Much as I love LoTR and Jackson's work on the movies, I don't like this trend at all. It's bad enough that A-list actors' escalating salaries have wreaked havoc with the face of the acting profession.
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.c...ies/28JACK.html
October 28, 2003
One Director to Be Paid Like a Top Movie Star
By ANNE THOMPSON
OS ANGELES, Oct. 27
One Director to Be Paid Like a Top Movie Star
Started by
Jaelle
, Nov 01 2003 12:12 AM
12 replies to this topic
#2
Tarl_Cabot
-
- Veterans
-
- 10505 posts
Commander
- Location:The Galaxy of Pleasure
Posted 01 November 2003 - 12:35 AM
If he can deliver another film of LOTR's quality than I say $20M is a bargain. Film is the director's medium. He is the most important component to a film. Actors aren't indespensible. Tom Cruise got paid $70 Million for MI, that's after % of profits. Was he really so special? Aren't there a million people more talented than that insipid pretty boy? OK, I get it-he packed em in... If PJ were to direct a MI with an unknown I would pay to see it. I will never pay to see any Tom Cruise film. I think PJ did an incredible job with the LOTR films and so I have no issue with him getting $20M. But if he hires a $25 star than you have a point. That's $45M on two employees!
#3
gkgyver
-
- Veterans
-
- 1891 posts
Lt. Commander
- Location:Bamberg, Bavaria
Posted 01 November 2003 - 02:15 AM
It's really ... well, I don't know.
You know, I love both the movies and the written tales of Professor Tolkien, but is it right to judge PJ only by LOTR's quality?
As a loyal fan I have to say "You bet it is!", but of course everything's got a downside.
You know, it's just my opinion, but if you ask me, it is very hard to screw up the story of LOTR, even if you leave out half of it (for those who don't know: that's essentially what PJ did with TTT).
But on the other side, it's very tough to "translate" even just these 50% of the story into a movie.
BTW: it's also not quite right to say "LOTR's impossible to adapt" ; it's just impossible to adapt it for those hardcore-fans out there who treat the smallest articulation-mistake like a deadly sin.
You're right if you say the director's the most important person for a movie.
PJ had to work on the script (which is very tough in the case of LOTR), participate in the casting-process, make his visions clear to the people of Weta, guide them, make suggestions and push them to near perfection (which affects CGI, miniatures, models, armory, weapons, masks, suits, background painting and whatnot), shoot scenes, go on location-search, keep an eye on the sound-recording & digital grading and keep in touch with Howard Shore in London.
And if you keep in mind how deep and colourful Tolkiens descriptions are, you know how hard it is to live up to them.
Not to mention all the publicity.
He dedicated about 4-5 years of his life to this trilogy and if you ask me, yes, for THESE films, 20 Mio. are not too much for his effort.
BUT (and this not only affects PJ): 20 Million bucks are a little bit too much, if you keep in mind that not all of PJ's future projects are going to be as huge as LOTR.
God, did they ever think about how much money 20 Million Dollars are? I mean, if anyone of us would get "only" 2 Million $, we'd think twice about the word "work", if it ever came to our mind again (which is highly unlikely
).
You know, I love both the movies and the written tales of Professor Tolkien, but is it right to judge PJ only by LOTR's quality?
As a loyal fan I have to say "You bet it is!", but of course everything's got a downside.
You know, it's just my opinion, but if you ask me, it is very hard to screw up the story of LOTR, even if you leave out half of it (for those who don't know: that's essentially what PJ did with TTT).
But on the other side, it's very tough to "translate" even just these 50% of the story into a movie.
BTW: it's also not quite right to say "LOTR's impossible to adapt" ; it's just impossible to adapt it for those hardcore-fans out there who treat the smallest articulation-mistake like a deadly sin.
You're right if you say the director's the most important person for a movie.
PJ had to work on the script (which is very tough in the case of LOTR), participate in the casting-process, make his visions clear to the people of Weta, guide them, make suggestions and push them to near perfection (which affects CGI, miniatures, models, armory, weapons, masks, suits, background painting and whatnot), shoot scenes, go on location-search, keep an eye on the sound-recording & digital grading and keep in touch with Howard Shore in London.
