0
Usenet Posted 20 years ago
Screenwriting
Actor Pay Cuts in Tinseltown
The Sunday Times
January 22, 2006
Stars accept pay cuts as Hollywood profits dip
John Harlow, Los Angeles
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 book¹s 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 ³first dollar², under which the director, producer and stars receive a share of a film¹s box office take regardless of whether the studio has covered its filming costs.
Hanks had been expected to share 40% of the takings of The Da Vinci Code ? to be released in May ? with Ron Howard, the director, and Brian Grazer, the producer, in addition to their own fees. Instead, they will reportedly settle for 25%. Studios hope this will become the industry standard, claiming that this will leave them with more money to spend on the films.
³It all depends on how much the actor wants to make the film,² said one studio source. ³Tom knows that Harrison Ford could have played that role wonderfully and maybe even cheaper.²
³First dollar² deals date back to the early 1950s when James Stewart first negotiated a share of the box office receipts for Harvey, a fable about a seemingly delusional man and a giant invisible rabbit. ³That rodent will eat Hollywood,² said a Universal studio executive at the time, and he was right: the practice has since been commonplace.
No actors will publicly admit that they have lowered their price but industry reports suggest that Hanks is not alone. Cameron Diaz, who is second only to Julia Roberts in the female stars¹ pay scale but still earns on average half a top male star¹s salary, is said to have agreed to forgo her ³first dollar² deal to star in a romantic comedy called Holiday.
Sony, the studio, said it had no choice after a number of recent box office disappointments and promised to make it up to Diaz in the future. ³Let¹s not get too weepy here,² said a Sony executive. ³Cameron Diaz is thinking of the future and she is still getting north of $10m (£5.7m) for the two months¹ work.²
According to industry reports, Disney also cut down on star salaries before filming two sequels to Pirates of the Caribbean. Johnny Depp is believed to have sacrificed his ³first dollar² to allow the studio to afford Keith Richards, the Rolling Stones guitarist, upon whom he modelled his piratical performance.
In the end, Richards did not appear in the first sequel, Dead Man¹s Chest, because of touring commitments and is unlikely to be in the second ? but nobody expects Depp to be given a pay rise.
Women are like elephants. I like to look at 'em,
but I wouldn't want to own one.
W. C. Fields
January 22, 2006
Stars accept pay cuts as Hollywood profits dip
John Harlow, Los Angeles
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 book¹s 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 ³first dollar², under which the director, producer and stars receive a share of a film¹s box office take regardless of whether the studio has covered its filming costs.
Hanks had been expected to share 40% of the takings of The Da Vinci Code ? to be released in May ? with Ron Howard, the director, and Brian Grazer, the producer, in addition to their own fees. Instead, they will reportedly settle for 25%. Studios hope this will become the industry standard, claiming that this will leave them with more money to spend on the films.
³It all depends on how much the actor wants to make the film,² said one studio source. ³Tom knows that Harrison Ford could have played that role wonderfully and maybe even cheaper.²
³First dollar² deals date back to the early 1950s when James Stewart first negotiated a share of the box office receipts for Harvey, a fable about a seemingly delusional man and a giant invisible rabbit. ³That rodent will eat Hollywood,² said a Universal studio executive at the time, and he was right: the practice has since been commonplace.
No actors will publicly admit that they have lowered their price but industry reports suggest that Hanks is not alone. Cameron Diaz, who is second only to Julia Roberts in the female stars¹ pay scale but still earns on average half a top male star¹s salary, is said to have agreed to forgo her ³first dollar² deal to star in a romantic comedy called Holiday.
Sony, the studio, said it had no choice after a number of recent box office disappointments and promised to make it up to Diaz in the future. ³Let¹s not get too weepy here,² said a Sony executive. ³Cameron Diaz is thinking of the future and she is still getting north of $10m (£5.7m) for the two months¹ work.²
According to industry reports, Disney also cut down on star salaries before filming two sequels to Pirates of the Caribbean. Johnny Depp is believed to have sacrificed his ³first dollar² to allow the studio to afford Keith Richards, the Rolling Stones guitarist, upon whom he modelled his piratical performance.
In the end, Richards did not appear in the first sequel, Dead Man¹s Chest, because of touring commitments and is unlikely to be in the second ? but nobody expects Depp to be given a pay rise.
Women are like elephants. I like to look at 'em,
but I wouldn't want to own one.
W. C. Fields
Top answer
As far as the overall health of the industry is concerned, I think that the eight figure fees and pay or play deals demanded by gross players before a film is even produced extract a far greater toll than dollar one/adjusted gross participation. It means less risks are taken at the devlopment stage, more sequels and remakes and adaptations.. Quite a jibe at Diaz, there.
- As far as the overall health of the industry is concerned, I think that the eight figure fees and pay or play deals demanded by gross players before a film is even produced extract a far greater toll than dollar one/adjusted gross participation.
- It means less risks are taken at the devlopment stage, more sequels and remakes and adaptations..
- Quite a jibe at Diaz, there.
