In a recent post about Sean Astin, it was pointed out that he only made $250,000 (U.S. Dollars) for all three Lord of the Rings movies combined… which obviously works out to be about $83,000 a film. Some people who commented on this were surprised by how “little” he made. Some suggested that it wasn’t fair. Others proposed that he should receive more money now since the films did so well at the Box Office. This raised an interesting question in my mind: Should an actor be paid more if a movie does well at the Box Office?
I understand that working on a film can be very demanding and hard work. I have no doubt that Astin put in a lot of long hours. But here’s the thing… I work really hard too. I’ll even bet that I’ve worked harder than Mr. Astin has over the last 5 years… and he has EASILY made more than 2x as much money as me. I have often worked 12 hour days, pulled my share of all nighters and given 100% of my effort to different projects and endeavors… I’ll bet most of you have too. So why are we feeling sorry for Sean Astin?!?!
To his credit, Astin never complained. He did point out he was disappointed about his salary, BUT HE ACCEPTED THE JOB KNOWING WHAT IT PAID. Why do we automatically assume that an actor should be paid more just because the film did well at the Box Office? Do you think for one second that an actor would accept a cut in pay if the movie or it’s producers LOST money on a movie? A snowball’s chance in Hades my friends. Oh sure, we can look back on The Lord of the Rings now and marvel at what a huge financial success it was… but remember… no one knew if this project was really going to make money or not. Remember, 1 major studio axed the project before New Line picked it up and let Peter Jackson run with it.
It has always been my philosophy that those who take the risks are the ones who should reap the rewards. New Line risked $300 million dollars on The Lord of the Rings. Sean Astin risked nothing. He was going to be paid his $250,000 no matter what. He had nothing to lose. So if Astin didn’t stand to lose any money if The Lord of the Rings failed… why should he stand to benefit more than his contract if it succeeds?
Keep in mind that I LOVED Astin’s performance in the trilogy. I even thought he deserved an Oscar Nomination for Best Supporting Actor for Return of the King… but for my money, the art directors had more to do with the success of Rings than any of the Actors did. The digital artists at WETA had a bigger part in my enjoyment of the trilogy than any individual actor did (not in most movies… but they did in Lord of the Rings), but I don’t hear any of us (including myself) talking about how they should have been paid more (and I guarantee you that they ALL got paid less than Astin). Did they not work as hard? Are they not as talented?
Hey listen, if a producer thinks a particular actor is worth paying $8 million for a film, then great. If an actor thinks a role is worth only getting paid $30,000 then fine. Actors are VERY hard working people who devote themselves to their craft over a period of years and DESERVE to make a good living from it. But the fact of the matter is that Astin DID made a good living over the last 5 years (compared to you and me) from Lord of the Rings… and now he’ll be famous (and wealthy) the rest of his life because of it’s success.
So here’s my bottom line: If an actor agrees to have his or her salary based on how well a movie does at the box office (that means they’re accepting the risk that they may make next to nothing) then they deserve to reap the rewards of big Box Office returns. If not, if they don’t risk anything and sign a contract for $30,000 then we shouldn’t argue that they should have made more if the film goes blockbuster. Just my two cents worth. Feel free to debate with me in the comments section.
personally , I would like to see how many actors would be “acting” if being paid a normal average working salary every month !?
Hmmmm
Not sure on the logic here… I think you are all forgetting the power of residuals… pay for work AFTER the fact. This could be a substantial percentage of all actors profits!!! For example if say 300 million of the profits (around 25%) of all profits went to the actors, you can be sure that the main principle actors would stand to make 10 million or so each over the next few years.
Now if the acting stank and the production lost money, why is it the actors that get the blame??? The producers select the director… the director selects his cast and crew and if they can not get the performance out of the actor or settle for a mediochre version, then the film bombs. The actor still has been paid for their work and depending how bad their performance was, will not likely get work again for some time. However, if all parties deliever the goods (cast and crew), you are telling us that they are not entitled to a share of the profits because of their efforts!
Some may have been astonished about the amount paid to Sean Astin But if I recall the film was shot entirely in about 9 months and then spent years in post production and digital enhancing. Now an actor doesnt just think about what they will make financially, but also what they can hope to gain in the future. I am sure Sean Astin was upset about his pay AFTER the fact. But I am also sure that his efforts will help he get more work in the future and so on.
