Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Before anyone starts, this is not about smack talking individual celebrities, but on the actual existence of them.

This sprouted from a notion I've always had in my head. Why the hell do they make so much more money? I'm not approaching this from an economic point of view or anything. All I'm saying is, while I think it's okay that people with such talents etc. get payed for it, I think the actual amounts were talking about are complete and utter nonsense.

TL: DR, Do you think celebrities make to much money in comparison to the actual work they put in?

Soladrin wrote:Do you think celebrities make to much money in comparison to the actual work they put in?

Obviously. Same is true for sport. I mean I would play cricket for a living on minimum wage let alone what the pros get paid.

All comes down to supply and demand. Public will pay top dollar for it, celebs can therefore demand more moeny.

People like celebrities, a lot. I usually don't know why, but people can pay them a million dollars to be in a movie if they really want to, no skin off my back.

I think they are fine. My issue is all the people in the back that get paid, Agents, CEOs, everybody in the music Bizz that gets paid before the musicians themselves. The life is a lot harder than you think. One false move ad you will be all over every mag and on tabliods for years. No real friends, people who will ever only love your money, stalkers. no amount of money is worth that.

The list of people that make what I think they deserve or more, is pretty damn slim. Actors are not on that list. But still thats pretty much up to the movie companies. They know that if actor so and so is in their film, itll gross $5million more, and only cost them $1million to hire the actor, they are golden. Its dumb, but people will go see movies just because their fav actor is in it, irregardless of what the movie is about.

Just remember, most celebrates have no personal life at all, they are constantly exposed to the media and (most celebraties are actors) do work alot into thier movies, rehursing over and over and over with the same line over and over and over, to get the perfect shot. imho, thats hell for me.

KingCracker wrote:The list of people that make what I think they deserve or more, is pretty damn slim. Actors are not on that list. But still thats pretty much up to the movie companies. They know that if actor so and so is in their film, itll gross $5million more, and only cost them $1million to hire the actor, they are golden. Its dumb, but people will go see movies just because their fav actor is in it, irregardless of what the movie is about.

*twitch* Nitpicking/grammar Nazi mode: no such word as "Irregardless..."

Anyways. Unfortunately, the world we live in just kind of works that way. I will say that being in a few drama productions back in the day, acting isn't necessarily an easy job. Ignoring the challenges of just getting into stardom, actors have to consider a lot of things in doing their job. Tone of voice, actions, keeping nerves under control, having to operate in costume all the time (more relevant for movies with period costumes such as Shakespeare or Lord of the Rings), not to mention needing to be very active. Though the last part depends largely on the role, there are often times in a movie where the actor has to do something physical, and then do it over and over again until the director is satisfied with the take.

Do I think they need to be paid huge sums of money for what they do? Well, no - for all the challenges of acting, it's still kind of an easy job if you're good at it. But do I understand that acting is not just some cushy job that gets a lot of pay and little to no work? Definitely. By no means is it something that you can just fall into and then give no effort to earn your pay.

Locclo wrote:*twitch* Nitpicking/grammar Nazi mode: no such word as "Irregardless..."

"usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

from Merriam Webster. It is also in most modern-published dictionaries.


Compared to sports players, I think they get paid all right. Sports players are grossly overpaid...

I DO have a problem with people who get paid for their "image". i.e, Paris Hilton... She doesn't even do anything...also, The Kardashians...etc.. I could probably think of more...but I try not to concern myself with these matters, I just see them periodically from time to time...

Soladrin wrote:TL: DR, Do you think celebrities make to much money in comparison to the actual work they put in?

No i think they deserves w/e amount money they get. Because we need to look at the bigger picture of the industry.
What % of them reach that level of stardom? Talents aside , lots of their success comes from luck and good opportunities.

In a way , thats like asking whether we think lotteries are giving away too much money.

LunaHound wrote:

Soladrin wrote:TL: DR, Do you think celebrities make to much money in comparison to the actual work they put in?

No i think they deserves w/e amount money they get. Because we need to look at the bigger picture of the industry.
What % of them reach that level of stardom? Talents aside , lots of their success comes from luck and good opportunities.

