The Nicolas Cage Debate

[falcon9393]

So i recently was listening to a podcast by uhh yaa dude about nicolas cage and his vast amounts of property! That lucky B@$%$#% has 30 houses all over the world!!! No matter where he is he can get drunk and sleep in his own bed!! But this doesnt make up for the fact that his movies suck, the knowing was so boring that instead of watchin it, i planned the best way to escape from the theatre incase of a terorist attach (which is very unlikely due to the fact that its a movie theatre and its in nowhere idaho!)

anyways....

 

 

My point being is..."do you think its totally fair for crappy actors with receading hair lines *cough nicolas cage cough* to make enough money to be able top afford 30 houses?"

[insane_alien]

i like nicholas cage. yeah, okay knowing sucked but i don't think that was the fault of the actors and actresses

[john5746]

does it really matter if its a crappy actor or a skilled one?

 

Should anyone own 30 houses? probably not, but should we have the luxury to even think about this kind of thing while people in the third world work themselves to death in order to survive? probably not. Life ain't fair and you should probably be happy about that.

[SH3RL0CK]

I didn't vote, none of the catagories fits my thoughts very well. I can't really assign right or wrong to this catagory.

 

I don't think he, or any actor for that matter, is worth what he gets paid and it is pathetic that society will pay him so much, but so very little for the guy working just as hard down the street. But the movie studios are willing to pay him...so he should take it. I'd take the money too if I could get it.

 

That said, the movie studios make good money off movies he stars in, so in their eyes he is probably worth what they pay him.

[Sisyphus]

If you don't think he should be making all that money, why were you in a theater, which you presumably paid to get in, knowing that some of that ticket price is going to him, whether directly or indirectly by justifying some obscene salary for his next movie? You're complaining about a "problem" which a)doesn't affect you, and b)is directly your own fault. Do I think he really deserves all that money? Not really, but then again, I'm not the one paying him.

 

Oh, and of all the problems you might have with him, you pick on his hairline? Do I think that actors should be able to have receding hairlines and nevertheless be allowed to be in movies and get paid for them? Yes, yes I do.

[Phi for All]

Whoa, STOP! Nick Cage makes fun movies, not always great ones, but he delivers pretty consistent entertainment, with a minimum of off-screen bizzaro antics. I happen to believe that anyone in the entertainment industry, including sports, has a duty to be a role model for kids who idolize them. It's one of the reasons I condone the ridiculous sums of money they can command. Cage has never been arrested, he doesn't trash hotel rooms, and he makes smart investments (like, um, real estate) and that makes him a minority among the Hollywood elite.

 

Cage could have kept his original name and hung on the coattails of his famous director uncle, but he chose to change it and make his own name. He has my respect for that too.

 

His movies suck?! You're crazy! The stuff he's done with Bruckheimer has been fun, I LOVE Next (the concept and his character intrigued me enough to actually buy the movie, and I don't usually buy anything but comedies) and his character pieces, like in Raising Arizona and Red Rock West, were very memorable. He has great comic timing and a rare intensity that's not drug-driven, and many of his improvisations on camera end up in the movies. He's not the most brilliant actor but he's not deserving of this overly critical thread. His hairline?! What's he supposed to do, hair plugs?! Pu-leeeze, I'm glad Nick isn't *that* shallow.

[MM6]

I thought his performance in Leaving Las Vegas was excellent. That's what I associate him with. He's made a lot of crap though, especially in the recent part of his career.

 

To answer the question, we live in a system where his salary depends on the viewing public. Cage isn't the problem, it's the idiots paying 75 million in a weekend to see National Treasure 10. When's that coming out by the way?

[iNow]

I tend to agree that he's a pretty lousy actor. I think it's sad we pay actors so much.

 

However, Wild at Heart with him and Laura Dern is a great flick.

 

 

 

DSn43gVfwi8

[bascule]

I thought his performance in Leaving Las Vegas was excellent. That's what I associate him with. He's made a lot of crap though, especially in the recent part of his career.

