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.

@2021namechanger

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.

Bit rude. Don't think anyone is saying they don't understand why MS was paid more as even the show itself has stated this was the reason. The comments appear to be discussing if this was fair. OP seems to think yes, others disagree on the basis that possibly more name recognition shouldnt trump other factors. People aren't obtuse or stupid for having different opinions.

@tractorandheadphones has said what I was going to say to @bigyellowhat's stupid comment. In addition to which just because most public sector roles have a clear pay scale which shouldn't allow for sex discrimination doesn't mean this is the case for all other bodies and organisations where it is perfectly possible for two people doing the same job to be paid differently.

Additionally there have been loads of cases where even "fair" payscales have been challenged because the job has been evaluated at a certain level linked with the sex of staff normally doing it - warehouse packers and stackers (normally men) being on a higher payscale than in store checkout operators and shelf stackers (more usually female) despite the jobs being very similar, for example.

@SpinachIsAGatewayDrug

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.

This is an excellent post - there are structural inequalities across film and television which reduce opportunities for women and consequently diminish their earning potential.

Beyonce got paid a whole lot more than Donald glover for lion king as far as I know.

Beyonce got paid a whole lot more than Donald glover for lion king as far as I know

Of course. People here are too blinded by the fact that a man got paid more than a woman rather than look at it with logic and reason. The fact that Matt Smith who played 1 of the biggest tv roles in Britain is being questioned here is laughable. Yes, Foy is now a big star too and will likely overtake him in her career but the idea here she was as famous before the show is laughable and I think posters are being deliberately difficult.

How does that seem fair to you

Many industries have newbies doing similar hours to established employees and mgmt but will be on a lot less money, that's life. Are you actually telling me new recruits should have their pay ramped up to more established? Bonkers thinking.

@marilynmason

How does that seem fair to you

Many industries have newbies doing similar hours to established employees and mgmt but will be on a lot less money, that's life. Are you actually telling me new recruits should have their pay ramped up to more established? Bonkers thinking.

Payscales are a completely different thing. If you are the main character in a tv show and the show is basically about YOUR character, you should be paid more than the secondary character. It's unfathomable that you think otherwise.

He was clearly a much bigger pull and drew in a specific, international fan base.

I disagree. No one tuned in to Episode 1 of Series 1 to see what Phil was up to.

I won't pretend I knew much about Claire Foy before The Crown and of course I'd heard of Matt Smith (although hadn't seen him in Dr Who as I don't usually watch it) but I was watching for the glossy production etc etc.

I would say he was only chosen because he's an actor who bears a passing resemblance to Prince Philip in a certain light (which is why Olivia Coleman should have played an older Princess Margaret although that might have deprived us of Helena Bonham Carter's glorious portrayal.).

I don't know enough about the business to know if you are "right" about the pay situation OP but I do wonder what Claire Foy ever did to you for you to be so dismissive of her and her work.

‘when it comes to film and TV, you are paid based on your previous role/s’

That is also part of the sex discrimination in the industry, since there are far, far more roles for men.

Some sexist assumptions about mothers who work PT or SAH from BigYellowHat. Not relevant to the Netflix unequal (discriminatory) pay practices.

That is also part of the sex discrimination in the industry, since there are far, far more roles for men

I would say this was true in the past but not near as much these days.

I never watched Doctor Who, but I did watch Wolf Hall and loved Claire Foy in it.

Even so, I would agree that Matt Smith was a bigger name than Claire when The Crown first aired. For that reason, I'm not surprised she was paid less. Nothing to do with talent or being 'accomplished' - I'd say she's a much better actor than Matt Smith - but he was the bigger name at the time.

Also, for those saying she 'deserved' the same pay and 'should have been paid the same', why would Netflix pay more than her agent negotiated? No employer will pay you more than they have to because they think you 'deserve' it. They'll pay what the market rate is for someone of your skills, and, in the case of actors, what their agent can negotiate.

Now, of course, Claire is a big star and able to command very large salaries. Which is good, as she's one of the most talented actresses of her generation.

I disagree. No one tuned in to Episode 1 of Series 1 to see what Phil was up to.

You are missing the point, a big name attracts attention to any project regardless of their role. Attention is exactly what the show wants as this then attracts viewers. That is why big names get more money. Foy herself will get better money now than many men and female actors she shares screen time with even when their role might be bigger because frankly, she's the bigger name.

I don't know enough about the business to know if you are "right" about the pay situation OP but I do wonder what Claire Foy ever did to you for you to be so dismissive of her and her work

well then if you are ignorant to how it works you will know the op and other posters have nothing personally against Foy and are just pointing out how the industry works for all in it. Who is being dismissive of her work? And if you don't know much about a topic then maybe best to listen to what others are telling you and don't be going in for a dig just because you disagree with it. x

@ShaneTheThird

This argument is particularly funny given Matt Smith is one of the least popular Drs ever

Interesting assertion. I've just looked at the first four 'best doctor who' type polls that came up on Google. In those he came 1st, 3rd, 4th and 6th. So his worst placing was bang in the middle.

Interesting assertion. I've just looked at the first four 'best doctor who' type polls that came up on Google. In those he came 1st, 3rd, 4th and 6th. So his worst placing was bang in the middle

I don't see how his popularity matters really or is relevant. I am laughing at this thread as I can imagine the reactions if a poster came on to say that it was unfair that a big name like Gillian Anderson got more pay in the Crown than most of the males she starred with or who had equal screen time. I'd put my life on it that Anderson got much more pay than the THEN lesser known actors who played Charles and Philip in seasons 3 and 4.

The same goes for BBC etc like in Eastenders Letitia Dean and Lacey Turner would trump the majority of the male cast in their salaries. People fail to see it's not sexist against men or indeed anybody, it's because both actresses are popular established characters who have built up a big fanbase that their male co-stars haven't.

I could maybe, very maybe, forgive them for the season 1 pay gap. But not season 2. Not once she had proved she was the star, she was the main character and people loved her in it.

The contract was for both seasons though.

Unless her agent negotiated some sort of 'performance bonus', there was absolutely no reason why NF would have raised her salary for series two. They're a business.

If you want to use that logic, you could argue that an actor's salary should be reduced in subsequent seasons if audiences don't like them in the role.

@TyrannysaurusXXrightshoarder

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 called The Crown, not The Husband of The Crown. Anyway, did you recently start a thread about Minnie Driver…………….

I read this thinking just the same. It must be the same OP, there can't be two of them knocking around...

*The contract was for both seasons though.

Unless her agent negotiated some sort of 'performance bonus', there was absolutely no reason why NF would have raised her salary for series two. They're a business.

If you want to use that logic, you could argue that an actor's salary should be reduced in subsequent seasons if audiences don't like them in the role*

It's mn, people blabbing on and giving their advice on things they know nothing about. And then challenge and ridicule others who try to educate them.
The Crown was Foy's launching pad into superstardom so she's done very well out of it, actors generally don't get big salaries in their early roles. I don't get why that offends mn.

Anyway, did you recently start a thread about Minnie Driver

Who is Minnie Driver?