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

[alittlebitofc]

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.

*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*

exactly this.

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

you could use that flimsy argument on the crown as well on foy's role and every role going ever.

*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*

it' because people think it's a man vs woman thread when it isn't. If a poster here came on saying that Kate Winslet gets the biggest salary in many of her projects, which she does, and the lesser-known male actors she stars with should get the same people would not be acting like this.

The same is true for big stars like Meryl Steep, she starred in the River Wild In 94 and was the only female in a cast of 4 other males. Yet likely her salary would have been more than all of the males combined and rightly so as she was the biggest name. Whether you have preferred the other actors more or not is not relevant. It's the bigger names who will get the money.

It's the same way Suranne Jones, Jenna Coleman, Michelle Keegan and Sarah Lanchashire will get paid more than all the men they work with. Because they are all bigger names. Would any of you disagree with that?

*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*

yes but you are alluding to her roles after she made it big in the crown, I and other posters were pointing out that pre crown she didn't have near the fame that matt smith did.

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

hate to tell you, your agent can only claim the big bucks if your name is big.

@incywincyspiders

She should have got more money as she was top billed/the forefront of the show: regardless of gender or how big a star she is.

Someone who has played the Doctor will have more name and face recognition, and so I don't think Foy should have been paid more for her perceived 'big name' factor. I do though agree she should have been paid more for The Crown for the reason given here.

The problem is this: it comes from an industry that have awarded male stars higher status than females (typically) because films that have traditonally been put into production tend to be male-led, presumably because those green-lighting them tend to be men and there has been an assumption that female-driven stories will not sell. That is still the case, despite a few female-driven films making it through (though there is change).

That leads to male stars being bigger than female stars. Not a hard and fast rule, more a tendancy that has meant if you look at any 'highest paid' actor list you will find the men vastly outnumber the women. Those men then get the power to greenlight films and tend to choose to greenlight male-driven stories - thus perpetuating the issue.

So, you take a single example of The Crown and MAYBE Claire Foy got paid less because she was the lesser star. But the history that has come before it means everyone is suspicious of that. Because it happens in an industry that has traditonally paid women less just because thery are women (dressing it up with all sorts of nonsense to excuse it).

I'd like to think there was some change going on to reverse that and certainly more female-driven stories are being made. But the fact that I know that means I've noted it as being something exceptional. So change is not complete to a level where it's normal to see 50% of the films and TV series driven by good female characters. Too often, they are still the 20-words-in-the-whole-thing wife or daughter or girlfriend.

@Dbakl

?? I had seen Claire Foy in way more stuff than Matt Smith before the Crown.

I think Matt Smith was Dr Who before that told, wasn’t he? He was bound to be more widely known than Clare Foy, surely.

I’d to Google her though

@alittlebitofc

I'll say it again. I can sort of be OK with it for season 1. Matt Smith was more well known (not on mumsnet but in household name recognition, yes he was) but by season 2, Foy had proven her popularity, her critical acclaim and the audience loved her in it. They still didnt correct the pay.

You think posters here are ignoring his name recognition because they just want to argue against him as he is a man, but you're ignoring the fact that it continued into season 2 when their previous fame was no longer applicable because it doesnt fit your argument that this had nothing to do with sex.

I watched the show because of Jared Harris. He wasnt in it for long but that's why I first watched. I wonder what he got paid.

I can understand your reasoning that there can be multiple factors in deciding how much different actors get paid but I disagree that Matt Smith was significantly better known than Claire Foy. I also think just because actors are well known from one famous show doesn't mean that they will necessarily draw people in to a different type of show - think of the main actors from Downton Abbey and Game of Thrones which had much bigger audiences than Dr Who and were the biggest shows in the world while they aired but after they left most of the actors just went back to normal roles and didn't command huge salaries for their next projects.

It's relevant that they weren't on the same level in relation to their importance to the show. If for example you were saying it makes sense for Vanessa kirby to be paid less than matt Smith because she is lesser known then I could see the reasoning as they were both supporting characters. But Claire Foy was not only the lead but the titular role which is why it's ridiculous that a male actor in a supporting role to be paid less than her.

By your reasoning OP, say someone really really famous like Brad Pitt had a small role in one episode would it be fair for him to be paid more than Claire Foy who was in every episode just because he's more famous?

Sick of this whole ‘men get paid more that women’ bollocks. What about organisations such as the NHS who have Agenda for Change, a standardised pay scale. It’s simply not possible for a man on (say) a B6 to get paid more than a woman assuming they’ve been there the exact same number of years as there are pay points within the bands.

Where women do technically earn less is because they often take time out of the workforce to raise a family. However, a man could do that but often in a nuclear family the woman seems to want to stay at home. A woman can’t then whinge when she goes back into the workforce after 10 years at home that she’s earning less. Of course she is, she’s been at home.

The upside is that she’s spent time that you can’t get back with the kids.

Honestly so sick of this.

Speaking of Matt Smith, fun fact - he's starring in the Game of Thrones prequel, House of Dragon, coming out next year.

Perhaps the fact that there are several pages of people arguing about who was a bigger name/more worthy/more popular/better actor/more highly respected suggests that in fact that isn't an objective measure at all, it is a matter of opinion and context, and where there is very little in the way of objective criteria, perhaps they should start from something approaching a more level playing field (which doesn't necessarily mean paying precisely the same).

And there is no getting away from the fact that it was inexcusable by the time season 2 was being made, and it's very hard to put that down to anything other than an assumption that men get paid more, because they always have. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck etc....

well, just because the BBC made a huge reveal of... Matt Smith (as The Doctor) doesn't make him a big name. I'd never heard of him.

