salaries for actors

[BlaqueKatt]

ok sports stars get tons of flack for their 2-3 million dollar salaries, when there is a very real risk of severe injury or death. Yet no one really bats an eye at an actor's salary.

Ok lets look at some facts here:
Average movie shoot is 6-12 weeks of filming, all actors are not "on set" every day(the actress that played Tia Dalma in POTC:2 was filming two movies at the same time, miami vice and POTC-her scenes for Pirates were shot only on weekends). Even assuming they're on set for 18 hours a day for a full twelve weeks that equals out to 1512 hours. They could technically film 4 movies a year.

Even a salary like Jonnhy Depp's for POTC2-of 20 million equals out to $13,227 per hour

Jim Carey- $25 million

Brad Pitt-20 million

Angelina Jolie-20 million

Why is an hour of any person's time prancing around in a costume playing pretend for the cameras worth more than some people's yearly salary?

A full time minimum wage job brings in(gross) $15,080.

This is why I generally don't go to movie theatres-the actors make more in an hour than I do in over six months(it takes me 33 weeks to Gross what they make an hour), I have no desire to make them richer with the profits they receive from ticket sales.

to put it a little more into perspective:
President Obama makes $500,000 per year
school teacher-$40-50,000 per year
Police officer-$30,000 per year
a neurosurgeon-$530,000 per year

Does an actor have a job that's really more difficult than the President of the US or requires more skills than a neurosurgeon that went through 8+ years of medical school? Are they making decisions that affect entire countries of people? Are they saving people's lives?

Think about it.....

[Boozy]

Why is an hour of any person's time prancing around in a costume playing pretend for the cameras worth more than some people's yearly salary?

Because people will pay money to see certain actors, which makes for a profitable movie. If the actor was partially responsible for the profitability of that movie, they will get paid more for the next film.

It's not wrong. It's not right. It's just capitalism, and capitalism is amoral.

[BlaqueKatt]

It's not wrong. It's not right. It's just capitalism

I respectfully disagree, without writers there is no product to sell whatsoever-yet during the writers strike no one blamed the actor's huge egos or paychecks. They blamed the writers for being "greedy" who were tired of making a pittance off their hard work, with the studios raking in the cash, splitting it with the actors and telling the writers they couldn't afford to give them a nickel per DVD.

Lawyers, doctors, CEOs are all seen as horribly greedy while no one says a damn peep about people that make 10-20x more.

[AdminAssistant]

The vast majority of Americans don't go see a movie because it was written by a certain person, with the exception of director/writers like Quentin Tarantino or the Cohen brothers. Put it this way: How many people went to see Transformers II knowing who the screenwriter was? How many went to see Megan Fox?

The actors had nothing to do with the WGA strike. The studio executives had plenty to do with it. SAG had been threatening a strike for some time, but that seems to have quelled. Besides, only a very small handful of actors get the big bucks. Most of the ones I know make next to nothing. Even going union isn't a guarantee of success, it just gets you into better auditions.

If somebody wants to pay Johnny Depp $20 million, then fine. And I find it amusing that you don't think acting can be dangerous. It can. Theatre is risky in that we don't have stunt doubles and we don't get to do it right just once and tape it. That fight has to be perfect night after night after night. Film? 18-20 hour shoots, shoots that can last anywhere from 1-6 months, various locations. It's not easy work.

Personally, I think it takes more skill to execute a perfect rapier fight than to get a ball to the other end of the court, but then, I've never cared much for sports.

[BlaqueKatt]

Personally, I think it takes more skill to execute a perfect rapier fight than to get a ball to the other end of the court, but then, I've never cared much for sports.

but does it take more skill than say...removing a brain tumor and not damaging healthy tissue?

Johhny Depp makes 40X as much per film as a brain surgeon does in a year-because girls think he's "hot", then these same girls whine about the unrealistic expectations of society due to the media portrayal of supermodels.

It's sickening.

How can anyone justify making more than the gross national product for several small countries?

[blas87]

I must say, I agree with everything you've said 100% Katt.

Just to put things into more perspective, Law and Order SVU stars Chris Maloni and Mariska Hargitay were getting threatened with the ax because they keep demanding more and more money per episode.

How much more money do you really need?!

I'd guest star on a TV show for $10,000.

[Pedersen]

See, I don't have a problem with them making so much money, but that's because I understand the math that makes it possible.

Any really big number divided by a really small number is going to result in a really big number.

For instance, let's do 1,000,000,000 / 10. That gives us 100,000,000. And this is true all of the time. Big number, with small divisor, results in big number. Mathematical certainty.

