Hollywoods 14 Highest-Paid Actors All Make More Than Its Highest-Paid Actress: Vanity Fair

[Stuart G]

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/08/hollywood-highest-paid-actors

August 2017...An old story but worth looking at again..

To note the ongoing wage disparity in Hollywood is to become something of a broken record. Men make more and women make much, much less, in just about every regard, whether they’re behind the camera or in front of it. The path of an actress is also much thornier than that of an actor’s, thanks to the everyday sexism embedded in fighting for a smaller pool of plum leading roles. And things hardly get easier once an actress skyrockets into movie-star territory—a fact that’s highlighted each year when Forbes releases its annual lists of the highest-paid actors and actresses in Hollywood.

This year, the industry’s highest-paid actor is Mark Wahlberg, whose starring role in the dumb but highly lucrative Transformers franchise has deeply paid off. He made approximately $68 million this year, thanks to the latest installment, Transformers: The Last Knight, and his rate for the upcoming comedy sequel Daddy’s Home 2. He barely edged out Dwayne Johnson, who was No. 1 last year, but landed in second place this year with $65 million. Rounding out the top five is Vin Diesel ($54.5 million), Adam Sandler ($50.5 million) and Jackie Chan ($49 million).

August 16, Forbes revealed that Emma Stone, who also picked up an Oscar this year, was Hollywood’s highest-paid female star. However, her sum doesn’t come close to Wahlberg’s $68 million haul, or even Chan’s $49 million. Stone made approximately . . . $26 million, mostly thanks to her back-end deal for the whimsical musical La La Land. Take that in for a moment: the highest-paid actress in Hollywood doesn’t even make half of what the highest-paid actor makes. Had La La Land been a flop, the No. 1 spot would have gone to Jennifer Aniston, who made about $25.5 million, largely due to her lucrative endorsement deals rather than her on-screen roles

[Blue_Adept]

1. Yeah, it was covered at length at the time

But it's such a hard thing to really make comparisons about because of how backend deals work, who wants to take on more work for a range of properties (you can beef up your take with all sorts of deals, from TV commercials here and especially abroad) and the way that you work more some years than others.

There needs to be a change but there's also the thing that a lot of women aren't in the really big films that generate huge budgets as leads and generate significant returns on the backend to take advantage of. When you're mostly working in the dying on the vine mid-range projects or lots of smaller ones, or have shifted to TV to generate income, it's a mess. A lot of men still won't go to see big budget films or action films that are female-lead and, even worse, a lot of women won't either.

Changes continue to come, incrementally and haphazardly, and they can definitely do better. But Hollywood take-home pay kind of things like this are incredibly and hugely deceptive. There's no consistency to it at all because of the deals that actors and negotiators make - and a lot of it is actually risk based on their part too.

[Stuart G]

4. I really didn't know that the differences were so great.

I thought there might be some differences, but this is so large that it seems ridiculous and totally unfair. And it is unfair.

[Blue_Adept]

7. it's also been shown repeatedly across many industries that women

have a harder time negotiating what they're worth for a range of reasons and that comes into play, because suddenly they're "aggressive" and problematic because of it while with men it's expected. So they have to play a different game with it.

All I'm saying is that it's not an binary situation or something, there's a lot of nuance and things that go into these things. And it's not just their take-home from the filming itself, but the backend deals, home video, other distribution, overseas appearances and promotions, etc. Some actors do the bare minimum, some go into it big time and they make a lot more because of it. There's significant gender disparity going on but it's just not a black and white thing completely.

[genxlib]

2. There is a problem in gender disparity

But looking at that list and the "entertainment" value of the movies connected to the male stars, I think it might be more fair to say there are a lot of men being overpaid.

[Blue_Adept]

3. It's also that a lot of them are able to get more work because they have greater range of choices

Jackie Chan's numbers are going to be wonky cause the dude is a workhorse even at his age and does a lot of film and has a lot of other deals in his home country that adds to his income.

But it's also that they gamble more. When you take less up front and sign on for a percentage of how much of a film makes on the backend, you could lose big time or make it big. So when Whalberg does that, he's taking the risk and the studio is more than willing to work that gamble.

[Glorfindel]

6. "...a lot of men being overpaid." Yes: "Adam Sandler ($50.5 million) "

Unbelievable. Just simply unbelievable.

[Blue_Adept]

8. But if his works generate a high return on investment, it's not being overpaid

His Netflix deal may seem crazy from the outside but for Netflix it generated a HUGE return for them with strong streaming numbers because a lot of people like his stuff.

