A film blog for students of my classes at Santa Clara University. Use this blog to discuss the films we are studying, classic films, current releases or production issues you encounter while making your own films.
Wednesday, February 04, 2015
The studio vs. the star system
What have been some of the results of switching from the studio system to the star system? Are stars demanding too much money placing media companies in financial danger?
With the switch from the studio system to the star system, individuals as actors have gained far more power, if not all power, than before. No longer being contracted to a particular studio, stars are able to participate in different types of films for different production companies, expanding their own resumes and skill sets.
I honestly don't feel like it is the actors and actresses putting media companies in financial danger because at the end of the day, someone is going to take the role, and while it may not be an extremely high profile actor, like Ben Affleck, it will give rise to a new actor or actress.
The increase in television production has gone hand in hand with the switch in systems because, now, stars are able to go back and forth from television to film if they want. However, I am not sure how common it is for stars to be in films and appear in television programs. Is there a protocol for this?
The star system has put significantly more power in the hands of actors, directors, producers, and writers than in the studio system. While the studio system put most of the power in the hands of the business people (like studio executives), we now see more power in the creative branch. I don’t see this as a bad thing necessarily. In the studio system, the studios had everyone under contract to work on whatever films they wanted, and there was a lot more emphasis on making as many films as possible, regardless of their quality. This resulted in a few good quality movies within a ton of subpar ones. In the era of the star system, there is (generally) more focus on making quality movies over a high quantity. People are also free to make films wherever they have the opportunity to, so I think this leads to more diversity in content. I agree with Sara that stars are putting studios in financial danger, since they can choose to offer the role to a newcomer or lesser-known actor who will work for much less. That being said, I think the star power can get a little out of control sometimes in terms of payment for top actors—tens of millions of dollars for one movie seems a bit crazy.
The studio system was much more constraining of many aspects of the media industry, and didn’t seem to allow for a diversity of ideas and a mixture of creative abilities to come together to create the texts that we’re able to see today. The studio system seemed much more consistent and dependable for those working in the industry as everyone was guaranteed work, but it was also incredibly stifling in regards to inhibiting the blending of different workers with various experiences, ideas, and abilities. Now that the star system is in place, we can see that the industry is a huge melting pot of ideas, skills, and knowledge that can meld together to generate a fewer number of texts that are much more interesting and compelling. Essentially, I think that what we’re seeing as a result of the switch from the studio system to the star system is a lower quantity of texts that are higher quality than they used to be back when studios were releasing films every couple of weeks. Overall, there’s more diversity and a wide breadth in terms of the content produced now that more power allocated to the stars rather than the studios.
I don’t think that stars are demanding too much money because the media companies make so much money from good films that the studios and media companies can definitely afford to pay A-listers if they want them. I think that production companies often strike acceptable deals between the studio and the star, so that both parties are happy with what they receive as compensation. Ultimately, having an A-list star (or multiple A-listers) in your film will definitely encourage more people to go and see your movie whether it’s good or not, so I think that media companies can and will pay for that recognized talent if they desire it.
I feel that one of the biggest results of switching from the studio system to the star system has been the output of "star power > quality of content". I've seen more box office fails and critically panned films in the past few years than I have in my entire life. The studios seem to think that because a star has had a hit or two in the past that they will draw an audience to every film that they're in, whether they're right for the film or not. This in turn can drain out the quality of the creative content, solely relying on the name and face of the star in the film to draw audiences and profit.
This in turn leads to giving more power to the stars themselves. Stars get much more for appearing in films because studios know that they have starred in films that have drawn money that they believe they will make back. In certain cases, this concept works (i.e., The Wolf of Wall Street, made on a $100 million budget, payed Leo DiCaprio $10 million to appear, and the film made nearly $400 million at the box office)
I think it really depends on the type of project to determine whether or not a star is demanding too much money. You have to factor in whether or not the project is in television or film, what kind of audience its trying to reach, how it's being distributed, and other aspects that could influence the film's reception to audiences.