Now, look at those movies. The studios make their own calculations which say how much they expect the movie to make. They then figure out how much it's going to cost them to make it, and remove that number from their expected total revenue. This gives them their gross profit.

If it's a big enough (and positive!) number, it's going to get a green light, and be made. The amount they're paying the actors is factored into their expected cost to produce, and the actor they get is factored into their expected revenue.

Certain actors will draw more of an audience. More audience means more ticket sales, which means more income, which means more money can be paid to the actors. Just as importantly, the actors know that they are what people are coming to see.

In general, people don't care about the other staff: directors, writers, cinematographers, lighting, sound, sfx, all of those departments can make or break a movie. But the audience doesn't know who they are. Instead, they know who they see: The actors.

The actors use this to their advantage: More money for participating in the movie. They have a strong bargaining chip, and they know how to use it.

Personally, I say more power to them. But that's mainly because I dislike what the studios are doing with copyright legislation, and I like the fact that somebody can stick it to them

[BroomJockey]

And I find it amusing that you don't think acting can be dangerous. It can. Theatre is risky in that we don't have stunt doubles and we don't get to do it right just once and tape it. That fight has to be perfect night after night after night. Film? 18-20 hour shoots, shoots that can last anywhere from 1-6 months, various locations. It's not easy work.

BlaqueKatt's talking about movie acting. Not theatre. There's a difference, don't muddy it by mixing them together. Movie actors have to fight to do their own stunts, studios don't often like it, since it risks their investment. And again, it was pointed out the ridiculous /hr. rate it works out to, even at 18-20 hours. That means we're not talking about the day players who make a couple hundred a day. A-list actors do make ridiculous amounts of money, and writers don't make damned near enough.

A good actor absolutely cannot save a shitty movie. The number of poorly written films I've seen where A-list actors just look either like they're phoning it in, or like they're trying their darnedest to raise the quality of movie and failing have proven that to me. Bad dialogue, poor screen directions, and the rest all kill a movie as surely as bad actors, so the good ones should be paid a lot more than they're getting.

[DrFaroohk]

I don't think entertainment industry is overpaid at all, mainly because they make how much we decide. We choose to go see Johnny Depp in a movie. We like Johnny Depp, many people love Johnny Depp, he's a good actor, and we make the choice to support his career by seeing his movies. Thus, he's rich.

I think medical staff are horribly OVERpaid. Mainly because we don't have a choice. I don't have a choice about getting my arm fixed, I kinda have. I have no choice but to get that tumor scraped out of my brain. And the worst part is the way they try to justify some of the stuff.

I bitch about his a lot, but I know a guy who is a nurse anesthetist - he's something to do with injections, like IV's and stuff. He contracts himself out privately to various hospitals so he can fill in where he's needed. He makes like 2 grand a day, whether or not he even goes to work. So when I see this 800 dollar bill for a blood test and a light they shined in my ear, I know that I'm paying for some douchebag to have the day off. That's great.

[Flyndaran]

The vast majority of Americans don't go see a movie because it was written by a certain person, with the exception of director/writers like Quentin Tarantino or the Cohen brothers. Put it this way: How many people went to see Transformers II knowing who the screenwriter was? How many went to see Megan Fox?
....

Its a Michael Bay production, which means that I won't see it. The fact that it has the intellectually challenged Fox is just the topper on why I won't see it. Though I wouldn't see it if the only bad thing about it was the irritating drunk driver LaBeouf.

[blas87]

Hey Doc,

My doctor gets $90 out of the $130 it costs for a Depo Provera injection, and she isn't even there for it. A nurse, probably working a 12 hour shift and only getting paid $11 an hour gives it to me. That's right, I check in, go in a little room with only a nurse, get my poke, and leave. And my doctor gets $90 of it.

I want $90 free bucks just for being someone's doctor!

[BlaqueKatt]

I think medical staff are horribly OVERpaid. Mainly because we don't have a choice.

You do know medical school and residency is not a walk in the park

Average student loan debt for a med student is $139,517*, they are paid almost nothing during residency when they're working 36 hours straight, plus they're in school for 8 years to learn skills so they don't kill, severely injure , or paralyze you while trying to save your life.


Would you trust someone making minimum wage to not screw up while performing surgery? The more specialized they are, the more time they have to go to school/training, the more debt they accrue, as well as more skills.

You're paying for their skillset-a neurosurgeon makes an average of $530,000 per year. He's working on your brain, most other doctors make much less than that. What "skills" does an actor have? Is he saving your life, preventing disease, discovering new treatments for things? Nope just playing dress up, but you think someone that has the ability to save your life is over paid making a 10th of what an actor gets for 12 week of work?

