|
|
Post by WullieFort on Mar 19, 2018 10:48:54 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 12:53:01 GMT
Is this another story about men confidently asking for more money while women sit, like timid mice, in the corner saying nothing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Midi-Chlorian_Count on Mar 19, 2018 13:22:28 GMT
What we need next to spice the logic of these narratives up a bit is for one of these male actors to have had his rate negotiated by his female agent...
|
|
|
|
Post by nausea on Mar 19, 2018 13:25:46 GMT
That is so crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Mar 19, 2018 16:33:43 GMT
Without wasting time to read the article, but yesterday I read the wikipedia article of the movie "El Cid", and albeit Charlton Heston played the major part it was Sophia Loren with a afr smaller part who got paid more. And this was back in the 60s. Standing and a good agent. EDIT: To quote a comment: This is what I mean with "standing". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 16:37:44 GMT
But isn't Matt Smith a much more famous actor? So therefore more of a draw?
I mean I'm bad with actors names, but even I know who he is.
|
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Mar 19, 2018 16:39:41 GMT
The gender pay gap is very real, and is a very real problem in some sectors, but this is not one of the examples. Matthew Smith is a known commodity, whereas Claire Foy, while not a nobody, was not on equal standing when she signed her 2-season contract. Nothing to see here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 16:40:52 GMT
Lionel Messi is paid more than Jermain Defoe.
Which is clearly racism.
|
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Mar 19, 2018 16:41:24 GMT
Without wasting time to read the article, but yesterday I read the wikipedia article of the movie "El Cid", and albeit Charlton Heston played the major part it was Sophia Loren with a afr smaller part who got paid more. And this was back in the 60s. Standing and a good agent. EDIT: To quote a comment: This is what I mean with "standing". One should never quote comments, but while she wasn't a nobody, people weren't tuning in to watch Matt Smith. They were tuning in to watch the story. You can't make it sound like people wouldn't watch if they cast a literal nobody in that same role. But still, the point, although poorly made, is correct. Although no, they aren't bullies. Talk about whining. |
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Mar 19, 2018 16:57:58 GMT
A couple of points:
a) Matt Smith was undeniably a much bigger star before the show went to air, so it makes sense that he would receive a higher salary
b) Not having watched the show, I don't know how big the roles are. If his character has 5% or 10% of the screen time that her character has, then in principle it is absurd that he would be paid more. If however that percentage is 75+%, then again it makes sense.
c) The story broke last week and we still don't know the actual numbers or percentages. Was he paid ten times as much as her? Obviously that would be wrong. Was his salary 25% higher? Not a problem, such a difference would be perfectly justifiable considering that he was much better known than she was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 17:01:35 GMT
Without wasting time to read the article, but yesterday I read the wikipedia article of the movie "El Cid", and albeit Charlton Heston played the major part it was Sophia Loren with a afr smaller part who got paid more. And this was back in the 60s. Standing and a good agent. EDIT: To quote a comment: This is what I mean with "standing". One should never quote comments, but while she wasn't a nobody, people weren't turning in to watch Matt Smith. They were tuning in to watch the story. You can't make it sound like people wouldn't watch if they cast a literal nobody in that same role. But still, the point, although poorly made, is correct. Although no, they aren't bullies. Talk about whining. True, but... they probably just cast whoever they thought was best for the role, but within their budgets. And Matt Smith is likely more in demand than Claire Foy or whatever her name is. So they have to pay him more. If he was getting paid more than Julia Roberts or Kate Winslet, then that would definitely be weird. And I was thinking to myself I would never watch a show because a certain actor was in it. But that's probably not quite true, I've definitely watched films just because De Niro was in it. I even watched a whole series of Celebrity Big Brother just because Evander Holyfield was in it. Worst thing was, I actually really enjoyed it and got pretty hooked, and carried on watching the entire series even after he got evicted. Every night for about 6 weeks.  So I suppose it wouldn't be a massive stretch to think some people might watch 'The Crown' because of Matt Smith. And it gets them more publicity, so people who might never have heard of it got to find out about it. |
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Mar 19, 2018 17:02:39 GMT