I think the star system definitely gives more power to the creative minds (actors, directors, writers, etc.). Actors can now work for anyone they want to, without being under contract with a particular studio. Under the studio system, the quality of movies suffered. However, stars are definitely overpaid. Some stars, like Leo DiCaprio and Tom Cruise, will bring in tons of money just because of who they are, which means that the film will not be financially hurt by hiring such a big name. however, if people only see movies with the big A-listers in them, it is so much harder for less-known actors and actresses to make it in the business. I also believe that some stars can get carried away with how much money they demand, but if this is the case, then producers can hire other big name stars with a more reasonable price tag.
Like Sara said, there has definitely been a shift in power as a result of switching from the studio to the star system. Directors and actors now bring value to projects instantaneously and there is more power in their hands than other people in the industry like the writers or producers. While we don't typically remember the writer of a film as much as a director or an actor, even certain writers and directors are purposely paired together to make projects that execs know will succeed. It's all a part of this switch from the studio to the star system. I don't think stars (or writers, directors) are demanding too much money at all. It makes sense for them to be compensated because the business people are certain that with the actors' participation, they will make a lot of money. They deserve to get money back for the opportunities they provide for the companies. It's a smart move from the actors perspective and it also benefits the media companies. Like Sara mentioned, stars can choose to sign onto different types of films for various companies which gives many workers a chance at making profit. I definitely don't think it's so much that companies are in financial danger.
As many people have mentioned, the star system has given stars a lot more power than the studios. Instead of studios telling stars that they have to make a certain amount of films in order to earn X amount of dollars, stars can tell studios that they want to make X amount of dollars for one film. This also means that star's agents can make a lot of money. Every project that the star signs on to means a certain percentage goes to the agent. At this point it seems like a better idea to be either a star or an agent since that is where a lot of the power is.
I think that some stars demand a lot of money for some mediocre work, but I don't think that the major studios that sign them are in financial danger. I feel like you should know what you sign up for when you get a major star on a project. That is when I feel it is appropriate to hire not as popular actors for a film that is not guaranteed to be a success. If the film tanks, then it's just a loss for the company. If the film is a huge success, then the company succeeds. The actor can later charge more for his or her work because of the previous films' success.
I think the biggest change that came from moving to the studio system to the star system was power. The power used to live completely in the studios hands because they held everyone under contract, however now, directors, writers and actors hold the power and this power comes from the fact that money and profit become associated with their names. Many films are successful because they have one or many of these big films attached to them, and more and more we see films that have established groups of A List writers, directors and actors that enjoy working together and will rake in a huge profit. Off the top of my head I am thinking of David O’Russel (pre-sony hack lunatic behavior reports) films which have been widely popular. His name alone ensured that a movie will probably be well received, however he also has actors that he prefers to work with such as Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Amy Adams and Christian Bale, his name in combination with these stars details how power in the star system works. In regards to big star money demands, I think that many of them deserve an above the line salary because of the profit they promise to return on the movie, however I do think that some stars set that price demand too high.
The switch from switching the studio system has resulted in giving actors and actresses more options and places to find work then just the film studios. This also meant that the theaters were getting less money from movie tickets. During the studio times actors and actresses had to be contracted and under these contracts they had the obligation of producing a certain amount of films in a certain amount of time.The films were very cookie cutter. Actors and actresses did not have artistic autonomy because they could not select which films they wanted to act in. The star system allowed them to have more artistic autonomy although they did not have as much employment stability. I think that like others said high profile actors and actresses attract audiences and basically cut costs of marketing or at least are a huge attraction to the movie and part of the marketing strategy. The studios have to budget to make their films. They would not hire them if they couldn't afford it.
I think the biggest problem with switching from the studio system to the start system is the rise in salary the stars are receiving. I feel that the studios desire to have big star names in their films is resulting in more money being spent on a film with famous people rather than on the film itself. I will admit though that big name stars often times help the movies make more profit then having state of the art special effects and ect. This will make it difficult for the system to change. Audiences now decide on which movies they see based on the big star names in them, if the film has a bunch of nobodies audiences have come to the conclusion the film won’t be as good, although this isn’t always true.
