The 10 Most Overpaid Movie Stars

From the Community…

• 
  Posted by MochaMama42 Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:24pm PDT

  These ten definitely are, I know that.

  And interestingly enough, these names are the ones the public REALLY identifies with and want to see in movies, well with the exception of Katie Holmes. How did she get on the list? I don't remember her being of that much interest beyond Dawson's Creek until she hooked up with Tom Cruise. I thought she was essentially an "ensemble" player in wide-screen movies.

  Interesting.

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by Nini Poo Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:35pm PDT

  I'm basically sick of everyone on that list. yes, they are waaaaaaay overpaid. What about dishing out some similar salaries to those that actually make a difference in the world..?

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by cissysu Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:40pm PDT

  As if these celebrities care what we think. Everyone out there complaining would take the money and run. I really don't get why they are paid so much. I mean would Cameron Diaz turn down a million dollars versus 10 million or not work. Most of us will never see even a million dollars and I'm sure I work twice as hard as her as a RN.

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:55am PDT

  hello lady how are you what you doing thing fine sk

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by ErikH Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:55am PDT

  Why do we pay the movie stars this much anyways we all want to be like them and have there cars and house but in reality they probeley could not make in are world dont envy them they should be paying us to go see there movie. They should make only a certain amount a year any ways. There only superstars that i would pay if i had the money are athletes, they put there bodys on the line to play and they work 10 times harder then any of these movie stars.

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by fools_and_sages Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:20am PDT

  I am not a Nicole Kidman fan. But I wonder what 4 films this article considers her last four films. If they are going strictly by the last four movies released that she was involved with (acting, providing a voice, etc) and they are looking at worldwide boxoffice instead of US boxoffice alone, then she deserves a much more credit.

  According to IMDB.com, two of her last 4 movies were Happy Feet and Golden Compass. Happy Feet made $198 million in the US alone and over $385 million worldwide. Golden Compass made over $70 million in the US alone and over $300 million worldwide. Even if she got a $20 million salary, those films got a $15-$20 return on the worldwide totals for having her in the movie. But you have to keep in mind that providng a voice in an animated film usually pays less than actually appearing in the movie.

  The other two of her last four movies grossed much less. The calculation used in this article is very skewed, however, by the fact that one of the films was a small indie-esque film that was not widely released. It was called Margot at the Wedding. It only grossed about $2 million worldwide in 2007 in limited release. While I can't track down her salary for this film, she has been known to take much lower paydays than her normal $15-$20 million when she does a small film. And a film like Margot at the Wedding wasn't ever meant to be a boxoffice behemoth.

  Of her last four films, only one was a bonafide flop: The Invasion, which grossed a weak $40 million worldwide. She supposedly received about $17 million for the role, which would mean the movie pulled in about $2.35 for every dollar she was paid.

  You throw Margot at the Wedding out of the mix due it's indie-esque status, and her last three movies have grossed an average of $12.20 per dollar that was spent on Nicole Kidman if the worldwide boxoffice totals are used to calculate the totals.

  I think this article used US boxoffice totals, assumed she got $17 million for each film, and weighted Margot at the Wedding the same as Happy Feet, Golden Compass, and Invasion-- even though she undoubtedly did not take a $17 million payday for the small film or for Happy Feet.

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by anette Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:41pm PDT

  While it's true that movie stars do get over payed, it's still good to remember what they must endure. Sure enough there are a lot of us who don't live such luxurious life, but we get to live it without the focus of media and flocks of fans. You must remember that not all of those people ("fans") are in their right mind. Of some of them we get to read in the media ( unfortunately ). And even though movie stars do get to do things that most of us like to do or try, and get to meet people it would be nice to meet, but never possible for just any person; see a lot of places any of us would like to see, and, of course, make enormous amounts of money, I still wouldn't trade places with them. It could be nice for a day, a month, or even a year, but at the end of the day; what good do the millions of dollars do: your every move is "recorded", and reported, by the media ( especially the tabloids ), you can't go anywhere or do anything because of the possible effect it has to your public image ( and thus your chance of getting your next "job" - whether it be a movie or product endorsement deal ), not to mention ( especially women ) that you have to look at your best all times ( periods or not, watch for every pound and inch, etc. ). Although they have the money to make it "easier" ( you can buy all the help you can get ), but it still isn't all that easy. Just see how many of them have psychiatric problems just to get on with their lives, or related alcohol / drugs abuse problems, and you might find out that it isn't so grand after all, even if you get payed zillions of dollars. So, in the end, much of their "hard earned" money go to other people taking care of their security, looks, public image, mansions and properties, health - mental and physical, etc. Like I said, I wouldn't trade places with any of them, even I'm not wealthy or make a lot's of money.

  I do, how ever, agree, that anything over few millions ( at most 5 millions ) is excessive for a fee per movie.

  On the other hand, what have these other people ( and companies - the movie makers / distributors ) done to earn their money ( tens and hundreds of millions of dollars ). I'm sure they could do with a lot less too. Maybe then, a movie ticket would cost a lot less and it would be nice to go to see more movies..?

  And: Nini Poo; you're absolutely right! If even some of that money would be used for salaries of nurses, firefighters, police officers, teachers, etc., we would all live a lot better life.

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by Donna Care Anymore Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:46pm PDT

  Eversince Elizabeth Taylor got her firs $1 million paycheck, the movie industry went loco thinking every tabloid/junk magazine showbiz people is worth all the money in the world. If I remembered right, I read an article that even that movie Cleopatra did not even get what was invested in that film. When is this going to end? Maybe now that almost everyone has to think twice before spending money for a movie, their salaries will be reduced as well. Not everyone can draw crowds like it used to. There has to be substance to the stars, the story. I only saw movies of most of these overpaid stars on TV. They should pay more for stage actors! No retakes on them, no waiting...either you're good or you're not!

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by Jeffrey N Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:34am PDT

  To Fools and Sages,

  I like the research you did. If you go to the Forbes article (link above), they tell you how they came to get their figures. It does seem a little skewed.

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by COWBOY Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:38am PDT

  IT'S NICE THAT THESE (movie star's) make a lot of MONEY..BUTT IT WOULD BE NICE,IF THEY WOULD GIVE SOME BACK INTO THE COMMUNTY...LIKE 10% TO CHURCH'S & 10% to KID'S WHO REALY NEED YOUR HELP...cause people like me,can't aford to.We only make 100 dollar's a day.compaird to UR 100 THOUSAND an HOUR...SO GIVE BACK A LITTLE ( LOVE )....

  Report Abuse