And if you keep in mind how deep and colourful Tolkiens descriptions are, you know how hard it is to live up to them.
Not to mention all the publicity.
He dedicated about 4-5 years of his life to this trilogy and if you ask me, yes, for THESE films, 20 Mio. are not too much for his effort.
BUT (and this not only affects PJ): 20 Million bucks are a little bit too much, if you keep in mind that not all of PJ's future projects are going to be as huge as LOTR.
God, did they ever think about how much money 20 Million Dollars are? I mean, if anyone of us would get "only" 2 Million $, we'd think twice about the word "work", if it ever came to our mind again (which is highly unlikely
).
#4
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 02 November 2003 - 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Jaelle
One studio chief said she was in a state of shock when she heard about Mr. Jackson's deal. "No director has ever made more than $12 million" on a single film, she said.
In terms of upfront salary, that may be true (although Ridley Scott commands a salary of $12 million per picture, and I doubt that his is the highest fee of any director in Hollywood). However, I'm sure that quite a few directors (Cameron, Spielberg, Zemeckis and so on) have made more than $12 million on a single film, thanks to profit participation and so on.
Regarding KING KONG, here's an amusing piece from John Harlow's "Hollywood agenda" column in today's Sunday Times:
A fresh challenge for the Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson, who has been consulting primatologists in his quest to make an "authentic" King Kong. They advise that a real giant ape, attacked while climbing the Empire State Building, would not only hurl his excreta at military jets, but also "display-challenge" them with an enormously engorged penis. Maybe King Kong will have to borrow The Hulk's impressively stretchy shorts to protect audience sensibilities.
#5
gkgyver
-
- Veterans
-
- 1891 posts
Lt. Commander
- Location:Bamberg, Bavaria
Posted 02 November 2003 - 02:03 PM
This is the most entertaining bit of movie trivia I've ever heard.
#6
ray t
-
- Veterans
-
- 1394 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 02 November 2003 - 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Jaelle
Much as I love LoTR and Jackson's work on the movies, I don't like this trend at all. It's bad enough that A-list actors' escalating salaries have wreaked havoc with the face of the acting profession.
-------------
The more studios share their gross returns with stars, producers and directors, the tougher it is for the studios to reach a profit, many studio chiefs complain.
come come, jaelle. you live in new york, correct? not cuba or vietnam or china....
you live in a world in which 'the market' allocates its entertainment dollars to 'events' (whether it be a play, musical, movie, baseball game, strip club, etc.) which satisfies the individuals desires at that point in time.
if very few want to see one of your kids at the theatre, then too bad. they chose to be in such a field. nobody put a gun to thier head and forced them into "the acting profession". thats just life...thats just business.
its not "havoc", its market forces...
-------------
the studio chiefs who "complain" about what they're paid to do, i.e. MAKE BUSINESS DECISIONS, ought to be fired on the spot:rolleyes:
sharing profits (or not) with 'actors', directors, etc, is part of the decison making process.
a studio man doesnt HAVE to cut such a deal. (MGM looked at the cost and revenue side of "JINX" and probably decided the project wouldnt "pay off". that kind of thing. just a decision")
if you cant handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen.....
#7
Jaelle
-
- Veterans
-
- 1406 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 03 November 2003 - 03:29 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ray t
[B]come come, jaelle. you live in new york, correct? not cuba or vietnam or china....
you live in a world in which 'the market' allocates its entertainment dollars to 'events' (whether it be a play, musical, movie, baseball game, strip club, etc.) which satisfies the individuals desires at that point in time.
if very few want to see one of your kids at the theatre, then too bad. they chose to be in such a field. nobody put a gun to thier head and forced them into "the acting profession". thats just life...thats just business.
its not "havoc", its market forces...
Oh please ray, spare me the ideological dogma. You talk about "market forces" like they're some sort of mystified untouchable sacrosanct God never EVER to be questioned existing in some vacuum somewhere handing down decrees that we mere mortals are all supposed to just accept like mindless robots, marching lockstep to some Market Big Brother's tune. And if we do raise a question, well, we're to be shipped to the Chinese gulag! Ever hear of the word "nuance" ray?
