How many people went to see movies in the 80's because Spielberg's name was slapped on them. 

***

I would say Stephen Spielberg is a big exception.  Although there are some guys who have at least some fans who would seek a movie, or a type of movie, done by that person.

Tv? probably most people give it a shot based on characters/stories/genres.   A few people probably respond to the "From the creator of Survivor" though it isn't guarantee. For every Apprentice, there is the Restaurant.

Books, though, often build a following based on authors.

I would say a star in a tv show or movie can go along way to get people to sample it (or stay away from it).

Actors can matter.

"If his replacements are as good as he is, if they understand the characters as well and the plot structures and what makes the wheel turn 'round, the show stays on the air and most people don't even notice he's gone."

And that's the problem - we're talking about comic book artists.  Unless the fill-in artist is able to ape the style of the creator in question - Hitch, in my example - to an incredible degree, even a casual reader will notice the change.  And it might not even be a change in "quality", because that's a hard thing to define, or at least it's arguable - but we all know that in reading a TPB such a change can be jarring, if not displeasing.  Bringing in even a master artist, a Mignola or a Kubert, to pencil part 5 of a 6-part story, creates that same discontinuity.

"I think you're neglecting the importance of the actors on shows, and especially in movies. And people do care about the directors of movies. I don't think War of the Worlds would've made as much money with Cruise & Spielberg, or Mr & Mrs Smith would've made what ir did without Pitt & Jolie."

That's true, but comic creators are nothing like actors.  The characters in comics are like actors.  Imagine if you produced a movie starring Pitt and Jolie and promoted it by talking about the writer or cinematographer.

Mike

Rob,

Law and Order and ER both contradict that comment to a great degree.  In both series there has been such great turnover in the 'stars' that the shows stand on their own, are independent of their 'stars', and (IMHO) are better for it (at least L&O, i try not to watch ER).
***

I said CAN.  Formula matters too.  Look, I'd go to any movie Sylvester Stallone was in just about. Most people, today, probably wouldn't.  But lets say they did.  If he was in Chicago, say, same exact story otherwise, people would probably stay away, just because "Hmm, Sly Stallone in a muscial that ran on Broadway? Can't be good."  I'd still go. 

On TV, Michael J, Fox, Ted Danson, Tom Selleck, Michael Landon, Lucille Ball all built a certain love from the auidence.  So, when they did their next thing, people tuned in.  But they stayed based on characters and story.  So Tom Selleck's show the Closer didn't last.  Fox's did.

Like Seann WIlliam Scott. I liked him as Stifler.  But i only want to see him in Stifler like parts.

I wouldn;t be watching Boston Legal without WIlliam Shatner. I tried it because of him, and his emmy. I stayed because, despite the weak cast around him, James Spader and Shatner are a hoot, and look like they are having fun. It is the combo of Shatner as that character that makes it extra fun.

But I think actors can build up a certain goodwill with an audience that last for X amount of times, until that actor has to deliever with that material.

When a trailer plays with Bruce Willis in it, it gets my attention at the least. On the other hand, it didn't matter to me who was in Star Wars Sith-even if Jeanine Garafolo was in it, I'd have seen it.