What is Digg?97 Comments
- kingofinternet, on 09/09/2008, -0/+72The Internet's ***** Slideshows:
#1: Forbes - RocquesDiggs, on 09/09/2008, -8/+77Aren't they all overpaid? If only a brain surgeon could redo a take if the operation was not a total success. If only we could redo something over and over until it was perfect and then have someone edit out our day until the desired results were achieved. I guess I am in a non Hollywood fan mood tonight.
- GBurgKhana, on 09/09/2008, -1/+45Gah forbes' website is so bad, let alone the writing.
- hasahugedig, on 09/10/2008, -0/+3210 Cate Blanchett
9 Will Ferrel
8 Drew Barrymore
7 Nicolas Cage
6 Jim Carrey
5 Jennifer Lopez
4 Cameron Diaz
3 Tim Cruise
2 Jennifer Garner
1 Nicole Kidman - judicar, on 09/09/2008, -1/+25They deserve whatever someone is willing to pay them, it's called a free market. That isn't a very good standard for determining their value to society though.
- representDLV, on 09/09/2008, -4/+24Athlete's make ridiculous amounts of money too, but in my opinion being a professional athlete requires way more time, ability and dedication than it does being a professional actor. I would rather support athletes over actors.
And I like movies more than sports. - TheGreatBelow, on 09/09/2008, -16/+34Sports is worse.
- doremon313, on 09/09/2008, -0/+15I think people blame the actors too much, sometimes the story just suck and its the studio's fault for wasting their money on big actor thinking people will forget how bad the story is, but the actors probably do help pull in some extra box office for most of the movies, so they still got their money worth
- sockpuppets, on 09/10/2008, -0/+13An article accelerator. The article is placed in a helium cooled vacuum tube and accelerated to 99.9999% the speed of light. It is then set to collide with bacon and powerbooks in a collision chamber. If the hit is direct enough the article lands on the front page.
- bklny, on 09/09/2008, -0/+13Seriously diggers should boycott Forbes articles they have a @%#* site
- stubear, on 09/09/2008, -2/+14So, please enlighten us with your fix to this "system"? Are you honestly suggesting we artificially limit what people can earn? Take more money from those who make more simply because they do? Who determines this? Who manages the list when things change? Are artists and athletes going to be forever taxed or can they work themselves off the list somehow? I'm anxiously waiting for the panacea you plan to unleash upon the world.
- glui2001, on 09/10/2008, -1/+13Where's Adam Sandler on this list?
- cargoyle, on 09/09/2008, -1/+13I can never understand how people can form thoughts like this. If I invent something stupid like a pet rock, if people choose to buy that stupid invention, then there is no reason I don't deserve that money. Financial earnings are not based on good intentions . They are based on someone's value in generating more revenue.
- flmumb, on 09/09/2008, -0/+12I agree. It doesn't say much about our values as a society, but we live in a capitalistic nation.
- MScrip, on 09/10/2008, -0/+10Who the ***** is Tim Cruise?
- badken, on 09/10/2008, -1/+10Blaming actors for bad movies is like blaming waiters for bad dinners.
- ClarkNoHeart, on 09/10/2008, -1/+9Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Lopez, and Nicolas Cage are definitely overpaid.
- inactive, on 09/10/2008, -0/+8Will Ferrel should be much higher on that list. He only knows how to play one character.
- ericthegreat, on 09/10/2008, -1/+9Nick Cage!
- Stavrosian, on 09/10/2008, -0/+7When 50,000 people are willing to pay $50 to watch you do your job, you can make sports star money too.
- fajitamelt, on 09/10/2008, -1/+8Excuse me people, but as long as we keep paying for the tickets and watching them on TV, they are going to keep making the so-called "ridiculous" amounts of money.
That's capitalism for ya. - barfnugget, on 09/10/2008, -0/+7And #3 is only popular because people mistake him for Tom.
- Sornos, on 09/09/2008, -10/+16Even if they did it perfect everytime, they still don't deserve the money they get. They work hard, definitely, but I think the system is wrong when entertainers get more money than the people who really deserve it, like doctors, scientists and firefighters/policemen.
- mlvassallo, on 09/10/2008, -0/+6Why Cate Blanchette? Everything she does is ***** Gold.
- borez, on 09/09/2008, -1/+6 Nicholas Coppola
/thus the big pay cheque - borez, on 09/09/2008, -0/+4Shuuusssh!
- philomatic, on 02/08/2009, -2/+6You also have to consider though that the stars we see that are overpaid are a very small percentage of the total number of people trying to work as actors. Just like in sports where are a lot of people who end up spending their entire lives in the minor leagues. In a sense these are 'risky' professions to get into because you there is a very good chance you may never make it big.
- BlaqReaper, on 09/09/2008, -0/+4I guarantee you the next Batman will make a ton of money no matter how bad/good it is, because of the success of TDK (look at Spider-man 3). This means Depp (if he's even in it) will be a rather bankable star because his salary vs movie earning ratio will shoot through the roof.
- zoom1928, on 09/10/2008, -0/+4Where is the list? I see a link to a slide show of pictures, but no list that was promised.
- xGeneric, on 09/10/2008, -0/+4Mass entertainment tax? Wow that is dumb as hell. Yes, that is Communism, and thanks to human nature, that is just not going to work. This isn't Star Trek where everyone does things to advance the good of humanity. Your heart is in the right place, your head is not.
