Top Earning Actors June 08 - June 09

[SirSomerville]

One of the most hard-working actors in Hollywood, Nicolas Cage, came in fifth. He might not earn as much as Smith or Sandler, but he currently has six movies scheduled to hit theaters.

Oh....great.

[brewp13]

On the other side of the spectrum, Sean William Scott only got paid $1200 or $1500 for the first American Pie movie. I'm sure he makes alot now but I always thought that was interesting because he was a main character and everyone else was paid well. I know he was a no name at the time but still.

[kevinbr100]

Originally Posted by brewp13

That's nothing compared to what Tom Cruise was paid for War of the Worlds. $100 Million!!!

Originally Posted by tbizzle

Holy god! I didn't even know actors could make that kind of money on one movie

you know i might just believe in scientology if the connections could get me that kind of money

[brewp13]

Originally Posted by kevinbr100

you know i might just believe in scientology if the connections could get me that kind of money

Scientology is the reason he doesn't make that kind of money anymore.

[Steve46]

So there are no women that deserve to be on the list?

[Aerodude73]

Originally Posted by brewp13

Scientology is the reason he doesn't make that kind of money anymore.

yea, That's the reason. I wish I could make 50% or whatever it is, LESS, of what I used to make, knowing I still have $300+ MILLION in the bank collecting major interest anyway! Sign me up for that

[fatediesel]

Originally Posted by brewp13

On the other side of the spectrum, Sean William Scott only got paid $1200 or $1500 for the first American Pie movie. I'm sure he makes alot now but I always thought that was interesting because he was a main character and everyone else was paid well. I know he was a no name at the time but still.

Wikipedia says $8,000, but still nothing compared to what the movie made. I'm not surprised that's all he made because he had no name recognition and they could pay him whatever they wanted and he would have accepted. Rumor was he got paid a lot for American Wedding though and that's why they couldn't afford to bring back all of the original cast, although it was also a creative decision.

Originally Posted by Steve46

So there are no women that deserve to be on the list?

I'm not sure if women were included for this list, because there's no way Angelina Jolie didn't make enough from Kung Fu Panda, Wanted, and Changeling to be on this list. Reese Witherspoon also likely would have made enough from Four Christmases and Monsters vs. Aliens. Still, there are very few women that command high salaries. Really the only women that consistently earn high salaries are Jolie, Witherspoon, and Cameron Diaz. Sandra Bullock and Julia Roberts used to be on the list but they've been making less successful movies over the last few years.

[Mr.White]

I'm surprised that these big time blockbuster actors are'nt taking a price cut,especially w/ the economy so screwed up and everything.I blame the studios who agree to such high salaries! but on the other side of the coin,there are still directors who get "scale" performances out of big names,Woody Allen is an example.

[drobswim13]

Originally Posted by SirSomerville

Oh....great.

Doesn't means you have to go see those movies. He likes working and gets cast in many films. Even if you don't like his acting you have to respect the fact that he loves what he's doing.

[GreenScar]

Originally Posted by brewp13

It was from this magazine. They said he had never been in a movie that grossed less than $100 million, so they agreed to pay him $100 million. I remember it was a big deal because it was the most anyone had been paid for a single movie.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/t...mentWeekly.jpg



At the bottom next to the * it says "That's what he made for War of the Worlds, his biggest box office hit"

Here's the problem. The EW article also lists no facts to back up the $100 million claim. It's very lazy writing and they don't take into account that it's profits not overall gross. If there's someone that can prove it was gross take, then the $100 million is true. It also would've been the worst contract in history. Here's the actual article and the only paragraph referring to the $100 million:

Cruise's supersize compensation makes a boffo box office take especially critical for Paramount, which sorely needs a smash in the wake of several sluggish years and a major regime change. Even as salaries for the top male stars have plateaued in the neighborhood of $25 million, Cruise has pushed the envelope of back-end deals, sacrificing his entire up-front salary in favor of a reported 20-30 percent cut of the profits. It's been a reliably winning gamble for the star, who is said to have taken home $75 million for M:I-2 and $100 million for War of the Worlds. But it sharply cuts the studio's take, making it an increasingly less comfortable deal for hit-starved studios.

