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.

It's clearer and clearer we can assume patriarchy is involved. It would be crazy not to see it.

FGS. Next people will be questioning why male football or tennis players get paid more than women!

Exactly, greenbean

The reason lots of films are about white men is because they are made by white men. The lack of diversity isn’t because all these female and black or POC film makers are choosing to make another film about little Johnny’s difficult relationship with his father it’s becuase they aren’t behind the camera. Or in the writing room. Or in the production company.

in the first place to offer their experiences.

green While I agree that a lot IS patriarchy we can't assume it ALL is. As for your point about the lack of diversity is because they aren't behind the camera or writing room or production company, that's not always the case either. Going back to Spotlight and its male heavy cast, two of the four producers for female. Moonlight, which won best picture the year before, had three producers, two of which were female. Hurt Locker which won a few years before that was an all male war film directed by a woman.

*were, not for female

And as I said earlier, in the late-80s and early-90s, the highest paid TV actor in the world was female and she also became executive producer and called the shots. It can happen and it does happen, but we don't make enough noise about it when it does happen to keep pushing that envelope/ceiling.

TheHulksPurplePants
The Avengers was an ensemble film - none of the males you've listed was the lead - their parts were comparable sizes to hers.

ShatnersWig
Judi Dench wasn't paid more than Daniel Craig though, was she? Despite being considerably more famous and experienced prior to his Bond role.

Yes, there are examples in ensemble films or amongst supporting roles of women earning more (though actually not that many, and often a reason to explain it, such as Marvel wanting to keep Scarlett Jihanson despite not offering her a solo movie like most of the other members of the avengers had got or were getting). But no-one so far has found an example of a high profile woman in a supporting role earning more than the male lead. (There must be some*, surely? A lot of TV show and films are made every year!) And yet this is used to explain why males in supporting roles "should" earn more than female lead over and over and over again. I'm sick of it.

One I've wondered about is Natalie Portman in the first Thor film. I'd never heard of Chris before that, whereas she was a major star. I'd like to think she was paid more, but can't find any figures.

judo dench

I'm now picturing a whole new career for Dame Judi...

Judi Dench wasn't paid more than Daniel Craig though, was she? Despite being considerably more famous and experienced prior to his Bond role.

She also didn't play the lead role.

Somerville Sigourney Weaver got more in her supporting role in Avatar than the male lead, Sam Worthington.

Erm, yes, that's my point DammitPatrice

When men play a lead role they earn more than females playing supporting roles in almost every instance. Whatever the fame or profile of the woman.
Unlike in this instance with The Crown.

Well done, we finally have an example, ShatnersWig. And good on Sigourney and her agent: About the highest profile actress in the sci-fi genre managed to earn more than a complete unknown male lead.
At least we have one example. But the point remains that an argument is made for high profile supporting males that is not applied to anything like the same extent for females.
Even top actresses in ensemble roles find it hard to earn the same - remember Jennifer Lawrence and Amy Adams vs Renner, Bale and Cooper for American Hustle?

Who the flip is Sam Worhtington? Now Ms Weaver, the award winning Ms Weaver i’ve Actually heard of!!

There’s always exceptions (thank goodness for the Bigelows) but the real it is, we’ll see below...

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/5/25/15690404/glaad-lgbtq-representation-film-not-getting-better

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.refinery29.uk/amp/2016/05/193368/headless-women-film-sexism

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467665890/hollywood-has-a-major-diversity-problem-usc-study-finds

Somerville There may of course be others, that was the first that immediately sprung to mind. Difficulty is a lot of salary information isn't disclosed and of course there are many actors who take percentage profits in addition to salary which can completely change the picture too.

But can anyone answer my question in how you can sensibly judge one role against another if you're in a TV series or film and how you pay fairly and equally and whether experience should have fuck all to do with it? Should all actors be paid a daily rate regardless of how many lines or what the role entails them to do?

Star Wars is quite interesting...

Carrie Fisher earned more than John Boyega, Adam Driver, or Oscar Isaac for The Force Awakens, despite having much less screen time than Boyega and Isaac and being less 'in demand' as a screen actor than either Driver or Isaac.

Harrison Ford earned more still, but received a one-off [SPOILER] salary, whereas Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill were on multi-film deals so negotiated more in the way of 'points'.

Not sure what point that makes, though.

Perhaps Matt Smith simply wouldn't do it for less.

and in terms of women being promoted

Going back to Star Wars, Google "Where's Rey?" for a particularly egregious example of this.

I actually had to google her and just went oh
He is a worldwide known actor (go to Comic-Con and you’ll see how huge he is in the USA)
Maybe she needs a better agent to work on a higher rate for her.

There's always some Good Reason why a man deserves a higher wage than a woman. It's why they still hold onto the majority of the wealth the world over.

I know some on MN love to blame everything on "the patriarchy" but often it's simple economics of demand and supply

Except that you are missing that the demand and supply rests on a sexist system!

It's all very well to say that more famous actors get paid more, but why are male actors in the main more famous? Because there are a lot more leading roles for men than for women, more roles in general. Women are much more likely to be support to male actors than the other way around.
Men are more likely to feature on merchandise etc even when they are lesser characters (Rey from Star Wars is a good example, you'd think she wasn't even in the film if you look at some of the merchandise)o

It's not a simple calculation and it didn't arise out of nowhere, you have to look at how the economics and history come out of a structure and society. Is anyone really surprised that the structure and society are biased towards men?