Guy Explains Why Equal Pay For Male And Female Actors Doesn’t Make Sense
You may or may not be aware that there is, at this point, a petition with over 25,000 signatures on it calling for ‘The Crown’ actor Matt Smith to give up part of his salary, and donate it to the legal defense fund for the Time’s Up Movement.
This came after revelations by the show’s producers that Smith, renowned actor and former ‘Doctor Who’ star, earned more while working as a support actor on ‘The Crown’ than lead actress Claire Foy, who played the Queen.
With the gender pay gap being a hotly debated issue at present, the petition, which originated from the Care2 organization, has already an effect. “Going forward, no one gets paid more than the Queen,” producer Suzanne Mackie has said about the issue, while explaining that Smith was previously paid more due to his previous ‘Doctor Who’ fame.
It is right at this point that Imgur user YurgenGrimwood steps in with a simple and clear argument. According to this argument, Smith’s heftier paycheck doesn’t come down to sexism at all, but is rather just the realities of show business economics. He is more recognizable and therefore creates more value to the show than the highly talented, but previously unknown Claire Foy.
So while the gender pay gap is certainly a pertinent issue in the overall fight for gender equality, YurgenGrimwood believes that this particular petition may have missed the target. What do you think? Should lead actors always be paid more, regardless of previous fame? Should Matt Smith donate the difference in his salary to the Time’s Up movement? Let us know in the comments below!
This petition began after it was revealed that co-star of ‘The Crown’ Matt Smith was paid more for his role than lead actress Claire Foy
Image credits: Robert Viglasky/AP
This guy, however, disagreed with the petition and decided to explain his opinion
Many people seemed to agree with this perspective
What do you think? Let us know in the comments below!
143Kviews
Share on Facebook
I have to agree. When there are both men and women doing the exact same job, but there is a difference in pay - THAT is where the problem is. The issue above is similar to if someone who's got 10+ years experience in their field with evidence of high performance and another who has 4yrs experience in the same field with very little evidence of high performance. The latter is obviously going to get paid less. Gender here doesn't even come into it. People need to stop being so ready to jump on every tiny little thing and turning it into a problem!
You pay your dues like any industry. He’s a marquis actor and she is not (yet). I’m sure Winston Churchill and her father in season 1 didn’t make nearly what Matt Smith made.
Load More Replies...
Let's thing on oposite version. I want to make mate a show starring Jennifer Lawrence and some John Doe. Of course, I am going to pay more money to Lawrence than to the other guy.
That's what happened in passengers... Jennifer Lawrence was paid a lot more than Chris Pratt... he became world famous thanks to Guardians of the Galaxy and Jurassic World Bad luck for him... but at the moment she was a bigger star
Load More Replies...
I thought the more famous you were the more you got paid... isn't that the point in becoming famous ?
Well the headline of this article is rather misleading. He is not arguing that "paying men and women actors the same doesn't make sense." He's arguing that gender has nothing to do with it in this case, they pay based on popularity of the actor. Which I think he's right about, yeah that's how it works. Now if a very famous woman actor got paid less than an equally or less famous male actor there'd be something to get upset about. I don't know enough about the movie industry to know whether that happens or not.
so how does the wage thing work in movies? once you're on a certain 'level' you can command a certain pay per film, I'm assuming that's based on past performances and the draw of that individual star yeah? so is Matt Smith a bigger name/draw/earner than Clair Foy? if so, then that seems fair no? having said this I know for some movies, certain 'stars' go unpaid so that the movie can stay within budget. Had Matt Smith been in this alongside, say, Julia Roberts, I would imagine her fee would have been huge? so I guess it's all relative yeah?
that's what Jonah Hill did for The Wolf of Wall Street... he loved the role so much that he took a lot less money for it.
Load More Replies...
forcing people to donate.. that sounds even sillier every second I type it. I kinda agree with YurgenGrimwood over there, it's about bigger name. Sure it's not fair, sort of..but isn't that's how entertainment business works? And even truer about the sexism, why not blame the employer (or the entire industry)?
I don't know how I feel about this both arguments seem pretty solid. I am a female and full-out feminist however sometimes I think (I know for sure their is a gender pay gap etc) but sometimes people just create problems almost on person I mean if for example this was reverse away around and the girl was getting more pay for being a minor actor it would not have been as bigger deal.
How salaries are composed in society is extremely complex. However, wherever inequalities or even unfairness exists, it typically are not the receivers who are to blame. It are the payees, the political systems, or probably society as a whole. If in doubt look at the Scandinavian countries. No one would be blamed for trying to get a raise, but wages are distributed much mor equally than elsewhere. This not only minimizes pay gaps but also means that a manager will earn threefold or twofold compared to a bus driver, but not 50 or so fold...
Load More Replies...
Isn't it a little sexist to assume the reason he was paid more was because he is a man? Are men not allowed to be more talented than women? True equality would peal back the gender of both entertainers and see them for their professional merits and value and never notice the watermark of gender. I am a woman and it offends me that these are considered, "women's issues." These are NOT my issues, rather, these are the issues of the insecure.
yup and that is something i don't think very many people get or understand, its not about the gender or race its about skill and in some cases personality (and in the show&film industry its also about fame) i will say that from how i see it it just looks like they are trying to fix sexism with more sexism which obviously is never going to fix the route issue of sexism but i don't think these people really understand that because they themselves are also being sexist they just can't see it because they are so fixed on the idea that its men that are the problem (even though this is not true because anyone can be sexist anyone regardless of race gender or sexuality can be sexist) at least that is the impression i get from these people (i might be wrong but that is how i see it)
Load More Replies... As a woman...I DO NOT think I should be paid the same as a man just because I am a woman. I should be paid on the quality of work I do. If said man is doing more than me or has been with the company longer than me then YES he should be paid more. If I want more money I need to step up and do what needs to be done to EARN it...not have it handed to me because I am a woman.
This ... ? This is what Bored Panda chooses for an electrifying cover story? Cheap clickbait. Low quality content. C’mon BP. Evolve. It doesn’t hurt, I promise
Clicks and divisive topics are more important than interesting content
Load More Replies...
If the roles were reversed, with a well-known actress playing the supporting role, and a male newcomer playing the lead, NOBODY would say a word about the woman getting paid more! Bottom line, proven talent gets rewarded, and this should never have been made into a sexist issue!
Matt Smith has no responsibility at all to compensate anyone for his salary. He negotiated it, so it's his. Clair Foy can do her own negotiating. The production company is responsible for compensating the actors.
I don't think that the petition was necessary. I believe the producer when she says that Matt Smith was paid more due to his fame. If you flipped the situation and had a really famous actress and a kinda famous actor, of course the really famous actress would be paid more, simply because of their high role demand and popularity, not their sex.
If women were really paid 80% of mens salary, why wouldn't every single company in the world hire only women??? They would save 20% money!
When applied to real jobs, yes, but actors aren't paid for skill on the job, they are paid for the popularity they bring to the film. How many people will go to see Tom Cruise vs Wanda Sykes ? Should they be paid the same? Matt Smith was a big star before the Crown , but I'd never heard of Claire Foy before the crown.
Experience counts as well as fame. Having a big name in a movie draws people to see that movie even if they have a small role. Actors have to work their way up, male or female. Don't go after the person making the money, get a better manager and go after who pays the money.
Does equally famous women actors get equal amount of pay as their male peers with equal fame?
I agree with that guy who raised his voice against the current. you can not pretend that an actor already known and with a large following, and that will then raise the share of the program is paid as a debutant, as good and interesting. sometimes you want to look for the hair in the egg, even when the hair does not exist. you can not always stand up to sexism, otherwise in the end, you will have the opposite problem, with women being treated better, just because they are women. I am against this, as I am opposed to the preference of the males and to pay them more just because they are males. in cases like this come into play such a number of variants: the presence on the screen, the notoriety, the skill of the actor in previous productions. Let's call it to the wolf or when the wolf will be really nobody will believe it.
Chalk it up to experience, and name recognition, in the case of actors. Knowledgeable theater audiences are drawn by the name recognition and previous performances of cast members, not by the fame of the characters they are playing. Are we getting a taste of post-millennial young actors who don't understand the economics of the theater? Or is this ruckus being brought on by inexperienced loud-mouth post-millennial non-theatrical children who just don't understand history and economics?