Another result of the switch from the studio system to the start system is stars seem to have more autonomy in film industry than they did before. If a studio wants a star bad enough then they will try and do anything to appease them. This can often include changing creative aspects of the film. It has also become easier for stars to produce and write their own films once they have a big enough name. I’m not sure if these are pros or cons to the system. The movie stars have a lot of experience in the industry and occasionally have enough knowledge to contribute creatively, other times it is just their stubbornness to change what they are accustomed to rather than creativity they are adding to the film.
The stars are definitely at the top of the industry with the star system. They have more control and autonomy under this way of doing things. Studios place a lot of responsibility and give the stars plenty of freedom to stars meaning they can ask for more money. I don’t think it is feasible for this system to last forever; the inflated salaries can only last so long before studios look for elsewhere to spend their money.
As everyone else has said, the transition to the star system has placed the power in the hands of the stars rather than the studios. I believe that this has resulted in less content, but a more diverse range. There is a lot more autonomy on what is produced. For this reason, I think it is good.
I do not think that the star system is placing media companies in financial danger. If the studios believe that the stars are asking for too much money they can always search for a smaller name. I think that the power and money will continue to shift towards the stars until the studios reach a tipping point in which they begin to stop bringing these big names on board. Say enough of the studios continued this, the power would shift back towards the studios.
Switching from the studio system to the star system allows actors and actresses to be especially selected for individual films, rather than having long term contracts. This shifted the power to the stars’ hands, because they were the ones that can help determine the success of the film. By having a great actor play the leading role in a terrible movie, it is still guaranteed to make money. With the studio system, movie studios had a lot more control of the production process through vertical integration. However, in the text it states that star power might be on the decline. Sometimes having an A-list actor is not enough to make a film a success. I don’t think that the high demand for money is putting companies in financial danger. I agree with Derek and think that these studios can choose a different actor if the one they want does not fit within their budget. Even though these stars have a lot of power, there still needs to be a balance between both the actor and the studio for it to work.
The studio system has allowed stars to flutter around and pick and choose which movies they want to make and with which companies.
There can now be a certain reliance with the stars. We know that if there is a talented and accomplished star that we like who is making a movie, he or she may be selective with which projects they take, thus ensuring that we'll be impressed with their performances.
I think of Daniel Day Lewis. He doesn't make movies very often, but when he does he delivers a great performance. If he was part of the studio system, he would make some great movies, but also some pretty low-grade ones. Now I know that if he's staring in a movie, it's because he's found a fascinating project that he really believes in and can connect with.
While the star system puts more power in the hands of the stars to make more money, it also allows for studios to build relationship with these stars who draw in big crowds.
The star system shifted the power from the studios to the actors. Before this change, the studios had complete control over the actors. They owned them and controlled which films they would be in. It was a lazy system, giving the studios the comfort of never having to create content that would compete with other studios' content for the attention of the actors.
Now that the stars are in control, they (along with their agents) are given the decision of what films they would like to pursue for their career. This forces studios to create content that is new, fresh, and appealing to the actors. This is great for the industry itself.
Switching from studio system to star system resulted in the shift of the power and autonomy from studios to stars and it affects that the gap between people, who get money, and don't get, expands and few people of media industries have huge power. It also affects the gap between the companies, which have money to produce, and have not.
It is because stars having creative power such as actors, writers, and directors can demand how much they want to get paid today although film industries used to manage to create the films mainly, stars used to be under contract and studios have the power to decide how much they pay. And as the result, the profit of whole industry concentrates on the few people. It affects also Industries because companies, which can pay for them, succeed more than other companies.
I don’t think that star system has a lot of negative effect because the quality of movies actually got higher than the era from 1920s to 1950s by the shift of the system from contract of stars to the setting
I don’t think that media companies are in the situation of financial danger because they work with high profile stars, who demand to get paid a lot, when they afford to pay for them, but I think that some of them might be in the severe situation because small companies, which don’t have money to produce so much, may lose the chance to make famous movies and make a lot of profit because many other big companies like Disney pay for them a lot and the products get famous easily because of the advertising effect. I also think that it may be the danger that the companies cannot stop hiring famous actors because many of them do it and make profit and if they don’t follow them, it is hard to get famous and make profit in the competing situation of the industry.