In a way , thats like asking whether we think lotteries are giving away too much money.

Which I do, so your point is moot.

Soladrin wrote:Before anyone starts, this is not about smack talking individual celebrities, but on the actual existence of them.

This sprouted from a notion I've always had in my head. Why the hell do they make so much more money? I'm not approaching this from an economic point of view or anything.

Cool, as long as you know that this makes the thread you posted completely redundant. The reasons for the amount of money paid to celebrities are unavoidably economic - labour is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.

Oh, you can't have an opinion now without it having to do with the economy? Good going.

Soladrin wrote:Oh, you can't have an opinion now without it having to do with the economy? Good going.

Its to do with economy as the celebrities are "products" of companies and agencies. They pour money into scouting and promoting them.

Not the "economy" we have recession in xD

Soladrin wrote:Oh, you can't have an opinion now without it having to do with the economy? Good going.

Trying to work out why celebrities are paid so much, without considering economic reasons?


Even BETTER going.

Albatross wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Oh, you can't have an opinion now without it having to do with the economy? Good going.

Trying to work out why celebrities are paid so much, without considering economic reasons?


Even BETTER going.

Once again, I asked for opinions on celebrities, I didn't ask WHY they make so much.

Soladrin wrote:I didn't ask WHY they make so much.

Really? It fething looks like it to me....

Soladrin wrote:
This sprouted from a notion I've always had in my head. Why the hell do they make so much more money? I'm not approaching this from an economic point of view or anything. All I'm saying is, while I think it's okay that people with such talents etc. get payed for it, I think the actual amounts were talking about are complete and utter nonsense.

TL: DR, Do you think celebrities make to much money in comparison to the actual work they put in?

You can't explore why celebrities earn as much as they do without considering economic factors, that's all I'm saying.

And I think you can.

I think real actors, musicians and artists are great. They are worth what the market will support I guess.
For me, Angelina Jolie is a real icon of our time, a proper celebrity in the same class as Marilyn Monroe because she is beautiful and a very good actress. Jack Nicholson is an amazing actor, I watched 'About Schmidt' a while back and was staggered at how good he was in it.

You could argue (and I wouldn't argue back) that there are tireless, anonymous people out there doing great things that are far more deserving, you'd be right. But I appreciate icons and talents in the arts and I think we do need people in those positions for our culture, posters on our walls and all that.

I do not like 'celebrities' who's job description would be 'celebrity'... Those people who are famous for being famous. The '5 minute' wonders like the big brother winners, the heiresses like Hilton. These people are pointless and have no discernible talent.

And should be purged from the world.

I completely agree on hating people like Paris Hilton and the Kardashins. The worst part is, they already have a gak ton of money, but they are getting paid more to do what exactly? I mean sure, I think Kim is one of the hottest women on the planet, but that doesnt deserve more money because of it. I want my own tv show too dammit, I can do nothing on tv and get paid for it. Hell I bet it would be more watchable then that crap, I get into some rather funny predicaments.



Locclo-Im glad IG_urban posted that, I was about to ask, why its in my dictionary

Thing is, Kardashian is hot, very attractive. But she isn't one of the hottest women on the planet, she just has far more exposure than a great deal of other women who are far more attractive. Open an Ann Summers catalogue and you'll find plenty of girls on the same level of attractiveness, just that due to money and pre-existing prestige, Kardashian can go to celebrity functions and be photographed at enough of them to become sought after for photographing...

It's one of those self fulfilling prophecies.

Ok ok Ill admit that the "hottest in the world" is a bit of a stretch, but it cant be by too much



I have a super huge crush on Zooey Deschanel though. Thats a "celebrity"(if you want to call her that) that I can get on board with

Vida Guerra.



The end.

Albatross wrote:Vida Guerra.



The end.

I'd certainly pay large sums of money to use her backside as a pillow. .

But more "on topic",It does seem that the "income" of many "celebrities" is a bit much.millions of dollars to hit,catch or throw a ball or toss it in a hoop?or as MGS pointed out ,for simply being "famous",it does seem a bit excesive.