Exactly. It's like the Mark Wahlberg and whatsherface situation. We ALL knew his name but only a handful of people recognized her. He got paid more and THAT'S OKAY.
I used to be a Production Accountant, which means I paid EVERYONE on the crew, including the actors. The better known you are, the more money you're paid. That goes across the board, from writers, directors, actors and crew members, like the A.D., Director of Photography down to the camera crew and everyone else on the crew. Each person makes a new deal on each new film. When a crew member found out his co-worker was making more, for the same job, I said the same thing. "You were happy when you got this job. If you're unhappy now, you can renegotiate your next job." Of course I never said that to Talent, but they wouldn't complain to me. They would complain to their agents, who would hopefully say the same thing. I agree with the person who said jobs should be paid according to merit, not your sex.
I think that for the first year of the show, it was fair. He was the 'name'. But it became clear very quickly that she carried that program. How was she not paid more for the second season? She was magnificent.
Perhaps some pay gaps are justified in this manner, on an individual basis. The problem lies a few steps deeper, though. Like why we don't have more robust, interesting, layered, nuanced roles for women of all ages, which would lead to this extra experience the commenters mention. Or why audiences want to see women in lead roles less. And so on. Just because in this very moment a pay gap is okay, based on star power alone, doesn't mean there aren't issues of inequality.
This is the issue I have run across with so many people...we want to demand individual responsibility, and individual responsibility alone. Of course it's important. But social factors enter into every situation as well. People seem to not quite give context and power structure its due.
Load More Replies...
Isn't the title of the post wrong? It's not about paying males or females equally, but paying the biggest star the highest salary. I feel the title is misleading.
How sad, people starting out both male and female will no longer be given a chance for a major roll
Is it not a supply and demand issue? In any elite performance role, and acting is clearly THE performance role, people are not usually paid a standard rate. If you have only a few competent male actors and comparatively a greater supply of competent female actors then supply and demand economics suggests the men will command a higher price. Are there not far more women who want to be actors than there are men?
He should do what he feels like himself and not be influenced by other people's opinions.
it hasn't changed who ever are the biggest box office draws get paid the biggest salaries, better conditions, etc. lately too many of these cushy female millionaire stars bewail the suffering of the weak, down trodden & underprivileged to misdirect, deflect attention away from their unattainable lofty uber-elite social class. thus maintaining their box office appeal.
The guy didn't know who Claire Foy was before the series - this is his personal gap, I knew her from three previous dramas.
It's not just his personnel gap, most people did not know who she was before this. Matt Smith is well known, Claire Foy dispite being known by you was not, as her profile grows her agent will be able to get more money for her.
Load More Replies...
Performance related pay is what drives the activities industry. It seems unfair on the surface, but the guy us right. They're paid what they are worth in terms of drawing in audiences. It's not the same as equating office jobs as requiring equal pay for equal work. Would you expect Bruce Willis ' stunt double to get the same pay cheque as him? He's on screen as much as Willis is in any action flick, acting away as guy who gets blown up or thrown out of a car etc.
I dont think anyone would deny that bigger "names" can command bigger salaries in showbusiness, however, Claire Foy is not a "nobody" she is a very well known actress, she's just not been in things "you've" seen. Plus she is the lead in this show. It is entitled "The Queen". The bigger issue (to my mind) is that men are cast more often in lead roles so men have more opportunity to *become* bigger names and.. even the top actresses are not paid comparably to the top men. Emma Stone was the top paid actress in 2017 at 26 million. The top male actor in 2017 was Mark Whalberg and he earned 68 million. Adam Sandler was the 4th highest paid actor in 2017 ( can you name ANYTIHING decent hes been in, in the last 10 years???) 4th highest paid actress... Melissa Mccartney (equally divisive as Adam I would say and making moving people are actually going to) 18 million. THAT is the issue.
I'll have to agree on this one, if this is really her first big hit, how could she get paid the same as an experienced actor? I do think she would need a rise staring on season 2 though, but that has nothing to do with the actor, but with Netflix.
True. If I am starring in a movie with -pick any award winning actress- ... ow who am I kidding... nobody in their right mind pays me to act lol.
