next »

[James Ridgley]

I haven't even gotten my L & D yet from a film that is set to soon open the Santa Barbara Film festival!  As far as gifts go I got to work with some very well know and GOOD actors and I can't grip about the pay because I choose to accept what they could offer.

This may be a different thread but about 7 years ago I choose not to do a show with Peter O'Toole because the rate wasn't very good, which I later regretted -- this time accepted the rate to work with Hal Holbrook -- I know, this seems to be the opposite of this post.  Therefore my new post will read: "Cut your crew rate for a well paid actor."

thanks for reading

[Ken Mantlo]

...I got a rock.

[studiomprd]

well with the holiday seson upon us, I'm reminded of a PSM who gave a lot of holiday gifts, even personalized ones, to a hefty number of producers, usually line producers, and UPM's !!

[Marc Wielage]

on episodic, I have also received gifts from cast and production at the winter holiday season break...

Cybill Shepherd gave even we unseen post people personalized gifts every season on her CBS show Cybill. We're lucky to get credits, let alone gifts!

--Marc W.

[Scott Smith]

The only person who I worked for that ever did this was Oprah Winfrey, who generously gave everyone on the cast and crew of the short-lived series "Brewster Place" $1000.00 each from her personal checking account. I should of kept it and framed it (it's probably worth more now as a piece memorabilia than the face value!).

And believe me, anyone who had an attitude while working on that show made a quick turnabout in their opinion. While not a huge sum of money by her standards, it was certainly a gesture that one doesn't see often.

--Scott

I'd like to think that if I got paid 20 million dollars for a movie, I would quietly try to 'share the wealth' a little bit with the cast. Maybe it's just because I see things from the other side of the talent/crew line, but wouldn't it be cool at the end of a production if you were in a position to give each of the 40 or so people on set every day ten or twenty grand? It'd be a drop in the bucket as far as your salary is concerned, but it would go a long way to showing your appreciation for the hard work of the people who allow you to charge so much.

And, selfishly, it would probably pay long term dividends since your generous reputation would tend to encourage the very best work from these folks in the future.

Anyone know of big stars that do this?

[studiomprd]

on episodic, I have also received gifts from cast and production at the winter holiday season break...

[RVDMIXER]

I agree with Phillip, and we can already see the first steps towards this in our very own department.  The fact that there are so many new mixers using cheaper gear to accomplish basically the same thing others are doing with more expensive setups, shows that the market is already flooding.  The next step is to battle on the wage front, this is why it does bother me that someone recording to a laptop or handheld recorder should not be getting the same rate for equipment rental as I would be getting, but they may be.

The camera department is experiencing the same attack with all of these HD cameras flooding their market, cheap easy to purchase and an image that people are happy with.

To respond to Jasony, on most pictures nowadays the "big stars" usually give a gift of some sort.  The bigger the star the more expensive the gift, I did a picture with Leonardo DiCaprio and he gave everyone a very nice high end backpack with the name of the show embroidered on it along with "Thanks, L.D."  The usual is hats, tee shirts, or jackets from the director and stars and sometimes a gift from production, I have received embroidered CD holders, picture books, travel bags, briefcases.  It just varies, you might work with a big star, but for a short time, and they might not send a gift.  Only one show, "Rambling Rose" did I have to purchase a jacket for $100.00 each.

Cheers,

RVD

[Philip Perkins]

I think that it is very possible that movie crews will become more like non-union construction crews etc--low wages, no bennies, brownbag lunch etc--in other words the way Hollywood crews were before the unions came in.  And I bet the producers will still bitch about labor costs even w/ no bennies--they did back then, even though they were able to make decent sized studio movies in a few weeks due to long hours and no work rules.

Philip Perkins

[John Blankenship]

Imagine if you were buying 10,000 shares of stock in Will Ferrel at $1 a share ($10,000) and it returned $3.29 ($32,900) I don't think you'd complain.

However, I doubt they're using ROI (Return On Investment), rather I imagine it's cost vs box office gross which is a whole different animal.  There are lots of fists in the pie prior to investors getting a return -- production costs (remember, we're only comparing the star's portion), prints and advertising and other distribution fees, the exhibitor's cut, etc.  Even without the studio's "creative accounting" the actual return is only a portion of the gross.

John B.

