AA> The film, although entertaining, reinforced my notion that actors
AA> are simply getting paid far too much for the one-time thing that
AA> they do.
Most actors recieve the regular SAG day-rate which is $335/day or $1166/week
for films with budgets under 700k and $1,005/day or $3,488/week for films with
budget over $2.5 million. That may seem like a lot, but keep in mind talent
must typically be on set before dawn for makeup and costume, and don't leave
until dark. They must learn lines, blocking, and often times skills like sword
fighting, dancing or horseback riding.
Most actors are struggling. They might appear in a few minor roles for the
year and have to spend the rest of their time gig-working, or waiting tables.
But they persevere because the potential payoff is huge.
It's only the mega-A-List actors that recieve the millions and millions you are
thinking about. And they get that because they are typically in films which
have budgets of millions and millions, and (before Covid) would earn millions
and millions at the box office. Would it be fair if a major movie made a
billion in boxoffice and only paid it's actors the day rate? The A-list actors
make what they do because they bust ass, the draw audience, and they earn a
piece of the boxoffice on the backend. I think you'll see that A-list
Directors, Cinematographers, Composers, and other top-line talent also have
similar arrangement.
An oft-cited example is the million-dollars-per-episode arrangement the cast of
"Friends" had in their final seasons. Or the similar one for the cast of "Big
Bang Theory". The cast could get that rate because the producers had a gold
mine. Every season released was a guarantee of profits to be generated for the
studios and networks. Shouldn't the cast earn a fair cut of that?
Bob Roberts
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: Halls of Valhalla -=- Happy New Year (1:218/840)
|