He is 100% why I started watching the show at all. So pretty clear that their reasoning is sound. It does also makes sense as in any job that, as your performance gains repute that you/Foy would get an increase, so hopefully that will close the gap somewhat.
Ugh. I've had enough of this s**t. If I wanted endless rehashings of Imgur's opinions about feminism, I'd just browse Imgur. I'm removing BoredPanda from my bookmarks.
May be a valid point to garner interest for the 1st series. However for the 2nd series there would be no reason to have inequality of pay as it would have been commissioned due to the popularity of the series.
It’s also supply and demand. I’m sure there are ladies that would line up to take the lesser pay to boost their career.
But that is what most people just starting their careers do. Male or female, you have to build your resume and pay your dues no matter who you are (in 99% of the cases, anyway. As my parents aren't rich, I have no experience with what life is like for the children of the rich and/or well-connected.)
Load More Replies...
I can understand where both sides are coming from. I think, however, that both arguments would be better if subjectivity were removed. If there were a formula where the variables were well defined and there was no question on whether or not requirements were met, I'd have to agree with Grimwood 100%. I'd also be interested to hear what Coy and Smith have to say about this pay discrepancy.
Well, it's a heck of a good point. Ford was paid a reported $10-$20 million. Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill (who appeared on screen for what, 30 seconds?) were paid in the low 7 figures. The undeniable star, Daisy Ridley, got somewhere between $100-$300 thousand.
But Ford was paid just 10,000 in the first Star Wars movie and only went up to 100,000 in the second movie. Daisy Ridley as she becomes a bigger name will get paid a lot more in the future.
Load More Replies...
The petition deserves the Virtue-Signaling Gold Medal for utter stupidity. Getting money from the male leads only makes women even more dependent on men. Reducing the question to penis vs. non-penis will create ill will. Actresses have AGENTS to negotiate for them. If a part is offered, they want YOU. Your agent’s job is to find the magic number that makes it easier to pay more (small problem) than to re-start the talent search (bigger problem). But instead you suggest that for both versions of “True Grit“ Oscar-winners Jeff Bridges and John Wayne should have shared their pay with Hailee Steinfeld and Kim Darby, both in their feature debuts. And if you’re really serious, then for “Sophie’s Choice” Meryl Streep, already a bankable star, should have shared her pay with little-known Kevin Kline and Peter MacNicol. Respect and equality are not demanded, granted or legislated, let alone blackmailed. They are earned. That’s something everyone has to do for himself. Here endeth the lesson.
Oh well... as long as it fits their feminist agenda... then OK.. if not... then nevermind... sigh
I think female and male should be paid the same if they have the same job and it doesn't matter if your more famous than the other
I have more of an issue with the spelling and grammar in the narrative than its subject. Why is that important ? Because it illustrates the regression in education. Einstein was right when he said, "I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots."
And yet Dr Who still sucks after forgettable actor after forgettable actor slides through the role. HHe’s not that memorable, and who is yurgen? Funny how suddenly he’s an expert. Some guy on imagur. Speshul!
I have to agree. When there are both men and women doing the exact same job, but there is a difference in pay - THAT is where the problem is. The issue above is similar to if someone who's got 10+ years experience in their field with evidence of high performance and another who has 4yrs experience in the same field with very little evidence of high performance. The latter is obviously going to get paid less. Gender here doesn't even come into it. People need to stop being so ready to jump on every tiny little thing and turning it into a problem!
You pay your dues like any industry. He’s a marquis actor and she is not (yet). I’m sure Winston Churchill and her father in season 1 didn’t make nearly what Matt Smith made.
Load More Replies... Let's thing on oposite version. I want to make mate a show starring Jennifer Lawrence and some John Doe. Of course, I am going to pay more money to Lawrence than to the other guy.
That's what happened in passengers... Jennifer Lawrence was paid a lot more than Chris Pratt... he became world famous thanks to Guardians of the Galaxy and Jurassic World Bad luck for him... but at the moment she was a bigger star
Load More Replies... I thought the more famous you were the more you got paid... isn't that the point in becoming famous ?