Of course if the filming took longer than 9 months then ask yourself what you would want to be paid to be isolated from family & friends for long periods of time, and not be entitled to a small share of the profits if success results.
ash
The digital artists at WETA had a bigger part in my enjoyment of the trilogy than any individual actor did (not in most movies… but they did in Lord of the Rings), but I don’t hear any of us (including myself) talking about how they should have been paid more (and I guarantee you that they ALL got paid less than Astin). Did they not work as hard? Are they not as talented?
I can guarantee you that we DO get paid alot less and do not work any less hard than the actors you see on TV and in the theatre. As an audio post production engineer my co-workers and I were responsible for all the sound design, editing, and post production that goes into the Films and TV shows. We would work long hours, often pulling double shifts, sometimes 15 or 16 hours a day.
And I’m not just talking about the audio artists. Of course the video artists, FX specialists, sript supervisors, set designers, etc. I can guarantee you we get a miniscule fraction of what
Sean Astin gets. Most of the time, just as much, or sometimes even less than a typical working class American. But I never hear anyone supporting us or complaining about our salaries. (that is if they are even aware of our existence to begin with)
It is the studio that is taking the initial risk, but that is true of any company that hires employees. And if you are a hard working employee who has stuck with a company for years, through the good and bad, making minimum wage and the company pulls in a billion or more dollars, doesn’t it seem like you should get at least a bonus?
Minimum wage is what Sean’s salary seems like compared to most actors (who may or may not have had a hit in years). But I read (on this website http://www.latrobe.edu.au/screeningthepast/stp17/newreviews/rev_17/KTbr17a.html) that everyone got a bonus after the success of the first film. The amount of the bonus is unknown because they are contractually forbidden to disclose the amount. But I hope it was BIG. They all deserve a big bonus, including the behind the scenes guys for all their hard work.
Think about it. I read somewhere that there were over 400 people that worked on LOTR. So even if New Line gave every person involved in the movie a million dollar bonus, + the cost of making the movies, that would only be approx $800,000,000 (I know, “only $800,000,000”, haha). And according to IMDB.com, LOTR gross dollars worldwide was $2,911,519,252. That would leave New Line over two billion dollars.
Look at it this way: SOME actors may be overpaid. But they are why we go to see movies, those of us with triple digit IQs. Movies that are all special effects or sex rarely are anything but trash.
The greatest film of our generations is so because of the actor’s performances. Perhaps you were exhilirated by MASSIVE–Weta’s computer programs for the big battle scenes with AI advances–but I doubt it’s the reason you spend money for all three movies (as I did: 2 box office viewings ea, first and second DVD for each, so I’m in $210 already, that doesn’t count the Gandalf doll behind me).
I treasure the performances. Astin’s was one of the best. I think he should’ve gotten Supporting Oscar for it. At least a nomination.
I realize the idea of the movie might have seemed a long shot, but clearly the money men at Time-Warner didn’t think so. They don’t pony up $300M on a whim. They were pretty damned sure that the movie(s) would score.
Sure, upfront, perhaps the actors can be asked to sacrifice; some mentioned Tom Hanks. I think they meant Bruch Willis; he did “The Sixth Sense” for nothing up front and 20% of the back end. It netted him $60M plus. Many actors do the same. Arnold, on the other hand, took $30M for “T3” upfront in cash. Mel Gibson took $45M upfront for “The Patriot.” Deals differ.
If the movies had bombed, sure, you can see the actors being SOL. The movies didn’t bomb. With merchandizing, it may reach over $3 billion dollars, total; the only “franchise” in other words that’s in the same league as “Star Wars.”
With that much cash, Astin, et al, could have been given a “performance bonus”, much the way pro-Athletes are paid. Get to the playoffs, x amount, League Championchip, y amount, World Series, z amount; x amount of home runs, y amount of dollars.
Now that TimeWarner is wallowing in billions of LotR dollars, the least they could do is make sure the leads got $10M each or so. That would lead to, let’s see, 100M bucks at most. Out of $3,000 million! They’d hardly miss it.
