Reese Witherspoon passes Julia Roberts... (1 Viewer)

[David Rogers]

Since that much cash is going into the movies, I'd rather a lot of it go to the creative people who make it happen, rather than into studio bank accounts. If you take it from stars, it's not like it'll get handed out to the poor. It goes into year-end bonuses for executives, and that's way stupider than giving big name stars salaries north of US$20mil.

Like Tony Soprano said, "... and some of us wanted a piece of the action..."

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Bingo. The money is getting made to pay stars that much. It would go to producers and financiers and studioheads if it wasn't going to actors/directors. It's not like it would trickle down to the grips and boom mike operators. Same in a sports league. If you want to be frustrated, take a look at society. What do we value? Fame and entertainment. That is where we put our money, so they make money.

It's that simple.

 

[Josh.C]

I can't think of any of Hollywood's leading Ladies that can demand that kind of pay. Thats not taking anything away from Witherspoon, I thought she was brilliant in WTL, but c'mon, I don't think her performances in Legally Blonde 2, Just like Heaven, and Sweet Home Alabama are going to ever get any Oscar Nods. Yes, they are entertaining, and she is as cute as a speckled pupp. I just don't think one movie should make you blow up like that. The reason she is able to collect this paycheck is because there is very little competition among actresses. I can think of plenty of Actors that deliver time and time again, but could barely list a handful of actresses worthy of that comment.

 

[brentl]

" Reese Witherspoon passes Julia Roberts "

That must have hurt!

Brent

 

[Chuck Mayer]

A few points, Josh.

1) Julia Roberts (and Jodie Foster) have clearly earned their money time and again, far moreso than Nick Cage or Keanu or Harrison when they play "action stars".

2) Reese isn't getting paid for her Oscar. That provides a nice bump. She *IS* getting paid for Legally Blonde, Sweet Home Alabama (the first film to "rely" on her to open), and Walk The Line. That's three films, not one.

3) I think BECAUSE so few actresses bring in that kind of audience, those that do are MORE valuable than their male counterparts. Because the product tie-in base is different. The audience the film is reaching is different. Cruise, Cage, Hanks, Washington are all sort of competing for the same audience. The women are a lot harder to pull. Reese pulls them. That's a big deal.

How many actors truly deliver time and again? Meaning their NAME sells the film...not action, not co-stars, not anything but their name. I can think of three that consistently do it: Cruise, Hanks, Washington. Julia and Jodie would be THE actresses that do it. How many movies have they made in the last three years total? Reese is the next best bet.

 

[Kevin Grey]

Everybody proclaimed her "America's New Sweetheart" after Sweet Home Alabama went through the roof. Then Legally Blond 2 comes out and grosses less than the original, Vanity Fair tanks, and Just Like Heaven does decent business but nothing that Sandra Bullock, Jennifer Garner, Jennifer Lopez, and Kate Hudson haven't achieved. And Walk the Line was sold every bit as much on the strength of Joaquim Phoenix's performance and the Johnny Cash name as any star power Witherspoon brought to it.

I like Reese Witherspoon and she is definitely a female lead that can open a movie. But her track record so far isn't even close to the type that justifies $29 million. $15 million (the opening of the last movie built on her star power) sure, but not almost double that.

I don't think most of the stars that Terry listed in the BO thread justify their paychecks so I'm not singling anyone out here either.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Again, where is her box office impact?

Just Like Heaven: $48m
Walk the Line: $116m
Vanity Fair: $16m (!)
Legally Blonde 2: $89m
Sweet Home Alabama: $127m
Legally Blonde: $95m

That's TWO flicks that made more than $100m, and she was really only a supporting character in Walk the Line.

This is an actress to whom you pay $29m for ONE movie???

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Julia Roberts is really the only seriously bankable female performance of the last 20 years or so. Jodie Foster isn't anywhere in the same league. Contact barely made $100m despite the presence of Zemeckis behind the camera. Maverick had Dick Donner and Mel Gibson and also barely passed the $100m mark. Panic Room and Flightplan both fell short of that mark.