I know a guy who is a nurse anesthetist - he's something to do with injections, like IV's and stuff.

a nurse anesthetist is specially trained to use and monitor anesthesiology equipment-not just "injections IVs and stuff". Those machines are pretty complex, my stepfather used to build them. He would be the one keeping you alive and pain-free during surgery by making sure you aren't over/underdosed and monitoring your resperatory/heart rates, or inserting an epidural into your spinal cord during childbirth, other procedures. Most hospitals have some on staff for scheduled surgeries, but have contracted ones for emergency surgeries/childbirth so they aren't pulling them from the scheduled surgeries.

My doctor gets $90 out of the $130 it costs for a Depo Provera injection, and she isn't even there for it. A nurse, probably working a 12 hour shift and only getting paid $11 an hour gives it to me.

And a nurse can't do anything without a written doctor's order-plus she has to pay her staff,(nurses, recptionist, cleaning crew), lease or mortgage on the building, buy supplies, etc. out of that $90-it's not just "hers free and clear".

And $11/hour is waaaayyy off what a nurse makes-a CNA(6 week training course) makes average $10-$15/hour, LPN(1 year degree) makes $15-$25/hour and an RN(2 year degree) makes $35-$40/hour.


If our payscale was actually based on skills most hollywood actors would be at the absolute bottom-they lose their looks they're sunk, and have no other skills to fall back on.


*my husband's student loan debt is under $40,000 to get a BS in Computer science-his highest wage would be around $50-$60,000 per year.

[Pedersen]

*my husband's student loan debt is under $40,000 to get a BS in Computer science-his highest wage would be around $50-$60,000 per year.

BK, I've got to correct you. Speaking as someone else who has a BS in CompSci, $50K is the bottom of the ladder when you start working in CompSci.

A junior sysadmin in the USA will make $35K easily. Mid-career will hit $50K easily. And senior? $100K is not at all out of the question.

However, system administration is not the normal path for someone with a BS in CompSci. They tend towards the development side. And developers get paid much better. The average entry level developer will start around $50K. Mid-career will hit $80K, and senior will (again) clear $100K.

In fact, the only career path in which a computer scientist will be making that kind of money is one in which he actually is a scientist.

You didn't say your husband was going to be a computer scientist, and you stated your husband's top earning potential. I had to correct you there.

Oh, and to reply to the "but with where we live, that's the options" line, you didn't use it in your original statement, so it doesn't apply unless you clarify. In which case, I'll clarify and point out that if you moved to a tech hungry area, such as a major urban city (Chicago, Austin, NYC, etc), those numbers of mine go even higher.

[Giggle Goose]

And a nurse can't do anything without a written doctor's order-plus she has to pay her staff,(nurses, recptionist, cleaning crew), lease or mortgage on the building, buy supplies, etc. out of that $90-it's not just "hers free and clear".

Not to mention malpractice insurance. And actors don't have to be on call 24/7 and see people die every single day....and tell their families. They pretty much work all. the. time.

It's a very high-paying job, but since in this country you have to bend over backward to get a medical degree, it's well-deserved.

[AdminAssistant]

I'm bending over backward to get my Ph.D. and by the time I get done, it'll be after at least ten years of college, which is about equivalent to many medical degrees. Most professors make anywhere from $30,000-$50,000, maybe maybe reaching $80,000. And that would be teaching 3-4 classes a semester, serving on comittees, and doing separate research, writing, applying for conferences - remember, publish or perish! The breakdown is supposed to be 40% teaching, 40% research, 20% service. Oh, and that's if you're lucky enough to get a tenure-track position. Adjuncts/lecturers get around $3,000/class. I work really hard, and nobody's pushing for me to make more money. At my university, humanities GTAs make approximately half the salary of science and engineering GTAs. But I guess what I do isn't as important, so it's totally fair that I get paid much less for the exact same amount of work.

Okay, this is going to sound really smarmy and bitchy, but if acting is so easy, then go do it. After all, it's not "real" work anyway. Actors don't get bounced around from city to city, barely seeing their families at all. They don't struggle for years working multiple jobs, just trying to get by until they break the "big time". I have an acting degree. I would put the amount of work I did in my undergraduate up next to any pre-med student. Seriously. When I wasn't in class, I was in rehearsal, and when I did have free time it was spent preparing audition pieces and taking dance and voice classes.

Look, if you want to complain that Hollywood stars are overpaid, fine. But to say that they don't deserve the money because it doesn't take any "skills" to "play dress-up" is more than a little insulting.

ETA: In case anyone cared, I didn't persue acting because I didn't think it was a viable career option for me. I could put in the work and the hours, but the success rate is so low that I found another way that I could be surrounded by the art I love and possibly have a shot at paying my bills in the process.