Stars, shooting and exploding

By Steven Zeitchik

Of all the things that struck us as we reported a story about the decline of star power at the box office is how little anyone seemed to be troubled by it. Even agents, whose bread and butter is to turn star salaries into, well, bigger star salaries, were ready to admit a new world order.

A quick recap: We've been busy the last few weeks talking to studio execs, agents, publicists -- not to mention tempting our optometrist's wrath by poring over box-office numbers -- studying the whole question of how much stars matter. Really matter, in a clinical, box-office, Moneyball sort of way, not in how many times they can be seen on E! over the course of a week (actually, that might be a reason why they don't matter). And the answer is -- less than they used to even a few years ago. A lot less.

As we outlined in the piece -- which you can read here -- some notable trends popped out. The decline is evident in every metric, and from every angle. The average number of top grossing films over the last few years that are driven by stars has fallen by 200%-300%. The number of stars who can reliably drive box-office no matter the picture has slid from nearly a dozen to two or three, and we're not sure about the three.  Over this time box-office overall has continued to rise. Which means that while stars' brand-recognition and perceived power has multiplied, their actual power has diminished. Other factors and players -- a highly diverse group that ranges from toy-licensors to indie directors -- have wrested it away.

When stars do make a difference it's because they've landed in a franchise that gives them a boost; Universal and Disney may now need Damon and Depp for "Bourne" and "Pirates," but that's only because franchises like "Bourne" and Pirates" made them
indispensable in the first place. (Doubts? Just ask someone who had adjusted first-dollar on "Good Shepherd" or "Sweeney Todd.") None of this, it should be said, should be taken as particularly relevant for SAG negotiations -- lord knows most of the actors covered by any labor agreement wouldn't get within flicking distance of what these relative handful make. If anything, all these trends argue for more equity in actor payment.

These are pretty powerful numbers, the kind that if leveraged in the right way, could be used by studio chiefs to lower salaries. And yet despite hearing all of thi,s many agents --even those who rep some of said A-listers -- seemed more zen than Phil Jackson at a yoga retreat.

So why no concern?

A recognition of the truth is part of it. But more likely, it's stratgeic.  Agents who rep stars may want salaries to stay high, but they want expectations to stay low. Because you argue that they do matter at the box-office, you're essentially ceding the argument, because they don't. So better to decouple the two. This way expectations aren't that high, and stars' stocks stay where they are. Really,would "Leatherheads" be perceived as the dud that it is if people stopped expecting Clooney to open at $30+ million in the first place? Meanwhile, those whose stars actually do draw in keeping with their salary -- and they do exist, though many of these stars are below the $20-million line -- will be more than fine with the new system, because they're bringing results anyway so why not get paid accordingly?

We realize this system is little like paying a baseball player for stadium attendance (which happens) or journalists for the number of click-throughs they generate (which happens too). It may seem a little too linear, but in a world of so many measurables, it's also logical, and inevitable. That's why top-paid actors will probably soon feel the heat, and why, okay, we'll ask you to refresh this page two or three times. (Hey, we never said we were above it.)