That's not overpaid. That's smart business.

[Glorfindel]

14. You're exactly right, of course. That's why he's rich and I'm impoverished.

[genxlib]

22. It gives new meaning to the term

"there is no accounting for taste". Accounting being the key word.

[Blue_Adept]

29. Taste is highly subjective

After all, I know lots of people hate superhero movies. I grew up on comics and this is like a golden age for me.

Others hate romance novels, but look at the bucketloads of those that sell.

With almost 8 billion people in the world the market for things is wider than ever and people put money into things that give them enjoyment.

[smirkymonkey]

47. That just astounds me.

How a no-talent loser like Sandler can command that kind of money is just unbelievable. He clearly isn't even worth a fraction of that.

[NewJeffCT]

21. It the movie makes money

then the actors are not being overpaid.

The problem is that the big roles for women are typically dramas or romantic comedy leads, which may do well at the box office, but are usually not blockbusters, so the percentage of the gross on a $100 to $150 million box office movie is far less than a movie that makes $750 million to $800 million.

They need more big action roles for women - I'm sure Gal Gadot will be making more for Wonder Woman 2 and Justice League 2 than she did for the first WW movie. And, to me, as a guy that grew up reading comic books, it's stunning that we have not had a Black Widow movie yet given how well Scarlett Johanson did with the role.

It's a problem across the acting industry in general - even on Broadway, if you look at the top musicals from the past several years, they’re mostly male driven. Hamilton is the big name from the past several years and that show is driven by Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Yes, the Schuyler sisters are great roles, but Hamilton and Burr are the central characters. Last year’s big musical was/is Dear Evan Hanson, a show driven by the male lead Ben Platt. And, still going strong on Broadway is The Book of Mormon, which is an almost all male cast. The only long-running show on Broadway that is female driven is Wicked, which is still going strong after 17 years. Of course, this may change with Frozen and Mean Girls coming to Broadway next year, but who knows if it will last?

[Not Ruth]

5. How does this list not include Robert Downey Jr?

But it does include Adam Sandler.

Not sure I believe it.

[Blue_Adept]

10. RDJ didn't do much this past year

He's been filming Avengers: Infinity War but he takes backend deals so he won't see returns until after it's all said and done. He did that with the first avengers and got a $50 million paycheck while the rest of the main cast made a couple of million because they couldn't get that kind of deal at the time.

This year he's had a supporting role in Spider-Man: Homecoming and not much else if I recall. So he wouldn't rank high.

[Not Ruth]

17. In that case calling someone highest paid or not based on one year means little

[Blue_Adept]

19. Exactly

It's a fluff piece that gets turned into an agenda piece. It's not like there are consistent salary levels like in most businesses. Creative tends to be all over the map.

[Thor_MN]

39. When talking pay, what time scale would you prefer?

Decade? Lifetime? (corrected for inflation?)

[NewJeffCT]

12. Has RDJ been in any movies this year?

Other than a cameo in Spider-Man Homecoming? That might explain his absence.

[Blue_Adept]

13. Nope. They're doing the back to almost back shooting for both Avengers films

That's been filming all year and required a lot of lead-in time. You know he's going to make huge coin from that even with the size of the cast.

[WinkyDink]

9. Movies, books, music, paintings, sculptures, etc.: Sales, baby; sales. Can any actress today

"move" a movie like a RDJr can?

Was Hillary paid more or less for her book than, say, John Gresham for his latest?

There are no group contracts in the Arts.

[Blue_Adept]

11. Plus in this area it's very much eye of the beholder in what people think someone is worth

I totally get why people can't see how Wahlberg and Sandler make this kind of coin. But when you realize just how much money they generate in the projects they're in, that's how it happens.

Sadly, women just aren't able to do that for a range of reasons as I've said elsewhere in this thread.

(movies are the field I work in a lot)

[WinkyDink]

45. Yep. (You must have some stories!)

[HughBeaumont]

15. How the hell does Adam Sandler still make over $50m?

He hasn't had a hit since Hotel Transylvania 2 (and, if we're talking movies he physically acts in, Grown Ups 2) and is mostly on Netflix now.

Is the Netflix contract paying him that much?

[Blue_Adept]

18. It is

They added four more features to their deal earlier this year as well because his stuff draws significant enough numbers and return on investment. So not only does he get the $$ for the role, his Happy Madison company brings him steady pay as well, especially with previous films still selling through various networks and home video releases.

The $$ talked about always comes across as just being for the acting but it's what the person brings in overall, which includes a range of deals. Sandler's also a producer on a number of projects as well, so there's a lot of hats.

