Edward Furlong only made $35,000 for Terminator 2. Arnie made 15 MILLION! - General Discussion Discussion

[–] blue1981 (6947) a year ago

He was an unknown kid in his very first movie. What do you expect to happen?

reply

[–] Ticketsplease (4024) a year ago

A decent cut of the profits it would go on to make would be a nice start.

reply

[–] CaptainIII (142) a year ago

Maybe don’t be in the movie then if 35 grand isn’t enough

reply

[–] Ticketsplease (4024) a year ago

Take it or leave it is actually exploitation.

reply

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1648) a year ago

Not when "leave it" is an option.

reply

[–] CaptainIII (142) a year ago

I bought the dvd for 25 bucks . I got paid nothing to watch it . I’d like my fair share too

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

exactly.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52970) a year ago

That's because Edward wasn't on set Furlong.

reply

[–] Ticketsplease (4024) a year ago

It was actually a 5 month shoot and it shows with Edward looking considerably younger later in the movie (scenes must have been shot first).

reply

[–] Kowalski (63527) a year ago

WEAK.

reply

[–] sslssg (30224) a year ago

I don't know. I was actually thinking about this the other day when I was thinking about wage gaps and how billionaires shouldn't actually exist. I was thinking about Hollywood and how like when Keanu Reeves made 30 million for a film he donated 75% of that to cancer research. Admirable right? But, the studio could have paid Keanu say 15 or 20 million (which lets admit still is a ridiculous amount of money) and took the remaining 10 - 15 million that they would have paid him and split that up between the rest of the cast and crew. I mean now a days a lot of the stars wind up with profit share agreements so they end up making a lot more than just that initial 20 or 30 million. Why not pay the rest of the cast and crew more? Movie doesn't get made without them.

reply

[–] Kowalski (63527) a year ago

I DO NOT DISAGREE...I WILL SAY...YOU HAVE TO EARN YOUR PAY...IF I STARTED A JOB TOMORROW...THE EXPERIENCED PEOPLE WORKING THAT JOB WILL BE MAKING MORE THAN ME....FOR A WHILE TOO...UNTIL I BECOME AN "EQUAL"...FURLONG PROBABLY DESERVED MORE MONEY...THAT JUST ISN'T HOW IT WORKS.

reply

[–] WandererFromYs (1893) a year ago

Because Keanu is a Star. Just putting him in the movie is enough for it to earn money. If they offer him less than his worth, he might pass and do something else where they will pay him his worth, meanwhile they are going to have to try getting another celebrity of his Calibur while also low balling them. Good Luck with that. The Star brings in more than enough money to offset their own salary, or the studios wouldn’t pay them.

The rest of the cast is the total opposite. They don’t have worth, or they would’ve negotiated better when they took the job. They are all interchangeable, and the movie would’ve got made without them.

People get paid what they are worth. Businesses don’t just throw extra money at people to be nice. If they couldn’t do it without them, they would have to pay them more, but they don’t.

reply

[–] sslssg (30224) a year ago

Did I say that he wasn't the star? No. I'm talking about one person getting 20 million, while their coworkers get paid standard daily rate. Keanu, the Rock, sure they are a draw, but there wouldn't be a movie without everyone else working on it.

reply

[–] WandererFromYs (1893) a year ago

The Star makes or breaks the movie, Everyone else is replaceable, and their pay reflects this.

reply

[–] sslssg (30224) a year ago

So are stars. I do disagree that the star makes or breaks the movie. It helps sure, but there have been movies starring unknowns that have done well and movies with big stars have flopped.

All I am saying is that a movie isn't made by one person. Just like companies don't exist without employees (or at least they don't until AI replaces them) Should the people in charge make more? Absolutely. Do they need to make 1000x more than everyone else? Hell no.

reply

[–] WandererFromYs (1893) a year ago

Of course that happens, but you are using the exceptions to try and prove the rule.

The Star makes or breaks the movie in terms of Budget, Marketing, and Box office. Not necessarily the quality of the movie. But they do directly affect the amount of money it makes, and they are paid accordingly. Most of the staff doesn’t have that kind of impact, and can be replaced by anybody, so they are also paid accordingly, meaning the lowest amount they can get away with paying them.

The problem with what you are suggesting is that it just doesn’t make business sense. You just think it would be nice.

reply

[–] sslssg (30224) a year ago

I'm not using exceptions.

Also how does it not make sense?

You say they are paid accordingly. According to who? It's only recently that athletes, actors, and CEOs made so much.

There have been several stars who have divvied up what they took so their costars could get more. Will Smith, Jack Black (he cut his salary by 11 million so he'd be paid the same as Kyle Glass for Tenacious D), Keanu Reeves has taken less money on several projects. Not all stars are greedy. If someone can't do something for 10 million instead of 20 so that others on the project can get a little more money then their priorities are messed up.