Cage, Keanu and especially Ford have much better track records than Foster:

Cage - National Treasure - $173m
Cage - The Rock - $134m
Reeves - all the Matrix movies, Speed
Ford - What Lies Beneath - $155m
Ford - Air Force One - $173m
Ford - Clear and Present Danger - $122m
Ford - Fugitive - $183m

And so on. Yeah, Ford's fallen on hard times, but at least he HAS a strong track record - Foster's never proven herself to be any real form of box office draw, and she sure isn't in the same league as those three you disparage...

 

[TerryRL]

Concerning the $25-$29 million debate. In the simplest terms, if you're a studio exec, $25 million is what gets you "in the door" in terms of negotiating a deal for Reese Witherspoon (or any of the other six $25 million stars) to headline your feature film.

Basically, $25 million is the absolute bottom figure that these specific A-listers will take to star in your movie (unless its a very small film). Witherspoon was able to negotiate a $29 million deal for which she gave up a portion of the backend to ensure a fatter upfront fee. Still if the movie she inked her deal for goes through the roof, she stands to make a serious chunk of change.

Although it's not all that common, a few of the $25 million performers have been known to negotiate fatter fees with the $25 million number being the salary they'll "settle for" if the studio isn't willing to go higher.

For example, Arnold Schwartzenegger (who is notorious for often seeking fatter deals) was paid $30 million for his role in 'Terminator 3', but he didn't have to give up any portion of his backend. Witherspoon isn't quite at that level yet.

Still, Witherspoon has a short window. She'll get fat salaries for her next three movies, but she also has to deal with the reality that she must deliver big numbers to warrant her salary. Stars of this caliber in the industry often take "safer" roles to ensure the best possible box office performance, in other words, earning their fat salaries.

What they often do is headline "commercial" films to maintain their status in the industry, than do smaller vanity projects to still be considered "great actors and great actresses". In Mel Gibson's case, he now mostly directs (and/or produces) the smaller projects instead of starring in them.

Nicolas Cage will sprinkle in films like "The Weather Man" and "Lord of War" in with "Gone in Sixty Seconds", "National Treasure", and "Ghost Rider". Jim Carrey will periodically headline a drama in between their bigger movies. Tom Hanks will do films like "That Thing You Do" and "The Ladykillers".

The bottom line is that having these kinds of salaries means that you have the power to greenlight a movie. Right now, Reese Witherspoon is the most powerful actress in the industry and her John Hancock on a contract will get your movie from "development hell" to pre-production very quickly. And having "Academy Award Winner" before your name in the marketing also doesn't hurt. Whether or not she deserves it is something that the studios will find out soon enough.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Colin,
It's economies of scale. Jodie Foster movies (like Panic Room and Flightplan) always perform. With no other major hooks, like action movies usually have. She guarantees a certain chunk of money as the only draw.

The last Ford movie you named was from 1997. Take Keanu out of his wheelhouse, and what is he worth? Take Cage away from Bruckheimer and what is he worth? Bruckheimer has proved he can do it with and without stars. I'd argue Jodie brings in more per capita audience than any of those men.

You act like $100M is where this starts. Both PR and Flightplan made $80M (both beat expectations) with a much smaller budget.

As for Reese, people keep bringing up Vanity Fair, an indie period drama. Are you holding that against her???

Magnolia: $22M (!)
Weatherman: $12M (!)
Hollywood Homicide: $30M (!) (hardly an indie, I might add)

Need I go on?

That she got a turd like LB2 to $89M means she EARNED her paycheck.

And no one has yet to address the fact that Witherspoon is an ACTRESS who put butts in seats. She keeps getting compared to actors. DIFFERENT audience, different marketing profile.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

The contents of this thread are a solid representation as to why I try not to involve myself in the wheeling and dealing of Hollywood celebrities. I know this is how things work and blah blah blah, but it still sickens me to no end.

Just because this is how it works doesn't make it normal or right to me. Witherspoon does not deserve that kind of money for a movie, period, no celebrity does.

 

[David (C)]

re:CoreyII
link

 

[Kevin Grey]

The thumbrule has always been that the salary is roughly approximate to what you expect the star to bring to opening weekend. That's why Tom Cruise earns his $20+ million because he's pretty darn consistent with getting a $20+ million opening weekend. Same for Tom Hanks, Jim Carrey, and the rest of the club.