(Written prior to seeing Jim's similar post.)

[Jim Gilchrist]

Imagine if you were buying 10,000 shares of stock in Will Ferrel at $1 a share ($10,000) and it returned $3.29 ($32,900) I don't think you'd complain.

Eric

It's the ratio of money paid out to the actor to total revenue, not profit that the story refers to. So if an actor gets paid $20M on a show with a $100M budget, at the $3.29 ratio, the show would have taken in $65.8M. Not such a great investment unless you really need to loose $34M, give or take.
Best regards,
Jim

[jasony]

I'd like to think that if I got paid 20 million dollars for a movie, I would quietly try to 'share the wealth' a little bit with the cast. Maybe it's just because I see things from the other side of the talent/crew line, but wouldn't it be cool at the end of a production if you were in a position to give each of the 40 or so people on set every day ten or twenty grand? It'd be a drop in the bucket as far as your salary is concerned, but it would go a long way to showing your appreciation for the hard work of the people who allow you to charge so much.

And, selfishly, it would probably pay long term dividends since your generous reputation would tend to encourage the very best work from these folks in the future.

Anyone know of big stars that do this?

[Eric Toline]

This story from Forbes has some interesting info on pay for actors vs. the earnings potential of the films they appear in.
Best regards,
Jim


Will Ferrell is Hollywood's most overpaid star: Forbes
Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:08am EST
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Funnyman Will Ferrell and British actor Ewan McGregor on Wednesday headed a Forbes.com list of Hollywood's most overpaid stars when looking at the financial returns of their movies.

Billy Bob Thornton, Tom Cruise and Jim Carrey also made the top 10 tally of actors who cost more to hire than they appear to be worth at box offices.

Ferrell took first place largely due to the flop of his summer 2009 movie "Land of the Lost", which Forbes said cost an estimated $100 million to make but earned just $65 million at box offices worldwide for movie studio Universal Pictures.

The movie followed a disappointing $43 million box office for Ferrell's 2008 outing "Semi-Pro", and $128 million for "Step Brothers".

Using a formula that calculated the actor's estimated salary on each film, including DVD and TV sales, compared to the film's revenues from theater box offices and elsewhere, Forbes.com said that for every dollar Ferrell was paid, his films earned an average $3.29.

To create the list, the financial news website looked at Hollywood's 100 biggest stars who had lead performances in at least three widely distributed movies in the last five years.

McGregor, best known for "Trainspotting" and his work in the "Star Wars" franchise, is not among Hollywood's highest paid actors but has recently proved a poor investment, averaging a return of $3.75.

Cruise, considered one of the biggest players in Hollywood, came sixth on the list with a return on investment of $7.18. Forbes said he had benefited from deals where he took nothing up front in return for a portion of the box-office gross. The deal resulted in Cruise getting paid for films like "Lions for Lambs" even if the studio did not recoup its money.

Eddie Murphy commanded a high salary after the success of family comedies like "The Nutty Professor". But his most recent films "Meet Dave" and "Imagine That" were box office duds, taking Murphy to fourth place for earning an average $4.43 for each dollar he was paid, Forbes.com said.

Forbes 10 Most Overpaid Stars were;

1. Will Ferrell ($3.29)

2. Ewan McGregor ($3.75)

3. Billy Bob Thornton ($4)

4. Eddie Murphy ($4.43)

5. Ice Cube ($4.77)

6. Tom Cruise ($7.18)

7. Drew Barrymore ($7.43)

8. Leonardo DiCaprio ($7.52)

9. Samuel Jackson ($8.59)

10. Jim Carrey ($8.62)

(Reporting by Jill Serjeant; Editing by Bob Tourtellotte)

Imagine if you were buying 10,000 shares of stock in Will Ferrel at $1 a share ($10,000) and it returned $3.29 ($32,900) I don't think you'd complain.

Eric

[Jim Gilchrist]

This story from Forbes has some interesting info on pay for actors vs. the earnings potential of the films they appear in.
Best regards,
Jim


Will Ferrell is Hollywood's most overpaid star: Forbes
Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:08am EST
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Funnyman Will Ferrell and British actor Ewan McGregor on Wednesday headed a Forbes.com list of Hollywood's most overpaid stars when looking at the financial returns of their movies.