Like many have said, the shift from the studio system to the star system created many changes in the industry. After this switch stars increased their earning power and now have the ability to demand how ever much money they want. If the studio really wants them in the part, theres not much negotiating. Agents also extended their powers after the switch to the star system, as they took more of a central role in the managing of the stars that every production wanted. With the breakdown of the studio system there was also a large decrease in the amount of films being made, which meant less work for the lesser known actors, and more demand for the ones everyone wanted to see. Though I think that some stars get paid ridiculous amounts, for the most part it is justified in the respect that they know their image and talent can make a lot of money for the studio.
I think the shift in power from the studio system to the star system is a good thing. Before, the studios had far too much control over the industry, and for the most part they still do. They controlled every piece of the production and therefore took home all the profits, leaving the actors with practically nothing. However, in the modern era our culture has gravitated to the star system. A majority of us will go see a film if Brad PItt, Tom Cruise, or the new, Jennifer Lawrence is in it. We see past a bad movie, and fancy advertising, our attention focused solely on seeing the stars. Therefore, I think it is only fair that they get a large proportion of the profits. In the end, they are the faces that we are willing to pay for. Without the star system, Hollywood would have to figure out a new way to get people into the seats. It seems to be working fine for them now.
I agree with Jacob. I think that overall the shift was a good thing. I do believe we lost some and gained some—but the studio system was never about creativity, it was never about quality. It's purpose was to churn out 700 films/year during the 1920s.
The star system that usurped the studio system as a result of the Paramount decrees, television (and losing audiences to those programs on television) has made celebrities of the creatives.
For content, I'd say that's a good thing. The studios are no longer actual production companies run like businesses. They are now the business side: production—backer-distributors and renters of actual, physical, studio space.
I don't think that the star system looses more money than it brings in. Stars like Tom Cruise and JJ Abrams are the "tent poles" of a studio. They ensure a certain degree of revenue and that's why they are paid so much. On the other hand (and I could have the wrong end of the stick) it's still an exorbitant amount of money that could be used for other purposes: like smaller, more intellectual films and new talent. It also gives "stars" this insane celebrity that our culture has just gleaned on to. We are obsessed. And maybe that's who we are as a society; we gravitate towards the "stars", but I think that for the most part the degree to which we obsess in unhealthy.
The studio system was a time when hollywood was run and owned by the studios themselves. The production, director, actors, and theaters were all subject to only about 5 main studios. This gave ultimate power to the studios and they were charge of naming their own prices from everything to actors' and directors' movie filmographies, tickets prices and distribution to theaters, etc. Now a days and after the 1960s the star system became hollywood's system and it is very much based on the popularity and status of the name of the actor and director who are in and create a film. Studios are still important for funding but are not as in control as they once were due to the rise and independence of the creatives as well as the dis-ownership of studios' theaters. I don't think stars are asking for too much because the system seems to be in good shape, even though more popular stars are paid an insane amount for some films. It may grow to be a problem for financial danger in regards to streaming Netflix sites and piracy sites due to lack of people seeing films in theaters and supporting the studios and stars directly that way.
For the studio system, the studios used to have total control over the actors. They would control the films they could star in because they were under contract. I think it was beneficial for studios because they avoided the stress of having to compete to nail down different actors and without having to pay an unreasonable amount. As people said above, the transition from the studio system to the star system made way for many changes in the industry including a shift in power from studios now to actors.
With the star system, it's up to the actor to decide what films they want to be in, not the studio. This system makes things a bit harder on studios because they are in competition to get great actors. They have to come up with content that will make actors want to star in their films. Although this is more work for studios it is great for the industry as a whole.
I think that the money demands from big name actors is sometimes unreasonable. A lot of actors because they have the opportunity to, get carried away with the amount that they ask for. I do still think that many stars deserve an above the line salary though, because of the profit they will be returning on the movie. Many people see movies because of the stars that are in them and because of this I believe an above the line salary is appropriate.
20 comments:
With the switch from the studio system to the star system, individuals as actors have gained far more power, if not all power, than before. No longer being contracted to a particular studio, stars are able to participate in different types of films for different production companies, expanding their own resumes and skill sets.
I honestly don't feel like it is the actors and actresses putting media companies in financial danger because at the end of the day, someone is going to take the role, and while it may not be an extremely high profile actor, like Ben Affleck, it will give rise to a new actor or actress.
The increase in television production has gone hand in hand with the switch in systems because, now, stars are able to go back and forth from television to film if they want. However, I am not sure how common it is for stars to be in films and appear in television programs. Is there a protocol for this?
The star system has put significantly more power in the hands of actors, directors, producers, and writers than in the studio system. While the studio system put most of the power in the hands of the business people (like studio executives), we now see more power in the creative branch. I don’t see this as a bad thing necessarily. In the studio system, the studios had everyone under contract to work on whatever films they wanted, and there was a lot more emphasis on making as many films as possible, regardless of their quality. This resulted in a few good quality movies within a ton of subpar ones. In the era of the star system, there is (generally) more focus on making quality movies over a high quantity. People are also free to make films wherever they have the opportunity to, so I think this leads to more diversity in content. I agree with Sara that stars are putting studios in financial danger, since they can choose to offer the role to a newcomer or lesser-known actor who will work for much less. That being said, I think the star power can get a little out of control sometimes in terms of payment for top actors—tens of millions of dollars for one movie seems a bit crazy.
The studio system was much more constraining of many aspects of the media industry, and didn’t seem to allow for a diversity of ideas and a mixture of creative abilities to come together to create the texts that we’re able to see today. The studio system seemed much more consistent and dependable for those working in the industry as everyone was guaranteed work, but it was also incredibly stifling in regards to inhibiting the blending of different workers with various experiences, ideas, and abilities. Now that the star system is in place, we can see that the industry is a huge melting pot of ideas, skills, and knowledge that can meld together to generate a fewer number of texts that are much more interesting and compelling. Essentially, I think that what we’re seeing as a result of the switch from the studio system to the star system is a lower quantity of texts that are higher quality than they used to be back when studios were releasing films every couple of weeks. Overall, there’s more diversity and a wide breadth in terms of the content produced now that more power allocated to the stars rather than the studios.
I don’t think that stars are demanding too much money because the media companies make so much money from good films that the studios and media companies can definitely afford to pay A-listers if they want them. I think that production companies often strike acceptable deals between the studio and the star, so that both parties are happy with what they receive as compensation. Ultimately, having an A-list star (or multiple A-listers) in your film will definitely encourage more people to go and see your movie whether it’s good or not, so I think that media companies can and will pay for that recognized talent if they desire it.
I feel that one of the biggest results of switching from the studio system to the star system has been the output of "star power > quality of content". I've seen more box office fails and critically panned films in the past few years than I have in my entire life. The studios seem to think that because a star has had a hit or two in the past that they will draw an audience to every film that they're in, whether they're right for the film or not. This in turn can drain out the quality of the creative content, solely relying on the name and face of the star in the film to draw audiences and profit.
This in turn leads to giving more power to the stars themselves. Stars get much more for appearing in films because studios know that they have starred in films that have drawn money that they believe they will make back. In certain cases, this concept works (i.e., The Wolf of Wall Street, made on a $100 million budget, payed Leo DiCaprio $10 million to appear, and the film made nearly $400 million at the box office)
I think it really depends on the type of project to determine whether or not a star is demanding too much money. You have to factor in whether or not the project is in television or film, what kind of audience its trying to reach, how it's being distributed, and other aspects that could influence the film's reception to audiences.