Again, the movies don't get made by just one person. Amazon doesn't run without delivery drivers. Teslas don't get made without engineers and labourers.

reply

[–] CaptainIII (142) a year ago

You got this

reply

[–] WandererFromYs (1893) a year ago

The market determines their value. Just as it does for any other actor, celebrity, athlete etc. Top stars have are going to have a dozen other scripts and a dozen other offers. So if the actor can get 20 million from someone else, and a studio offers him 10, they will probably just go elsewhere, unless it’s a project that they really want to be a part of. The price only becomes too high when they can’t find someone to pay them. Then they have to come down on their price, or they will be out of work. That is how the market works.

Unfortunately most of the cast doesn’t have the leverage to negotiate. They are replaceable. If they ask for too much, they since higher the cheaper option. The same way you would. If you need repairs to your house, don’t you call around and get estimates? I assume you don’t go with the highest one, no one does. But then you want to be generous with other peoples money.

I said it doesn’t make sense because it’s not based on the market, it’s based solely on someone else’s generosity. Jack Black is great friend for that, but he still got the salary he deserved and had say in the allocation of the funds. If they didn’t do what he wanted with it, I’m sure it would’ve been a problem.

reply

[–] sslssg (30224) a year ago

Unfortunately most of the cast doesn’t have the leverage to negotiate. They are replaceable.

Absolutely everyone is replaceable. Even so called stars.

reply

[–] Keelai (32646) a year ago

Keanu shared his Matrix money with the crew. He's a decent man.
https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/amazing-story-keanu-reeves-gave-away-75-million-matrix-salary/

The small amount that Edward made was exploitation.

reply

[–] sslssg (30224) a year ago

I just used him because he was paid a lot for that movie. Keanu has done that more that once from what I've heard.

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) a year ago

He also gave personalized Rolexes to his stunt doubles on the most recent John Wick.

reply

[–] Ticketsplease (4024) a year ago

I think it was exploitation and wonder why Arnie and James couldn't have thrown in a few more zeros on his measly paycheck.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Still overpaid.

reply

[–] TandyMan (10646) a year ago

He'd have just blown all that money on drugs anyhow.

reply

[–] WandererFromYs (1893) a year ago

Because Arnold was an established star, and was already the fucking Terminator. He was the star. They could’ve gotten anyone to play John Connor, and they did. It was Edward Furlongs first movie.

For comparison, Arnold was l
Paid 12k for his first movie role.

reply

[–] Ticketsplease (4024) a year ago

"they could’ve gotten anyone to play John Connor"...they literally couldn't, they auditioned dozens of boys from talent agencies who were no good, hence the casting agents were tasked with going out and finding a boy who could both play street tough but vulnerable and needing of protection. Furlong was approached playing basketball in Pasadena boys club.

reply

[–] jriley555 (7227) a year ago

Support of vast hierarchical disparities has been baked into our culture. The OP has a point. Would it have killed the 'investors' to spread a little of that vast sugar mountain around to the people who helped create it ?

It is not inconceivable that profit-sharing could be part of the basic program.

reply

[–] WandererFromYs (1893) a year ago

He doesn’t have a point. Edward Furlong was a nobody. It was his first movie role. If he had been a known child actor, like Elijah Wood or McCauley Culkin he would’ve got paid, because those names would get people to see the movie. Or if he had been an already established character, which he wasn’t. He didn’t benefit this film in anyway going in to it, so why would they pay him more?

Arnold on the other hand was both an established Star, and the Star of the first movie. If you replace him with an unknown actor, it would’ve been one of those action movie sequels that you forgot even existed.

reply

[–] jriley555 (7227) a year ago

You reject his point. That doesn't mean he doesn't have one. Large distinction. You insist that your perception of the economic paradigm is the only possible/legitimate/conceivable one. It is not.

People sometimes differ.

reply

[–] WandererFromYs (1893) a year ago

That doesn’t mean that their perception is based on reality. People are often generous with other peoples money. When it’s a big studio or corporation, they always think they should pay. But when it comes out of their own pocket the hypocrisy will come out.

reply

[–] Kowalski (63527) a year ago

💯

reply

[–] jriley555 (7227) a year ago

You have the notion that the way things are is the only possible way they could ever be, actually missed the point of the OP entirely. He was not attempting to describe current conventions, but the underlying justice of them.

Now, you may think the way things are is absolutely perfect just as they are. But try to imagine that others may not be in perfect agreement with that assessment.

That's all. We are entitled to different concepts of a more perfect economic social contract, are we not ?

There was a once a guy named Dr. Pangloss, who took it as axiomatic that 'we live in the best of all possible worlds'. However that guy was a joke. Don't be that guy. But do read the book he is a character in - it's hilarious :

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19942/19942-h/19942-h.htm

reply

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

That's how Hollywood works. Sometimes movies are made co-starring someone who makes about a billion and someone who makes scale. The pay raise comes with the NEXT job. If an actor gets paid nothing for one role, and the result is a hit, they get paid a million for the next role.

And that's one reason why acting has become a job for rich kids and the beneficiaries of nepotism. Acting doesn't pay enough to live on until you're a success, so the only people able to break in are those who have enough financial support to basically pay to work.

reply

[–] Ticketsplease (4024) a year ago

I'd love to know what he made for his appearance in the Universal Studios attraction Terminator 2:3D, and his brief appearance in Terminator Dark Fate. I hope it was a case of 'let's make it up to him and throw him a good pay day.'

reply