I dislike most of his movies and some of his schtick, but he found a good niche that he exploits well with a faithful fanbase.

[TexasBushwhacker]

41. That's for a 5 picture deal with Netflix

For some of the films he's the writer as well as the star. But, I am stunned that Sandler got that paycheck.

On the other hand, Jennifer Lawrence made $46 Million last year because of the latest Hunger Games movie.

[edhopper]

16. This is all based on

what their movies made. Not the salary for the movie.

It says more about what kind of movies make mega bucks.

These are the saleries for the last Avengers movie.

Robert Downey Jr. - $40 million
Scarlett Johansson - $20 million
Chris Evans - $6.9 million
Jeremy Renner - $6.1 million
Chris Hemsworth - $5.4 million
Mark Ruffalo - $2.8 million

Let's compare apples to apples, shall we.

[KitSileya]

43. Yeah, but that's part of the point, isn't it?

When the ratio of blockbuster roles for women versus men is one to 5, as in your list, fewer women are going to get the chance to lead blockbuster movies, and therefore less chance of earning the big bucks.And it's not like the audience doesn't want women leading blockbuster movies - look at Wonder Woman - it's that Hollywood is still so inherently misogynistic that they demand women climb Mount Everest while men get away with climbing Pike's Peak, to use a metaphor.

[edhopper]

44. Hmmm

I would say that who gets the lead in these movies is the question.
Let's hope woman will get an equal chance.

[KitSileya]

46. No, we gotta do more than hope.

We've got to make a point to go see women-lead movies (lead role, director) in theater, make a point to buy female character merchandise, or complain when it isn't available. We have to talk up women-lead media across the board, too. Make sure it can't be denied that women-created media are financial winners. And that's even when the product might not be fantastic, because if a man fails, a man fails, but when a woman fails, women fail.*


*Also, replace women/female with persons of color or other minorities, and it will be equally valid.

[dpd3672]

20. Women have a few strikes against them as far as the ability to generate a profit.

And it's not just the box office and video sales. Men not only tend to headline the big budget/high gross movies, but they're also more likely to be in movies that make a lot of money from merchandising.

Bridget Jones' Diary doesn't sell a lot of action figures, lunch boxes, or Halloween costumes...Transformers movies do. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers from the last two Star Wars movies, who both had strong female leads, and historically have a HUGE merchandising component.

If the Jen and Rey action figures sold in numbers comparable to Han Solo/etc, then women might be closing the gap. However, I'm not confident that's the case. I could very well be wrong, but this is a huge component of what drives these paychecks.

[Not Ruth]

23. Didnt Rey get paid 1/50 of what Han got for the last movie?

Going to take a lot of action figures to make that up.

[Blue_Adept]

24. You don't think she should be paid the same as him though, do you?

[Not Ruth]

25. Not the same, maybe a third

[Blue_Adept]

27. So with him making $25 million on it

She should make $8 million

For an actress that had one small film role before that and a handful of TV episodes.

There's no way any manager could justify that. What they do get is a set plan over the course of the trilogy with increases plus revenue through backend and other sources to be sure.

But there's no logical way that she'd get $8 million for a role that early in her career.

[dpd3672]

30. Remember Marlon Brando in Superman?

IIRC, he was ultimately paid $14,000,000 for a tiny cameo...in 1978. I believe it made him the highest paid actor in history...for a cameo. That was nothing to do with sexism, just a big star getting a bigger paycheck than the up and coming actor, Christopher Reeve.

Brando's presence could arguably have made a big difference in the bottom line. At the time, Christopher Reeve was a nobody, and there were probably thousands of actors that could have filled the suit.

[Blue_Adept]

31. oh exactly

There are issues to be had and people will always (and can) question whether someone is worth X amount. I just try to inject with bits about how it's more complicated than a black and white situation. Though it's all business there are creative decisions and marketing decisions that go into it all. And your Superman piece is pretty much the same as The Force Awakens in that sense, just expanded for how big of a role in comparison between Ford and Brando.

While I do think Ford has phoned in far too many roles in the last ten or so year (good god why did I watch all of morning glory. oh yeah, McAdams) he has such a strong body of work overall that his priced for TFA was easily warranted and worth it for everyone involved.

[dpd3672]

34. Phoned in? Don't get me started, lol.

Way too many of Hollywood's A-listers get obscene paychecks for the amount of work they do. Harrison Ford overacts and points his finger and the millions flow in...Jack Nicholson has basically played the same character for the last 40 years, and each film makes him more and more money. Tom Cruise hasn't done much but flex and be crazy since Rainman...the list goes on and on.