 

I'm more of a Raising Arizona person.

 

If hundreds of thousands or millions of people are willing to pay to go to his movies then he deserves the money he gets for making them.

 

Audiences are valuable and people who draw them are likewise valuable.

[stereologist]

I think there should be 90% windfall tax on actors, sports figures, radio and TV personalities, computer geeks, and plastic surgeons.

[Baby Astronaut]

DSn43gVfwi8

 

 

Wow, a movie with Powermad in the soundtrack? Awesome!

[iNow]

Yeah, David Lynch did lots of great films, including Dune.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lynch#Filmography

[ecoli]

I think it's sad we pay actors so much.

 

Here's the problem with this mentality... we don't pay actors anything. Hollywood/ producers do.

 

Salaries are justified based on supply/demand (related to their marginal productivity).

 

If we think that salaries need to be adjusted to some subjective concept of "fairness" maybe we should reform the Soviet Union... they made some pretty good movies, right?

[iNow]

Oh... good grief... I knew somebody would beat me over the head with their free market drum.

 

Allow me to rephrase instead of getting bogged down in this...

 

 

In my opinion, actors are paid too much. I do not feel that the services they provide are worth the checks they receive, and further find other types of work much more important to the functioning of our society get paid far too little. Case in point: School teachers.

 

Now, I am not about to go on a crusade that we change this. I really don't care about it that much. I was simply expressing an opinion on the matter.

 

Now, if you go off on a tangent that I'm some sort of soviet or socialist, then perhaps it is you who is taking things too seriously, and you should have a cocktail to relax.

[Sisyphus]

Here's the problem with this mentality... we don't pay actors anything. Hollywood/ producers do.

 

Salaries are justified based on supply/demand (related to their marginal productivity).

 

If we think that salaries need to be adjusted to some subjective concept of "fairness" maybe we should reform the Soviet Union... they made some pretty good movies, right?

 

I think iNow said it was sad that they get paid that much, not that "we shouldn't, because it's not fair." I can understand why movie stars and professional athletes make so much money, not think anything unethical is going on or that there oughta be a law, and still find it depressing and think they don't deserve it based on subjective standards. That's not contradictory.

[Baby Astronaut]

Oh... good grief... I knew somebody would beat me over the head with their free market drum.

Yeah, it's like they're micro-evangelists sent to preach their free market solutions out to everyone in the world, and butt into everyday conversations with a lecture of memorized dogma supplied by Cato Institute, other think tanks, and political media.

 

By the way, I voted yes. It's right, but not practical.

[ecoli]

In my opinion, actors are paid too much. I do not feel that the services they provide are worth the checks they receive, and further find other types of work much more important to the functioning of our society get paid far too little. Case in point: School teachers.

most of my school teachers don't deserve the salaries that they do make (though I grew up in a relatively wealthy middle class public school with a strong teachers union).

 

But just think about how many crappy and good actors out there who make less than teachers... There are a lot of really good theatre actors who make shit money (and there are lot of C-rated actors who make shitty infomercials for ever). What makes them different from Nicholas Cage? I'm not sure but its not for me to determine.

 

The free market is generally pretty good at aligning wages to labor market demand. There are some exceptions like Nicholas Cage and certain Yankee ballplayers... but for every overpaid movie star or athelete, you're going to find hundreds, if not thousands, more underpaid ones. (is baseball really less valuable than cricket?? for example).

 

The demand for teachers is even higher, but the supply is also reasonably large, so wages stabilize around some geographic region.

 

Of course, the supply of good teachers is another matter.

 

Now, if you go off on a tangent that I'm some sort of soviet or socialist, then perhaps it is you who is taking things too seriously, and you should have a cocktail to relax.

give me some credit iNow... i've been on SFN since 2004 and have never done this.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

based on subjective standards. That's not contradictory.

