Do you think movie stars read corporate earnings results? The reason I ask is that top stars are busily lining up their next movies. Johnny Depp, who's already committed to a new "Pirates" sequel and "The Lone Ranger," has now added "The Tourist," with Angelina Jolie to his list. Will Smith is zeroing in on his next movie. Depp and Smith, like all the stars, will be running into the studios supposedly rigid new rules limiting gross deals and other payouts.
But if the stars (or their reps) have been reading the papers this week, they would see that Viacom's profits are up 15% this quarter (good results from Paramount), News Corp's net climbed 11% thanks to movies and cable TV and while Time Warner's profits took a beating, its movie division did great. So in view of these good numbers, are the stars going to take a haircut on their next deals or are they going to say, "I want my paydays?"

Some agents are skeptical when told pay is lower because DVD sales have fallen precipitously on new titles, but clearly financiers/studios have all the leverage and they are using it to full advantage. I’m told that pictures are getting made with stars working for steep discount. For mid-level actors, there are more of them than there are roles and recognizable names are being offered at bargain prices, or they aren’t working. The exceptions, of course, are top stars like Depp, Jolie, Smith and Brad Pitt, the other big star who hasn’t landed on his next picture.

Even if studio parent companies experience a sustained resurgence, it seems like the days are over when studios gave away 25% of first-dollar gross on pictures and watched talent get bonuses before studios even recouped. If you look at big gross deals that were made on pictures like “2012,” “The Other Guys” and “The Adjustment Bureau,” I doubt any of those deals would be made at the moment. The other reaction I have about “The Tourist” cast is this: Wow. I’ve written a slew of stories about all the element changes on “The Tourist,” since Tom Cruise did not choose it. This picture ended up with two stars I sure want to see together, particularly if Alfonso Cuaron signs on.

The critics told us not to bother seeing the latest Vince Vaughn movie, "Couples Retreat," but the picture is approaching $100 million in the U.S. alone. Now critics are listing "Precious" as a must see and trying to make folks feel guilty if they don't buy tickets. Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry have essentially said it's our obligation to see the movie and groups like the National Education Association have endorsed it. In his shrewd piece in the Los Angeles Times, John Horn pointed out the problems in marketing "Precious." It's a tough, unrelenting movie -- Anthony Lane, critic for the New Yorker, suggests that some scenes are more graphic than necessary for dramatic impact. Serious films about social issues have not registered lately at the box office. Support is needed from both white and black audiences: Some quality black-themed movies like "The Great Debaters" or "Akeelah and the Bee" have not found much support among white audiences. Its proponents insist "Precious" is basically a feel-good movie, but it's about an illiterate black teen whose father rapes and impregnates her twice. So if you tell filmgoers they should see a movie, does that help or hurt?

I think if Oprah Winfrey can help elect the first African-American president, she can help draw an audience to this film. Perry also helps. I’m not sure about critics, since this film has created some extreme reactions, pro and con. “Precious” contains some incredibly tough subject matter that creates a whopping marketing challenge. I wonder if the same hurdle will be faced by the Peter Jackson-directed “The Lovely Bones,” the story of a murdered young girl who observes the aftermath — her grieving family, her killer — from above. I personally am predisposed to avoiding films that depict children or young women in sexual or violent situations. But I got swept up in “Slumdog Millionaire,” despite being unable to shake the image of watching a child being blinded so he would be a more productive beggar. “City of God” and “Monster’s Ball” made me feel the same way. So did Michael Haneke’s “The White Ribbon,” which is off-the-charts good and absolutely upsetting.

I respect that all of those pictures were made for the most artistically pure reasons and not because they fit audience quadrants. I think “Precious” happened because Lee Daniels had a burning creative desire. I don’t think he imagined he’d emerge poised to be a major director. “Precious,” which did outstanding numbers this weekend, has an enviable advantage with Winfrey and Perry in its corner and stars like Mo’Nique, Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz who can get booked on shows to promote a hard-sell picture. As described in Horn’s article, Lionsgate’s platform release strategy seems a good way to convince an audience to give the picture a chance. Quality and word of mouth will determine whether audiences respond, black or white. Oscar nominations would certainly help, but I suspect the film might overachieve at the box office because the reaction is so strong.