Seantn

Very few actors are celebrities. Each movie that comes out might have 50-60 actors in it. About 3 or 4 of them might be big celebrities.

Actors get paid for being on set, obviously, but the big chunk of their income that is made is made off of residuals that pay out over the next few years after a project is completed.

NatrlBornThrllr

Isn't this the same forum that constantly calls for the heads of those pirating DVDs, on the grounds that those involved with the production deserve compensation for every copy pressed? Or was all of that diligent lobbying on behalf of the big studios and not the creative parties?

Michael Corvin

Good for Reeves if that is true.

I still don't think so. It's a gamble for the studio not the talent. The talent was hired to do a job regardless of the ultimate outcome. I'm sure Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman were paid their usual fees, as well as all the other actors. The way the talent benefits is in future movie deals. Shawshank ended up being huge so now every actor can negotiate a larger salary for their next few films. Same with the lesser actors, just on a smaller scale.

The only instance I can think of where the talent should benefit after their work is done, is if they were grossly underpaid to begin with taking in the outcome of a film's performance. Blair Witch comes to mind. Those guys got a couple hundred grand for the movie and it goes on to gross 250 million in the theater alone. Of course that is a fine line and there is no clear number to go by but it is pretty easy to tell those guys got screwed.

Fincher Fan

Wow! Keanu worked out how to edit Wikipedia!

FILMCZY

Actors should only get additional $$$ if they contribute to some half decent special features/commentaries on the dvd release. Other than that, they can negotiate dvd sales/other media in their original studio contracts.

Jay G.

That's what they are doing in this context: they want to negotiate what they will receive from DVD sales in future contracts, via SAG.

Jay G.

Do you realize how non-supportive of your position that argument is? You're saying that those who live in LA or NYC are being paid relatively little to work and live in an expensive environment, and that those who live in places where the LA actor's salary may actually afford a reasonable lifestyle get paid even less, so that they're still living below the status quo.

Jay G.

I'm not terribly knowledgeable about Hollywood, but from what I've read about producers, I don't think you're correct.

First rule of producing: Never use your own money.

A producer may initially risk some of his own money securing rights to a book or script he wants to develop, then risks some additional time and money shopping it around to studios and attracting talent to it. However, from what I know, when they finally do sell it to a studio, it's usually for a fee that includes all the money they've invested so far, plus some extra for themselves, as well as some back-end profit participation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_producer

The ones who actually put money into a project are the studios or financiers of the film. They put up all the money, but they don't necessarily get all of the revenue, as is typical with any entrepreneurial venture. Some executive producers may have "put money" into the film, but that's typically in the form of a production company that they run.

Jay G.

So producers, as "creative talents," deserve as much a cut of the revenue as they want, but actors don't?

Jay G.

The pay "ahead of time," is only for the theatrical release. The studio pays them money, and in return the studio gets to keep all the theatrical revenue they receive (at least in regards to actors with the standard SAG contracts). TV and home video came later as additional sources of revenue, sources the original pay wasn't designed to cover. As a result, SAG and other unions negotiated for residuals for these ancillary markets.

So while it's sad that a studio may not recoup their investment on a film solely through the theatrical release, that's what the studio gambled on. That a film lost money theatrically doesn't mean they don't have to share the revenue from the other sources.

Jay G.

The problems with that example you give are:

1. Most actors aren't getting offers "left & right." They either take the part, or they go through 100 more auditions before their next offer.
2. 5% of home video revenue is an awfully high percentage for someone only getting $100,000 upfront.
3. Most actors don't have the clout, by themselves, to negotiate anything. This is where unions and guilds like SAG come in, which does have the clout to negotiate for them with the studios. Even then, the studio typically still has the upper hand. I mean, it took SAG about a decade after DVD's release to reach a point where they feel they may have to resort to a strike to get the studios to acknowledge that the DVD market isn't the same as the VHS market.

The studio isn't paying out 5% to every actor. They pay out 5% to SAG, which splits that 5% with all the actors. So the actors are getting a percentage of a percent, while the studio only pays out 5% total. Even worse, the studio gets to subtract 80% of the money they get from the "revenue" they calculate the SAG residual from. So actors are now getting a percentage of a percentage of a percent.

Jay G.

I don't buy the argument that the studio, by risking all the money, is thus due all the revenue.

This might be true if the studio was, say, feeding their money into a slot machine, but what they're really doing is investing in the ideas and talent of people who are capable of delivering a product they can sell. In many of these cases, the talent often gets a cut of all future revenue, even if they risked no money themselves.

I've already given the examples of the book and music industries operating in this fashion, but I'll give an example outside the entertainment industry.

Philo T. Farnsworth was just a teenaged college dropout when he pitched the idea of Electric Television to two potential investors. The men were convinced that Farnsworth had a good idea and that he had the talent to pull it off, so they fronted him some money to move, set up a small lab, and begin working on the project. They even gave him money for living expenses for him and his new bride.

However, did these investors say, "well, since we're providing all the money, as well as paying you, we're entitled to all the revenue this device will generate"? No. Instead, the entered a partnership with Farnsworth, with Farnsworth receiving a 50% stake in the venture despite no money put forth, because he was the one with the original idea, and the talent to pull it off.

Eventually, more money was needed, and more backers were found by selling off stakes in the venture, thus reducing Farnsworth's share. However, his share never was subtracted to zero, because no matter how much money the other men had, they didn't have the original idea, nor the talent to realize it themselves.
http://farnovision.com/chronicles/tfc-part02.html

And that's how it works with many entrepreneurial ventures: the man with the original idea and talent gets a share for just having that idea and talent. And while the investors may put up all the money, they don't get all the revenue.

In essence, each film is, in and of itself, an entrepreneurial venture. The writer has the original concept of the film, as you will, and the cast and crew have the talent to pull it off. As such, they deserve a share of all future revenue, despite whether or not they were paid upfront as well.