That Claire Foy has been paid less than Matt Smith

[Rollonweekend]

This is disgraceful. She was the main actress and yet Matt was paid more?? I'm stunned.

I was surprised by that, although I suppose I shouldn't have been.

I can partly understand for the first series as he was a higher profile actor but it’s outrageous that they were not paid the same (or indeed Foy more) for series two. By that point The Crown was a runaway success and Foy as high profile, or higher, than Smith.

matt was a higher profile actor, so guessing he cost more. experience and box office draw is very important.

Yes it's more to do with the fact that at the point the contracts were signed for series one Matt smith had just spent four years playing possiably the best known Tv Sci fi character in the world where as Claire foy was fairly unknown.
I'm not sure but is it posiable they signed up for the two series at the same time, which is why she was still paid less for series two.
maybe production companies should have some sort of sliding scale that the pay goes up it's awards and recongnision.

I understand the frustration that this seems to be another case of unequal pay, especially given that fly was the main character, but it's about the fact smith was in a more recoignisable position originally, I don't disagree though that it should have evened out for series 2 when foy was achieved more status.

For series 1 perhaps but she was the main draw in Series two surely?

Yes but if the contracts for series two were signed at the same time as series one.

Like I say I partly understand the frustration but production companies just don't have that sliding scale prehaps they should

The question is however who was worth more?

My opinion is that Claire was worth more than him in the role and thats the constant frustration that women feel... I work in HR and I'm conscious that when a woman does an equal job she should be paid the same. Its not difficult.

Well thats slightly disingenuois, worth in acting implys experience. Although i understand why youd think we're talking about 'worth'

Matt was worth more because he was more experenced, percieved to be better, he had proof that he was, substancial proof, its called having a CV in acting.

You say you work in HR, if some one does the same job they get paid the same, thats not quite true is it, theres a banding scale in a lot of jobs, nursing, teaching, NQT (newly qualified teachers) get paid less than band 5 teachers. Their doing the same job.

Based on experience and expertise some people do get paid more.

In this case Foy was seen as new, sugnificantly less experienced, the pressure to promote the series was on Smith, indeed i've only heard of the series because of him, hes the one that did the interviews, launched the series. Based largly on the fact he was doctor who. He was used to interviews, he could speak the press lingo, he knew what to say and when to say it, that tesponsiablity fell to him.

Same way as sone one newly qualied and less experienced in most jobs would be paid less as they would be deemed to have less responsablity.

Yes theres a question over series 2, but that depends on when contracts were signed and wether foy could have been rewarded for the achievements of series 1.

BUt when you work in the private sector its not enough to produce results for just one year, you have to do it every year.

Yes walking which is why theres a debate over series 2, that given the switch in responsablity she should have been rewarded finacially for that. Im just asking the question when were the contracts signed and implying that peoduction companies should have a mechinism to cope with that change.

But orginally it was the case that smith was the more experienced

People aren't 'rewarded'. They're paid what they're worth / as little as the employer can.

Matt is a much more well-known actor and had a much higher profile. As someone who works in HR, surely you know that they weren't doing the same job or bringing the same things to the programme. They weren't worth the same.

Were they on a 2 year (series) contract?

TBH I know who Matt Smith (and know he is a brilliant actor) is but have never heard of Clare Foy so would expect Matt to be paid more, irrelevant of their sexes.

I have also never heard of Clare Foy, only realised who you were talking about when reading your post. Matt is obviously more well known and more of a draw to viewers?

are you not rewarded with a pay raise when you get promotion then? Is everyone in your HR department on the same pay grade are they, regardless of capability, experience and responsibility? In fact is every one in your company on the same pay?

What's the point of career progression, experience, or quality of work then? Or are people indeed rewarded for having a better CV. cos I think they are, in the private sector more than any where else so your people aren't rewarded is nonsense

Matt smith could turn up and go I can and have led a cast, I can and have been in pressurised interviews, I can be in this situation, this is the quality of work you are going to get out of me, this is how I behave at work, this is what my previous employers who by the way happen to be the team behind two of the biggest selling shows international at the moment think of me. Claire foy could only go well I've trained to do this, I've got limited experience, but thank you for thinking I can handle this role.

I don't know they were on two year contracts, but for instance Matt got a four year contract as doctor who when he was in Claire's position, i.e. Having no CV, SO it is posiable that Netflix were so confident about the series, probably based btw on matts experience and popularity, that they were.

Yes the debate is about series 2 absolutely, but the original reason is due to mats experience and standing

It depends when the contract for Season 2 was signed.

For Season 1, it's perfectly understandable/justifiable that, despite Foy playing the main role, Smith is the better known actor and therefore attracts a higher rate.

So, it depends when the contract for S2 was negotiated and signed.

Leading a cast btw is a massive massive responsibility

Exactly beagle that's what I'm saying

Actually he has only 2 years on her, compare the two on wiki

I think they had two year contracts did they not? Just as Olivia Coleman is already signed up for series 3 and 4.

I don't think it's surprising that Matt Smith was laid more than Claire Foy. Just as it won't be surprising if Olivia Coleman is paid more if her co-star is less well known.

*paid more!

I have no idea how often Matt smith gets laid

My guess is that they signed three year contracts from the beginning, as that was the vision for the show. The producers would have been foolish to not sign them up for more than a series at a time, as there was no way this show wasn't going to be a runaway hit.

While there is certainly a gender pay discrepancy in Hollywood, Claire Foy was unknown and Matt Smith was the headliner, regardless of their actual roles in the show. So at the time, him making more makes sense.

It's like Robert Downey Junior pulling in 10 million an Avengers movie, while the rest of the cast are lucky if they pull in 6 figures (I believe Chris Hemsworth & Chris Evans originally signed up for less than a million a movie, with bonuses if it did well).

Clearly they paid what they had to to get Matt Smith, fresh from Doctor Who, and what they had to to get Claire Foy, whose biggest part was, I think, Anne Boleyn in Wolf Hall? Smith is paid more because he costs more.

I agree that Smith was more experienced in leading a major series and that's why he was paid more. But also, its the agents that negotiate the fees. Smith probably has a top flight agent as a result of who he is, and that agent has more clout in the industry and is more experienced in negotiating a higher fee than maybe Foy's agent. Netflix is a private company. They will pay what they need to. They were able to get Claire for less money than they were able to get Smith.They probably should have then upped her fee for the second series though, agent or no agent and hopefully as a result of the publicity, they will rectify that. IIRC, Matt Smith was paid 1/4 what David Tennant was paid for Doctor Who in his first series. By the end, he was able to negotiate a broadly equal pay.

They did sign 2 year contracts for The Crown. Netflix commissioned 2 years and gave them the 100m budget for 2 years. Apparently they will have pay parity for future series, presumably as they will need older and equally experienced actors.

I cannot abide MS. That said, I have just finished The Crown and arguably he was still the better actor of the two. They were both superb, but I didn't feel I learned anything more about the real Queen from CF, whereas MS showed facets of Philip that made me think more, if that makes any sense.

I think it's disingenuous to turn it into a Hollywoodesque equality argument tbh, if Helen Mirren were cast as, say, Camilla in a series about Charles, and a newcomer who has played minor roles in stuff beforehand gets Charles then HM is going to get more on the contract.

I wonder too if, despite CF's brilliance, it would have taken off if the actor playing Philip hadn't been MS.

I am v much looking forward to seeing OC though.