What does WHO IS SAID mean? And who said it? Pretty lazy writing that seems to have spread a ridiculous rumor into a false fact that many seem to believe.

[Aerodude73]

Originally Posted by GreenScar

Here's the problem. The EW article also lists no facts to back up the $100 million claim. It's very lazy writing and they don't take into account that it's profits not overall gross. If there's someone that can prove it was gross take, then the $100 million is true. It also would've been the worst contract in history. Here's the actual article and the only paragraph referring to the $100 million:


What does WHO IS SAID mean? And who said it? Pretty lazy writing that seems to have spread a ridiculous rumor into a false fact that many seem to believe.

good job! - wonder where some of these "they made a 'Reported' $50 mil. on __________", actually come from. made up, fact-based on hearsay, rumors, what?

[fatediesel]

The problem with reporting on actor's salaries is almost always complete speculation. The studio usually won't say so they report heresay as fact. It's very possible an agent might tell a reporter a number just to try to increase the actor's fees for their next project. In addition if an actor receives a percentage of the film's profits it's unknown how the profits are calculated. You can't just take the reported budget and subtract that from the reported gross and determine that's the profit. There's a lot more accounting than that involved, and usually the actor's take will be much less than speculated.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by brewp13

Scientology is the reason he doesn't make that kind of money anymore.

you do know he's been a part of Scientology since 1990 right?
that has no impact on the money he makes in his movies

Originally Posted by Steve46

So there are no women that deserve to be on the list?

it's a list of actors not actresses

isn't there usually a separate list for the women

[milner828]

Originally Posted by GreenScar

Really he needs a better track record (if he wants bank). He's still not proven he can open a non Batman film.

I understand what you are saying...in case you haven't seen it you should check out Red Dawn.....He doesn't do as many blockbuster films we know that much but I will choose to see one of his movies over Cruise..

[Jellybeans]

Originally Posted by Steve46

So there are no women that deserve to be on the list?

Yeah, i am with you! Where is the list for top grossing actresses?

[fatediesel]

Originally Posted by milner828

I understand what you are saying...in case you haven't seen it you should check out Red Dawn.....He doesn't do as many blockbuster films we know that much but I will choose to see one of his movies over Cruise..

I think you mean Rescue Dawn.

[milner828]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

I think you mean Rescue Dawn.

Thanks for the Correction not sure what i was thinking .....Brain Fart

[GreenScar]

Originally Posted by milner828

I understand what you are saying...in case you haven't seen it you should check out Red Dawn.....He doesn't do as many blockbuster films we know that much but I will choose to see one of his movies over Cruise..

I own Rescue Dawn. Saw it in theaters when it was released. He's a great actor, I agree 100%.

Originally Posted by Aerodude73

good job! - wonder where some of these "they made a 'Reported' $50 mil. on __________", actually come from. made up, fact-based on hearsay, rumors, what?

You know, you'd think if it were printed (and huge on the cover no less) they'd have to get their facts straight and accurate. Seems as though print is now as accurate as the net. Problem is that everyone reads the cover, or stops by the thread and says Wow! Cruise made $100M. they don't bother to read through. And the lie lives on

Originally Posted by fatediesel

The problem with reporting on actor's salaries is almost always complete speculation. The studio usually won't say so they report heresay as fact. It's very possible an agent might tell a reporter a number just to try to increase the actor's fees for their next project. In addition if an actor receives a percentage of the film's profits it's unknown how the profits are calculated. You can't just take the reported budget and subtract that from the reported gross and determine that's the profit. There's a lot more accounting than that involved, and usually the actor's take will be much less than speculated.

You are right. Many times we know the deal but actual profits are very elusive in Hollywood. Probably drives the IRS mad! Remember that Peter Jackson had points on Return of the King and New Line didn't want to pay him anything (on the point side). He ended up taking them to court.

[Diesel]

Didn't want to start a new thread and I remembered someone in hear asked about the Actress list

here it is finally

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/30/top...er=yahoomovies

[toef]

With all the talk about Tom Cruise, I'm surprised nobody mentioned Jack Nicholson. He had the infamous percentage deal when he agreed to play the Joker, and ended up making something like $60 million... which is insane for 1989 (depending on how you want to convert it, it'd be close to $100 million in today's dollars).