I’ve been interested in writing about this subject for a while, so here it is. A common thing in show business is that whenever you set out to market anything such as a film, TV show, or a Broadway production is that you need a known commodity attached to it. Often times, it’s because you need to give the audience a reason to see it, though it’s usually in order to get to overall project financed. As we have sometimes seen in the past, just because you’re product has some exciting names attached to it, doesn’t necessarily mean gold from both a commercial nor creative standpoint.

Although if a film is mainly being released on a streaming service, audiences wouldn't have to buy tickets at all. Having a known commodity (such as an actor, filmmaker, or both) attached to any movie is always going to help in terms of getting it made to begin with. The same thing could even be said about a TV show and/or a Broadway production. Whether or not it turns out to be a commercial success is a different story. For a while within this past decade, people have questioned if the era of the "movie star" is over. That would be due to a majority of famous actors working today who just aren't consistent in delivering good box office numbers. In fact, those who have proven to be consistent are very few and far between.​

I never decide what movies to watch based on who’s in them. It’s not the same thing as going to see them in a live performance.

According to Genius.com, Steven Spielberg once said, "Sequels can be very dangerous because they compromise your truth as an artist. I think a sequel to E.T. would do nothing but rob the original of its virginity. People only remember the latest episode, while the pilot tarnishes."