I think the star system definitely gives more power to the creative minds (actors, directors, writers, etc.). Actors can now work for anyone they want to, without being under contract with a particular studio. Under the studio system, the quality of movies suffered. However, stars are definitely overpaid. Some stars, like Leo DiCaprio and Tom Cruise, will bring in tons of money just because of who they are, which means that the film will not be financially hurt by hiring such a big name. however, if people only see movies with the big A-listers in them, it is so much harder for less-known actors and actresses to make it in the business. I also believe that some stars can get carried away with how much money they demand, but if this is the case, then producers can hire other big name stars with a more reasonable price tag.
Like Sara said, there has definitely been a shift in power as a result of switching from the studio to the star system. Directors and actors now bring value to projects instantaneously and there is more power in their hands than other people in the industry like the writers or producers. While we don't typically remember the writer of a film as much as a director or an actor, even certain writers and directors are purposely paired together to make projects that execs know will succeed. It's all a part of this switch from the studio to the star system. I don't think stars (or writers, directors) are demanding too much money at all. It makes sense for them to be compensated because the business people are certain that with the actors' participation, they will make a lot of money. They deserve to get money back for the opportunities they provide for the companies. It's a smart move from the actors perspective and it also benefits the media companies. Like Sara mentioned, stars can choose to sign onto different types of films for various companies which gives many workers a chance at making profit. I definitely don't think it's so much that companies are in financial danger.
As many people have mentioned, the star system has given stars a lot more power than the studios. Instead of studios telling stars that they have to make a certain amount of films in order to earn X amount of dollars, stars can tell studios that they want to make X amount of dollars for one film. This also means that star's agents can make a lot of money. Every project that the star signs on to means a certain percentage goes to the agent. At this point it seems like a better idea to be either a star or an agent since that is where a lot of the power is.
I think that some stars demand a lot of money for some mediocre work, but I don't think that the major studios that sign them are in financial danger. I feel like you should know what you sign up for when you get a major star on a project. That is when I feel it is appropriate to hire not as popular actors for a film that is not guaranteed to be a success. If the film tanks, then it's just a loss for the company. If the film is a huge success, then the company succeeds. The actor can later charge more for his or her work because of the previous films' success.
I think the biggest change that came from moving to the studio system to the star system was power. The power used to live completely in the studios hands because they held everyone under contract, however now, directors, writers and actors hold the power and this power comes from the fact that money and profit become associated with their names. Many films are successful because they have one or many of these big films attached to them, and more and more we see films that have established groups of A List writers, directors and actors that enjoy working together and will rake in a huge profit. Off the top of my head I am thinking of David O’Russel (pre-sony hack lunatic behavior reports) films which have been widely popular. His name alone ensured that a movie will probably be well received, however he also has actors that he prefers to work with such as Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Amy Adams and Christian Bale, his name in combination with these stars details how power in the star system works. In regards to big star money demands, I think that many of them deserve an above the line salary because of the profit they promise to return on the movie, however I do think that some stars set that price demand too high.
The switch from switching the studio system has resulted in giving actors and actresses more options and places to find work then just the film studios. This also meant that the theaters were getting less money from movie tickets. During the studio times actors and actresses had to be contracted and under these contracts they had the obligation of producing a certain amount of films in a certain amount of time.The films were very cookie cutter. Actors and actresses did not have artistic autonomy because they could not select which films they wanted to act in. The star system allowed them to have more artistic autonomy although they did not have as much employment stability. I think that like others said high profile actors and actresses attract audiences and basically cut costs of marketing or at least are a huge attraction to the movie and part of the marketing strategy. The studios have to budget to make their films. They would not hire them if they couldn't afford it.
I think the biggest problem with switching from the studio system to the start system is the rise in salary the stars are receiving. I feel that the studios desire to have big star names in their films is resulting in more money being spent on a film with famous people rather than on the film itself. I will admit though that big name stars often times help the movies make more profit then having state of the art special effects and ect. This will make it difficult for the system to change. Audiences now decide on which movies they see based on the big star names in them, if the film has a bunch of nobodies audiences have come to the conclusion the film won’t be as good, although this isn’t always true.
