Naomi Watts is being criticized for her comments about the financial crisis, suggesting that actors shouldn’t take a pay cut. Here’s exactly what she said:
Q: With the economy in ruins and people in every industry, including the film business, getting laid off in massive numbers, are actors making too much money?
NAOMI: I mean, well I don’t know about the filmmaking too much across the board, but yes, certainly. I’m doing a movie now where it’s the least I’ve been paid in about 10 years maybe, and people are willing to go to work now for that which I think ordinarily maybe that wouldn’t happen but I can’t see the film industry coming to a grinding halt any time soon. I think we may be more open to negotiations and things like that but I think the art world tends to thrive in times of recession. We need the escapism, we need stories to be told to take ourselves away from the reality of our situations of circumstance. So I don’t think it’s gonna stop. I think money is gonna be tight, definitely.
As a lot of people are suggesting, this is easy to say when you make several million dollars for a few months work, more than most people make in their lifetime. I think that Naomi was trying to say that while salaries will lessen, the work should still be valued.
Naomi has had her time appearing in Australian commercials, including an infamous one from 1990 where she turns down dinner with Tom Cruise to eat a lamb roast, so she knows what it’s like to be a struggling working actor.
I don’t know if ‘money is gonna be tight’, I can’t help but expect actors salaries will continue to be huge. Studios seem scared to take a risk, currently planning sure-fire hits such as a Tom and Jerry movie, a remake of The Birds, and a ‘re-imagining’ of Tron. There are 40 remakes planned for 2009, mostly of sci-fi films that appeal to 20-35 year old men who will continue to spend on movie tickets when other age groups don’t, generally. This also means that a studio will do anything to secure a big name player in the film to secure box office – it’s possible that salaries for the Hollywood A-list will go up, not down.
Naomi is currently starring besides Clive Owen in The International, where they expose an multinational financial institutions role in arms dealing.
Do you think actors are paid too much for their work, and should they take a salary cut as times get tough or do they deserve every penny for their art?
The highest celebrity earners of 2008 were Will Smith – $80m
Johnny Depp – $72m
Eddie Murphy – $55m,
Mike Myers – $55m
Cameron Diaz – $50m
Leonardo DiCaprio – $45m
Keira Knightley – $32m
Jennifer Aniston – $27m
Reese Witherspoon – $25m
Gwyneth Paltrow – $25m
Here’s Naomi Watts out jogging on 2/17/09 and with a prosthetic pregnant belly on the set of her film Mother and Child in LA on 2/20/09. Credit: Fame Pictures
Anyone who thinks these people aren’t OVERPAID is crazy….I would throw tv newspeople into the mix also. Is Katie (Peter Pan) COuric REALLY worth 15 mill to deliver her gummy newscast??? I don’t THINK so!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the studios make less because fewer tickets are being sold, the actors get paid less, sure.
It’s not just about the amount an actor makes, it’s also about the percentage of a film’s profit. If actors’ salaries are lowered, but the studios keep earning millions and millions on a film, that’s not fair, either.
I’ve always said actors are overpaid. I think, in these times of crisis, the classiest thing an actor could do would be to take whatever bloated salary they’re given, keep a few percent, and put the rest back into their community. If you need 80 million dollars to cover your living expenses and put your kids through college, someone on your staff is swindling you.
I think what’s most offensive about her statement is the use of the word “art”. I’m sorry, but the actors making gobs and gobs of money per film aren’t artists. They’re entertainers, which is completely different.
Regardless, they still make too much money. Not that I’d turn it down, if offered.
Seems like the clowns are running the show.
A. Jolie, world-class expert on the downtrodden (as she steps out of her latest mansion into her private jet).
George Clooney and Obama meet for high level talks about Darfur.
How about Naomi Watts for Labor Secretary….she sounds like an expert to me.
Actors should get paid according to how much money their movies make (I’m talking blockbuster big-budget stuff of course, indies and small movies don’t work like that anyway). and if they bring in 500 million, they should get paid a couple of millions. it’s not overpaid if you’re the one responsible for bringing in the money, it’s just how a business works.
