Broadway Actors Salaries- Page 2

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 4:09pm

ahh, redhot, everyone wants more. What actor truly needs/deserves 20 million to star in a film?
I wasn't saying salaries are solely responsible for high ticket prices. I challenge you to say, though, that producers don't consider higher prices or offering less discounts when they see that their weekly operating nut just bumped because of a salary increase. Again, maybe only a small part of the price wheel but a part nonetheless.
For the record, it's enough for me to know that some theatre stars make in the 100k range. I don't need to know specifics, it just makes me sad. :)

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 4:14pm

It makes me sad also - I think actors and sports figures are the most over paid people in the world - but I still support the union I belong to and believe in health insurance and all the other well-deserved perks that we are entitled to. Exhorbitant salaries aside...

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 4:25pm

Although I understand your thinking, here's how I look at it. If someone is making a ****load of money off of someone else's talent, shouldn't the person who is standing on that stage 8 shows a week (or getting up to the plate, or out on the court) be entitled to make a good chunk of money?

I'd rather Idina Menzel get $20K a week for doing the job she does every night than have her take only $2K a week and have that other $18K go into Universal's bank account.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 5:01pm

It's simple capitalism. If you're one of the relatively small number of actors whose name and reputation is such that thousands of people of willing to shell out $100 to see you, then shouldn't you be compensated for the extra tickets you sell for the producers? There are folks whose name on a marquee guarantees good box office even when the product they are in is terrible.

Adam Sandler makes stupid movies that are panned across the board by every critic in the business -- so bad that if an unknown actor were in the film, very few people nationwide would bother showing up to see it at all, but with his name above the title, that bad film will gross $30 - 40 million in its opening weekend. Since the ONLY reason anybody showed up to see that film was him, why shouldn't Sandler make $25+ million from the producers getting rich off of him?

Same with Hugh Jackman. How long do you think "Boy From Oz" would have run with an unknown, but very talented actor in the lead? A week? One night? Considering the mostly scathing reviews it received, it wouldn't have survived a minute without Hugh Jackman's star power. Jackman is the only reason the producers of the show are even close to recouping their $8 million investment -- so do you pay him the $1300 minimum and let the producers pocket the rest or does he deserve whatever it is they're paying him (and he probably deserves more).

Same with certain sports figures and other celebrities. Certain ones are so popular that tv ratings and advertising rates soar every time they appear on the screen. Michael Jordan being in the finals typically meant NBA ratings would be double their usual level -- Forbes magazine once estimated that Michael Jordan generated in excess of $1 billion per year for the companies whose products he endorsed .... one can hardly begrudge someone like that a few million dollars in endorsement fees considering how much more money those companies were making off of his name.

In a better world, perhaps good teachers would make more than athletes and nurses would make more than movie stars, but under the economic system we have, those lucky few who have "names' that inspire thousands, even millions, to pay good money for products associated with them, deserve to be paid a decent portion of the revenue they are able to generate.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 5:06pm

I heart robbiej and Margo Channing!

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 5:16pm

But there many clauses that are written into contracts. A clause that states that if a show grosses over a certain amount of money by a set time as a result of XYZ's contribution, that performer is elgible for a percentage of the gate.

That being said, this clause is somewhat uncommon...but I know that it exsists in some cases on Broadway. So in essence, the "Hugh Jackmans" of the business due reap what they sow. (not saying I have any knowledge of his contract terms, at all).

But there we(I) go..discussing salaries. LOL!

Updated On: 6/28/04 at 05:16 PM

[ckeaton]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 5:40pm

Much like I feel about TV contracts. If you can entertain 4 million people a night, why shouldn't each of those people "pay" you $1 per year for your services.

[jo]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 6:25pm

It's simple economics - supply vs demand. There are probably many undiscovered potential triple threats but if no one knows them enough to cast them or to attract box office receipts, then they don't get paid what is cmparatively due their talents.

Some sports figures do risk their lives to earn phenomenal income - take the case of Michael Schumacher, the world champion Formula One racer - he made $ 80 M in 2003 according to Forbes, the same amount as Tiger Woods did. And yet he risks his life every other weekend, compared to a comparatively risk-free sports like golf. More interestingly, Mr. Schumacher who has achieved practically every record in his sport says he does not choose to retire at age 35 because he is happiest when he is racing. Perhaps, actors who are paid a lot of money, are still motivated by the love of performing and not simply because of the perks that lucrative pay brings to the most successful.

[beacon1]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 6:44pm

But, don't their lifestyles often bring certain expenses that they pay out-of-pocket? (Agents, managers, etc, assistants, household staff, etc.)

I know the dollar figures sound big...but doesn't a lot of it get carved up? I mean, they can certainly live quite nicely, but they also have to save for any "lean" periods too.

Just thought I'd share some thoughts running through my mind...

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 9:12pm

Question to throw out there: does anyone know how much an off-Broadway performer makes? (Both leads and supporting.)

[Plum]

Posted: 6/29/04 at 2:55am

Even when you don't count more extravagent expenses like household staff, even a less well-paid performer's salary is deceptively large. Lots of people take percentages, like beacon1 said- agents, etc. Not to mention that a lot of people who "make it" end up having to support their extended families, as well.

I'm a baseball fan, and one who read the work of the late Doug Pappas. Let's just say I've always been suspicious of management's cries of financial woes since then. In any industry.

[Jon]

Posted: 6/29/04 at 8:10am

Another way to explain supply and demand:

I've heard people say "Policemen and firemen are more important that athletes - why should athletes earn 100 times as much money?"

Well, in the city of Chicago there are arount 8000 police and firemen - it's a job that the average able-bodied man or woman can learn to do with the proper training. On the other hand, there are 12 players on the Chicago Bulls. You can play basketball for four years at a major university, and your chances of getting drafted by an NBA team are around 1 in 1000.

I think it's been proven that there aren't a lot of actors walking around on the streets who are capable of doing what Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick or Hugh Jackman can do - at least in terms of ticket sales.