She had a lot more screen time, did more work and got paid less. par for the course as a woman.

@BigYellowHat

You're being disingenuous and you know it.

The gender pay gap is not about being paid less for like for like work. It is about companies with 90% of their senior workforce being men and 10% being women.
Loads of women at the bottom, but they dont get promoted up. So men earn more than women because they have more chances and more senior roles. Women are passed over.
Our working careers span decades. If women take 2 or 3 years off for maternity, that should have no impact on access to promotions and senior positions. But it does. Women are not, generally speaking, promoted to senior roles anywhere where as often as men.

That is the gender pay gap. Men have jobs with higher salaries. Women are left at the bottom.

There is also the issue of companies still trying to get around legislation of equal pay for equal work and paying men more than women. Not everywhere has salary bands. There is negotiation for salaries and women are told no more than men.

You cannot deny facts that have been widely looked into and published. It isnt just affecting women who take 10 years off to raise kids and go back at a low level. Its affecting women all over the place. If you want to pretend it doesn't happen then at least keep that to yourself.

@ImUninsultable I’ll take onboard all your points but don’t tell me to ‘keep that to myself’ That is the problem with society and today’s cancel culture, some people don’t like others having a different point of view.

@BigYellowHat

But this isn't a matter of opinion. I'd never tell someone to keep an unmeasurable (is that a word?) opinion to themselves. Such as who is the better actor, Claire Foy or Matt Smith. Cant measure that. It's an opinion.

The gender pay gap is not an opinion. It is hard fact seen over and over in data which has been studied and published for many many years by so many different organisations and researchers. It isnt an opinion to be debated.

@Brefugee

well, just because the BBC made a huge reveal of... Matt Smith (as The Doctor) doesn't make him a big name. I'd never heard of him.

She had a lot more screen time, did more work and got paid less. par for the course as a woman.

The reveal is when someone first takes the role of the Doctor. The Crown came after Dr Who, at a point by which Matt Smith was more famous/recognised than Claire Foy.

[quote ImUninsultable]@BigYellowHat

But this isn't a matter of opinion. I'd never tell someone to keep an unmeasurable (is that a word?) opinion to themselves. Such as who is the better actor, Claire Foy or Matt Smith. Cant measure that. It's an opinion.

The gender pay gap is not an opinion. It is hard fact seen over and over in data which has been studied and published for many many years by so many different organisations and researchers. It isnt an opinion to be debated.[/quote]
Agree with this. You can't argue society or 'cancel culture' when it's facts being talked about.

@BigYellowHat

Sick of this whole ‘men get paid more that women’ bollocks. What about organisations such as the NHS who have Agenda for Change, a standardised pay scale. It’s simply not possible for a man on (say) a B6 to get paid more than a woman assuming they’ve been there the exact same number of years as there are pay points within the bands.

Where women do technically earn less is because they often take time out of the workforce to raise a family. However, a man could do that but often in a nuclear family the woman seems to want to stay at home. A woman can’t then whinge when she goes back into the workforce after 10 years at home that she’s earning less. Of course she is, she’s been at home.

The upside is that she’s spent time that you can’t get back with the kids.

Honestly so sick of this.

Even women who return to work full-time after having kids are promoted less than their male peers. www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/women-work-career-promotion-childbirth-new-mothers-fathers-a9165926.html%3famp

Because work and promotions have been built on the model of a fully committed man with a wife managing all family responsibilities.

@IntermittentParps
The reveal is when someone first takes the role of the Doctor.

I know. And if you remember they built it up to this MASSIVE thing as though it was going to be a) totally surprising and b) somebody everyone absolutely adores and has heard of and it would be HUGE and then it was

"MATT SMITH!!" and everyone went "who?"
Which is what i was referring to.

He got big on the back of Who, but he was largely unknown before that and a truly dire and uninspired choice which was only topped for ridiculousness by the absolute dog's dinner they made of it by casting Capaldi.

(I really don't care in acting who gets paid more because the dynamics are not like regular jobs. But i do object to the "Matt Smith is a huge star that's why he was the Doctor" inferences that I'm getting from this thread)

[quote Brefugee]@IntermittentParps
The reveal is when someone first takes the role of the Doctor.

I know. And if you remember they built it up to this MASSIVE thing as though it was going to be a) totally surprising and b) somebody everyone absolutely adores and has heard of and it would be HUGE and then it was

"MATT SMITH!!" and everyone went "who?"
Which is what i was referring to.

He got big on the back of Who, but he was largely unknown before that and a truly dire and uninspired choice which was only topped for ridiculousness by the absolute dog's dinner they made of it by casting Capaldi.

(I really don't care in acting who gets paid more because the dynamics are not like regular jobs. But i do object to the "Matt Smith is a huge star that's why he was the Doctor" inferences that I'm getting from this thread)[/quote]
I'm not sure you're inferring correctly. People are largely trying to say that MS was paid more for The Crown because by then, AFTER being the Doctor, he was a big star.
The way he was revealed as the Doctor, and his level of fame at that point, is irrelevant.
I said that in my original post, but you didn't quote or address it.

I’m not sure if people are obtuse or genuinely not that clever.

Prior to The Crown - Matt Smith was most definitely an actor who had been seen by more people across the globe (this is a Netflix show remember)

Should pay have leveled in season 2? Quite possibly. But perhaps the contract was always for both seasons.

Olivia Coleman - also likely bought in as a “big name”. I expect she was paid more than either of them.

YABU thinking that Claire Foy was a nobody before The Crown.

There are also opinion polls or 'testing' done on entertainers and if someone like Matt tests better/has a higher rating or majority voters on the polls than Claire (for whatever reason), that goes into consideration too.