Rreedy, at least couric is a journalist, which means she has journalistic duties year round and contributes to society by fulfilling a public function, called newsgathering. I have no beef with journalists salaries.
cameron diaz, however, who has never made a useful film and is making that much money is absurd-as are the rest of the salaries, for a few months work playing someone else. hollywood is way overblown in terms of reasonable compensation for work provided, but thats not going to change anytime soon-as long as we keep buying tickets and merchandise associated with films.
Oh, actors are absolutely overpaid, but where would that money go? To the executives and the producers? That’s almost as bad as the fatcats on Wall Street giving themselves bonuses.
I agree with Claudia definitely, but I think it’s insensitive for any person that makes millions of $’s for a few months work to suggest that it’s difficult time for actors because of the lack of money. If you even make 1 movie in your lifetime and earn a million $’s, that’s enough to live on for the rest of your life. None of these people ever have to work again.
Maybe I missed where she said anything to do with whether or not actors are overpaid because I haven’t had my 1st cup of coffee. She just said that that industry doesn’t typically feel the recession as much as other industries. Regardless, I think she is an overpaid actor, merely because I think she is over hyped and not that great an actor.(The International bit the royal Twinkee)
The bottom line is that there is no “overpaid” or “overpriced.” If someone is willing to pay someone else a certain amount it is because they think that person is worth it. If you pay for an apartment that you consider overpriced – you are wrong. Obviously, you think it’s worth the money you are paying or you would find something different. We will go see those movies. We will generate money for the studio. So apparently, we think what actors are paid is just fine too. It is our jealousy or sense of our own entitlement that brings out the judgements of worth. Many think the teachers in America are worth more than they are paid. If they went on strike and demanded more then they would get it. And people would think that is fine until they were additionally taxed for the increase in the teachers’ pay. I know my view is unpopular, but I am just making a point.
She didn’t say that. Why say she did when she didn’t?
@Fluffy T – word. That’s the reality and people can complain all they like about it but it’s not going to change anything.
Bros: Couric is a lot of things but journalist???? I don’t THINK so. The woman is a joke.
I take great offense to your sentence “mostly of sci-fi films that appeal to 20-35 year old men who will continue to spend on movie ticket.” I am a 25 year old woman who adores Sci Fi and I have many many girlfriends who also have a great love for the genre. Please dont pigeon hole Sci Fi fans, just as you wouldnt with other genres just because you dont understand it.
Maybe I’m thick but I don’t see where in that quoted article she says actors are overpaid. I see her saying that filmmaking shouldn’t grind to a halt and that there will be more negotiating over salary on all sides – but I don’t see any refusal to take a pay cut. Indeed she just said that she has effectively taken one herself by working for the lowest fee in 10 years.
@Mairead, she’s being accused of saying they’re NOT overpaid, not that they’re overpaid! Either way, it’s a false accusation against her based on that quote.
The movie makes a bunch of money, because of THEM.
Who else should get the money? The faceless suit who gave it the greenlight? He owes them, because without them there would BE no money. Why is that hard to grasp?
I agree with Mairead et al — I don’t think Naomi said anything about actors being over *or* underpaid. Nice way to start a debate, though. ; )
Off-topic, but I don’t agree that ALL of the people on that highest earners list are necessarily “just” entertainers as opposed to artists. In my books, an artist (when used to describe an actor) is someone who is willing to take chances, lose him/herself in a role, and demonstrate some range in his/her abilities. Even though I don’t like some of them, a few — Depp, DiCaprio, Witherspoon, Paltrow, Knightley and even Murphy — have proven (to me) that they’re capable of some serious dedication. As for the rest, they generally play the same character in every film, so the term “celebrity entertainer” is certainly more applicable than “artist.”
Eddie Murphy made $55MM!!!! For what? I must have missed it.
Here’s a better question… If someone wanted to pay you 10 million dollars a year to wash dishes. Would you take it? Hell ya! Stop being jealous!