Well the headline of this article is rather misleading. He is not arguing that "paying men and women actors the same doesn't make sense." He's arguing that gender has nothing to do with it in this case, they pay based on popularity of the actor. Which I think he's right about, yeah that's how it works. Now if a very famous woman actor got paid less than an equally or less famous male actor there'd be something to get upset about. I don't know enough about the movie industry to know whether that happens or not.
so how does the wage thing work in movies? once you're on a certain 'level' you can command a certain pay per film, I'm assuming that's based on past performances and the draw of that individual star yeah? so is Matt Smith a bigger name/draw/earner than Clair Foy? if so, then that seems fair no? having said this I know for some movies, certain 'stars' go unpaid so that the movie can stay within budget. Had Matt Smith been in this alongside, say, Julia Roberts, I would imagine her fee would have been huge? so I guess it's all relative yeah?
that's what Jonah Hill did for The Wolf of Wall Street... he loved the role so much that he took a lot less money for it.
Load More Replies... forcing people to donate.. that sounds even sillier every second I type it. I kinda agree with YurgenGrimwood over there, it's about bigger name. Sure it's not fair, sort of..but isn't that's how entertainment business works? And even truer about the sexism, why not blame the employer (or the entire industry)?
I don't know how I feel about this both arguments seem pretty solid. I am a female and full-out feminist however sometimes I think (I know for sure their is a gender pay gap etc) but sometimes people just create problems almost on person I mean if for example this was reverse away around and the girl was getting more pay for being a minor actor it would not have been as bigger deal.
How salaries are composed in society is extremely complex. However, wherever inequalities or even unfairness exists, it typically are not the receivers who are to blame. It are the payees, the political systems, or probably society as a whole. If in doubt look at the Scandinavian countries. No one would be blamed for trying to get a raise, but wages are distributed much mor equally than elsewhere. This not only minimizes pay gaps but also means that a manager will earn threefold or twofold compared to a bus driver, but not 50 or so fold...
Load More Replies... Isn't it a little sexist to assume the reason he was paid more was because he is a man? Are men not allowed to be more talented than women? True equality would peal back the gender of both entertainers and see them for their professional merits and value and never notice the watermark of gender. I am a woman and it offends me that these are considered, "women's issues." These are NOT my issues, rather, these are the issues of the insecure.
yup and that is something i don't think very many people get or understand, its not about the gender or race its about skill and in some cases personality (and in the show&film industry its also about fame) i will say that from how i see it it just looks like they are trying to fix sexism with more sexism which obviously is never going to fix the route issue of sexism but i don't think these people really understand that because they themselves are also being sexist they just can't see it because they are so fixed on the idea that its men that are the problem (even though this is not true because anyone can be sexist anyone regardless of race gender or sexuality can be sexist) at least that is the impression i get from these people (i might be wrong but that is how i see it)
Load More Replies... As a woman...I DO NOT think I should be paid the same as a man just because I am a woman. I should be paid on the quality of work I do. If said man is doing more than me or has been with the company longer than me then YES he should be paid more. If I want more money I need to step up and do what needs to be done to EARN it...not have it handed to me because I am a woman.
This ... ? This is what Bored Panda chooses for an electrifying cover story? Cheap clickbait. Low quality content. C’mon BP. Evolve. It doesn’t hurt, I promise
Clicks and divisive topics are more important than interesting content
Load More Replies... If the roles were reversed, with a well-known actress playing the supporting role, and a male newcomer playing the lead, NOBODY would say a word about the woman getting paid more! Bottom line, proven talent gets rewarded, and this should never have been made into a sexist issue!
Matt Smith has no responsibility at all to compensate anyone for his salary. He negotiated it, so it's his. Clair Foy can do her own negotiating. The production company is responsible for compensating the actors.
I don't think that the petition was necessary. I believe the producer when she says that Matt Smith was paid more due to his fame. If you flipped the situation and had a really famous actress and a kinda famous actor, of course the really famous actress would be paid more, simply because of their high role demand and popularity, not their sex.
If women were really paid 80% of mens salary, why wouldn't every single company in the world hire only women??? They would save 20% money!
When applied to real jobs, yes, but actors aren't paid for skill on the job, they are paid for the popularity they bring to the film. How many people will go to see Tom Cruise vs Wanda Sykes ? Should they be paid the same? Matt Smith was a big star before the Crown , but I'd never heard of Claire Foy before the crown.
