Recent Movie Reviews - Why do a few actors make so much when the success of a movie has little to do with the actors in it?

Why do a few actors make so much when the success of a movie has little to do with the actors in it?

I don't understand the economics behind the salaries in the movie industry. A few actors make an enormous amount, even though there is a large supply of actors willing to work for much less whose skills are about equal to the actors making a lot. In addition, many highly paid actors offend their audience through their actions, such as drug abuse, or taking political stances against most of their audience, such as Tom Hanks attacking supporters of proposition 8 and the Mormon religion. Have there been any studies about the amount of money brought in by highly paid actors vs unheard of ones when all other factors are taken into account. It seems to me that a movie with a bad script, director, special effects, etc will bomb regardless of the actors, whereas a movie with a good script, director, special effects, etc will do well regardless of the actors. For example, no one had heard of any of the actors in the original Star Wars and few new of the ones in Lord of the Rings or the recent Batman movies, yet they're phenomenal successes. Wouldn't it be a more efficient use of resources to spend money on areas of movies that add value to the finished product, such as the script, director, special effects, etc rather than on the actors? I know that when I look at the movies playing I read reviews and look at the story and don't care which actors are in it.

Public Comments

Salaries are based on overall past film performance. Not current or last film performance. The actors willing to work for less would be less of a box office draw. The ones who make the most money are the ones who fans want to see, ie, more box office money.
It's all about the success a particular actor or actress has had in movies. Even if it was by sheer coincidence that alot of the movies they've been in have been succesful, they'll still get a huge boost to their salary. Because they are more recognizable to the public. Take Will Smith for instance, not everyone knew who he was outside "fresh prince" fans. But once he started being in big blockbuster movies and everyone around the country knows who he is, then studios will pay whatever it takes to have him be in their movie. Its about public status more so than acting ability. Cause will smith sucks as an actor.
Well the thing is Actors and Actresses who are good, deserve to get good pay! If you suck at acting nobody is going to want to watch them, so the movies won't make as much as they could if better actors were in it!
Marketing baby, marketing. Most movies need a selling point. Personally, I would like to see actors get paid marginal salaries as well as a percentage of profits. That way, if a movie does well, they get paid. if a movie sucks, maybe not so much. P.S. You can't watch many movies if you think any of the actors/actresses in recent Batmans are nobody's. Also, regardless of what he said, I would pay an extra 5 million to have Hanks in my movie.
Producers tend to go for Name Power. Yes Lord Of The Rings used very unknown actors but also there was much skepticism about where the movie would be a bomb or a success. Except for maybe "American Graffiti," "Star Wars" that was George Lucas' biggest hit to that date. He needed lessor known stars to make the movie because of backing finances wouldn't have been as great. You have a very valid point. As I do tend to not go to movies made by actors that I have a huge difference when they make outlandish political statements. However I too have a problem with the Mormon Churches involvement with Prop 8 as the support was funded in Utah, and campaigned for by people in Utah. Since when should Utah decide what happens in California? I don't live in either state. And that is not what your question is about, although you brought up the specific subject.
This was in the news just a few days ago: http://buzz.qandas.com/movies/are-todays-top-actors-worth-their-big-salaries.html http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jul2006/pi20060705_564966.htm Basically, it's an analysis of which actors give you the best return on your investment. Obviously this is oversimplified and only indicates correlation, not causation. In any case, it's interesting. Vince Vaughn and Toby McGuire are on the top of the list.