Billy Bob Thornton, Tom Cruise and Jim Carrey also made the top 10 tally of actors who cost more to hire than they appear to be worth at box offices.

Ferrell took first place largely due to the flop of his summer 2009 movie "Land of the Lost", which Forbes said cost an estimated $100 million to make but earned just $65 million at box offices worldwide for movie studio Universal Pictures.

The movie followed a disappointing $43 million box office for Ferrell's 2008 outing "Semi-Pro", and $128 million for "Step Brothers".

Using a formula that calculated the actor's estimated salary on each film, including DVD and TV sales, compared to the film's revenues from theater box offices and elsewhere, Forbes.com said that for every dollar Ferrell was paid, his films earned an average $3.29.

To create the list, the financial news website looked at Hollywood's 100 biggest stars who had lead performances in at least three widely distributed movies in the last five years.

McGregor, best known for "Trainspotting" and his work in the "Star Wars" franchise, is not among Hollywood's highest paid actors but has recently proved a poor investment, averaging a return of $3.75.

Cruise, considered one of the biggest players in Hollywood, came sixth on the list with a return on investment of $7.18. Forbes said he had benefited from deals where he took nothing up front in return for a portion of the box-office gross. The deal resulted in Cruise getting paid for films like "Lions for Lambs" even if the studio did not recoup its money.

Eddie Murphy commanded a high salary after the success of family comedies like "The Nutty Professor". But his most recent films "Meet Dave" and "Imagine That" were box office duds, taking Murphy to fourth place for earning an average $4.43 for each dollar he was paid, Forbes.com said.

Forbes 10 Most Overpaid Stars were;

1. Will Ferrell ($3.29)

2. Ewan McGregor ($3.75)

3. Billy Bob Thornton ($4)

4. Eddie Murphy ($4.43)

5. Ice Cube ($4.77)

6. Tom Cruise ($7.18)

7. Drew Barrymore ($7.43)

8. Leonardo DiCaprio ($7.52)

9. Samuel Jackson ($8.59)

10. Jim Carrey ($8.62)

(Reporting by Jill Serjeant; Editing by Bob Tourtellotte)

[RVDMIXER]

I doubt that Johnny Depp has a "back end deal" the top stars don't negotiate for that anymore, they go for "net profit dollars" so that as so as the production costs and prints and advertising monies are recouped they share in every dollar from that point on, back end deals are mired in studio creative accounting ask any assistant director who's worked on a blockbuster.  In case you didn't know the UPM, and the assistant directors who're DGA members all share in the proceeds of a feature film, and these are "back end deals."

Francis Ford Coppola tried to restore a "studio system" when he created his Zoetrope Studio, they had actors under long term contracts and tried to make films with them.  Unfortunately his plan was very grandiose and the early films from his studio didn't fare too well, he had hoped to support the studio from the profits from the films.  Once the actor's contracts where up they all bailed and went back on the free market, where they stood a chance of earning more money than under their contracts with Zoetrope.

Top actors of today are earning upwards of $20 million dollars, if Johnny Depp's figures are correct that may make him the highest salaried actor of all time.  This is due to what amounts to "free agency" in the sports market, you're paid based on your performance.  If Johnny Depp can prove that a Johnny Depp movie will earn $30 milion in the first weekend, then he can justify asking for that amount up front.

In baseball it was Curt Flood of the ST. Louis Cardinals that changed baseball and the salaries forever, and it followed into football and basketball, to where athletes now consider themselves "entertainers" not athletes.

Crew shows a perfect example that will happen to the film industry, they will eventually break the unions and be able to pay low wages and no health care to whomever they want to do their movies, television series or whatever type of production you might have.  Producers look upon unions and their membership as "blood suckers" and they want to rid themselves of the responsibility of having to use union workers, because they most certainly are not the problem.

You can now remove your sunglasses because the future is not as bright as you thought it was.

Cheers, I guess

RVD

[old school]

GM thought they knew how to run a business. They all blamed the unions for their problems, when it was obvious that they were top heavy with visionless upper management, a bloated and powerless mid management, as they went about creating a product no one wanted. The men n women on the line were doing what they were hired for, not making the long term plans. But they are the problem? Like an inverted pyramid, this model will topple the film industry as well IMHO. Something will emerge I suppose, but sadly the crafts will suffer the most is my guess.
CrewC