Bros- I understand your point, but I have to disagree that Couric is a journalist. She may have been a journalist at one point in time, but now she just reads copy that someone else writes for her. That isn’t journalism.
You know, they could lower the cost to the consumer. I went to see a matinee a couple of weeks ago. I hadn’t had lunch yet, so I got nachos and a coke. It was over $20 for my ticket and my food. For a matinee! That’s why I don’t go to the movie theater anymore. They could pay actors less, the studios could cut their stake from ticket sales, then theaters could lower prices.
I agree with Geronimo and Mairead. I must have missed the part where she said it as well. Hmm…
Ahhh – thanks Geronimo – these double-negatives totally confuse me. And that mish-mash of an original answer she gave isn’t helping.
The original question asked if actors were overpaid and she agreed in the first line of her answer, then disagreed with the rest of her answer. I think? Help!
lol! M – I had to think carefully and do a bit of pen chewing when I responded to you earlier so it’s not just you! But she never said what she’s been accused of, that’s our point!
If the studios make less because fewer tickets are being sold, the actors get paid less, sure.
It’s not just about the amount an actor makes, it’s also about the percentage of a film’s profit. If actors’ salaries are lowered, but the studios keep earning millions and millions on a film, that’s not fair, either.
Hey,the film industry is alot like the fine art world…it’s a way of recirculating wealthy people’s money to keep it from trickling down or into the mainstream economy.
If you guys think it’s really popcorn and movie tix that pay for these actors and films,think again. Sure,they bring in huge sums of money,but product placement,’producers’ and other avenues of funding secure the majority,in my estimate. And if a movie doesnt make much? like nicole kidman’s and even pitts and jolies? oh well,money has been spent and maintains our social hierarchy/caste system quite well,don’t you think?
This is what high art auctions do-it’s not just about the ‘beautiful art’….
Are they overpaid? Who cares. Are they artists? No. Most of them are average actors who got lucky. They could easily be interchanged with any number of people currently waiting tables in Hollywood while waiting for a break. If there was no Pretty Woman, there probably wouldn’t be a Julia Roberts. Same with Tom Cruise. No risky business, no Tom Cruise, and so on and so on. With the exception of a few really talented actors along the lines of DeNiro, Pacino, Streep, and Penn (cringe at the thought of actually having said Penn, but true), the rest just got lucky.
rbsesq- Movie theatres don’t make money off of the movies they show. They get their money from selling the overpriced popcorn and sodas, not from the movies themselves. To fix the whole “actors are overpaid” problem, the studios should be paying the movie theatres to show their movies and then the money won’t be so ridiculously unevenly distributed. It’s outrageous what these people get paid while the places that are showing their movies get nothing.
I’d take the money too. They do employ a lot of people, because in order to be that type of star these days they feel like they have to live a certain lifestyle. Stylists, plastic surgery, decorators, etc.
Hello?! That’s my point Hollywood. It costs so damn much to make a movie that it keeps getting more and more expensive to actually see one. Movie theaters have to fork over the proceeds from ticket sales to the studios just to pay for the right to show the movie, so the theaters raise prices on tickets and their concessions. If they weren’t paying actors so much to begin with, it wouldn’t cost the studios so much to make a movie, it wouldn’t cost the theater so much to show it, and it wouldn’t cost the consumer so much to see it. Not that either the studios or the theaters would actually consider lowering costs.
It’s only fair they get less pay too! What makes them so special that they have to earn millions of dollars just for playing make believe characters. Actors are paid way to much!
UMMM.. what did I miss?? Can anybody else here read or…??
Q: Are actors making too much money ?
A: I mean, well I don’t know about the filmmaking too much across the board, but YES, CERTAINLY.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but to me that sounds as if she is saying actors ARE overpaid, no? She then goes on to say that she doesn’t think her industry will suffer too much in the recession. I don’t understand what you lot are on about.