- com:
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
24 Answers
0
As far as the overall health of the industry is concerned, I think that the eight figure fees and pay or play deals demanded by gross players before a film is even produced extract a far greater toll than dollar one/adjusted gross participation.
It means less risks are taken at the devlopment stage, more sequels and remakes and adaptations..
Quite a jibe at Diaz, there.
@reader2.panix.
It means less risks are taken at the devlopment stage, more sequels and remakes and adaptations..
Quite a jibe at Diaz, there.
@reader2.panix.
00
[nq:1]As far as the overall health of the industry is concerned, I think that the eight figure fees and pay ... dollar one/adjusted gross participation. It means less risks are taken at the devlopment stage, more sequels and remakes and adaptations..[/nq]
Interesting points. I don't really know anything about how and when the stars get paid.
Am I right in assuming the funds come from money
Interesting points. I don't really know anything about how and when the stars get paid.
Am I right in assuming the funds come from money
00
[nq:1]Interesting points. I don't really know anything about how and when the stars get paid.[/nq]
In the case of a pay or play deal (which a lot of A-list talent will demand in exchange for availability) talent gets paid their fee whether or not the film goes before the cameras.
If not monies in actual escrow, an agent may require proof that a producer has sufficent funds to cement a pay-
In the case of a pay or play deal (which a lot of A-list talent will demand in exchange for availability) talent gets paid their fee whether or not the film goes before the cameras.
If not monies in actual escrow, an agent may require proof that a producer has sufficent funds to cement a pay-
00
[nq:2]Interesting points. I don't really know anything about how and when the stars get paid.[/nq]
[nq:1]In the case of a pay or play deal (which a lot of A-list talent will demand in exchange for ... proof that a producer has sufficent funds to cement a pay-or-play deal before a star will even consider a script.[/nq]
Could you be thinking of a reading fee? If an agent doesn't know you, or
[nq:1]In the case of a pay or play deal (which a lot of A-list talent will demand in exchange for ... proof that a producer has sufficent funds to cement a pay-or-play deal before a star will even consider a script.[/nq]
Could you be thinking of a reading fee? If an agent doesn't know you, or
00
[nq:1]Could you be thinking of a reading fee? If an agent doesn't know you, or if the agent just might ... form of a cashier's check that accompanies the script. Nonrefundable if the star doesn't like your script and says no.[/nq]
I've sort of heard of reading fees, but considering the going rate of stars nowadays, I can't see producers putting down that kind of cash to get a (possibly illiter
I've sort of heard of reading fees, but considering the going rate of stars nowadays, I can't see producers putting down that kind of cash to get a (possibly illiter
00
[nq:1]I've sort of heard of reading fees, but considering the going rate of stars nowadays, I can't see producers putting ... through a script. Do you have any links/references. Is the 10% figure set by SAG? Doesn't ring true to me.[/nq]It's an industry standard. Basically, it boils down to an agent's way of saying no without using any two letter words. Fred Spektor's literary assistant once quote
00
[nq:1]It's an industry standard. Basically, it boils down to an agent's way of saying no without using any two letter words.[/nq]
That being said, my agent just told me last week that unless you have financing in place and are making an offer, you're wasting your time by sending an actor's agent a script.
If the actor has a production company, you can go that way. But there's an actor who'
That being said, my agent just told me last week that unless you have financing in place and are making an offer, you're wasting your time by sending an actor's agent a script.
If the actor has a production company, you can go that way. But there's an actor who'
00
[nq:2]It's an industry standard. Basically, it boils down to an agent's way of saying no without using any two letter words.[/nq]
[nq:1]That being said, my agent just told me last week that unless you have financing in place and are making ... like: "Forget it. The chances of his agent even considering it are basically none. Scratch him off the list." -Ron[/nq]
Maybe if the "multi-media ma
[nq:1]That being said, my agent just told me last week that unless you have financing in place and are making ... like: "Forget it. The chances of his agent even considering it are basically none. Scratch him off the list." -Ron[/nq]
Maybe if the "multi-media ma
00
[nq:2]It's an industry standard. Basically, it boils down to an agent's way of saying no without using any two letter words.[/nq]
[nq:1]That being said, my agent just told me last week that unless you have financing in place and are making an offer, you're wasting your time by sending an actor's agent a script.[/nq]Financing in place isn't that new or that uncommon a demand from agents. Spekto
[nq:1]That being said, my agent just told me last week that unless you have financing in place and are making an offer, you're wasting your time by sending an actor's agent a script.[/nq]Financing in place isn't that new or that uncommon a demand from agents. Spekto
00
[nq:1]It's an industry standard. Basically, it boils down to an agent's way of saying no without using any two letter words. Fred Spektor's[/nq]
"Not unless you have financing" would be more polite.. If it's a way of saying no then it's hardly an industry standard. One assistant mentioning it once does make it one, either.
[nq:1]if I'd had an absolute indication from DeNiro he wanted to do
"Not unless you have financing" would be more polite.. If it's a way of saying no then it's hardly an industry standard. One assistant mentioning it once does make it one, either.
[nq:1]if I'd had an absolute indication from DeNiro he wanted to do
0
Related Questions