George Clooney claims he & Brad Pitt were NOT paid $35 million each for ‘Wolfs’

A week ago, the New York Times published a piece about Apple’s flailing movie company. At first, Apple simply went to film festivals and purchased smaller art-house films and gave them limited theatrical releases, then dumped the films on AppleTV+ streaming. Then Apple became their own studio, spending lavishly to produce films with big-name directors and big-name actors. Most of those films were critical disappointments and a huge waste of time and money. Well, Apple had a plan for Wolfs, the big reunion-project for George Clooney and Brad Pitt. Apple produced the film and they planned to do a big, splashy promotion with an ad buy during the Olympics, ahead of an international blitz and a wide theatrical release. Just before the Olympics, Apple canceled the ad buy and announced that Wolfs would only get a small theatrical release before streaming on AppleTV.

The NYT piece also claimed that Pitt and Clooney were each paid $35 million for Wolfs, and that Apple executives had really begun to question how much money they were blowing for sh-tty films like Wolfs. The Times reported that “there was a thought within the company to not risk a public disappointment should the movie not succeed at the box office…CAA, the agency that represents Mr. Clooney, Mr. Pitt and Mr. Watts, did not fight the last-minute move, since the lack of promotion could have led to a theatrical underperformance affecting its clients’ reputations.” Basically, Wolfs had box-office bomb written all over it and rather than roll the dice with a theatrical release, Apple is just shuffling it off to streaming to save everyone’s reputations. Well, George was asked about all of this in Venice.

George Clooney has set right a claim that he and Wolfs co-star Brad Pitt were paid around $35 million each for the film, as reported in a New York Times article.

At one point, Clooney explained that the pair gave portions of their salaries back after a theatrical deal fell through for the film, meaning it gets a limited release in “a couple of hundred theaters,” and brought up a New York Times article published last week by Nicole Sperling that said he and Pitt were paid more than $35 million each.

“[It was] an interesting article and whatever her source was for our salary, it is millions and millions and millions of dollars less than what was reported. And I am only saying that because I think it’s bad for our industry if that’s what people think is the standard bearer for salaries,” Clooney said. “I think that’s terrible, it’ll make it impossible to make films.”

“Yes, we wanted it to be released [in theaters]. We’ve had some bumps along the way, that happens. When I did [Clooney-directed biographical sports drama] The Boys in the Boat, we did it for MGM, and then it ended up being for Amazon and we didn’t get a foreign release at all, which was a surprise. There are elements of this that we are figuring out. You guys are all in this too. We’re all in this industry and we’re trying to find our way post-COVID and everything else, and so there’s some bumps along the way. It is a bummer of course, but on the other hand, a lot of people are going to see the film and we are getting a release in a few hundred theaters, so we’re getting a release. But yeah, it would’ve been nice if we to have a wide release.”

[From THR]

As I said in a previous story, what happened to Wolfs isn’t some unusual situation in Hollywood these days – filmmakers and actors are getting screwed over a lot these days and even after the SAG-AFTRA strike, there are still tons of issues to be worked out on distribution and streaming. That being said, it’s funny as hell that this happened to Clooney and Pitt. They really thought this was going to be a much-needed box-office success, and then Apple saw the movie and was like “nope, let’s pretend this didn’t happen.” As for the money… I doubt they were paid $35 million upfront, but I bet both Pitt and Clooney had generous backend deals which were contingent on, you know, a wide theatrical release. Maybe $35 million each was what they would have gotten if the film crossed $200 million at the box office. But I will never underestimate how much money gets thrown at mediocre white guys in Hollywood, so I wonder if George is playing a bit fast and loose with those salary details.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

25 Responses to “George Clooney claims he & Brad Pitt were NOT paid $35 million each for ‘Wolfs’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Anonymous says:

    I used to really like George Clooney. And I’ve met Amal and stunned by her. But him working and hanging out with Brad Pitt, DV abuser to his kids and wife. I just can’t. So gross.

    -Duch

    • Duch says:

      Forgot to add my credentials!

    • Peanut Butter says:

      I used to like him, too, and I respected him. But his support of Pitt and his public treatment of Biden/Harris when he could have used his influence privately have left such an unpleasant taste for me. I’m still surprised that Amal, a human rights lawyer, would let herself be tarnished by that very public, very intentional show of support she gave Pitt not long ago.

      • Eva says:

        Amal clearly enjoys her expensive dresses and her lavish lifestyle in the spotlight more than anything else. This whole spectacle has made it clear where this supposed human rights advocate really stands.

  2. Lili says:

    I haven’t kept up with cloony and pit, apart from the ocean series what else have they done together? As for the Ocean films the Ensemble was the draw, with Andy Garcia & Alpacino being the box office draw for me

    • Jegede says:

      They did Burn After Reading – which I enjoyed, cause I like the Coen brothers.

      • Lady Esther says:

        Right? I don’t care for either of them as people, to put it mildly but Burn After Reading will forever be in my top 5 comedies of all time. It’s one of those gems that gets funnier and funnier until at the end you’re crying with helpless laughter…a classic

  3. AlpineWitch says:

    Even if it was half of that amount, it would be still an incredible amount of money?
    17 million dollars for an actor?? Particularly for an action movie where they basically put their faces on camera while stunt work is carried out by others.

