The New York Times reports on a ton of academic research that says that paying big stars doesn't appreciably improve the box-office returns. Paying a big star is a marketing expense (lots of people can do Tom Cruise as well as Tom Cruise does, but you haven't heard of them), but it looks like Hollywood execs sign those big checks on the basis of a superstition about how much filmgoers care about the faces on the screen:
In one study, Mr. De Vany and W. David Walls, an economist at the University of Calgary, took those factors into account. Looking across a sample of more than 2,000 movies exhibited between 1985 and 1996, they found that only seven actors and actresses — Tom Hanks, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sandra Bullock, Jodie Foster, Jim Carrey, Barbra Streisand and Robin Williams — had a positive impact on the box office, mostly in the first few weeks of a film's release.
In the same study, two directors, Steven Spielberg and Oliver Stone also pushed up a movie's revenue. But Winona Ryder, Sharon Stone and Val Kilmer were associated with a smaller box-office revenue. No other star had any statistically significant impact at all. So what are stars for? By helping a movie open — attracting lots of people in to see a movie in the first few days before the buzz about whether it's good or bad is widely known — stars can set a floor for revenues, said Mr. De Vany.
"Stars help to launch a film. They are meant as signals to create a big opening," he said. "But they can't make a film have legs."
(via Kottke)
