Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wolfeskins
lifetimeskinsfan is dead on the money, your off base on this one defensewins ( just my opinion )
i could care less you is in a movie, if the movie looks to be good i'll go see it, if it looks to be bad i wont go see it. i could care less who "stars" in it.
football is the same, i'll go see or watch on tv, every redskins game regardless of the players. i watch football because i love it not because i want to see sean taylor or clinton portis.
football players are way over paid as it is.
|
For everyperson like you there are 20 people that will go see a movie just because their favorite star or director is in it. I never said I agreed with it but that is the way people are. People will see a Ron Howard or Stephen Speilberg directed movie just because they directed it. Plain and simple that is what drives up their demand and thus their salaries. You are usually going to have bigger revenues if you attach a certain amount of name recognition and star quality. It is all about money. I am not saying the other way will not work, on occasion a movie with no stars will do very well, but that is not as common.
I agree with you that in a perfect world athletes, movie stars and musicians should not getting more money than say a doctor that saves lives everyday. But the fact is the 4 members of U2 (for example) will generate more revenue than than any 4 doctors. It is sad but true.