Which, under rational non-idiotic conditions implies useful. Furthermore, this idiocy leads people to think that things like education, or research, are less useful to them, so they want them less. Thus causing this problem.

People payed to see Avatar. No one forced them. Obviously peple found that seeing Avatar is important, else they wouldn't have done it.

There are several types of needs that society has. Art (and entertainment products in general) is useless if you're only thinking of the basic needs. Really, what benefit does a Tolstoy novel bring society? Or To Kill a Mockingbird? Does it bring food on the table? Does it help starving children? No, but there are other types of needs that must be fulfilled at some point, and art satisfies the most superior kind of needs (the basic ones are the most important, but the people who would go to see Avatar have probably already staisfied those needs).

Check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

I wasn't aware that she's starred in any successful movies (or that she can be considered the reason for her movies' success).

They wouldn't keep paying her if you she didn't.

Movie executives aren't stupid.

The trick with movies is, there are two markets.  Ever notice when a bad action movie or comedy gets a sequel despite the fact that it was both critically panned and bombed at the box office.

That's because the DVD market made a ton.

You'd be surprised. Eddie Murphy has hosted a handful of tremendous flops over the years (Pluto Nash comes to mind) and he still gets command over his own pay for a flick.

The movie world is a murky business, and much like the video game industry they have their own blindspots and (from a pure business perspective) nonsensical biases

Did you seriously just try to put Avatar and To Kill a Mockingbird in the same thought process and category? I am very well aware that art further culture, but let's face it. Avatar didn't do jack shit. Out of all the entertainment out there, only a small percent of it actually contributes to worthwhile culture. The other is just useless shit like Jersey Shore.

Also look at the pyramid you (it didn't actually link well) linked. The security of the body, of resources, of health, etc. is very damn near the bottom. Just after breathing, eating, fucking, etc. As you said yourself, it fulfills needs, but those are the last needs that need to be fulfilled. Meanwhile what teachers, professors, researchers, etc. do is they address our needs towards the Safety level. People are just too fuckign dumb to realize it which is what the problem is.

Oh, and Maslow's hirearchy of needs is actually quite a bit different then usually portrayed.

One of my teachers was actually a picked apprentice of Maslows.   (My school actually had a lot of amazing teachers for some reason.)

The needs at the bottom aren't actually more important then the needs at the top.  They're just the first on the list because more often then not, you need to meet them first.

Though,not always.  It's a mistake that people have that they think you need to fufill the bottom needs before you fill the top ones.  It's just more likely to be that way.

People in countries like Somalia where there is famine, and you definitly aren't filling your saftey needs.  People still fall in love there.  People still have respect for themselves and others.

A lot of criticism of Maslow actually stems from this, even though he never intended it for it to be taken as a definite roadmap.

Other little know facts

1)  There is no such thing as a self actulized person.  It's a state in which you float in and out of.

2) See's the effects of drugs as similiar, but ultimitly meaningless and hollow due to the lack of fundamentals to get there .

Oh, and possibly a reinforcement of the proffessor thing... one of my professors gave up the job of being a CEO of a multimillion dollar company HE  founded. 

Just so he could teach.

Teaching doesn't need to be valued with money, because of how appealing a job it is to those who do it.  If very capable people are willing to do it for the amount of money they are being paid... what's the motivator to raise their pay?

First of all, you're reading the pyramid wrong. The needs at the bottom ar the more important ones. The piramid collapses without them. The ones at the top ar the superior, more complex needs, that however cannot be fulfilled without first fulfilling the oners at the bottom. Art satisfies the need at the top, which makes it very unecessary.

And really, To Kill a Mockingbird is just as useful as Avatar for society. Both try to fulfill superior abstarct needs, but they don't do jack for fulfilling the more important basic needs. You can leave without them, but would you?

Exactly. So there is no reason entertainers should get anywhere near the amount of money teachers, researchers get, much less such an astronomical amount over them.

I would also gladly live without Avatar since it didn't bring anything. If you think To Kill a Mockingbird has the same effect as Avatar then you were clearly not listening in your literature class. Here is a hit, think of the topic and the time it was released. Avatar on the other hand is worthless.