Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

Original poster

Female Hollywood stars earn almost 3x more than their male counterparts

12 replies

TuiMitcham · 22/08/2017 21:42

www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41010804

Sorry for the click bait, obviously it's the other way round. We can but dream...

In the article though Emma Stone says some male co-stars have taken pay cuts to have the same pay as her. Why can't her pay increase to the male level?

OP posts:

Puffpaw · 22/08/2017 21:48

Forbes writer Natalie Robehmed said the pay disparity was down to the types of roles on offer.
She wrote: "In release schedules dominated by superhero movies and brawny blockbusters, there are simply fewer parts for women that pay the sizeable backend profits that result in leading men's large paydays, or the franchise sequels that permit aggressive negotiation for favourable deals."
Bullshit, what about Gal Gadot? She's not even on the list.

MrsTerryPratchett · 23/08/2017 04:11

I think it was 2014...

Top grossing star: Jennifer Lawrence.

Top earning star: Not Jennifer Lawrence.

That says all you need to know.

Gal is a different kettle of fish. They always get paid buttons for their first franchise role then a lot more if they succeed. Wonder Woman II will be the test.

nooka · 23/08/2017 04:18

The 'types of roles on offer' is part of the problem, not the explanation that makes it somehow OK. We know that female actors don't get cast (like minorities they aren't seen as able to carry films, only good enough for sidekicks and other supporting roles and that's if they are lucky).

SpaghettiAndMeatballs · 23/08/2017 06:45

Bullshit, what about Gal Gadot? She's not even on the list.

www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/wonder-woman/265297/how-wonder-woman-falls-into-the-smurfette-trap

It's very true - even when there's a woman in a leading part, the parts on the next step down go to men. Token women.

nooka · 23/08/2017 07:43

I'd not seen that review before but that was exactly what I thought about the movie. Similar to Rogue One, which otherwise was great until I realised that in the heroic action scene at the end there were almost no women at all apart from Jyn. What I really liked about Wonder Woman was the older women on the Island who were strong, beautiful, interesting and normal. I hope that some of them will reappear in the Justice League.

Puffpaw · 23/08/2017 08:17

I bet men in the first part of a franchise get paid more that gal gadot did.

RiverTam · 23/08/2017 08:23

Gal Gadot's first appearance wasn't in WW, though, she'd already appeared in Batman vs Superman (and outshone both of them) as WW. I bet if you analysed it Chris Pine would have more dialogue (and a disproportionate amount of screen time) than GG. Even DH spotted that the plot seemed to centre in him a bit too much.

Loopsdefruits · 23/08/2017 08:35

Even if women in Hollywood did get paid more (which they generally don't) their careers span a much shorted period of time, older women just don't get the big roles for the most part. So like lifetime earnings are gonna be even more divided.

MrGHardy · 23/08/2017 08:43

Seems a bit like why male sports stars earn more - more profit to be made of them.

So the question should be why can more profit be made from them? Is it here a case of the studios simply don't make these massive blockbusters with leading women? I bet yes. I bet they could replace men by women in some movies and lose male audiences, but gain female audiences. Just look at the Hunger Games, hugely popular and in turn J-Law was paid handsomely for the latter installments. I see no reason why this cannot be reproduced elsewhere.

E.g. while I am starkly against a female James Bond, I would love to see a female MI5 agent of some sorts. One of my favorite TV shows of recent times was Nikita (based on the French movie) which essentially had 2 female leads.

MrsTerryPratchett · 23/08/2017 16:44

Seems a bit like why male sports stars earn more - more profit to be made of them. But that's not actually true. Teenaged girls spend a LOT of money on movies. They are a massive demographic.

Mark Kermode is interesting on this. He talks about why a massive steaming pile of shit like Transformers isn't panned and Twilight (flawed but not as bad) is absolutely pilloried. And he thinks it is because most film critics were teenage boys and they discount anything made for girls.

MrGHardy · 23/08/2017 17:19

Well if you read on, I do say that I think that that is not true, and just a biased belief by the industry.

Not sure about your second paragraph - Transformers is pilloried. I have never heard anyone say anything good about it ever.

SpaghettiAndMeatballs · 23/08/2017 17:46

I bet yes. I bet they could replace men by women in some movies and lose male audiences

Really? Personally I find it a bit unlikely that of the six guards in the background of a scene, if you made that 3 women and 3 men rather than 6 men, that it would change the gross of the movie - it would however greatly improve women's earnings.

I would love to see a female MI5 agent of some sorts

well, his boss has been female for a while......

Stats I've seen suggest that movie goers are pretty much evenly split male and female, despite the huge bias towards male stars - where's the evidence that a larger female contingent in the kind of movies that men go to see would do anything to their take? Wonder Woman's box office out did Batman vs. Superman for example, are you saying that it was only because women went to watch it?

Flip