Experience counts as well as fame. Having a big name in a movie draws people to see that movie even if they have a small role. Actors have to work their way up, male or female. Don't go after the person making the money, get a better manager and go after who pays the money.
Does equally famous women actors get equal amount of pay as their male peers with equal fame?
I agree with that guy who raised his voice against the current. you can not pretend that an actor already known and with a large following, and that will then raise the share of the program is paid as a debutant, as good and interesting. sometimes you want to look for the hair in the egg, even when the hair does not exist. you can not always stand up to sexism, otherwise in the end, you will have the opposite problem, with women being treated better, just because they are women. I am against this, as I am opposed to the preference of the males and to pay them more just because they are males. in cases like this come into play such a number of variants: the presence on the screen, the notoriety, the skill of the actor in previous productions. Let's call it to the wolf or when the wolf will be really nobody will believe it.
Chalk it up to experience, and name recognition, in the case of actors. Knowledgeable theater audiences are drawn by the name recognition and previous performances of cast members, not by the fame of the characters they are playing. Are we getting a taste of post-millennial young actors who don't understand the economics of the theater? Or is this ruckus being brought on by inexperienced loud-mouth post-millennial non-theatrical children who just don't understand history and economics?
Exactly. It's like the Mark Wahlberg and whatsherface situation. We ALL knew his name but only a handful of people recognized her. He got paid more and THAT'S OKAY.
I used to be a Production Accountant, which means I paid EVERYONE on the crew, including the actors. The better known you are, the more money you're paid. That goes across the board, from writers, directors, actors and crew members, like the A.D., Director of Photography down to the camera crew and everyone else on the crew. Each person makes a new deal on each new film. When a crew member found out his co-worker was making more, for the same job, I said the same thing. "You were happy when you got this job. If you're unhappy now, you can renegotiate your next job." Of course I never said that to Talent, but they wouldn't complain to me. They would complain to their agents, who would hopefully say the same thing. I agree with the person who said jobs should be paid according to merit, not your sex.
I think that for the first year of the show, it was fair. He was the 'name'. But it became clear very quickly that she carried that program. How was she not paid more for the second season? She was magnificent.
Perhaps some pay gaps are justified in this manner, on an individual basis. The problem lies a few steps deeper, though. Like why we don't have more robust, interesting, layered, nuanced roles for women of all ages, which would lead to this extra experience the commenters mention. Or why audiences want to see women in lead roles less. And so on. Just because in this very moment a pay gap is okay, based on star power alone, doesn't mean there aren't issues of inequality.
This is the issue I have run across with so many people...we want to demand individual responsibility, and individual responsibility alone. Of course it's important. But social factors enter into every situation as well. People seem to not quite give context and power structure its due.
Load More Replies... Isn't the title of the post wrong? It's not about paying males or females equally, but paying the biggest star the highest salary. I feel the title is misleading.
How sad, people starting out both male and female will no longer be given a chance for a major roll
Is it not a supply and demand issue? In any elite performance role, and acting is clearly THE performance role, people are not usually paid a standard rate. If you have only a few competent male actors and comparatively a greater supply of competent female actors then supply and demand economics suggests the men will command a higher price. Are there not far more women who want to be actors than there are men?
He should do what he feels like himself and not be influenced by other people's opinions.
it hasn't changed who ever are the biggest box office draws get paid the biggest salaries, better conditions, etc. lately too many of these cushy female millionaire stars bewail the suffering of the weak, down trodden & underprivileged to misdirect, deflect attention away from their unattainable lofty uber-elite social class. thus maintaining their box office appeal.
The guy didn't know who Claire Foy was before the series - this is his personal gap, I knew her from three previous dramas.
It's not just his personnel gap, most people did not know who she was before this. Matt Smith is well known, Claire Foy dispite being known by you was not, as her profile grows her agent will be able to get more money for her.
Load More Replies... Performance related pay is what drives the activities industry. It seems unfair on the surface, but the guy us right. They're paid what they are worth in terms of drawing in audiences. It's not the same as equating office jobs as requiring equal pay for equal work. Would you expect Bruce Willis ' stunt double to get the same pay cheque as him? He's on screen as much as Willis is in any action flick, acting away as guy who gets blown up or thrown out of a car etc.
