A much-touted Leonardo DiCaprio movie, “The Beach,” recently opened on the same day as a not-touted kids flick, “Snow Day,” starring long-in-the-tooth comic Chevy Chase. Each made about $15 million the first weekend.
Now does that mean it was nuts to pay DiCaprio about $20 million when Chase was earning probably a “mere” $1 million? According to the March 3 Entertainment Weekly, not at all.
“Who Deserves to be a Millionaire” is a fun, and yet somewhat rigorous, look at the top-of-the-hill economics of Hollywood and all the elements going into big paydays, such as corporate ego. Since Fox won the bragging rights of luring DiCaprio when all its competitors sought his services, it will view the money as generally well spent if only to trump everybody else.
The article takes one through all the top-earning stars, recites their recent hauls and box office history and assesses whether they are really worth it. Of course, it’s still a fairly subjective matter, as hard as the magazine tries to make its handiwork sound scientific, and one can always wind up stoutly believing that the mere fact somebody got a big check means inherently that they are worth it, as least in the giver’s eyes.
Mel Gibson. His asking price is $25 million and he has turned out a bunch of big-selling action films and thrillers. The magazine’s conclusion is that he is definitely worth the big bucks, especially since he’s a big sell overseas and an eager promoter of his enterprises.
Jim Carrey. He gets about $20 million, and is lauded for taking artistic risks and tending toward perfectionism. A definite yes for his value.
Tom Cruise. He’s another $20 million-a-flick star (though a companion piece indicates he’s the “king of the back-end deal makers,” meaning he knows how to negotiate a big take of related revenues, explaining how he made $70 million off the total gross receipts of 1996’s “Mission: Impossible”). Yes, show him the money.
Will Smith. He, too, is at $20 million and “one of the few African-American stars who sell tickets overseas.” In addition, his singing talents will help in marketing a movie and helps explain why he’s a good investment.
Bruce Willis. Yes, another actor earning about $20 million for a single movie. The conclusion here is a touch skeptical, suggesting that he’s a pain in the neck in dealing with the press and not the most willing promotional tool for a studio. But, unlike new-boys-on-the-block Matt Damon and Brad Pitt, he has “a license to print money overseas,” given his popularity.
Jodie Foster. Her acting fee is $15 million, though she is focusing more on directing and producing films these days, including the unimpressive big-money epic, “Anna and the King.” As for whether she’s worth it, the assessment is “Not when it comes to delivering an audience; other actresses in her price range–namely Julia Roberts and Meg Ryan–are more bankable.”
Edward Norton. He has risen to a $6.5 million asking price but has not had any big hits since 1996’s “Primal Fear.” The rap is that all that money won’t guarantee much of an audience. But it does buy his formidable talent (which in turn is said to lure other actors and good directors) and inevitable notice in the media.
Oh, a final tidbit about those back-end deals. The niftiest may, no surprise, belong to astute Jack Nicholson, who is said to have earned a “paltry” $6 million for playing The Joker in 1989’s “Batman.” But he made sure to get a slice of the revenues, in particular the toys bearing his likeness. That helps explain how he has earned in the area of $50 million from the flick.
Quickly: March’s Washington Monthly chronicles the “Linux movement,” or how “an army of disheveled computer programmers” have constructed an operating system that defies traditional business models (basically giving it away free) but may change the world.
The March 6 U.S. News & World Report examines “the dirty little secret of the high-tech industry,” namely how stock options often do not make one filthy rich, and instead just turn to dust.
The March 6 New Republic, whose owner, Martin Peretz, is a longtime Al Gore chum, endorses the vice president for president because he “knows how to attach America’s prosperity to America’s purpose.”
Meanwhile, March 13’s Nation includes Eric Alterman’s swipe at the “liberal media” and its John McCain infatuation. “If the media cared at all about liberalism, then choosing McCain over Bush would be like picking arsenic over cyanide. But ask them to choose between the funny guy who likes to tell dirty jokes over brewskies and one whose campaign is more tightly scripted than `Cats’ (and even more annoying), well, pass me a cold one, dude.”