Accelerating actors' salaries and accelerating PR budgets and accelerating movie costs ARE indeed wreaking havoc not just with the entire acting profession but with moviemaking in general because enormous salaries and costs on that level make it harder and harder to make a profit and thus diminish risk-taking. The less risk, the less creativity. What matters now most of all is how much money a movie will make in its first weekend, that's it. The room for creativity, for good intelligent story-telling thus diminishes and you have more and more imitations and glorified mediocrity in your local moviehouse. Now I don't care for that kind of movie market, I guess you do. Last time I checked the desire to see a film market full of good quality movies had nothing at all to do with living in communist China.
[B]come come, jaelle. you live in new york, correct? not cuba or vietnam or china....
you live in a world in which 'the market' allocates its entertainment dollars to 'events' (whether it be a play, musical, movie, baseball game, strip club, etc.) which satisfies the individuals desires at that point in time.
if very few want to see one of your kids at the theatre, then too bad. they chose to be in such a field. nobody put a gun to thier head and forced them into "the acting profession". thats just life...thats just business.
its not "havoc", its market forces...
Oh please ray, spare me the ideological dogma. You talk about "market forces" like they're some sort of mystified untouchable sacrosanct God never EVER to be questioned existing in some vacuum somewhere handing down decrees that we mere mortals are all supposed to just accept like mindless robots, marching lockstep to some Market Big Brother's tune. And if we do raise a question, well, we're to be shipped to the Chinese gulag! Ever hear of the word "nuance" ray?Accelerating actors' salaries and accelerating PR budgets and accelerating movie costs ARE indeed wreaking havoc not just with the entire acting profession but with moviemaking in general because enormous salaries and costs on that level make it harder and harder to make a profit and thus diminish risk-taking. The less risk, the less creativity. What matters now most of all is how much money a movie will make in its first weekend, that's it. The room for creativity, for good intelligent story-telling thus diminishes and you have more and more imitations and glorified mediocrity in your local moviehouse. Now I don't care for that kind of movie market, I guess you do. Last time I checked the desire to see a film market full of good quality movies had nothing at all to do with living in communist China.
#8
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 03 November 2003 - 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Jaelle
Ha! Excellent response, Jaelle.
Right. Calling for quality cinema means we're as bad as the North Koreans.
#9
ray t
-
- Veterans
-
- 1394 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 03 November 2003 - 04:34 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jaelle
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ray t
[B]come come, jaelle. you live in new york, correct? not cuba or vietnam or china....
you live in a world in which 'the market' allocates its entertainment dollars to 'events' (whether it be a play, musical, movie, baseball game, strip club, etc.) which satisfies the individuals desires at that point in time.
if very few want to see one of your kids at the theatre, then too bad. they chose to be in such a field. nobody put a gun to thier head and forced them into "the acting profession". thats just life...thats just business.
its not "havoc", its market forces...
Oh please ray, spare me the ideological dogma. You talk about "market forces" like they're some sort of mystified untouchable sacrosanct God never EVER to be questioned existing in some vacuum somewhere handing down decrees that we mere mortals are all supposed to just accept like mindless robots, marching lockstep to some Market Big Brother's tune. And if we do raise a question, well, we're to be shipped to the Chinese gulag! Ever hear of the word "nuance" ray?
Accelerating actors' salaries and accelerating PR budgets and accelerating movie costs ARE indeed wreaking havoc not just with the entire acting profession but with moviemaking in general because enormous salaries and costs on that level make it harder and harder to make a profit and thus diminish risk-taking. The less risk, the less creativity. What matters now most of all is how much money a movie will make in its first weekend, that's it. The room for creativity, for good intelligent story-telling thus diminishes and you have more and more imitations and glorified mediocrity in your local moviehouse. Now I don't care for that kind of movie market, I guess you do. Last time I checked the desire to see a film market full of good quality movies had nothing at all to do with living in communist China. [/QUOTE]
ok...i re-read what i wrote and it sounds rather, er, stiff.
it was written over a severe hangover and after having my washing machine go on the blink (after having chewed-up one of my favourite polo shirts under the spinner thingy)
so appologies for that. sincerely:(
forgive me?
ps
on saturday nite, i checked out "under the tuscan sun" with diane lane. its a 'chick flick'...it's not a big budget actioneer...its, well, 'drama'....do i win points, jaelle?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ray t
[B]come come, jaelle. you live in new york, correct? not cuba or vietnam or china....
you live in a world in which 'the market' allocates its entertainment dollars to 'events' (whether it be a play, musical, movie, baseball game, strip club, etc.) which satisfies the individuals desires at that point in time.
if very few want to see one of your kids at the theatre, then too bad. they chose to be in such a field. nobody put a gun to thier head and forced them into "the acting profession". thats just life...thats just business.
its not "havoc", its market forces...