I agree that professions like Doctors, or especially Teachers, should be more financially rewarding, but suggesting that the "system" needs to be changed is suggesting some pretty terrible things, such as, like stubear said, giving the Government control over people's salary. And who would decide that? The President? Congress? The people? Which people? You? All of us? Most of us would rather have free football tickets rather than a charitable donation of equal value given to a school. Sad but true. That's life, that's people, and we collectively shell out billions of dollars on entertainment each year. You want to change the system without oppressive Government control? You gotta change people. God speed with that.
This is where ideals meet reality. The ideal is, in a perfect world, our educators, our protectors, and our doctors would all be well compensated in a perfect system that values positive influence on society over entertainment. The reality is that, in order to reform the system into your personal vision, would require Government control that goes against the idea of Capitalism, a system which has worked out pretty well for us. It also opens up the door to some pretty scary things... I don't know about you but the idea of the Government taking your money just because of what you do is scary as hell.
That kind of change would create a lot more problems that it solves. - pell, on 09/09/2008, -2/+6Their agents are all very good.
- inactive, on 09/09/2008, -0/+3speculation, not certainty
- EtherGnat, on 09/10/2008, -0/+3Their methodology is horribly flawed. For starters looking at income as a percentage of an actors pay is a mistake. According to Forbes Drew Barrymore is more valuable if I pay her $5 million to be in a movie and it makes $15 million than if I pay Nicole Kidman $10 million and it makes $25 million. As a producer I would gladly spend the extra $5 million to make $10 million.
The other problem is that it doesn't reflect what impact an actor had on a movie. It's obviously hard to measure, but it's the only true metric. For example if I pay Nicolas Cage $10 million dollars to star in a movie that breaks even, but it would have otherwise lost $60 million that was a pretty good investment. If I pay Tom Cruise $10 million to star in a movie that makes $100 million, but would have made even more with a cheaper actor that was a horrible investment.
This list is kind of fun but it's completely pointless. - Maynza, on 09/10/2008, -0/+3Buried, Jenifer Lopez isn't an actor.
- cargoyle, on 09/10/2008, -0/+3So you are saying that it would be up to you to determine the arbitrary limit of how much an entertainer should be able to make?
It's funny that you contrast rich entertainers with "life savers" who must go into debt, to point out the problems with the system, yet you blast pharmaceutical companies who use the system to generate millions. The reason you think life saving professions are so noble is because of the very fact that they are selfless. If teachers, doctors and police brought home Holllywood type paychecks, I'm sure you'd find something to complain about there.
The simple fact of the matter is that we all have choices to make. We can choose to do something that will earn us a lot of money that, generally, won't be altruistic. Doctors generally make decent livings. You've seen fit to leclare mansions and yachts off limits to actors... do you think those types of luxury items are necessary for doctors? - pjsmike, on 09/10/2008, -0/+2auto buried for ***** layout
- stubear, on 09/09/2008, -3/+5Might I suggest you get your eyes checked? First of all, Nicole Kidman is a woman and second, she'd fricking drop dead gorgeous.
- heystoopid, on 09/10/2008, -0/+2Oh no I've been Forbes'd slide showed again !
- jotjot, on 09/10/2008, -0/+2This doesn't take into account DVD sales and other endorsements though
- SLockhart, on 09/10/2008, -0/+2You're totally right. You can't blame people for accepting the money offered to them and in the case of an athlete holding out for 1.5 mil when he's been offered 1.2, well if you came up through the minors with a guy who you know you are better than and he's been offered 1.5 then you're gonna want 1.5.
We fans of sports and entertainment have only ourselves to blame if we are disgusted by the salaries of athletes and actors. - RudeTurnip, on 09/10/2008, -1/+3Policemen and firefighters get paid in the satisfaction that they've saved lives and protected their communities. There is more than one form of currency.
- publiclurker, on 09/10/2008, -0/+2Well, I guess as a male, she's not all that attractive.
Who am I kidding, I'd still hit it! - fajitamelt, on 09/10/2008, -0/+2Sure they deserve it more, but it's not like the school desks are being sold out to watch them teach. That is, sports players and actors make what we, the fans, allow them to make by paying for tickets and DVDs and such.
- MOJIRA, on 09/10/2008, -0/+1To be honest, just because they're overpaid does not mean they're bad actors, or they made a bad movie.
- MScrip, on 09/10/2008, -0/+1Hookers and blow...
- MOJIRA, on 09/10/2008, -0/+1Arri Gold.
- shagmin, on 09/10/2008, -0/+1The problem with that line of thought is when you take the money away, only those who truly want to be teachers teach. You give them huge salaries and people come out of the woodworks you wouldn't want around your kids to start teaching. Balance is where it's at.
- jbeardsl, on 09/10/2008, -2/+3#1 Tom Cruise
#2 Tom Cruise
#3 Tom Cruise
(repeats)
#9 Tom Cruise
#10 Nicole Kidman (as much as Tom deserves a clean sweep, she's so awful she must have at least one mention) - survivordean, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1can these overpaid hollywood stars adopt me? i like cameron diaz to be my foster mom. LOL
- modernjazz, on 09/10/2008, -0/+1According to Congress, I thought it was mainly the business leaders out there who are overpaid. That's been a good topic for those politicians "on the people's side" to bring up. Don't hear them condemning movie star's and sports heroes though - might cost them some votes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKh7uqucArk
-
Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is