If she didn’t say it, I will;
Hollywood, you’re overpaid
Fluffy T. – Your view may indeed be unpopular, as you say. More accurately, it’s correct – Nicely said.
Ahh who cares? Like someone said above, if I pay to see the movie, then I’m buying into the salary hype.
Let’s focus on something we (here in the U.S. anyway) can’t seem to control – and that’s medical care. Is a doctor REALLY worth $150 every time I visit with a sniffle? Let’s face it, I choose to see a movie in the theatre, I don’t always have a choice whether or not to see a doctor when I’m sick.
And adding to my comment, thank God for insurance! But… my comment is primarily directed towards the people without insurance, who can’t survive without a doctor. THAT’S the real tragedy.
I think the discussion should include the creative artists–the writers, set dressers, cinematographers and even directors. Let’s look at their salaries and consider the imbalance. The writers make a pittance for their ideas and vision. While the actors are typically the boneheads who get credit for reading lines that someone else wrote. They appear intelligent because others create the illusion of intelligence for them.
bb – That’s a great point. Isn’t there some way to funnel the money actors get for roles and give it to the creative artists? It’s a pity we can’t create rules to do that and cap actors’ salaries.
I am a capitalist and firmly believe that people should be paid whatever someone will pay them.
If a movie earns $150,000,000. worldwide for the studio, then it is NOT unreasonable for an actor to expect 20-30 million in salary (assuming the actor is the reason the film attracts the audience). That is, in my opinion, a reasonable expectation based on the fact that if a movie is a flop, who remembers the producer/director/studio that made it? Nobody. The reputation that suffers is the actors.
(bet everyone remembers who starred in ‘Mary Riley’ but nobody remembers who produced it!)
Moreover, the consumer really has the power here. We–the audience–have the power of our money and can make or break a movie (studio, director, actor, producer, any of them) by simply not paying money to see the movie.
I have not shelled out a dime to see Eddie Murphy do ANYTHING for many years. I don’t rent the DVD’s of his movies. Nothing.
If a LOT of people did that, he would definately NOT be making 55M dollars.
I want actors to get paid as much as teachers do. Wouldn’t that be fair? Equally important jobs or not?
Professional play actors are certainly overpaid and we’re the fools who’ve allowed it to happen. We’ve all succumbed to celebrity culture, celebrity chasing and reality tv all completely bereft of worthwhile content. It’s a vacuous search. The economic downturn is a necessary wake-up call and correction. Hopefully people on a massive scale will realize these lessons. Having life skills that give nothing worthwhile back to the world won’t cut it.
“I think the discussion should include the creative artists–the writers, set dressers, cinematographers and even directors. Let’s look at their salaries and consider the imbalance. The writers make a pittance for their ideas and vision. While the actors are typically the boneheads who get credit for reading lines that someone else wrote.”
Often true. But the fact is the money follows the movie star around. The public wants to see that star, and pays to see his movie, and they don’t care who worked in the background.
The public is the reason a particular actor (and all his films) makes a fortune.
I’m with Czarina. Well said. 🙂
is there ANYONE, other than Oprah of tom Cruise that wouldn’t give up their lives for a whole year straight to make 20-40 million? I’d give up 1 year of my life for a film for just $1 million, lol! what’s the hardest thing these guys have to do, cry on film, appear semi nude? go on talk shows, wake up at 5am in the morning? give me a break! These people all live in neverland fantasy worlds!
except for the obvious “stop going to the movies and renting/buying their movies”, there isn’t too much that can be done to decrease these over paid actor’s asking salaries. yes, we have only ourselves to blame… the less popular any actor becomes, then they can no longer command the high amounts they think they deserve.
i do think it fair that all actors/participants of any movie make a percentage of what the movie makes when its finally released… but to feel they are worth the outrageous amounts before its even made… never made sense to me.
even better would be if these actors openly gave back to the economy a percentage of what they made… helps the country as a whole… plus being honest in their taxes an paying them just like us regular working people. doesn’t seem fair that we probably pay more in taxes than they do and we make 100 times less.