Oh please ray, spare me the ideological dogma. You talk about "market forces" like they're some sort of mystified untouchable sacrosanct God never EVER to be questioned existing in some vacuum somewhere handing down decrees that we mere mortals are all supposed to just accept like mindless robots, marching lockstep to some Market Big Brother's tune. And if we do raise a question, well, we're to be shipped to the Chinese gulag! Ever hear of the word "nuance" ray?Accelerating actors' salaries and accelerating PR budgets and accelerating movie costs ARE indeed wreaking havoc not just with the entire acting profession but with moviemaking in general because enormous salaries and costs on that level make it harder and harder to make a profit and thus diminish risk-taking. The less risk, the less creativity. What matters now most of all is how much money a movie will make in its first weekend, that's it. The room for creativity, for good intelligent story-telling thus diminishes and you have more and more imitations and glorified mediocrity in your local moviehouse. Now I don't care for that kind of movie market, I guess you do. Last time I checked the desire to see a film market full of good quality movies had nothing at all to do with living in communist China. [/QUOTE]
ok...i re-read what i wrote and it sounds rather, er, stiff.
it was written over a severe hangover and after having my washing machine go on the blink (after having chewed-up one of my favourite polo shirts under the spinner thingy)
so appologies for that. sincerely:(
forgive me?
ps
on saturday nite, i checked out "under the tuscan sun" with diane lane. its a 'chick flick'...it's not a big budget actioneer...its, well, 'drama'....do i win points, jaelle?
#10
Jaelle
-
- Veterans
-
- 1406 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 03 November 2003 - 05:51 PM
Originally posted by ray t
ok...i re-read what i wrote and it sounds rather, er, stiff.
it was written over a severe hangover and after having my washing machine go on the blink (after having chewed-up one of my favourite polo shirts under the spinner thingy)
so appologies for that. sincerely:(
forgive me?
ps
on saturday nite, i checked out "under the tuscan sun" with diane lane. its a 'chick flick'...it's not a big budget actioneer...its, well, 'drama'....do i win points, jaelle?
Ok, ray, you got some points there. Tho I'm not sure why since I haven't even seen the movie -- but I do like Diane Lane. But hey, since none of you macho guys around here like chick flicks, you deserve a few points for actually going out and paying money to see one.
#11
ray t
-
- Veterans
-
- 1394 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 03 November 2003 - 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Jaelle
yeaaaa baby!!!!
i even drove 30 minutes across town to pick up my former girlfriend and paid $13.95 for the ticket!!!!
i even had some of that emoting thing happening (a la brozzy touching electra's tear on the compu screen in twine)
do i win extra points for that!?
#12
Jaelle
-
- Veterans
-
- 1406 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 03 November 2003 - 06:29 PM
Originally posted by ray t
yeaaaa baby!!!!
i even drove 30 minutes across town to pick up my former girlfriend and paid $13.95 for the ticket!!!!
i even had some of that emoting thing happening (a la brozzy touching electra's tear on the compu screen in twine)
do i win extra points for that!?
Definitely! You keep raking them in, ray!
#13
Oddfeld
-
- Crew
- 84 posts
Midshipman
Posted 06 November 2003 - 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Jaelle
Accelerating actors' salaries and accelerating PR budgets and accelerating movie costs ARE indeed wreaking havoc not just with the entire acting profession but with moviemaking in general because enormous salaries and costs on that level make it harder and harder to make a profit and thus diminish risk-taking. The less risk, the less creativity. What matters now most of all is how much money a movie will make in its first weekend, that's it. The room for creativity, for good intelligent story-telling thus diminishes and you have more and more imitations and glorified mediocrity in your local moviehouse.
Very true and very well said, Jaelle.