Another result of the switch from the studio system to the start system is stars seem to have more autonomy in film industry than they did before. If a studio wants a star bad enough then they will try and do anything to appease them. This can often include changing creative aspects of the film. It has also become easier for stars to produce and write their own films once they have a big enough name. I’m not sure if these are pros or cons to the system. The movie stars have a lot of experience in the industry and occasionally have enough knowledge to contribute creatively, other times it is just their stubbornness to change what they are accustomed to rather than creativity they are adding to the film.
The stars are definitely at the top of the industry with the star system. They have more control and autonomy under this way of doing things. Studios place a lot of responsibility and give the stars plenty of freedom to stars meaning they can ask for more money. I don’t think it is feasible for this system to last forever; the inflated salaries can only last so long before studios look for elsewhere to spend their money.
As everyone else has said, the transition to the star system has placed the power in the hands of the stars rather than the studios. I believe that this has resulted in less content, but a more diverse range. There is a lot more autonomy on what is produced. For this reason, I think it is good.
I do not think that the star system is placing media companies in financial danger. If the studios believe that the stars are asking for too much money they can always search for a smaller name. I think that the power and money will continue to shift towards the stars until the studios reach a tipping point in which they begin to stop bringing these big names on board. Say enough of the studios continued this, the power would shift back towards the studios.
Switching from the studio system to the star system allows actors and actresses to be especially selected for individual films, rather than having long term contracts. This shifted the power to the stars’ hands, because they were the ones that can help determine the success of the film. By having a great actor play the leading role in a terrible movie, it is still guaranteed to make money. With the studio system, movie studios had a lot more control of the production process through vertical integration. However, in the text it states that star power might be on the decline. Sometimes having an A-list actor is not enough to make a film a success. I don’t think that the high demand for money is putting companies in financial danger. I agree with Derek and think that these studios can choose a different actor if the one they want does not fit within their budget. Even though these stars have a lot of power, there still needs to be a balance between both the actor and the studio for it to work.
The studio system has allowed stars to flutter around and pick and choose which movies they want to make and with which companies.
There can now be a certain reliance with the stars. We know that if there is a talented and accomplished star that we like who is making a movie, he or she may be selective with which projects they take, thus ensuring that we'll be impressed with their performances.
I think of Daniel Day Lewis. He doesn't make movies very often, but when he does he delivers a great performance. If he was part of the studio system, he would make some great movies, but also some pretty low-grade ones. Now I know that if he's staring in a movie, it's because he's found a fascinating project that he really believes in and can connect with.
While the star system puts more power in the hands of the stars to make more money, it also allows for studios to build relationship with these stars who draw in big crowds.
The star system shifted the power from the studios to the actors. Before this change, the studios had complete control over the actors. They owned them and controlled which films they would be in. It was a lazy system, giving the studios the comfort of never having to create content that would compete with other studios' content for the attention of the actors.
Now that the stars are in control, they (along with their agents) are given the decision of what films they would like to pursue for their career. This forces studios to create content that is new, fresh, and appealing to the actors. This is great for the industry itself.
Switching from studio system to star system resulted in the shift of the power and autonomy from studios to stars and it affects that the gap between people, who get money, and don't get, expands and few people of media industries have huge power. It also affects the gap between the companies, which have money to produce, and have not.
It is because stars having creative power such as actors, writers, and directors can demand how much they want to get paid today although film industries used to manage to create the films mainly, stars used to be under contract and studios have the power to decide how much they pay. And as the result, the profit of whole industry concentrates on the few people. It affects also Industries because companies, which can pay for them, succeed more than other companies.
I don’t think that star system has a lot of negative effect because the quality of movies actually got higher than the era from 1920s to 1950s by the shift of the system from contract of stars to the setting
I don’t think that media companies are in the situation of financial danger because they work with high profile stars, who demand to get paid a lot, when they afford to pay for them, but I think that some of them might be in the severe situation because small companies, which don’t have money to produce so much, may lose the chance to make famous movies and make a lot of profit because many other big companies like Disney pay for them a lot and the products get famous easily because of the advertising effect. I also think that it may be the danger that the companies cannot stop hiring famous actors because many of them do it and make profit and if they don’t follow them, it is hard to get famous and make profit in the competing situation of the industry.
