan. Chan as a solid fan base but none of his films have ever gotten to $100 million in America. More people came to see the motor mouth from the previews than to see Chan's stunts.

In any case, I agree entirely that movie stars are paid too much. Their relative value to society and their medium is insignificant, especially when one considers how many other talented actors are out there making far less. However, so long as movie studios perceive famous stars as being box office draws, they will see them as valuable to films, and pay them accordingly.

Would you consider it less objectionable if the studios refused to pay the stars such exuberant sums of money and kept it all for themselves. Put yourself in the place of the star. How would you feel if a bunch of suits made $250 mil because of you and only gave you $1 million for your important role. How about droping ticket prices below the market clearing point? that's not how things work in the free market economey.

I don't think that this is actually the case (are the Lord of the Rings films going to fail because they have no Fords or Roberts in the cast?), but then studio execs don't listen to my (or any of our) advice

As a former theater employee I can tell you that big stars = big bucks is almost always the case. For example when Payback came out half of the people who came to see it were middle aged women who said "I'll have one ticket for Mel Gibsen" they did not even know the name of the movie, only that Gibsen was in it. As for Lord of the Rings it has a built in following from the book and over $100 mil to put onto the screen. The big question about Rings is will it appeal to anyone besides the books' fans. Their are 4 ways that a movie makes huge bank at the box office.

1: Spectical, millions of $$$ on the screen for an epic adventure (Jurassic Park, The Matrix, Braveheart, Star Wars)

2: Slick Marketing Campaign were the adds pull people into the theater (The Blair Witch Project, The Matrix)

3: Word of mouth (Scream, Something About Mary, Good Will Hunting)

4: A big star (Braveheart, Runaway Bride)

5: A brand name (Star Wars: Episode I, Hannibal)

Notice that many of your big hits have 2 of the 5 going for them.

Do actors get paid too much? No. It seems silly to us, but the studios pay the actors what they think the actors are worth. Studios are basically investing, hoping to make a profit. They pay A-list actors 20 million dollars in the hope that their appearance will make the studio 200 or 300 million off one movie. They also pay them so much money based on the assumption that the actors are the drawing card. Whether that is a correct assumption is debatable, but it doesn't matter. The studios sign the checks, not any of us, so they decide what they think is the key to success, not any of us. Unless we work for a movie studio or for someone in that business, what they make or don't make isn't our problem.

Due to the various back end deals that Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg struck to star in, and direct, respectively, War Of The Worlds, it was said that the movie needs to gross $500 milion just to break even. Dd they waive their salaries, in exchange for greater gross profit participation, just to keep the budget down and get the movie made in the first place?

Probably, and even after the film was made they probably spent more to promote it than they spent to make it, all those TV ads, trailers, signs, ect cost money.

I think, for the most part, big stars are overpaid, but hey, that's life. If studios are willing to overpay, why should I care? It's not like studios overpaying actors hurts me.

If you go to the movies, then it affects you. Why do you think it costs $10 for a ticket?

Actually it costs 10 dollars for a ticket because people will pay it. Price is determined by what the consumor will pay more than what the thing cost to make.

Why do you think it costs $10 for a ticket?

Because the lousy theater keeps raising the prices.

It's certainly not directly related to actor salaries, or even how much movies cost to make, because the tickets to a blockbuster that cost $100 million to make and an indy that cost $2 million dollar are both the same price, assuming you see them at the same theater.

Actually it costs 10 dollars for a ticket because people will pay it. Price is determined by what the consumor will pay more than what the thing cost to make.

And that's probably why they've got this problem with dwindling attendance. Screw the piddly amount of internet "piracy" going on, people aren't going because they don't think it's worth $10 a ticket, then another $5-6 bucks each if you dare to buy some snacks and a drink.

Prices for elastic goods often move at a curve where they raise untill people get sick of them than they drop to a more reasonable leval. I hope we are at the peak right now.

Forbes' Top Ten List of the Most Overpaid Actors in Hollywood.

It's based on how much money each actor returns per each dollar they're paid.

I'm not surprised that Eddie Murphy is #1, but I was surprised at who was at #8.

I think the list could've benefited by contrasting it the actors who are the top earners per dollar paid.