 

no it's not... but you've hit the nail on the head here. It's that surprising on a science forum full of nerds, we think that athletes and movie stars are making too much money.

 

But consider how many good and bad actors/atheletes don't make it into the big leagues and that hollywood and sports are HUGE business, that millions of people across the world value very highly...

 

We rail against A-rod making $28 million a year, but if the yankees didn't pay him that much, he would be in some other city right now, the yankees would be that much less enjoyable to watch, ticket sales would go down and that means less hot dog sales at yankee stadium, less employment opportunities for new york teens, less tax revenue for the city, etc.

 

You can't consider wages as an isolated phenomenon.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yeah, it's like they're micro-evangelists sent to preach their free market solutions out to everyone in the world, and butt into everyday conversations with a lecture of memorized dogma supplied by Cato Institute, other think tanks, and political media.

I actually don't read Cato material that often, though I like the organization. But thanks for the baseless accusations... what political media establishment to you subscribe to, btw?

 

By the way, I voted yes. It's right, but not practical.

That's pretty ironic considering your comments above. How is it not practical?

Edited May 28, 2009 by ecoli
Consecutive posts merged.

[SH3RL0CK]

Yeah, it's like they're micro-evangelists sent to preach their free market solutions out to everyone in the world, and butt into everyday conversations with a lecture of memorized dogma supplied by Cato Institute, other think tanks, and political media.

 

By the way, I voted yes. It's right, but not practical.

 

 

Just because someone, such as ecoli, believes in the free market doesn't make that person dogmatic, nor brainwashed by the Cato institute. I don't see where he was butting in; nor did I take his comments as a lecture.

 

Edit - just realized I cross-posted with ecoli...

[Sisyphus]

no it's not... but you've hit the nail on the head here. It's that surprising on a science forum full of nerds, we think that athletes and movie stars are making too much money.

 

But consider how many good and bad actors/atheletes don't make it into the big leagues and that hollywood and sports are HUGE business, that millions of people across the world value very highly...

 

We rail against A-rod making $28 million a year, but if the yankees didn't pay him that much, he would be in some other city right now, the yankees would be that much less enjoyable to watch, ticket sales would go down and that means less hot dog sales at yankee stadium, less employment opportunities for new york teens, less tax revenue for the city, etc.

 

You can't consider wages as an isolated phenomenon.

 

I understand all that. Believe me, I know that basically any wage can be explained in terms of supply and demand, and in terms of the employer's calculations of worth to themselves (which, incidentally, are often irrational). The Yankees believe A-Rod is worth more to them than they're paying him, and they might even be right. That's all very straightforward stuff. But it's also only one way of looking at it, and that's easy to lose perspective on. Does he "deserve" (scare quotes very much intended) all that money? Does he work as hard, do as much "good" (again...) as a thousand first year teachers? Collectively and unconsciously, we apparently value being at the extreme ends of various physiological bell curves a great deal, but do we individually, philosophically?

[bascule]

In my opinion, actors are paid too much. I do not feel that the services they provide are worth the checks they receive, and further find other types of work much more important to the functioning of our society get paid far too little. Case in point: School teachers.

 

While school teachers are affecting lives in a more positive way, they affect fewer lives. The work of an actor like Nicholas Cage can reach tens of millions of people. A school teacher may affect at most something like ten thousand. The few orders of magnitude difference in salary corresponds directly to the few orders of magnitude greater number of people their work reaches.

[SH3RL0CK]

While school teachers are affecting lives in a more positive way, they affect fewer lives. The work of an actor like Nicholas Cage can reach tens of millions of people. A school teacher may affect at most something like ten thousand. The few orders of magnitude difference in salary corresponds directly to the few orders of magnitude greater number of people their work reaches.

 

That is a good point. However, a good teacher will have a more meaningful impact than any actor for lots of reasons. How does the length of a typical movie (2 hours) compare to 7 hours a day, every day? How much more influence is possible with direct interaction compared to perhaps an infomercial? Think about the people who have made a real difference in your life...I'll bet none of them are hollywood actors.

 

If I were a teacher, I would counter your arguement by stating that the impact is orders of magnitude more meaningful to the listeners.

[D H]

Yeah, David Lynch did lots of great films, including Dune.

Off-tangent, but

 

Sheez! David Lynch?? Great films?? Those words do not belong together in the same sentence, the same paragraph, or even the same article. This is doubly true for the complete atrocity he made of Dune.

 

===============================

 

Back on topic. Who are any of you to judge what salary someone "deserves"? If you think movie actors are paid too much, don't go to the movies. If you manage to convince enough people that your way of thinking is correct, and they do the same, actors will cease being paid their extravagant salaries.

 

Part of the problem here as, that as bunch of science nerds, we live in a very egalitarian world. A fresh-out with a bachelors degree in a science or technology field can make $40,000 easily, $100,000 per year that with a masters degree in the right field / right geographic area. Sans a Nobel prize or being CEO of MegaTechnologies Corp, the odds of making a quarter million per year are rather slim. That is a very narrow salary range. Sports, acting, lawyering, and even doctoring do not suffer from (or benefit from, depending on your point of view) this egalitarianism.

[iNow]

Sheez! David Lynch?? Great films?? Those words do not belong together in the same sentence, the same paragraph, or even the same article. This is doubly true for the complete atrocity he made of Dune.

 

I wondered who'd be the first to respond to that.

 

 

Wild at Heart is cool, though. Lots of spice.

[Baby Astronaut]

Wild at Heart is cool, though. Lots of spice.

Well, due to you I'm checking it out anyway. Even before the spice mention

 

The free market, combined with a healthy enough dose of legislation amongst its roots which have made productive competition, fairer salaries, overtime pay, safer workplace conditions, etc, more universal for us, is generally pretty good at aligning wages to labor market demand.

Fixed.

 

We rail against A-rod making $28 million a year

Not me.

 

I actually don't read Cato material that often, though I like the organization.

Of course you do

 

A think tank's material is spread far and wide, especially if they're of high stature. Likely you've encountered it without recognizing its source?

 

But thanks for the baseless accusations...

I was making a general statement. At work, or in a bar/ restaurant, at events, many places, it's just common enough for a person to interject with their "own" view of best market practices, when in reality it sounds just like any other joe before/after them,* which happens to sound just like the mantra of its political originators.

 

And yet they claim individualism as a strength. Now that's irony.

 

However, I will apologize though for the indirect swipe at you, wasn't my intention but it did come across that way.

 

what political media establishment to you subscribe to, btw?

My own eyes. Plus, reasonably questioning all that I believe or come across, then re-questioning it. And to help solidify its validity, running it through every culture and time in history I'm able to think of, to see if flaws in reasoning spring up. Then asking lots of questions and getting input/views from others.

 

I'm not subscribed to any party nor ever will be, thus can't vote in primaries -- but it's worth that cost.

 

That's pretty ironic considering your comments above. How is it not practical?

Spending a fortune on a crappy actor is not practical to the business, it's not practical for the story writer's vision becoming fulfilled, it's not practical to the movie-goer, and it's not practical for the industry to make it standard habit. It's really only practical for the actor, but only if they're interested just in the money, and not in gaining recognition for quality talent/performances.

 

But, it's any business's right to pay whatever fortune they decide. However, it might not be practical in some cases.

 

 

*(Their numbers-increase and method of approach reminds me somewhat of bible messengers or gospel spreaders of a new religion, which isn't surprising considering how an unhealthy portion of their leaders approach government recently)

Edited May 29, 2009 by Baby Astronaut

[jagganath]

Well, the truth is, he had some high ups and low downs.

He was really good in Face Off.

 

On a side note:

He should donate to find cure for cancer or something.

Having that much money will only go to waste.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Mokele
mispelled some word.