Yes, the exposure will get them work they wouldn’t have. Some may go on (e.g. Orland Bloom) to huge success later on (a la Harrison Ford). That’s all true. But consider the bankrupt “Brady Bunch Kids” or the sad plight of David Cassidy.
As in pro-Sports, the athletes generate billions of dollars at the cost, sometimes, of their life-long health. Shouldn’t they be enriched by the men they are helping to become billionaires?
I can’t believe anyone would begrudge them the money. If you figured out a way to save your company $50,000,000 and they didn’t give your a six or seven figure bonus, I imagine you’d feel screwed.
And you’d be right. The movie(s) are the second biggest series in history. It’s time to give Astin and Company millions in reward for the billions raked in by the corporation. The CEO will surely net tens of millions. That Sean Astin should never have to work again seems not only fair, but just.
honestly this is my first time comming to a site.
and i loved the article so much !!!!!!!
especially when u say astin didn’t take a risk.
thats is so unbeliveable article…
good job on that article. cause everything u say ppl cant even point out that he is wrong. and ifu do write a post i bet u gonna come with something stupid.
I was just handed an article on Viggo Mortensen from the April issue of this year’s GQ. He states that all the actors were able to renegotiate their contracts after The Two Towers and were given ‘substantial bonuses’.
Sean Astin is trippin’.
On the one hand I agree that it’s the studio and the financiers who take the initial financial risk and the actors and the production staff take none and, thus, technically, once their jobs are through that should be the end of it because they’re not going to return a portion of their salaries if a movie performs poorly at the box office. But there’s also a corporate standard in place that allows for some of the wealth to be shared; it ain’t gonna hurt no studio to give out a bonus of some kind if a movie is successful. Some sense of human decency alone is probably what propels these production companies to “re-negotiate” anyway. That and an actor’s savvy attorney.
Crystal
(no, I am not an attorney)
If a secretary at just about any corporation in the world can get a bonus check at the end of the year (which is mainly based on the company he or she works for having done well) then actors and others on a movies’ staff should receive a bonus check or some other type of cash-in-kind compensation (vacation trip, a car, help with the mortagage,another acting role with the studio, etc.) What’s more they ALREADY DO.
I agree with the author of this forum.
Lisa
Fair enough. At least now I can stop clicking on that infernal Yes option.
Hey Bombadil:
The simple answer to your question as to why it won’t remember your information is: I’m an idiot.
I’ve never gotten around to fixing that liitle bug. It’s been like that for a year. I’ll fix it… I swear.
I probably did word what I was going for there. What I meant to say is on occasion if a studio has a contract with an actor for say 2 million and then a previous movie that actor has done does huge numbers, the studio will renegotiate because they figure their film will now do better. I seem to recall that Halle Berry had this happen for her; although, I cannot recall between which two movies. Maybe after her Oscar?
BTW, why am I having so much problems getting your site to remember my personal info?
Hey there Bombadil:
They couldn’t “renegoatiate” because they already had contracts. If Astin (or anyone for that matter) suddenly walked after shooting the first one… they would have had the pants sued off them. And Rightfully so. If you agree to do something for $XXX, then you should do it for $XXX. Just my thoughts. Cheers!
Isn’t it common that when an actor is working on a film and their previous one does outstanding numbers they renegoatiate. I am sure after Fellowship, if some or all or one of them would have asked to renegotiate a better figure they would have. They know there was no way they could introduce a new Sam for the second movie.
They gotta work this out with Astin somehow — otherwise, he probably won’t agree to be in a sequel!
Astin should be having words with his agent, that’s for sure – not even trying to negotiate any kind of cut, even a tiny fraction of a percentage, of box office or merchandising is just daft. And it’d be cool if New Line could see their way to slipping him something extra after the fact – if for no other reason than that his role became far more important during filming than it was originally planned to be (that speech at the end of TTT, for example).
