A New Way to Pay Actors and Actresses

[erpowers]

Considering a number of actors and actresses get paid about $20 million per movie even though some of the movies they star in barely break even, if they break even, should movie production companies begin to pay actors and actresses a percentage of the movie revenue. I imagine this would be hard to get the actors and actresses to agreee to, but it seems it could be good for both the actors/actresses ad the production companies. For actors and actresses who normally have good box office showings they could still get big pay days when their movies were major blockbusters. However, if a movie did not perform well at the box office the star of the movie gets a smaller pay check. I imagine many of the people who post on DU think actors and actresses should be given less pay, but do you think production companies should begin to just give actors and actresses set percentages of the movies revenues?

[RandomThoughts]

1. I figure

actor/actress wages are an anomaly of the wealth distribution system we use. They get their money, just like sports players, and bankers, CEOs, based on the system, not based on some inherent value of the work.

Because that is our system, we can not fault them for it, however a progressive taxation system can restore some of the imbalance caused by flaws in sudo supply/demand capitalism distribution of wealth.

[erpowers]

2. I Do Not Fault Actors/Actresses

I do not fault actors/actresses for the pay they get. It is the idea of paying someone a huge sum of money for a movie that flops. It seems that paying actors/actresses a percentage of revenue would be a better way to pay them. That way if a movie does well the actor/actress gets a good pay check otherwise they get less money.

[RandomThoughts]

4. I think they can negotiate

for a take of the gross or net or a flat fee. Some even agree to work for scale just because they like want to make the movie.

[dem629]

5. What imbalance?

The studios are private entities that decide what they can and can't afford to pay an actor. Is there some artificial element to the process? If so, what is it?

[RandomThoughts]

6. The artificial element

is the system itself. But because you only know that system you do not see it.

Quite simply, the artificial element, is the paying of money, based on a system rule, not based on actual talent or work. An actor paid 20 million, is not 10,000 times better then a stage actor, he does not work 10,000 times harder. No actual intrinsic value of his person set his wage. The opportunity, or place he is in, and the reflection of a barter system where he can generate x dollars, so he gets some percent of x as a fee, sets his wage.

People are not paid by their value, they are paid by some modification of their value by an artificial element. That element is our sudo supply/demand capitalism.

And it works pretty well for the most part, as a goods delivery system. But it has flaws, both in setting policy and direction, and in degree of allocation, it is a bit top heavy in most cases.

[dem629]

7. Why don't the studios agree with you?

If they did, they'd cut those enormous salaries. What do you know that they don't?

[RandomThoughts]

8. supply and demand,

they work within that system.

[dem629]

10. Oh, well that explains it.....

[RandomThoughts]

14. Don't get me wrong

Supply and demand and capitalism has many great merits for society.

My comments are only that people rarely discuss, nor is it taught, that there are limitations to using the profit motive for all parts of society, and as the only means of weath distribution.

[dem629]

3. Is there a problem with the system? I don't think so.

The creative side of Hollywood (and all entertainment - movies, TV, music, etc.) is far different than the business side.

The execs are money-oriented and would have moved to "fix" the system, perhaps along the lines you suggest, if there were any flaws in it.

The only part of the system that is "flawed" is the lacking recognition and compensation of writers. Trust me.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Javaman]

11. Oh lord..

the price at which actors are paid is something that is agreed upon by the studios. They all get paid a SAG minimum for insurance reasons, beyond that, it's up to the powers that be.

That said, SAG union rules stipulate that any member of SAG that is signed on to a signatory production company, and is either a featured player, has a certain amount of lines or is recognizable to the viewing audience for a certain amount of screen time is allow to share in the profits of the production.

The above rules were put into effect after the collapse of the studio system so as all actors can share in the profits of the movie. Once upon a time, under the studio system, the "bosses" would sometimes refuse to pay and actor anything at all, even if they were a feature player, if said boss didn't like them or didn't "playball" with the studio. There were many quiet lawsuits but all were either settles via firing the actor, or making sure that actor could "never work in this town ever again" (in the old days, there was such power).

SAG union brought and end to all of that along with the anti-trust suit against the studios and their control over movie distribution.

What I think you are trying to say is that you want a form of "merit pay". In the real world, that would be nice but the points that are given out like golden eggs for blockbuster movies are so coveted, that trying to institute any from of merit pay would be soundly laughed out of the building.

Also, studios and their creative accounting would suddenly be forced to have transparency in their money records. THAT will never ever happen. As long as studios still have the ability to show that a blockbuster, many weeks at #1, massive gross ticket sales, had lost money, the merit pay concept will never happen.

Beyond that, I completely agree with your concept. :)

If you couldn't tell I used to work in the movie industry. LOL

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. and why not the same idea for professional sports?

works for me.

[Deja Q]

13. Dunno. Tom Cruise comes across as some mannequin trying to play an actor playing a part

instead of playing a part like how most actors are supposed to do...

[ThomCat]

That would put actors at the mercy of trick accountants

who can manipulate whether or not a movie is said to have broken even, based on what "expenses" are taken into account, and how much revenue is officially counted. There too many games that get played with accounting to use this method.

Look at the music industry, where record labels insist that even platinum selling CD didn't earn enough revenue to generate any checks for the artists, so they still have to make their revenue off of concert tours. Musical Artists have been screaming for decades that record labels use tricky accounting to deny them revenue from their albums and CDs.

[ThomCat]

15. That would put actors at the mercy of trick accountants

who can manipulate whether or not a movie is said to have broken even, based on what "expenses" are taken into account, and how much revenue is officially counted. There too many games that get played with accounting to use this method.

Look at the music industry, where record labels insist that even platinum selling CD didn't earn enough revenue to generate any checks for the artists, so they still have to make their revenue off of concert tours. Musical Artists have been screaming for decades that record labels use tricky accounting to deny them revenue from their albums and CDs.

[applegrove]

16. I think some actors alreay command a percentage. Often the actors produce the

movie themselves so they get a cut of the profits that way. Not a new idea by any means.

[Angleae]

17. The big name actors/actresses already get a percentage.

The not-so-big-name actors aren't a problem.