Also the over inflated importance that is placed upon celebrities gets a bit silly,"What are they wearing?","who are they fething?","what's their view point on this topic or that one?"...I mean honestly,why would anyone give a feth what Bradd Pitt's "views" are?

Sarah Chalke, yum.

Soladrin wrote:Sarah Chalke, yum.

She's attractive in a "plain" sort of way.

Now,Sheri Moon Zombie,Alissa White-Gluz or Sean Yseult...that's my kind of "yum".

FITZZ wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Sarah Chalke, yum.

She's attractive in a "plain" sort of way.

Now,Sheri Moon Zombie,Alissa White-Gluz or Sean Yseult...that's my kind of "yum".

I never fall for the whole supermodel thing, IMO it looks to fake, and I need something to hold on to, and I'm not talking big fake knockers.

I used to have a crush on Donna from that 70's show. XD

Soladrin wrote:And I think you can.

You can think all you want and whatever you want, but it is what it is. And it is like asking why Australia managed to be a dominant cricketing power over the 90s and 00s without considering the players available.

Basiacally you get what the market will pay, less if you bargain poorly, more if they bargain poorly. A movie star is the front person to a 40 million or more production (often much, much more) and having their face on the poster means a hell of a lot in terms of exposure and public interest. Basic fact is people are more likely to notice and go see a film if Sandra Bullock is in it, and so she gets to charge accordingly. The concept of 'earn' is loosel related, but like for the rest of us it's a loose relationship at best.

Morally, for me on the personal level of any particular person's salary I don't really pass judgement on how much they earn. If you can get it, take it. What matters is what you do with it - how much goes to decent causes, compared to how much goes on hookers and blow.

There's a whole other issue of income equality, how much the top few earn compared to the rest of the population, but celebrity pay is a trivial portion of that. I'd be more worried about CEOs and executive management earning hundreds of times the average wage of their employees than how much Jessica Alba earned last year. At least she has the common sense to be smoking hot.

You poor hapless non-DCMs... Never will you know the land of milk and honey that lies beyond the fortress wall....

KingCracker wrote:Locclo-Im glad IG_urban posted that, I was about to ask, why its in my dictionary

KingCracker wrote:I have a super huge crush on Zooey Deschanel though. Thats a "celebrity"(if you want to call her that) that I can get on board with

I used to, too....but she tries WAY to hard to be "indy" and "trendy"..annoys the piss out of me...I swear she married Ben Gibbard just to show how "indy" she is... ...feth....

Albatross wrote:Vida Guerra

good choice, but kind of a butterface...


and here come the flames...

Emma Watson is, imho, one of the most beautiful women in the world. I am also a fan on Christina Hendrickson, Susan Coffey, Morena Baccarin...mmm and Tina Fey......


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tina Fey and I are going to get married on top of a mountain....and there will be flutes playing...and garlands..of fresh...herbs....

I think that it all depends on the type of celebrity. For me there are two categories.

Type 1
People who are incredibly talented within their chosen field and are admired for their skill and dedication. Whilst many may not be interested in the individuals chosen specialisation, they can appreciate their talent for it and the dedication they have shown to achieve their status.

Type 2
People who have sought out a life in the media spot light for no other reason than the need for attention. They tend to have little or no descernable talent and are rarely bothered about why they are being photographed, interviewed or filmed as long as they are being noticed.

Many celebrities earn vast amounts of money for what appears to be quite a small amount of effort, when there are many "average Joe's" who are seen to work in far more demanding or dangerous professions. However I feel that the type 1 celebrities play an important part in the structure of our society, they give people something to aim for and aspire to. They show that if you have a talent and channel your energies towards being the best at it then the sky is the limit regardless of your background or social standing. Many celebrities also lend there talents or just images to raise awarness of important issues and raise money for good causes, whilst this undoubtedly raises their profiles it also helps those a lot less fortuanate.

To be honest the type 2 celebrities are little more than parasites and poor role models. They encourage young and impressionable people to think that they dont have to work hard because they can appear on the next reality tv show and spend the next few years selling every detail of their sorrid little lives to any trashy tabloid or weekly magazine that will throw them a few hundred quid. Having said all of that it appears to be a vicious circle in that as long as there are those willing to read about them there will always be those willing to become them.