View Full Version : Movie Stars accept accept pay cuts as Hollywood profits dip


RobertoOrtiz
01 January 2006, 12:01 AM
Quote:
"THE Da Vinci Code is one of the most eagerly anticipated films of the year but its significance to Hollywood may go deeper than mere box office success: Tom Hanks has delighted his studio bosses by accepting a pay cut for his role as the book’s art sleuth hero.
Facing declining cinema audiences, Hollywood is trying to persuade its top actors to set an example by cutting back a lucrative arrangement known as “first dollar”, under which the director, producer and stars receive a share of a film’s box office take regardless of whether the studio has covered its filming costs. "

>>LINK<< (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2003743,00.html)

-R
PS How noble of them...

Embryosys
01 January 2006, 12:12 AM
would declining profits affect the cg industry? this might be stupid question so forgive me.

Andyman
01 January 2006, 12:58 AM
"Yeah, I'll take a hit by accepting only $7,000,000 instead of $10,000,000."

I understand maybe this is something hard for them to do; but when movie stars are likely to earn more in five years than I will earn in my entire life... it's hard for me to empathize.

Welcome to the real world.

mangolass
01 January 2006, 01:09 AM
I hope the producers and corporate executives set a good example and take pay cuts as well.

LT

seven6ty
01 January 2006, 01:22 AM
Hah, executives taking paycuts, that's funny. :)

Minael2008
01 January 2006, 01:37 AM
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Kanga
01 January 2006, 07:53 AM
When times are more difficult the upside might be that complacency and middle road mentality gets a boot in the butt. All industries have to be more creative to survive. There have been alot of complaints about how contemporary films are average and seem only to be targeted towards mass consumption (playing it safe). When this approach stops working I think we may see some room for the true genius that has always been available. Whacking a star into a film for promotional purposes might give way to fresh faces.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

Solothores
01 January 2006, 09:02 AM
I am sooooo curious how much percent is speant yearly just on the actors side (payments, first dollar etc) of all the money that is pumped into movie production in Hollywood. Guess, it is a fascinating figure.

Now if we could have it in an inflation adjusted diagramm, that starts somewhere back in the 50's and shows the trend over the years and decades...

3DDave
01 January 2006, 05:13 PM
"Yeah, I'll take a hit by accepting only $7,000,000 instead of $10,000,000."

I understand maybe this is something hard for them to do; but when movie stars are likely to earn more in five years than I will earn in my entire life... it's hard for me to empathize.

Welcome to the real world.

More like, $18 million instead of $20 million, but I am sure some profit sharing will more than make that up......

Matty2Phatty
01 January 2006, 05:26 PM
I'm not sure about this stance that because they're earning more than most would earn in a lifetime then it's not worth it. They're only getting paid that much because people will go see a movie simply based on a pretty face in the film (even my own friends do this).

They're worth $10,000,000 because the studios will make that money and more if they are in the film.

You should try making a feature film and trying to sell it at a film market when it has no names attached to it. The extra money is well worth it.

seven6ty
01 January 2006, 05:36 PM
Yeah, and compared to the other costs involved in making a feature length production, it isn't really THAT incredible of a number, as I'm sure when all the costs are added up, it's only a small fraction of the total cost.

Solothores
01 January 2006, 06:03 PM
I am sure that this could be the case, I am not saying that it's not worth the investment from a producer perspective. It surely is in terms of enhancing your chance for commercial success. It's not a guarantee for success after all, however.

Though it would still be interesting to see a "internal" cost listing on the total annual hollywood movie production budget that kinda lists exactly how much money goes to the specific staff domains and involved divisions. And to have such a listing going back over a couple of decades to make a comparison on the development.Just out of curiousity.

Edit:
Some well-known actors—stars—earn well above the minimum; their salaries are many times the figures cited, creating the false impression that all actors are highly paid. For example, of the nearly 100,000 SAG members, only about 50 might be considered stars.

