For Movie Stars, the Big Money Is Now Deferred  

Posted by: Gwen Stewart in ,


Movie stars, who not so long ago vied to make $20 million or even $25 million a picture, have seen their upfront salaries shrink in the last several years as DVD sales fell, star-driven vehicles stumbled at the box office and studios grew increasingly tightfisted.

How bad is it?

Pretty bad.

Most of the three-dozen or so top-billed actors in the 10 films up for best picture in this Sunday’s Academy Awards ceremony, including blockbusters like “Up” and “Avatar,” appear to have received relatively minuscule upfront payments for their work. 

When the estimated salaries of all 10 of the top acting nominees are combined, the total is only a little larger than the $20 million that went to Julia Roberts for her appearance in “Erin Brockovich,” a best-picture nominee in 2001, or to Russell Crowe for “Master and Commander,” nominated in 2004. 

Peter Dekom, a film industry lawyer who co-wrote the book “Not on My Watch: Hollywood vs. the Future,” pegged the general devaluation of movie stars to a lack of interest among younger viewers. 

“Stars don’t resonate with the ‘what’s next’ ” crowd, theorized Mr. Dekom. “They attract an over-30 audience, which is going to the movies less in an impaired economy.” 

Specific salaries and deal terms are notoriously difficult to pin down. (The estimates are based on interviews with a dozen producers, agents and executives who were briefed on the various deals but spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid conflict with the actors and companies involved.)

Producers and others behind this year’s best-picture candidates uniformly declined to comment or sidestepped queries about what their actors were paid.

This entry was posted on 6:40 AM and is filed under , . You can leave a response and follow any responses to this entry through the Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) .

0 comments

Post a Comment