Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Who makes more money: Actors or directors?

All we hear about is actors taking home the big buck, but I googled Steven Spielberg's net worth and he was worth a whooping 3 billion.

by Anonymousreply 1501/08/2013

Spielberg is an anomaly as are most of the superstar actors. Most actor/directors are lucky to work at all.

by Anonymousreply 101/08/2013

Speilberg has made a large number of very popular films...he directs, produces...he's has more money than God.

by Anonymousreply 201/08/2013

Spielberg likely owns a piece of every movie he produces and negotiates a cut of the box office when he directs.

by Anonymousreply 301/08/2013

Interesting question. Tell me, does the average working director get points? Do the points on a low-budget film amount to anything?

But since the average working director spends so much of his career in the "development" phase, the answer is probably "actors". Even name directors like Quentin Tarantino and Baz Luhrman can spend years between releases, working but being out of the big money.

by Anonymousreply 401/08/2013

Come on, Spielberg is a producer first and the top-of-the-line in directing.

He is by NO means representative of most directors.

Brad Pitt is not representative of most actors, either.

by Anonymousreply 501/08/2013

R4 has a point. An actor could make half a dozen films in the amount of time a director spends in between projects. A director and actor could conceivably be paid the same fee for a picture, but the actor only works on it for six weeks while the director has been working on it for a year or even longer. Broken down that way, the actor has made more.

by Anonymousreply 601/08/2013

SAG basic pay for run of picture is $65,000 DGA is @ $178,000

There are millions of other variables once someone's career is established.

by Anonymousreply 701/08/2013

Depends on what the project is, and at what "level" of filmmaking.

by Anonymousreply 801/08/2013

Maybe a little off topic, I remember years ago Twiggy(of all people)saying in an interview, that if you star in a hit U.S. tv show that runs for at least seven years, you never have to work again. Any industry insiders know how this could be?

by Anonymousreply 901/08/2013

Residuals and syndication. But now shows get syndicated much earlier because of cable.

by Anonymousreply 1001/08/2013

There are far more jobs for actors, than there are for directors.

by Anonymousreply 1101/08/2013

Spielberg did not get rich from directing fees. He got rich from producing and owning the properties.

"Star" directors do not make as much as "star" actors.

by Anonymousreply 1201/08/2013

R9 It used to be, a television show that had at least a 7 year run was naturally going to be put into syndicated reruns. Then the show could have a whole new life all over again, paying residuals (or sometimes known as royalties) to the actors for years to come. Also, if an actors contract go up for renegotiation during a hit show, the actor can really make demands and hold out for more money to say on (see Friends, Seinfeld)

It wasnt always that way though. I think the cast of Gilligan's Island and Brady Bunch never got residuals.

by Anonymousreply 1301/08/2013

Thanks, r10, r13. I guess the cast of "Big Bang Theory" are in for a very pleasant retirement...

by Anonymousreply 1401/08/2013

R14 Exactly. BBT is still running on network AND is already in syndication. In fact, where my mom lives in Florida, its reruns are on two different cable stations every day. Johnny Galecki is making out like a bandit, getting residues from BBT and from the re-run episodes of Roseanne.

by Anonymousreply 1501/08/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.