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.
Who makes more money: Actors or directors?
|by Anonymous||reply 15||01/08/2013|
Spielberg is an anomaly as are most of the superstar actors. Most actor/directors are lucky to work at all.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||01/08/2013|
Speilberg has made a large number of very popular films...he directs, produces...he's has more money than God.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||01/08/2013|
Spielberg likely owns a piece of every movie he produces and negotiates a cut of the box office when he directs.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||01/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 4||01/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 5||01/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 6||01/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 7||01/08/2013|
Depends on what the project is, and at what "level" of filmmaking.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||01/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 9||01/08/2013|
Residuals and syndication. But now shows get syndicated much earlier because of cable.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||01/08/2013|
There are far more jobs for actors, than there are for directors.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||01/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 12||01/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 13||01/08/2013|
Thanks, r10, r13. I guess the cast of "Big Bang Theory" are in for a very pleasant retirement...
|by Anonymous||reply 14||01/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 15||01/08/2013|