I dont think anyone would deny that bigger "names" can command bigger salaries in showbusiness, however, Claire Foy is not a "nobody" she is a very well known actress, she's just not been in things "you've" seen. Plus she is the lead in this show. It is entitled "The Queen". The bigger issue (to my mind) is that men are cast more often in lead roles so men have more opportunity to *become* bigger names and.. even the top actresses are not paid comparably to the top men. Emma Stone was the top paid actress in 2017 at 26 million. The top male actor in 2017 was Mark Whalberg and he earned 68 million. Adam Sandler was the 4th highest paid actor in 2017 ( can you name ANYTIHING decent hes been in, in the last 10 years???) 4th highest paid actress... Melissa Mccartney (equally divisive as Adam I would say and making moving people are actually going to) 18 million. THAT is the issue.
I'll have to agree on this one, if this is really her first big hit, how could she get paid the same as an experienced actor? I do think she would need a rise staring on season 2 though, but that has nothing to do with the actor, but with Netflix.
True. If I am starring in a movie with -pick any award winning actress- ... ow who am I kidding... nobody in their right mind pays me to act lol.
He is 100% why I started watching the show at all. So pretty clear that their reasoning is sound. It does also makes sense as in any job that, as your performance gains repute that you/Foy would get an increase, so hopefully that will close the gap somewhat.
Ugh. I've had enough of this s**t. If I wanted endless rehashings of Imgur's opinions about feminism, I'd just browse Imgur. I'm removing BoredPanda from my bookmarks.
May be a valid point to garner interest for the 1st series. However for the 2nd series there would be no reason to have inequality of pay as it would have been commissioned due to the popularity of the series.
It’s also supply and demand. I’m sure there are ladies that would line up to take the lesser pay to boost their career.
But that is what most people just starting their careers do. Male or female, you have to build your resume and pay your dues no matter who you are (in 99% of the cases, anyway. As my parents aren't rich, I have no experience with what life is like for the children of the rich and/or well-connected.)
Load More Replies... I can understand where both sides are coming from. I think, however, that both arguments would be better if subjectivity were removed. If there were a formula where the variables were well defined and there was no question on whether or not requirements were met, I'd have to agree with Grimwood 100%. I'd also be interested to hear what Coy and Smith have to say about this pay discrepancy.
Well, it's a heck of a good point. Ford was paid a reported $10-$20 million. Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill (who appeared on screen for what, 30 seconds?) were paid in the low 7 figures. The undeniable star, Daisy Ridley, got somewhere between $100-$300 thousand.
But Ford was paid just 10,000 in the first Star Wars movie and only went up to 100,000 in the second movie. Daisy Ridley as she becomes a bigger name will get paid a lot more in the future.
Load More Replies... The petition deserves the Virtue-Signaling Gold Medal for utter stupidity. Getting money from the male leads only makes women even more dependent on men. Reducing the question to penis vs. non-penis will create ill will. Actresses have AGENTS to negotiate for them. If a part is offered, they want YOU. Your agent’s job is to find the magic number that makes it easier to pay more (small problem) than to re-start the talent search (bigger problem). But instead you suggest that for both versions of “True Grit“ Oscar-winners Jeff Bridges and John Wayne should have shared their pay with Hailee Steinfeld and Kim Darby, both in their feature debuts. And if you’re really serious, then for “Sophie’s Choice” Meryl Streep, already a bankable star, should have shared her pay with little-known Kevin Kline and Peter MacNicol. Respect and equality are not demanded, granted or legislated, let alone blackmailed. They are earned. That’s something everyone has to do for himself. Here endeth the lesson.
Oh well... as long as it fits their feminist agenda... then OK.. if not... then nevermind... sigh
I think female and male should be paid the same if they have the same job and it doesn't matter if your more famous than the other
I have more of an issue with the spelling and grammar in the narrative than its subject. Why is that important ? Because it illustrates the regression in education. Einstein was right when he said, "I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots."
And yet Dr Who still sucks after forgettable actor after forgettable actor slides through the role. HHe’s not that memorable, and who is yurgen? Funny how suddenly he’s an expert. Some guy on imagur. Speshul!
135
101