But an interesting thing here is that the way LoTR was filmed must have kept the actors’ salaries way down. The way that Maguire, Depp, and other stars of major blockbusters (who weren’t already fully established A-listers) got huge pay-rises for sequels wasn never allowed for LoTR. Do you think that if, after the success of Fellowship, they’d had to go back to shoot the sequels, there’d have been any question of Astin (and Mortensen, even more so) being on anything within a factor of ten of their original salaries? New Line did take a huge risk in financing all three films straight off – but it had its compensations.
i would rather see films made for relatively little money, paying actors relatively little then a percentage payout if film does well : then the whole star system and film-budgets problem situation would get sorted a little or at least shaken up…
i hear what your saying, both sides of the coin, but MOST studios thank talent in some way after their film is a hit. i believe that Sony paid Tobey an extra 10 million after Spiderman crossed the 300-mil mark on the first movie. this was not a regularly scheduled/contracted payment. it was done out of the kindness of their, ahem, “hearts”. cheap a$$ New Line Cinema shoulda taken a chunk of change and dolled it out among most of the cast as a gesture of graditude. maybe that’s why Sean is pissed. frankly, if he heard about this, i wouldn’t blame him.
It’s true that actors (and athletes) are in general grossly overpaid. I think that if people are going to negotiate for back end profits they should get much less up front.
But here’s a question: On an hourly basis, I wonder how much the various behind-the-camera people earned compared to Sean Astin?
I recalculated his pay, and if you include the fact that most people earn overtime pay on anything over 40 hours per week, he earned approximately $30 per hour straight time. Now that’s not chump change, but nobody is going to get rich off of that, either.
Don’t a lot of companies give Christmas or performance bonuses based on how well the company has done that year?
Actors can choose to take part of the risk by taking a pay cut up front in order to (hopefully) share in the profits. Personally I think that residuals are the way to go, and that’s pretty accepted in the TV industry today.
Remember that unlike the people who work behind the cameras, actors can often have a very short earning career. That doesn’t mean they deserve $20 million per movie, but $30/hr seems pretty low with no residual income. Remember actors from old TV shows make no income although the shows can be in syndication for decades, making money for the owners of the show. Sally Struthers comes to mind.
Vic
Yeah, I totally agree. I think most actors are overpaid anyway. I realize that with the nature of their work, they may work 3 times one year, and then not work again for a few years. I realize that alot of times they work in grueling conditions. But it’s still a killer job that most people would probably gladly take over their daily 9-5 drudgery.
And the up front salary is just the tip of the iceberg, usually. I don’t remember anything saying that he DIDN’T also get a cut of the movie. Even a miniscule cut would’ve been huge. And all of the opportunities that it opened up will be worth alot more than he would’ve gotten if he’d never been in the movie.
I’m definitely not losing any sleep over his “only” making $250k for 3 movies.
The problem with giving money if a movie does well, is where do you stop. Do you have any idea how many actors were in the LOTR movies? If Austin was to get a kickback, shouldn’t all of them? Also, what about all the staff that put in the long hours and hard work? They should also, get some extra, right? Besides, Austin will get more lucrative offers based on his being in and doing well in the movie. Tell me Dominic Monaghan would be in the new LOST tv show if it wouldn’t have been for the movies. They made sure you knew he was from LOTR in the commercials.
well … Tom Hanks is the only one that comes to mind who took a cut (or no salary) for a piece of the profits for Forrest Gump (which turned into … are you ready for this … a $60 million dollar payout to him – that was his ‘cut’). Now there are not many Tom Hanks out there who would risk it.
Often, actors are now including as part of their ‘deal’ a cut of box office revenues. I was shocked at the payout for Austin, but I do remember press when the trilogy was being made that the actors ‘sacrificed’ in order for the movies to be made.
As for Austin, I think he did a good job … I think he is limited as an actor. Want proof – download the reading of his own book from theonering.net … it is bad!
Enjoy the site,
Mercer
In general? Sure.
But it’s silly to say Sean Astin didn’t take a risk. He risked the movies utterly bombing. He risked whatever he could have made working on three or four other movies in the time he spent on LotR. Let’s say he usually makes, I dunno, 250K per movie. (He obviously makes more than that, since he was iffy about taking 250K per LotR movie, but for the sake of argument.) Let’s say he could have made four movies in the years it took him to make LotR. That’s 1 million bucks; that means he risked 750K.
That’s not three hundred million dollars, but it’s not insignificant to him.
No dabate there mate. Totally agree with you. I do think that Astin may have been very short sighted in his contract negotiation. Aren’t the production companies more open to deals with actors where they have less upfront dollars and more box office returns\merchandising tie ins? Probably more in the big deals, but still, he should have negotiated something along those lines.