It's a combination of things, but mostly it boils down to how much money you can make for the studio, and how good your agent is at negotiating. If you're not getting the huge paychecks, you're failing in one or both of those areas.

It's just that simple, really.

[Blue_Adept]

36. I'll actually defend Cruise a bit here

His films are far more consistent returns on investment than others and his longevity has its own reasons. I know lots of people detest him and point to the whole crazy couch thing, but in terms of what Hollywood wants, he delivers. The M:I movies alone really show that. The amount of work that I see him put in on it, at his age at that, with the physicality is one thing. But he's also one of the few that does the whole worldwide PR campaign with such enthusiasm that it's like a massive goodwill ambassador for the studio involved. Not all of the work is what's in the movie itself, it's the promotional campaign. You get the curmudgeon like Ford, which is fun with some of his Blade Runner 2049 interviews, but then you get "old school" Hollywood with Cruise as he does the tours around the world and is greeted in such a massive way. It's something you don't see in most of the other current A-listers for the most part. Maybe Clooney to some degree.

[dpd3672]

37. I can't argue that, Cruise puts in the work.

My point was just that he hasn't been much of an "actor" in quite a while, defined as someone who convincingly pretends to be a character. He's more of an "Action Icon" now, which is a lucrative field, for sure.

[Blue_Adept]

38. Very true. A Cruise movie is a Cruise movie. And that consistency sells

I do like when he steps out of it, such as with Magnolia and Tropic Thunder, but most people go to see him do what he does, like Vin Diesel with Fast and Furious but little interest in him beyond that franchise.

Cruise is very bankable because of that persona and because he does put in the hard work. I always feel like an apologist for him even though I detest the Scientology side and some of his personal life, but I judge the work by itself in the end as much as I can and I find that I really enjoy a lot of his movies.

[dpd3672]

26. I don't doubt that...

And in this particular case, I can see Harrison Ford's return being worth a lot more than a new character...a fan favorite, major character played by a Hollywood A-lister, vs a new face whom anyone could have played.

However, I'd be interested in seeing the number of action figures sold of the three "new but starring" characters in The Force Awakens...Rey, Finn, and Poe, all representing a different demographic. It might be telling as far as what actors are the best return on investment from a merchandising standpoint. And it's probably humbling to the actors, but I'd bet that all three were outsold by the CGI robot, lol.

That said, my point is simply that I doubt women are causing as much merchandise to be sold as men are. This is due not only to the types of films and roles, but also simply how kids choose to play.

[Blue_Adept]

28. And the fact that toy manufacturers underproduce or never produce female action figues

look at the whole hasbro monopoly issue with Rey over the last few years.

The marketing ahead of TFA was all about Kylo. Finn and Rey didn't get anywhere near as much promotion.

[dpd3672]

32. Marketing is witchcraft, lol.

I don't pretend to understand what goes into the marketing decisions, but there's often a purpose for it. Look at how Nintendo underproduces new consoles to build hype and demand. That might have been one component of it...trying to make Finn and Rey figures the "hot" Christmas toy (I remember how hard the original figures were to get when I was a kid in the '70s, which seemed to be successful at the time).

In my opinion, Rey, Finn, and Poe are roughly equal in importance in the new movie, with Rey possibly being a bit more important of a character (although it's hinted the other two will have bigger roles in the next two films). I really didn't see much of Finn or Poe in the marketing, with Kylo and Rey being shown the most.

Still, as I mentioned earlier, I'd be curious to see how many of each figure were produced, and how many were actually sold. If one outsold the others by a significant margin, I suggest that might be a demographic Hollywood would be interested in pushing more of, from a strictly profit perspective.

Hollywood may claim to be all kinds of things, but at the heart, they're a business looking to make as much money as possible.

[Mike Nelson]

33. It used to be more even...

...Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks... Garbo and Gable. Shirley Temple and Mickey Rooney.... Doris Day, John Wayne... there have always been big female box office stars, but men have generally sold more tickets than women since the 1970s.

[MichMan]

35. You would likely see the opposite for supermodels

I would expect that female supermodels are paid substantially more than male models.

It really varies wildly by fields. No one is surprised that male NBA players out earn WNBA players by wide margins.

To try and connect it only to gender isn't always the case

[Not Ruth]

40. Teenage babysitters too

[melman]

48. I'm not going to cry for anyone making 26 million dollars

Give me a fucking break.