    Sorry but it’s ridiculous!

  4. pme says:

    I just don’t think that these two are box office draws any more. What have they done lately? And to me, at this film festival they have just been a little too extra. Their love lives have been front and center and not their performances in the movie, tells me all I need to know.

    • Jegede says:

      Bullet Train was a hit. ❤️❤️Aaron Johnson.
      And the studio gifted some cast motorbikes cause they were so happy with the BO results.

      But I don’t think either have actually done that much in front of the camera in a while.
      Could be wrong.

      • AlpineWitch says:

        Bullet Train was a hit because the rest of the cast was awesome. Of all the actors in it (they were all great!!), the most unsufferable one was Pitt.

    • Becks1 says:

      Who IS a box office draw these days though? Take away Marvel movies (and not all have been record breaking successes) – who is a box office draw?

      Like if you were a studio, who would you throw a ton of money at because you were basically guaranteed box office success just because of the name?

      Tom Cruise?

      • SarahCS says:

        These days I will avoid a film if there’s someone in it I can’t stand (Pitt, Cruise, Depp, etc.) but the actors cast are definitely less a part of the decision than the story itself and if the film looks good.

        For example I’m delighted that Winona Ryder is in the new Beetlejuice but I’d have gone to see it anyway if she hadn’t come back.

  5. Mia4s says:

    It was probably $31 million (LOL).

    Seriously though, I am curious. Streaming titles generally do not carry much in the way of back end, which is why the upfront salary is so high. Maybe 35 was if certain milestones were hit; but I would be surprised if their agents would agree to such a deal without a guarantee of a wide theatrical release. Maybe if some kind of penalty had to be paid for not going wide. Interesting.

  6. Jegede says:

    Apple has actually had a terrible track with it’s movies. Especially this year with Argyll.

    The ScarJo & Channing Tatum output was its most recent hard bomb.☹️
    https://www.apple.com/uk/tv-pr/news/2024/07/apple-original-films-celebrates-the-premiere-of-fly-me-to-the-moon-alongside-director-greg-berlanti-star-and-producer-scarlett-johansson-stars-channing-tatum-ray-romano-jim-rash-anna-garcia-and-more/

    Wolfs movie comes out in 2 weeks and maybe they can get subscription love, but Apple business plan can’t be sustainable shelling out all this money surely??

    • Mia4s says:

      Apple has more money than some countries but I agree I don’t know how this is sustainable. There’s a reason they are desperate to get Ted Lasso back on the air, it’s the only wide success they’ve had that actually drew in subscribers. But once Ted was done, viewers dropped the service (I know I did).

    • Becks1 says:

      Apple also just advertises very weirdly. The only place I’ve heard of this movie was this site.

      I haven’t watched a series on apple that I didn’t think was excellent….but they do basically zero promotion unless its the promo before an Apple series that you’re watching….on Apple TV.

      and I think besides Ted Lasso they don’t push for Emmys or Golden Globes (or if they are they need to hire new people bc they are almost completely shut out of the nominations.)

    • booboocita says:

      I never saw Argyll, but I remember seeing the cast at the premiere (on ET, I think), mugging and gurning for all they were worth, talking about how the movie was a “madcap,” “roller coaster,” “non-stop action” ride. Oh, brother. The harder the stars pose on the red carpet, the more the movie stinks.

  7. Mirelle says:

    Yeah, not buying it George. Both he and Brad “gave portions of their salaries back.” How much would that be?

    I think they were paid a substantial amount but I don’t see how. Wolfs has no superheroes, compelling drama or comedy, or over-the-top CGI spectacle that has the potential for a huge box office draw. Oceans 11 was a box office success with BOTH of them in it, but that was over 20 years ago. Did they sell themselves to Apple and demanded high salaries based off that movie? Brad has had some financially successful movies outside of the Ocean series, but George?? As for fandom, are they in demand from the younger generations? And sorry to say, there are so many new or younger actors who can draw movie crowds more so than B & G.

    • CLOVE says:

      Both he and Brad “gave portions of their salaries back.” I call this BS because Pitt needs money for the lawyers and is paying money back for France taxes, and he hasn’t even started paying MIR in NOLA!

      • Eva says:

        As for MIR and NOLA: does he have to pay anything? Has this case reached an end? I’m having trouble digging up information about it, and I’m very curious if these people will finally get justice. Besides, Brad probably made sure that it wasn’t written about. It’s outrageous how they’ve been treated. Brad should pay for all of this out of his own pocket, but does he have his own money or just the money he “borrowed” from Angelina, Shefler, French citizens (taxes) or someone else? I really hate this guy.

  8. girl_ninja says:

    Most humans have egos but imagine being a wealthy white male who was at one time adored by the masses? I suppose it’s not so easy to tone down the ego.

    I still maintain that this film helmed by Michael B. Jordan and Glenn Powell would be an actual hit.

  9. Lisa says:

    Wouldn’t pay 35p

  10. elle says:

    I came here to see if anybody mentioned why the movie is called “Wolfs” instead of “Wolves” (that alone would keep me from seeing it, even without these two strong deterrents starring). To save everyone else the mental energy, it’s because each of them is a “lone wolf.”

    Maybe they killed their potential audience with secondhand embarassment.