A couple of points: a) Matt Smith was undeniably a much bigger star before the show went to air, so it makes sense that he would receive a higher salary b) Not having watched the show, I don't know how big the roles are. If his character has 5% or 10% of the screen time that her character has, then in principle it is absurd that he would be paid more. If however that percentage is 75+%, then again it makes sense. c) The story broke last week and we still don't know the actual numbers or percentages. Was he paid ten times as much as her? Obviously that would be wrong. Was his salary 25% higher? Not a problem, such a difference would be perfectly justifiable considering that he was much better known than she was. She's definitely the star but their screentime isn't so disparate that the split doesn't make sense. I don't see an issue at all with the discrepancy here. If they ran the show differently, however, and opted for a 3rd season with the same cast, different story. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 17:08:44 GMT
A couple of points: a) Matt Smith was undeniably a much bigger star before the show went to air, so it makes sense that he would receive a higher salary b) Not having watched the show, I don't know how big the roles are. If his character has 5% or 10% of the screen time that her character has, then in principle it is absurd that he would be paid more. If however that percentage is 75+%, then again it makes sense. c) The story broke last week and we still don't know the actual numbers or percentages. Was he paid ten times as much as her? Obviously that would be wrong. Was his salary 25% higher? Not a problem, such a difference would be perfectly justifiable considering that he was much better known than she was. I would say she had more screen time than him. If I had to guess ratios, probably about 65/35 in Claire Foy's favour. It was about a year ago since I watched so take that with a pinch of salt. Well he definitely didn't have an insignificant role, put it that way, but I think Foy had more lines, screen time etc. Maybe not by a huge margin, but memories can be deceiving, and I wasn't exactly paying attention to these things when I was watching. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 17:19:07 GMT
And on another point, why the hell are they targeting him? It's not his fault he's getting paid more.
Seems really unfair to guilt him into handing his wages over. Basically boxed him into a corner now, if he doesn't cough up he looks unsympathetic, if he coughs up he's out of pocket, just because he's a man... which to me is a little bit sexist.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Mar 19, 2018 17:53:55 GMT
Without wasting time to read the article, but yesterday I read the wikipedia article of the movie "El Cid", and albeit Charlton Heston played the major part it was Sophia Loren with a afr smaller part who got paid more. And this was back in the 60s. Standing and a good agent. EDIT: To quote a comment: This is what I mean with "standing". , but while she wasn't a nobody, people weren't tuning in to watch Matt Smith. They were tuning in to watch the story. You can't make it sound like people wouldn't watch if they cast a literal nobody in that same role. But still, the point, although poorly made, is correct. Although no, they aren't bullies. Talk about whining. What's that for an utter bullshit. Even newspaper quote or highlighten comments. And yes, people do watch shows or movies because of names. |
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Mar 19, 2018 18:05:09 GMT
One should never quote comments, but while she wasn't a nobody, people weren't tuning in to watch Matt Smith. They were tuning in to watch the story. You can't make it sound like people wouldn't watch if they cast a literal nobody in that same role. But still, the point, although poorly made, is correct. Although no, they aren't bullies. Talk about whining. What's that for an utter bullshit. Even newspaper quote or highlighten comments. And yes, people do watch shows or movies because of names. That doesn't make it right - quoting a comment on an article is silliness, especially the one you quoted that spouted nonsense (although the general point of it I agreed with). And yes people DO watch shows or movies because of names; I defy you to find where I said differently, I simply said people weren't tuning in because of him. While some people undoubtedly tuned in for their love of A-lister Matt Smith, the vast majority of people aren't tuning into The Crown because Matt Smith is a co-star on it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 21:35:15 GMT
What's that for an utter bullshit. Even newspaper quote or highlighten comments. And yes, people do watch shows or movies because of names. the vast majority of people aren't tuning into The Crown because Matt Smith is a co-star on it. Probably true, but there are loads of other benefits to having a name actor in your show. Every show needs publicity, so what is one way of getting publicity? Get your star actors onto a big chat show. Now imagine if you will, you're ringing up the Graham Norton Show, or whatever the biggest chat show is in America, you tell them you've got a new showing coming out on netflix, they ask you who is starring in it and you tell them "Claire Foy... yeah that's spelt C.L.A.I.R.E and Foy spelt F.O.Y... yeah Foy", they're gonna hang up on you. But you tell them Matt Smith is in it, they'll say "great, we'll book him, bring his co-star on as well so we can get to know her and we'll make a thing of it". Or if you are trying to attract investors or you're pitching the show to a TV exec, you tell them Matt Smith has read the script, loves it and is fully on-board, that's gonna give them confidence. But you tell them that Joe the plumber is playing his part, they're gonna think "so what?". And then there is product placements, if you can get Matt Smith to take a drag on a Benson & Hedges cigarette, with a clear shot of the packet, tobacco companies will pay some top moolah for that. Or if that's not allowed these days, maybe a retro can of Coke, or Bells Whiskey or whatever. Again could be very lucrative. Or in a later series, if you can crowbar in a scene where he is eating a Big Mac, that's gonna be worth something! More than if it was Carlos the Road Sweeper playing that part. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 22:53:20 GMT
Couldn't care less if she was a major star and he was a nobody with only five lines in the show. The point here is that if you aggressively push for what YOU want, the people that don't shouldn't get to hit you with a stick for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Mar 19, 2018 23:20:42 GMT
the vast majority of people aren't tuning into The Crown because Matt Smith is a co-star on it. Probably true, but there are loads of other benefits to having a name actor in your show. Every show needs publicity, so what is one way of getting publicity? Get your star actors onto a big chat show. Now imagine if you will, you're ringing up the Graham Norton Show, or whatever the biggest chat show is in America, you tell them you've got a new showing coming out on netflix, they ask you who is starring in it and you tell them "Claire Foy... yeah that's spelt C.L.A.I.R.E and Foy spelt F.O.Y... yeah Foy", they're gonna hang up on you. But you tell them Matt Smith is in it, they'll say "great, we'll book him, bring his co-star on as well so we can get to know her and we'll make a thing of it". Or if you are trying to attract investors or you're pitching the show to a TV exec, you tell them Matt Smith has read the script, loves it and is fully on-board, that's gonna give them confidence. But you tell them that Joe the plumber is playing his part, they're gonna think "so what?". And then there is product placements, if you can get Matt Smith to take a drag on a Benson & Hedges cigarette, with a clear shot of the packet, tobacco companies will pay some top moolah for that. Or if that's not allowed these days, maybe a retro can of Coke, or Bells Whiskey or whatever. Again could be very lucrative. Or in a later series, if you can crowbar in a scene where he is eating a Big Mac, that's gonna be worth something! More than if it was Carlos the Road Sweeper playing that part. Nobody here disagrees with that, or even suggested otherwise. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 0:00:16 GMT
Probably true, but there are loads of other benefits to having a name actor in your show. Every show needs publicity, so what is one way of getting publicity? Get your star actors onto a big chat show. Now imagine if you will, you're ringing up the Graham Norton Show, or whatever the biggest chat show is in America, you tell them you've got a new showing coming out on netflix, they ask you who is starring in it and you tell them "Claire Foy... yeah that's spelt C.L.A.I.R.E and Foy spelt F.O.Y... yeah Foy", they're gonna hang up on you. But you tell them Matt Smith is in it, they'll say "great, we'll book him, bring his co-star on as well so we can get to know her and we'll make a thing of it". Or if you are trying to attract investors or you're pitching the show to a TV exec, you tell them Matt Smith has read the script, loves it and is fully on-board, that's gonna give them confidence. But you tell them that Joe the plumber is playing his part, they're gonna think "so what?". And then there is product placements, if you can get Matt Smith to take a drag on a Benson & Hedges cigarette, with a clear shot of the packet, tobacco companies will pay some top moolah for that. Or if that's not allowed these days, maybe a retro can of Coke, or Bells Whiskey or whatever. Again could be very lucrative. Or in a later series, if you can crowbar in a scene where he is eating a Big Mac, that's gonna be worth something! More than if it was Carlos the Road Sweeper playing that part. Nobody here disagrees with that, or even suggested otherwise. Well my point really is that he must be worth more than his co-star, which presumably, you will agree with. And Claire Foy will probably get more money next time. Difficult really to measure a star's worth though, I imagine there is a lot that is unfair in showbiz, I mean if you're attractive you're generally gonna get paid more than someone who is unattractive, I mean Claire Foy is way too attractive to be playing the Queen, and if she was ugly she likely wouldn't have got the part. Sex, race, looks probably do play some part in your pay packet, maybe not consciously. I don't really know what the answer to all that is, other than just to leave it to market forces and accept life is unfair. It is much easier in most other industries to a shine a light on unfairness, as people's jobs outside of showbiz and sport tend to be a lot more comparable, so I kinda feel these people with good intentions should focus more on 'regular' people. |
|
