The news that Julia Roberts remains the highest paid actress in Hollywood despite her last movie being Ocean’s Twelve in 2004.
That said she has two voice roles coming out next year in Charlotte’s Web and Ant Bully. So she is back next year albeit in tone only.
For me this just highlights one of the problems that John talks about all the time, and that I totally agree with. The actors and actresses in Hollywood are paid far too much. According to the BBC she’s earning $20m (£11.6m) a film. Now that’s a lot of money out of a movie budget in one go, throw in a lead male at around the same rate, budget for marketing, and you have three huge costs straight out without even starting filming! It’s not piracy guys, it’s these three buckets that are wasting your Studio budgets.
Nicole Kidman is second on $17m (£9.8m) per movie followed by Reese Witherspoon and Drew Barrymore on $15m (£8.7m)…
…Julia Roberts
Nicole Kidman
Reese Witherspoon
Drew Barrymore
Renee Zellweger
Angelina Jolie
Cameron Diaz
Jodie Foster
Charlize Theron
Jennifer Aniston
…and that’s the top earning list. Frankly I’m surprised at Barrymore being so high, as well as Theron and Aniston. Why isn’t Diaz highger? What do you feel about the huge paychecks being churned out on this list?
Duh! Obviously Crackerjack. It’s not entirely their fault for accepting, it’s the Studios for going with it and offering.
They could cut costs to the consumer by lowering expenditure on movies, the key areas being marketing and salaries.
Not that it would ever happen but if someone offered me 20mill to star in a movie I would have no problem accepting, how bout you Rich?
Percentage of profits is always a good one. Or just a reasonable fixed salary, and not in the double figures of millions.
Stuart I am not sure how that could work, see most great performances are in lower budget films that bring in less profit so to pay an actor for according to how well they perform would probably not work unless you mean that they should get paid according to how much the film brings in profit which is more or less how things work now, if Julia’s last few films raked in hundreds of millions than she is a wise investment, if her films do poorly in profit than the studios wont pay her so much. That is how things are done now, I wish they could be paid according to talent but unfortunetly the films that display talent rarely bring in as much profit. Take Ewan Mcgregor, great actor but most his great roles are in low budget films while Star Wars raked in the dough but gives him very little chance to display his talent, so should he be paid as a great actor or as a box office star?
Y’know, actors should start getting performance related pay. That way movie budgets and star wages would plummet in accordance to movie quality. And boy, not many people would be deserving of $20,000,000 in 2005…
I say give it to the Cinemas, the rest of the crew and also lower ticket prices. All this can be done by reducing stars salaries.
If you pay the same then you’re probably paying for the higher profit per ticket required by the Cinema owner to recoup costs on movies that gather a smaller audience.
Rich I am no fan of major studios, it certainly seems most are money grubbing idiots who care nothing about the quality of product they produce but as far as the ticket price aspect, I pay the same to see a small independent film as I do for a Mega-blockbuster with the highest paid stars in them, so if the money has to go somewhere, I say give it tto the stars and not some corporate jerk. Sorry to any corporate jerks reading this.
Why? Because Studios are blaming Internet File Sharers for lack of profits, yet they fork out $20million a movie for one person.
Ticket prices go up because Cinemas have to make a profit and the majority of their costs go on purchasing a print and rights, etc. Those prices are dictated by the Studio who are attempting to make a profit on the movie they’ve made, a movie which has included one to three stars at $20million each.
There’s the connection.
I never understood why an actor’s salary was such a point of interest. Far as I’m concerned, it’s none of my business how much these people make.
I don’t know why we get upset at actors and actresses for making so much, that is not why ticket prices go up, and if the money is going to someone why not the actors instead of the studios. Damn the man.
PGA is the Producers Guild of America, just before you accuse me of going nuts and involving Golf Pros in a movie discussion :p lol
Actors getting producing credit is generally a hit the studio take in EXCHANGE for not paying them an even HIGHER wage. Generally it’s something battered out in negotiation and something the PGA is going absolutely NUTS about. It’s absolutely nothing to do with the actor in question actually doing producing work.
But we live in a world where Chris Tucker gets $20,000,000 for a movie nobody asked for and Daniel Radcliffe just negotiated $15,000,000 for Order of the Phoenix, so hey.
Throw good money after bad, then blame piracy for the losses, that’s how to make a movie right?
Julia Roberts….proof that an overrated actress with a mouth the size of Texas and a fractional value for an IQ can be rich and famous in America.
Where’s Sandra Bullock on the list?
Better question is why isn’t Catharine Zeta-Jones on that list before Barrymore. Although, I can understand why Drew is on the list: she’s been around a long time and cut her teeth on some solid material already, she’s reliable at the box office as a draw consistently, and she’s also a producer. She commands for producing as well as acting now, so good for her in that respect. But, Rene and C Z-J I would have thought would be a lot higher on the list. Just my 2 pennies.