Like many have said, the shift from the studio system to the star system created many changes in the industry. After this switch stars increased their earning power and now have the ability to demand how ever much money they want. If the studio really wants them in the part, theres not much negotiating. Agents also extended their powers after the switch to the star system, as they took more of a central role in the managing of the stars that every production wanted. With the breakdown of the studio system there was also a large decrease in the amount of films being made, which meant less work for the lesser known actors, and more demand for the ones everyone wanted to see. Though I think that some stars get paid ridiculous amounts, for the most part it is justified in the respect that they know their image and talent can make a lot of money for the studio.
I think the shift in power from the studio system to the star system is a good thing. Before, the studios had far too much control over the industry, and for the most part they still do. They controlled every piece of the production and therefore took home all the profits, leaving the actors with practically nothing. However, in the modern era our culture has gravitated to the star system. A majority of us will go see a film if Brad PItt, Tom Cruise, or the new, Jennifer Lawrence is in it. We see past a bad movie, and fancy advertising, our attention focused solely on seeing the stars. Therefore, I think it is only fair that they get a large proportion of the profits. In the end, they are the faces that we are willing to pay for. Without the star system, Hollywood would have to figure out a new way to get people into the seats. It seems to be working fine for them now.
I agree with Jacob. I think that overall the shift was a good thing. I do believe we lost some and gained some—but the studio system was never about creativity, it was never about quality. It's purpose was to churn out 700 films/year during the 1920s.
The star system that usurped the studio system as a result of the Paramount decrees, television (and losing audiences to those programs on television) has made celebrities of the creatives.
For content, I'd say that's a good thing. The studios are no longer actual production companies run like businesses. They are now the business side: production—backer-distributors and renters of actual, physical, studio space.
I don't think that the star system looses more money than it brings in. Stars like Tom Cruise and JJ Abrams are the "tent poles" of a studio. They ensure a certain degree of revenue and that's why they are paid so much. On the other hand (and I could have the wrong end of the stick) it's still an exorbitant amount of money that could be used for other purposes: like smaller, more intellectual films and new talent. It also gives "stars" this insane celebrity that our culture has just gleaned on to. We are obsessed. And maybe that's who we are as a society; we gravitate towards the "stars", but I think that for the most part the degree to which we obsess in unhealthy.
The studio system was a time when hollywood was run and owned by the studios themselves. The production, director, actors, and theaters were all subject to only about 5 main studios. This gave ultimate power to the studios and they were charge of naming their own prices from everything to actors' and directors' movie filmographies, tickets prices and distribution to theaters, etc. Now a days and after the 1960s the star system became hollywood's system and it is very much based on the popularity and status of the name of the actor and director who are in and create a film. Studios are still important for funding but are not as in control as they once were due to the rise and independence of the creatives as well as the dis-ownership of studios' theaters. I don't think stars are asking for too much because the system seems to be in good shape, even though more popular stars are paid an insane amount for some films. It may grow to be a problem for financial danger in regards to streaming Netflix sites and piracy sites due to lack of people seeing films in theaters and supporting the studios and stars directly that way.
For the studio system, the studios used to have total control over the actors. They would control the films they could star in because they were under contract. I think it was beneficial for studios because they avoided the stress of having to compete to nail down different actors and without having to pay an unreasonable amount. As people said above, the transition from the studio system to the star system made way for many changes in the industry including a shift in power from studios now to actors.
With the star system, it's up to the actor to decide what films they want to be in, not the studio. This system makes things a bit harder on studios because they are in competition to get great actors. They have to come up with content that will make actors want to star in their films. Although this is more work for studios it is great for the industry as a whole.
I think that the money demands from big name actors is sometimes unreasonable. A lot of actors because they have the opportunity to, get carried away with the amount that they ask for. I do still think that many stars deserve an above the line salary though, because of the profit they will be returning on the movie. Many people see movies because of the stars that are in them and because of this I believe an above the line salary is appropriate.
Post a Comment