One of the biggest ‘problems’ in Hollywood, at least to hear the big studios tell it, is they need to cast recognizable names.
The argument is that a big film, no matter how brilliant it is, or how good the cast is, can’t be a success without a big name on the poster.
According to some studios, this ‘fact’ is to blame for almost all of Hollywood’s failings. Not enough minority actors out there? Well, that’s because studios need well-known names. Why isn’t Hollywood inviting more newbies into the industry? Their names aren’t recognisable enough.
However it needn’t necessarily be this way. After all, casting relative unknowns can work. Look at the success of Wonder Woman’s Gal Gadot, or Jennifer Lawrence when she starred in The Hunger Games. Neither were household names at the time but both have gone on to become huge stars. On the other hand, look at Kenneth Branagh’s recent Murder On The Orient Express, a film chock-full of massive stars which had no idea what to do with them all.
The trick for studios is picking and choosing the recognisable names that will generate them the most money for the least payment. Then they can spend the rest of their budget on bringing in some newbies into their ranks.
So which actors are the most cost-effective in Hollywood? Well, online casino Roulette Online have put together a list, comparing how much actors’ films make with how much they were paid for those roles.
Here are the best value actors –
See infographic here(via www.rouletteonline.net).
What can we take from the list of cost-effective actors?
To be fair, this list does paint Hollywood in a pretty good light. It’s not as if the list is dominated by white men (in fact, they’re in the minority.) That fact does seem to suggest that women and actors of colour have the same money-making potential as white men.
However, on the other hand, it might paint a slightly different picture. Perhaps the majority of minority actors on the list only proves that these people aren’t getting paid as much as they should be. It could be that the reason why these actors are so cost-effective is because the studios don’t pay them quite as much as they might pay straight white men.
The other interesting point is that the list makes no distinction between actors based on the amount of time they are in their films. Samuel L. Jackson, for example, is the top most cost-effective actor of all time. But let’s take one of his films, Avengers: Age Of Ultron. Jackson’s entire contribution to that film is about three scenes of no longer than 10 minutes in total. It stands to reason that he’d receive a smaller fee for that movie than, say, Chris Evans who is in it throughout. So the list is a little misleading in that context. Presumably Stan Lee, who has made cameos in every single Marvel film, also deserves a spot on the list on that basis.
Still, it’s certainly interesting to see which actors get the studios the most bang for their buck. Unfortunately, it also reinforces the idea that Hollywood might need to rethink it’s hiring practices…
Verdict deals analysis methodology
This analysis considers only announced and completed artificial intelligence deals from the GlobalData financial deals database and excludes all terminated and rumoured deals. Country and industry are defined according to the headquarters and dominant industry of the target firm. The term ‘acquisition’ refers to both completed deals and those in the bidding stage.
GlobalData tracks real-time data concerning all merger and acquisition, private equity/venture capital and asset transaction activity around the world from thousands of company websites and other reliable sources.
More in-depth reports and analysis on all reported deals are available for subscribers to GlobalData’s deals database.