In a recent post about Sean Astin, it was pointed out that he only made $250,000 (U.S. Dollars) for all three Lord of the Rings movies combined… which obviously works out to be about $83,000 a film. Some people who commented on this were surprised by how “little” he made. Some suggested that it wasn’t fair. Others proposed that he should receive more money now since the films did so well at the Box Office. This raised an interesting question in my mind: Should an actor be paid more if a movie does well at the Box Office?
I understand that working on a film can be very demanding and hard work. I have no doubt that Astin put in a lot of long hours. But here’s the thing… I work really hard too. I’ll even bet that I’ve worked harder than Mr. Astin has over the last 5 years… and he has EASILY made more than 2x as much money as me. I have often worked 12 hour days, pulled my share of all nighters and given 100% of my effort to different projects and endeavors… I’ll bet most of you have too. So why are we feeling sorry for Sean Astin?!?!
To his credit, Astin never complained. He did point out he was disappointed about his salary, BUT HE ACCEPTED THE JOB KNOWING WHAT IT PAID. Why do we automatically assume that an actor should be paid more just because the film did well at the Box Office? Do you think for one second that an actor would accept a cut in pay if the movie or it’s producers LOST money on a movie? A snowball’s chance in Hades my friends. Oh sure, we can look back on The Lord of the Rings now and marvel at what a huge financial success it was… but remember… no one knew if this project was really going to make money or not. Remember, 1 major studio axed the project before New Line picked it up and let Peter Jackson run with it.
It has always been my philosophy that those who take the risks are the ones who should reap the rewards. New Line risked $300 million dollars on The Lord of the Rings. Sean Astin risked nothing. He was going to be paid his $250,000 no matter what. He had nothing to lose. So if Astin didn’t stand to lose any money if The Lord of the Rings failed… why should he stand to benefit more than his contract if it succeeds?
Keep in mind that I LOVED Astin’s performance in the trilogy. I even thought he deserved an Oscar Nomination for Best Supporting Actor for Return of the King… but for my money, the art directors had more to do with the success of Rings than any of the Actors did. The digital artists at WETA had a bigger part in my enjoyment of the trilogy than any individual actor did (not in most movies… but they did in Lord of the Rings), but I don’t hear any of us (including myself) talking about how they should have been paid more (and I guarantee you that they ALL got paid less than Astin). Did they not work as hard? Are they not as talented?
Hey listen, if a producer thinks a particular actor is worth paying $8 million for a film, then great. If an actor thinks a role is worth only getting paid $30,000 then fine. Actors are VERY hard working people who devote themselves to their craft over a period of years and DESERVE to make a good living from it. But the fact of the matter is that Astin DID made a good living over the last 5 years (compared to you and me) from Lord of the Rings… and now he’ll be famous (and wealthy) the rest of his life because of it’s success.
So here’s my bottom line: If an actor agrees to have his or her salary based on how well a movie does at the box office (that means they’re accepting the risk that they may make next to nothing) then they deserve to reap the rewards of big Box Office returns. If not, if they don’t risk anything and sign a contract for $30,000 then we shouldn’t argue that they should have made more if the film goes blockbuster. Just my two cents worth. Feel free to debate with me in the comments section.
