Apple video content push reportedly helping increase actors' salaries in negotiations with...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2018
Apple's drive for video content is seemingly having a wider effect on how much actors get paid, with a report claiming Reese Witherspoon and Nicole Kidman bolstered their pay from HBO for a project following after Witherspoon made a similar high-value deal for an Apple-commissioned drama.




Kidman and Witherspoon are said to have received between $250,000 and $350,000 per episode for the first season of HBO show "Big Little Lies," sources of The Hollywood Reporter claim, along with executive producer fees and other items. Initially expected to be a limited-run series without a second season planned, HBO had to negotiate new contracts with the show's cast, giving an opportunity to the stars to renegotiate.

Report sources believe both Kidman and Witherspoon will receive around $1 million per episode for season two of "Big Little Lies," as well as the executive producer fees and points off the show's backend. Other cast members are also said to be receiving a bump in pay, such as Zoe Kravitz seeing a total season salary jump from $380,000 to $3 million.

While the first season was a success in its own right, winning an Emmy and a Golden Globe, it is believed that the salaries for Witherspoon and Kidman were inflated due to Witherspoon's deal with Apple. In November, it was reported Witherspoon and Jennifer Aniston were signed up to an untitled drama based on a Brian Stelter novel about morning TV, with the two co-owning, executive producing, and starring in the show.

A two-season, 20-episode order has been placed, and though it is unknown how much the show could ultimately cost Apple, it is believed both Aniston and Witherspoon will be paid upward of $1.25 million per episode. The deal with Apple apparently set a precedent that forced HBO into offering more money to the stars of its own project.

"It's not a shock to anybody that having a second season of an ongoing series is easier to have with those deals in place," HBO programming president Casey Bloys told the report. "Every outlet has to make their own decisions about economics that makes sense for them. I'm not going to shake my fist and say 'Darn it, Apple!' If that's what made sense for them for that show, God bless."

An unnamed agent saw Apple's deal as a positive for actors as a whole, stating If HBO pays Witherspoon her quote that Apple is paying, it inflates the whole ecosystem of TV actor salaries.

Apple is said to be embarking on a broad $1 billion investment into original video programming, with a focus on big-budget dramas. Other reported deals include a comedy series starring Kristen Wiig, the docuseries Home, a potential series with Serial creator Sarah Koenig, and a bidding war with HBO for the rights to a new sci-fi drama from Star Trek director and Lost co-creator J.J. Abrams.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Good old capitalism at work :-).
    With more money in the system you'll get more dreck, but also more of the top end.

    The explosion of productions has already inflated the number of great shows a lot in the last 20 years.
    tmay
  • Reply 2 of 13
    Maybe it's just my perception, but it seem like this is a new golden age for TV and actors. Huge budgets and big name actors everywhere. 
    racerhomie3mavemufc
  • Reply 3 of 13
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,437member
    The problem with the big name actors getting all that money in movies, old-school TV and the new services is that it doesn't leave much in the budget for anyone else and all the supporting actors tend to get paid scale, which is usually very little.  
    coolfactor
  • Reply 4 of 13
    zoetmb said:
    The problem with the big name actors getting all that money in movies, old-school TV and the new services is that it doesn't leave much in the budget for anyone else and all the supporting actors tend to get paid scale, which is usually very little.  
    Why should supporting actors be paid extra for doing no extra work? They are not the draw to a project. If they want to get more, they should star in their own project or produce.
    racerhomie3
  • Reply 5 of 13
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,634member
    zoetmb said:
    The problem with the big name actors getting all that money in movies, old-school TV and the new services is that it doesn't leave much in the budget for anyone else and all the supporting actors tend to get paid scale, which is usually very little.  
    With all of the streaming opportunities for new content, there's a lot more projects available to work on and get exposure.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 6 of 13

    >> Apple video content push reportedly helping increase actor's salaries … <<

    Hey guys, please don't become like Breitbart, which is a very readable site with horrible grammar and spelling. 
    At least get your headlines correct. What you mean to say is “actors’ salaries” because there is more than one actor. 
    [Deleted User]SpamSandwich
  • Reply 7 of 13
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    markspain said:

    >> Apple video content push reportedly helping increase actor's salaries … <<

    Hey guys, please don't become like Breitbart, which is a very readable site with horrible grammar and spelling. 
    At least get your headlines correct. What you mean to say is “actors’ salaries” because there is more than one actor. 
    Admitting to reading Breitbart publicaly, that takes "courage" or something else that's not courage...
    edited January 2018
  • Reply 8 of 13
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    tmay said:
    zoetmb said:
    The problem with the big name actors getting all that money in movies, old-school TV and the new services is that it doesn't leave much in the budget for anyone else and all the supporting actors tend to get paid scale, which is usually very little.  
    With all of the streaming opportunities for new content, there's a lot more projects available to work on and get exposure.
    Yeah, the industry probably hasn't been this active since the 1940s.
    For technical crews and all people aspects of creative projects it's the good times (until actors get all computerized of course ;-).
    For equipment makers less so since equipment these days are much cheaper and margins smaller.
  • Reply 9 of 13
    I've noticed this change everywhere lately, but when did actresses become actors? I thought actor was male and actress was female.
  • Reply 10 of 13
    adm1 said:
    I've noticed this change everywhere lately, but when did actresses become actors? I thought actor was male and actress was female.
    Do you need someone to mansplain it to you?
  • Reply 11 of 13
    MalcolmOwenMalcolmOwen Posts: 11member, editor
    markspain said:
    At least get your headlines correct. What you mean to say is “actors’ salaries” because there is more than one actor. 
    Thanks for the heads-up on that. It's been corrected. 
  • Reply 12 of 13
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,938member
    tmay said:
    zoetmb said:
    The problem with the big name actors getting all that money in movies, old-school TV and the new services is that it doesn't leave much in the budget for anyone else and all the supporting actors tend to get paid scale, which is usually very little.  
    With all of the streaming opportunities for new content, there's a lot more projects available to work on and get exposure.
    Yes, and a monthly fee will be attached to ALL of them. Let’s see now... Neflix $10.99, Hulu $11.99, CBS All Access $5.99/$11.99, Amazon Prime $99/yr, Apple Music $99/yr, Sling Packages start at $25/mo I believe. Looks like cord cutting could expensive real fast.
  • Reply 13 of 13
    Maybe it's just my perception, but it seem like this is a new golden age for TV and actors. Huge budgets and big name actors everywhere. 
    Yeah I Definitely agree with you there, crazy money involved!
    SpamSandwich
Sign In or Register to comment.