Median annual earnings of salaried actors were $23,470 in 2002. The middle 50 percent earned between $15,320 and $53,320. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $13,330, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $106,360

hm, just 50 that is not really that much at all.

Michael5188
01 January 2006, 06:19 PM
I don't think it can be argued if some actors don't accept pay cuts they are going to price themselves out of a job. Look at tv, one major reason reality tv is so overdone is you don't have to pay actors incredible sums of money. I know actors get paid so much because we love famous people and pay to see the movie (same goes with athletes), but it still bothers me each time I see how much some actors get paid (especially when I see the lack of talent some have)

Matty2Phatty
01 January 2006, 06:49 PM
Quote:
Some well-known actors—stars—earn well above the minimum; their salaries are many times the figures cited, creating the false impression that all actors are highly paid. For example, of the nearly 100,000 SAG members, only about 50 might be considered stars.

Median annual earnings of salaried actors were $23,470 in 2002. The middle 50 percent earned between $15,320 and $53,320. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $13,330, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $106,360


hm, just 50 that is not really that much at all.
</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>


That is pretty sad, that the median was just $23,470. I have so much respect for a lot of actors who are absolutely brilliant, and willing to work for such a low rate for love of the art.

I'm always surprised by the generosity (i use that term loosely) of world-class actors willing to spend time on a lower budget project because they believe in it.

it still bothers me each time I see how much some actors get paid (especially when I see the lack of talent some have)

That used to bother me too, until i realised that film producers don't care about whether they can act. They only care if they'll bring in the crowds, and the sad truth seems to be that people will go see a crap actor if they look hot.

So it's not the filmmakers fault, it's our fault as a paying audience.

Capel
01 January 2006, 06:54 PM
Welcome to the real world.

yeah right! i doubt actors will ever accept THAT kind of pay. if only, huh. and not just actors, musicians, pro athletes... man, it's all so unbalanced.

TwentyFour JE
01 January 2006, 07:12 PM
"Yeah, I'll take a hit by accepting only $7,000,000 instead of $10,000,000."

I understand maybe this is something hard for them to do; but when movie stars are likely to earn more in five years than I will earn in my entire life... it's hard for me to empathize.

Welcome to the real world.

lolololol that's just not right.

uncon
01 January 2006, 07:47 PM
If you don't get first dollar from film revenue you you probably will not get any money from a films return. For those out there that don't know the difference, you can be paid a percentage of gross or net profits. Gross profits are first dollar off the top payments, this is what you want if you make a deal that involves profits. Net means you get paid somewhere down the food chain. It is so easy for a studio to swallow extra profits and fold it into a steaming pile of move dung so they don't have to pay actors/talent. Think of all those bad movies major labels rush out near the end of the year with little marketing and crazy budgets. At the end of the year the studio shows a very small year end profit and gives actors cuts of these leftovers while executives and producers get big chunks of money.

A percentage on Net profits can be a total scam, beware all you freelancers. If you create an ad for a thing and the company says that if you agree to a reduced payment they will give you a percentage of their profits be aware that even if the thing is a huge success you might not get anything after the executive board gets their yearly bonuses and new office chairs, desks, computers, etc...

Kanga
01 January 2006, 09:35 PM
.. you might not get anything after the executive board gets their yearly bonuses and new office chairs, desks, computers, etc...

Screw the office furniture!
I'm so damn tierd of driving the same coloured Porsche every Friday!

gimme,....gimme,....gimme,....gimme,....gimme,....gimme,....gimme,....:buttrock:

uncon
01 January 2006, 09:53 PM
Screw the office furniture!
I'm so damn tierd of driving the same coloured Porsche every Friday!

gimme,....gimme,....gimme,....gimme,....gimme,....gimme,....gimme,....:buttrock:

Someone is getting a new Porsche, maybe not the actor though...

Kanga
01 January 2006, 10:45 PM
Someone is getting a new Porsche, maybe not the actor though...

certainly not the 3d guy,.....
ah it's been a long time since i smelled one of those!

the car i mean,... not th guy!:cool:

cheerio chris

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 10:45 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.


1