Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think Claire Foy was not put below a man in her salary for the Crown.

144 replies

alittlebitofc · 26/10/2021 21:12

Ok before I start this, let me know that I am aware men get paid more than women and it needs to stop. There needs to be equality however people are putting things out of context.

One that stuck out to me as not being 'unfair' was the Matt Smith and Claire Foy difference for the Crown in that he got paid more. Whilst I am a big fan of Foy thinking she is a brilliant actress I don't see why she'd be expected to get as much as him because he was a big name before The Crown and she wasn't.
It was Foy's 1st big role so why should she be paid the same as Matt Smith who had played 1 of the biggest roles on tv before it.? That's not how it works.

That is what the show said when it was disputed but I think they were right. It is, in the same way, I'd think that many of the men Meryl Streep or Kate Winslet have starred with over the years in films and had equal screen time yet were not as big as the actresses would not have got less and rightly so as Winslet and Streep are the bigger names.
I also think it is true when big actresses play a support role in a film against a lesser-known male who gets more screen time and this does happen-the actress gets more money and rightly so as she is a bigger name. At the end of the day, the bigger name-male or female can command more money and that's perfectly fair and how the industry works.

OP posts:
Happyfeet1972 · 27/10/2021 01:14

I kind of agree with you OP. I am no Doctor Who fan but there is no denying it's a show with global appeal that millions of people have seen. Little Dorrit or Wolf Hall are hardly mainstream TV, unlike Doctor Who, and therefore regardless of how many MNers happened to see her in Wolf Hall, he was without any doubt, the bigger name. And that would have appealed to Netflix far more than her critical acclaim.

I'm no fan of Dr Who not my kind of thing at all, but perhaps ppl don't realise how big that is worldwide. That said, by series 2 it should have been equal pay and I agree without her it probably wouldnt have been as successful.

TheStoic · 27/10/2021 02:10

The same amount of people would have watched Dr Who whether Matt Smith was in it or not. Or perhaps even more if he wasn't.

He was neither the draw for Dr Who viewers, or The Crown viewers.

notimagain · 27/10/2021 06:44

FWIW link to Claire Foy’s filmography on IMDb

www.imdb.com/name/nm2946516/

Minesril · 27/10/2021 07:40

I first saw her in Going Postal. So Pratchett fans knew who she was. And I'd imagine there to be some crossover with Dr Who fans!

I agree she should have been paid the same, if not more, for the crown.

elbea · 27/10/2021 07:50

I don’t understand why people are being so obtuse about this. She was cast in the Crown before Wolf Hall but even so Wolf Hall had 1/3 of the viewers of Doctor Who. Average of 2.9 v 8.5 million.

More than that Doctor Who is broadcast in over 60 countries with a viewership of 110 million. I can’t understand why there are pages of people adamant that nobody had ever heard of Dr Who or Matt Smith.

EmmaStone · 27/10/2021 07:51

Although I like the idea that they should have been paid the same, ultimately it comes down to how good each of their agents are. Matt Smith likely has a better agent, who demanded more money. Claire Foy's agent could have demanded more, threatened to remove her from the project. They didn't. There isn't exactly a pay scale for these kinds of things.

Happyfeet1972 · 27/10/2021 08:04

@TheStoic but that's not how it works. I would have continued to watch the Crown without them signing up Oliva Colman. She wasn't the draw for anyone who had committed to the first two series and were invested in the show. But yet they still signed a biggish name (obviously not as big as she is now).

I do think people are being obtuse. Trying to say that a BBC2 historical drama was as well known as a show with years of history, merchandise, and an audience globally of 110 million. It doesn't matter that Matt Smith might have been a shit Doctor Who, its that his name was known. I haven't watched a single episode of Dr Who in my life but still knew he was because of that role.

notimagain · 27/10/2021 08:05

More than that Doctor Who is broadcast in over 60 countries with a viewership of 110 million. I can’t understand why there are pages of people adamant that nobody had ever heard of Dr Who or Matt Smith.

You’re right, but Claire Foy isn’t exactly unknown in the States and elsewhere,

She’s an Emmy winner, she has certainly done the rounds of their talk shows over the years, (Jimmy Fallon and others) and was very impressive in her role as Janet Armstrong (Neil Armstrong’s wife) in the “First Man” film..…it’s not as if an American audience is going to say “who”?

filmschoolrejects.com/claire-foy-best-supporting-actress-in-first-man/

TheValeyard · 27/10/2021 08:22

Even if you were correct, you’re saying she should only get paid a wage based on what she’s done before this role, and not purely on the role she’s playing in the crown

It's not realistic to expect anything else. A lesser known actor will always be able to command a lower salary than an internationally recognised star who can pick and choose their own projects. Had they cast Keira Knightley in the role, she would have been able to command a higher rate.

You seem to be conflating your own personal assessment of how well you knew the stars & their work, with some objective appraisal of their fame.

My guess is that at the time Claire Foy's face was not on as many posters, magazine covers, toy boxes, DVDs, book tie-ins or video games, but happy to be corrected.

TractorAndHeadphones · 27/10/2021 08:42

@EmmaStone

Although I like the idea that they should have been paid the same, ultimately it comes down to how good each of their agents are. Matt Smith likely has a better agent, who demanded more money. Claire Foy's agent could have demanded more, threatened to remove her from the project. They didn't. There isn't exactly a pay scale for these kinds of things.
This exactly. They could of course have a blanket ‘leads get paid the most’. But if the lead is - not an unknown, but less in demand than the more well known supporting cast it doesn’t work…

Futhermore the plan was always to change cast every 2 seasons.

