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
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.com:
It means less risks are taken at the devlopment stage, more sequels and remakes and adaptations..
Quite a jibe at Diaz, there.
@reader2.panix.com:
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..
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 raised and budgeted specifically for the production, rather than whatever is in the bank?
Do they get a lump sum on signing, or is it deferred in instalments?
In any event, taking a reduction of dollar one/adjusted gross participation must presumably leave more in the bank for the next acquisition and keep the prodcos in business longer if the show is a bust.
I can't help thinking that sequels and remakes must be reaching the end of their shelf life audiences haven't responded to most of them... at least in North America. Maybe they make money elsewhere.
Quite a jibe at Diaz, there.
Yes! Not the sort of thing you often see in the mainstream American media which usually don't go in for anything but sweetness and light when it comes to Hollywood movie stars. Leave it to the Brits to find the Achilles heel.
Women are like elephants. I like to look at 'em,
but I wouldn't want to own one.
W. C. Fields
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Interesting points. I don't really know anything about how and when the stars get paid.
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-or-play deal before a star will even consider a script.
Am I right in assuming the funds come from money raised and budgeted specifically for the production, rather than whatever ... the bank for the next acquisition and keep the prodcos in business longer if the show is a bust.
Good point. I suppose there's always the possibility that talent (if they produce) will reinvest money in their own development activites. Appropriating 40% of gross is bleeding the industry dry. It's a good thing this is being reigned in.
But if stars are taking a hit on the backend, then they're going to ask for even larger upfront fees and the profits will be spread even more thinly.
I can't help thinking that sequels and remakes must be reaching the end of their shelf life audiences haven't responded to most of them...
I hope so.
Interesting points. I don't really know anything about how and when the stars get paid.
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.
Could you be thinking of a reading fee? If an agent doesn't know you, or if the agent just might be in a shitty mood, he may ask for a standard reading fee for the star to read your script. The fee is 10% of the star's current going rate, and must be submitted in the form of a cashier's check that accompanies the script. Nonrefundable if the star doesn't like your script and says no.
Caroline
Wanna play hardball?
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.
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 illiterate) actor to read/riffle through a script. Do you have any links/references. Is the 10% figure set by SAG? Doesn't ring true to me.
If the star needs pay or play to commit to a project (not unreasonable as it would take a chunk of time out of their professional availability, when they could be earning ), then the agent is going to need to be satisfied that such terms can be met. That's pretty standard practice. Otherwise, it's a waste of time agents/talent considering the project, reading fee or not.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
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 quoted it to me when I asked to have Robert DeNiro, one of his clients, read a script my partner and I were casting. So instead I had a friend give DeNiro the script at a wrap party. There was a power failure so he read some of it by candlelight, told my friend he liked it, but he had to talk to Fred.
So much for shortcuts. SAG or WGA or whatever doesn't set these fees. They're pretty much industry standards, and as I said, it's often as not a way of saying no. If someone believes hard enough in their script for example, if I'd had an absolute indication from DeNiro he wanted to do our script AND we had the money to pay the reading fee (we didn't), then it would have been pretty much risk free. Of all the agents I've ever dealt with, this was the only time I was asked for a reading fee.
Producing is a very difficult game. I don't play it presently. Don't know if I ever will again. Depends... Oh, and for the record, if you pay a reading fee and the star agrees to take on the role, then the reading fee is deducted from his regular fee. Hey, save a couple of million here, save a couple of million there, and before you realize it, it mounts up...! '-)If the star needs pay or play to commit to a project (not unreasonable as it would take a chunk ... be met. That's pretty standard practice. Otherwise, it's a waste of time agents/talent considering the project, reading fee or not.
A very realistic way of looking at things is that every feature film that makes it to the screen is a fluke. To make a movie, you've got to work through about a gazillion different coin tosses, and the coin has to come up "Heads" every time. From everybody above and below the line having the same time slot open for the shoot, to all of the rest of the things that have to be done to deliver a film to the distributor, it's all a long series of little miracles.
Many actors have their own prodcos that help the star pick and choose the projects they want to do. And that's a major asset for a producer. If s/he can win over a star's agent and prodco, it's pretty smooth sailing where that star is concerned... The problem is not so much one of getting an excellent actor to accept a role. There are a lot of excellent actors around just waiting to be discovered. If you want box office draw, you have to go after someone who can do that, and that's when you start running into reading fees and other variations on the theme.
Caroline
It's an industry standard. Basically, it boils down to an agent's way of saying no without using any two letter words.
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's picked up some heat lately, who my writing partner and I think would be great for the lead in one of our scripts (and would probably be big enough to get us the needed foreign presales, but doesn't have a prodco) and our agent was basically like: "Forget it. The chances of his agent even considering it are basically none. Scratch him off the list."
-Ron
It's an industry standard. Basically, it boils down to an agent's way of saying no without using any two letter words.
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
Maybe if the "multi-media majors" do cut back in how much funding they put up for films, with the end result that they actually cut back on how many movies they make, it could mean that more actors are available to indie productions... Just a thought...
Caroline
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more