Source: gmat ep2
Primarily, the author assumed vaguely that the movie will reap profits only because of Robin good's performance whereas in reality several factors such as script, direction, plot of the movie and other factors are important for the movie to come out really well. There are several instances where even finance, distibution and marketing will also impact the profit section. Even if Robin alone performs really good that may not suffice and it is hillarious even to assume so.
The amount payed to robin can be be more than any other person involved with the movie as it happens with many successful persons all around the world. But still there is no reason to assume that the pay will really do justice to the movie. Famous actors or technicians who performed really well in many of their movies tend to take on their stardom on to their head and perform really pathetic in few movies. Moreover if the producer does not cast a proper director for the movie or there is any other reason, even top performer cannot do justice to his role.
Jut because he is paid more in his previous movies does not become a valid reason why he should be paid the same amount in this movie. What if the role of Robin is really small in movie 3003, whereas his role may be different or full fedged in other movies where he was paid such huge amount to work. Also those movies in which he performed with huge pay and are financially successful may have met with success for different reasons other than Robin's performance alone. Or it may be just a matter of coincidene that his movies did really well and he may not be the reason for the movies to do so.
The argument on the whole is really unfounded on several assumptions as above and is really weak. The author must back the arguemnt with additional data related his movie and other factors needed to make his movie successful and also factors that must have worked behind the those other successful movies in which robin worked. As is the claim of the magazine is completely vague without proper information.
The entertainment magazine claims that movie 3003 will make maximum profits for its producers if they star Robin good in it. It assumes that Robin presence and his fame can reap profits out of the movie even if the pay is very high in comparison with his costars. This argument is based on several assumptions as explained below.The producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it - even though that amount is far more than any other person involved in the movie will make. After all, Robin has in the past been paid a similar amount to work in several films that were very financially successful.
Primarily, the author assumed vaguely that the movie will reap profits only because of Robin good's performance whereas in reality several factors such as script, direction, plot of the movie and other factors are important for the movie to come out really well. There are several instances where even finance, distibution and marketing will also impact the profit section. Even if Robin alone performs really good that may not suffice and it is hillarious even to assume so.
The amount payed to robin can be be more than any other person involved with the movie as it happens with many successful persons all around the world. But still there is no reason to assume that the pay will really do justice to the movie. Famous actors or technicians who performed really well in many of their movies tend to take on their stardom on to their head and perform really pathetic in few movies. Moreover if the producer does not cast a proper director for the movie or there is any other reason, even top performer cannot do justice to his role.
Jut because he is paid more in his previous movies does not become a valid reason why he should be paid the same amount in this movie. What if the role of Robin is really small in movie 3003, whereas his role may be different or full fedged in other movies where he was paid such huge amount to work. Also those movies in which he performed with huge pay and are financially successful may have met with success for different reasons other than Robin's performance alone. Or it may be just a matter of coincidene that his movies did really well and he may not be the reason for the movies to do so.
The argument on the whole is really unfounded on several assumptions as above and is really weak. The author must back the arguemnt with additional data related his movie and other factors needed to make his movie successful and also factors that must have worked behind the those other successful movies in which robin worked. As is the claim of the magazine is completely vague without proper information.
