4 ms·
I don't understand why actors don't negotiate on observables like total box office receipts rather than numbers that can be gamed. That said I'm going to be pur
by danteembermage 15y ago
I don't understand why actors don't negotiate on observables like total box office receipts rather than numbers that can be gamed. That said I'm going to be purely speculative and venture a guess:
I'm suspicious that actors and actresses actually are not that interested (as a group, I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions) in getting paid from residuals and actually prefer to get a big check rather than a smaller check with bigger payments later. I think philosophically though they feel entitled to an equity stake, after all how much of the success of a blockbuster movie is due to the stars that are in it i.e. they bring significant brand value. So they deserve a fractional share, but don't necessarily want to get paid that way for risk and time preference reasons. So we get a mutually agreed upon fiction where the actors get a big check AND a huge chunk of the profits which in practice will be zero since we'll account away the profit, yet we still respect the enormously significant contribution of stars to blockbuster pictures by giving them an imaginary equity stake. It seems that actors and actresses tend to act less like capitalists and more like star employees and so in practice their compensations looks more like what you'd expect from the latter than the former.
- rphlx 15y agoIn the end I think much of the power lies with the studios, as they have more capital, and are closer to the customer. Blockbusters can easily create stars, but stars usually cannot - without major studio backing - create blockbusters.
- danteembermage 15y agoThis is absolutely true for the first movie, I wonder how much it applies to the seventh. I think Daniel Radcliffe would have a not of negotiation power in discussing salary for Harry Potter 7 part 2; there's a bit of a hold up problem. Also there's more than one studio and they do compete for talent, although you always have to look out for gentlemen's agreements a la Apple.
- danudey 15y agoI'm not sure this is true. The likelihood is that the contract for all the movies was signed before any of the movies, such that Radcliffe would be contractually obliged to finish the series, rather than holding development hostage at the last minute.
- danteembermage 15y agoThis is true of the first five films, but the later ones were separately negotiated "Radcliffe found himself playing the lead role of Harry Potter in the anticipated family film, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, based on J.K. Rowling's popular novel, and signed on to star in the first five movies. Once his contract was up, he signed another contract for $50 million to star in the final two films of the series." http://www.tribute.ca/people/daniel-radcliffe/6160/ http://www.tribute.ca/people/daniel-radcliffe/6160/
- joejohnson 15y agoActors would be "fools" to not take a pre-determined, set amount, according to Eddie Murphy. Due to "Hollywood Accounting", many successful movies don't show a profit and this don't pay a percent of the profits to actors. http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-04/news/mn-537_1_eddie-murphy-productions http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-04/news/mn-537_1_eddie-m... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting