What are your thoughts on "name" talent in independent film?
I have been saying it for over a decade that it was getting less important, and in the last few years, in a global media environment, the 'star name' has so little importance to independent film that it should be, entirely cast aside. IMO, that major studios and their subs, and their legacy distribution, keep insisting on a "name" has more to do with industry inertia and increasing distance from the swiftly changing landscape than it does with actual market realities. Here's a recent take on the continuing phenomenon of major films crashing despite star names.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/oct/21/hollywood-movie-stars-flops
1 person likes this
I don't think having a "name" talent in an independent film is really important, Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg. I don't think it's really important with a major film either. I think the focus should be on the concept and the movie's execution.
2 people like this
When I package movies without stars/names I always raise the promotional budget significantly. Great films without stars have been made over and over again, its not a must if your creative.
2 people like this
If you are talking about actors as "name" talent the reason why they might be insisted upon is that they are known for certain personalities and audiences would want to see a version of that in their portrayal of a character. It's all about the general risk aversion of studio executives - always trying for the familiar since they perceive audiences as looking for it. It is the same reason why they are doing all those remakes and sequels and such and why they are thinking "IP" and "cinematic universes". It gets past some of the initial resistance to seeing a movie. This, of course, can be overcome with a noteworthy performance that gets some attention where word of mouth will do the talking for you. Because of the high cost of tickets and concessions going to the movies has become a high stakes gamble for much of the audience. If if cost less they would not feel as bad about seeing something that wasn't so good and might have money left over to try again with another movie. As far as the title of the article you attached it has a lot to do with the movie these A-listers are in. Their names might get the first few ticket buyers in the door but if the movie is bad word of mouth will keep the rest away.
1 person likes this
This is a great discussion. The article gave some great insight. The issue I am seeing with many of these "independent" movies coming out these days are the budgets. A24 is putting out $100 Million budgeted films that are difficult to recoup on. I think true independent films have the ability to hone in on lower budgets and make them economically more viable. That is a totally separate discussion though.
I do think independent films need to focus on name talent. It can be in the form of an actor/actress or two, or the ensemble. It also depends on Genre. Dramas desperately need name talent to succeed in the industry. There are the exceptions, but they are rare in dramas. Thriller/horror films may not rely as heavily on name talent because the genre helps for sales as well.
This is a great discussion though Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg ! Thank you for bringing it up.
2 people like this
In some cases "name" talent reduces the overall effectiveness of a film. It can be difficult to suspend disbelief/get lost in another world when you immediately recognise the character as a famous actor.
2 people like this
Kathryn Zizek this is a great point and something definitely to take a look at. In this world, we need to separate the business versus the creative. I can speak from a producer, I have a fiduciary responsibility to recoup any investments procured for the film. My job as a producer is to mitigate as much risk as possible for the investors. Things like incentives and Government grants or rebate programs help significantly. Having named talent is the biggest factor because it helps a film get a lucrative sales/distribution deal. There definitely needs to be a happy medium when it comes to casting the right folks though. I agree that we don't want to take the viewer out of the movie with poor casting choices solely to benefit the sales and marketability of a film.
1 person likes this
David Thrasher Well, maybe sometimes a funder will have some idea in their mind about fitting talent to role - but almost never will they actually read the script before this discussion occurs. (In fact, they often don't ever read the script at all, which is crazy, but might suggest why we see the movies we see getting to screen) The conversation about what "name" you have attached has different nuances, in many cases. First, it's a knee-jerk response, almost without thought. Second, while historically the star system developed out of the studio system, and has been used to keep budgets high and audiences engaged, so that reflex has reasoning behind it. But three, it's no longer reliably true that "star" names boost box office or other revenues, though it is still true that they by definition raise awareness IF and ONLY IF those names are prominent in marketing. Four - and this one is for real - it doesn't matter who you have attached. Your funder is going to question it and ask for more - because that's what they do. The reason they do this is a negotiating position - they want to minimize the value of your project. It's not about the ultimate good of the show at that point, it's about how much of the project they might get to control, at what cost. The easiest way to do that is to find some fault with your attached cast in the market, or for this kind of film.