2021namechanger · 27/10/2021 08:48

Now much easier Olivia Coleman paid vs Claire Foy?
Am guessing it was probably more. Can anyone see why?

Hobbesmanc · 27/10/2021 08:49

I think the demographic that would be likely to watch the Crown- historical drama, costume drama, serious drama- would have already seen Foy ( Wolf Hall, Dickens, Upstairs Downstairs) rather tthan Dr Who?

Ozanj · 27/10/2021 08:53

@Hobbesmanc

I think the demographic that would be likely to watch the Crown- historical drama, costume drama, serious drama- would have already seen Foy ( Wolf Hall, Dickens, Upstairs Downstairs) rather tthan Dr Who?
This is a Netflix show not an itv or BBC one. The demographic would not have known Foy as well as Smith. But that isn’t the point really and Netflix have now realised this. The Crown is female centric & as such the females playing the main role should have been the highest paid regardless of how well known they were (or weren’t).
WrapAroundYourDreams · 27/10/2021 08:54

I agree @Hobbesmanc , along with people who would have been drawn in by the royal family.

She was a very clever choice for the role actually and I still think they needed her as someone with a reputation for being a serious, well respected actress, otherwise it had the potential to be viewed as trash. If I were the queen I'd have been happy they chose Claire Foy anyway Grin and very grateful not to be portrayed by Keira Knightley

Dozer · 27/10/2021 08:57

For that Netflix show, given both their previous roles, it was very unfair for Claire Foy not to have been paid more than Matt Smith.

Dozer · 27/10/2021 09:01

She literally WAS paid below a man, when she should have been paid more than the man, for reasons that don’t stack up.

Ozanj · 27/10/2021 09:06

@Dozer

She literally WAS paid below a man, when she should have been paid more than the man, for reasons that don’t stack up.
Yep. It didn’t matter who played the female Lead - that Lead should always have been paid more than the supporting characters. Netflix have now realised this which is good and hopefully they don’t do this again.
notimagain · 27/10/2021 09:11

@Hobbesmanc

I think the demographic that would be likely to watch the Crown- historical drama, costume drama, serious drama- would have already seen Foy ( Wolf Hall, Dickens, Upstairs Downstairs) rather tthan Dr Who?
Agreed

Dr Who has indeed got massive following but as I think someone posted upthread, that’s probably because it’s “ the Doctor”, rather than the actor..

In fact over the years it does appear you can switch the lead actor in Dr Who pretty much when you want and people keep watching….

Peggytheredhen · 27/10/2021 09:14

I disagree. Claire's role was bigger than Matt's, and she has a long history in serious acting. Which is what The Crown was.

name532 · 27/10/2021 09:16

The Crown wasn't Foy's first big role, she was the lead actress in a Hollywood film! (girl with the dragoon tattoo) arguably she was much more internationally known in that Matt Smith's fame was largely from Dr Who, which whilst it has a market in the US it's not as big as here.

SJWsAtItAgain · 27/10/2021 09:20

Although I like the idea that they should have been paid the same, ultimately it comes down to how good each of their agents are. Matt Smith likely has a better agent, who demanded more money. Claire Foy's agent could have demanded more, threatened to remove her from the project. They didn't. There isn't exactly a pay scale for these kinds of things.

Yes and no. Agents can only 'demand' but have no power once contract is signed. There's no way they can even think of threatening to remove anyone from a project they've signed a contract to do unless they want to go through a lawsuit or agree on some damages with the company.

Also the agent can negotiate anything they want before contract but those factors mentioned earlier still will be considered before the industry execs agree to pay. If they can't justify the pay vs the money/pull they'll make from the actor, they'll go with someone else if they insist on being paid what they won't give.

It's why a good agent must negotiate contract re-evaluation and renegotiation after a season or so, yet not everyone can pull such a contract clause, depending on the duration of the contract.

The only time someone in the media has the upper hand to demand something is if they were headhunted for the role or once their contract is up and the show still needs them to go on. Like they did in Friends.

ImUninsultable · 27/10/2021 09:26

@name532

No. She was not. That was Rooney Mara.

ImUninsultable · 27/10/2021 09:32

@name532

Claire Foy was cast in The Girl in the Spider's web. Which was years after The Crown came out. So would have nothing to do with her contract negotiations for The Crown. She was not yet a star of a Hollywood film.

Rooney Mara played the role in the earlier movies.

TheStoic · 27/10/2021 10:09

Basically, when it comes to film and TV, you are paid based on your previous role/s. Not the current role.

So if everyone who claims this is not misogyny, and is just ‘show biz’, is correct…Claire Foy will be paid much more than Matt Smith for their next roles.

So let’s find out.

Jujujuly · 27/10/2021 10:34

Matt Smith probably was better known but I still don’t think that justifies him getting paid more than her given that she was the lead. If they thought she was good enough to play the Queen (ie the leading role) then her pay should have reflected that.

Presumably they didn’t cast Claire Foy in preference to some bigger name just because she was cheaper - they must have thought she was the best actor for the job - so why pay her less than a co star?

Swipe left for the next trending thread