And you're right the audience is different- the types of films that actresses headline are usually female skewing and a good opening weekend of $20 million and eventual gross of $80 million are fine because they are usually cheaper to make than the big budget extravangazas that most ACTORS make $20+ million to headline.

I don't think anyone is saying that she isn't bankable or doesn't deserve a nice paycheck relative to other box office draws. We're just saying that $29 million is *completely* out of proportion of her previous box office performance.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on all of this, I guess. I sure don't see Foster as much of a box office draw, and I think the ones you discount are more popular than you believe.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "major hooks"...

 

[Jay_B!]

I beg to differ with people who say Jodie is not a powerful woman in Hollywood. Look at it this way, she does one movie every three years and Hollywood is still kissing her behind even though she already passed the big 4-0 (which is usually the death certificate for most actresses in Hollywood eyes). While Flightplan and Panic Room weren't blockbusters, they did perform reasonably well and Jodie will still be heading mainstream movies for many years to come, whereas a lot of her "competition" are now doing Lifetime Channel movies.

Personally, I have been a big fan of Reese's since Freeway a decade ago, I am glad she's become the superstar she has.

About Julia, I think Reese surpassing Julia comes from the fact that Julia is semi-retired anyways. Once Julia won her Oscar for Erin Brockovich, it seems like she was content to let other actresses take the spotlight while she'd rather do other things, such as raising kids, being a wife, and taking smaller roles in movies. I doubt Julia is pissed that Reese is getting a bigger salary, because if Julia was really insistant on being the #1 actress still, she would pursue it.

 

[JohnRice]

And what have you seen? Anything beyond Legally Blonde and maybe one of her romantic comedies? She has done some fine work.

Still, 29 million is hard to figuure for anyone in anything.

 

[Josh.C]

Chuck,

Gonna have to disagree with you on this one. In an earlier post you compared Reese and Company with Cruise, Hanks and Cage. I'm not a huge Nick Cage fan, but none of the actresses you mentioned could hold a candle to Hanks or Cruise (even if he is a weirdo).

You didn't even mention actors like Crowe, Pitt, and Gibson. These guys have more star power in their pinky finger than Jodie Foster or Reese Witherspoon ever thought about having. Also, you spoke of the core group of actors competing for the same audience. Not sure how you can back that up. All of these Actors and actresses compete for the same audiences. I don't know many people who only watch one kind of movie. Lastly, I don't know how Jodie Foster is even part of the discussion. She has played basically the same role in just about every movie she's done since Freaky Friday (ie. Silence of the Lambs, Contact, Panic Room, Flight Plan).

I will stick by my guns that present day actresses cannot command the money or star power of their male counterparts. I would however throw Angelina Jolie in the mix as a possible candidate for the future. We all know she's sexy as anything. I think she has the potential to expand her roles in the future. I also like Rachel Weisz.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Films do not all share the same demographic, that's Chuck's point.

There are films that appeal to mainly children, or teens. Then you have films that are labelled as "chick flicks" because that's just how the demographics break for those types of films. Then you have action films that skew towards young male adults, etc.

Sure, all actors/actresses want everyone to come to their films, but the reality is only a certain prevailing demographic will show up to see their films, depending on their role, and the genre of that particular film.

The same young male adults that loved Nic Cage in bombastic films like "Con Air" or "National Treasure" aren't going to want to see him in more pensive fare like "The Weather Man".

BTW, Jodie Foster is a major player in Hollywood, if you get her to sign on, the rest of the dominoes for that film will soon fall into place, in terms of financing, producing and signing on more talent. Not many actresses command that kind of influence.

 

[JohnRice]

An awful lot of people are using "talent" and "box office" interchangeably.

Did someone actually say that Nicolas Cage is nothing without Bruckheimer? That's just staggering.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

No...not unless you read one part of one post or discussion. If you'd read the entire discussion, instead of cherry-picking, you'd understand I was talking BOX OFFICE draw. Unless you think Adaptation outgrossed National Treasure.

If I was discussing talent, I wouldn't even BE comparing Jodie Foster and Nicolas Cage.

This is really about why 5-10 men get paid $25M a film (when it's an action film, typically) and no one bats an eye. But the minute a woman gets similar money (less, adjusted for inflation, actually), a thread is started and everybody is talking about "not earning" that salary.