Oh look at what we dug up! OH THE SHAME, OH THE SCANDAL!It’s like, no sh*t Sherlocks. She was a Hollywood nobody at the beginning of her career, he was an A-lister FFS.
The “pay gap” issue is for actors who are in a comparative position in their career. Pair up an unknown actor with Emma Stone and he’s gonna earn only a fraction of her salary also, as he should.Did Stone deserve a bigger salary? Maybe. Did she deserve as much money as Michael Douglas? Not in 1992, she did not.
Yeah, the pay gap is a real issue and a serious one. This is not an example of that. This is an example of a mega star getting paid much more than someone who wasn’t one.
I don’t deny that the issue exist, I’m saying that this was a very bad example of it. The video compares her salary with Douglas’, which is meaningless.
It would not have been that hard to compare Stone with an unknown male actor starring in another movie from the same studio around the same time, and show how their pay matched up. That would’ve made more sense.
Look at Jennifer Lawrence when friggin’ Jeremy Renner got more than her in “American Hustle.” That’s patently absurd.However, Sharon Stone was a (near) unknown in 1992 while Douglas was entering his third decade as a household name. Terrible example.
Well, sure, but I’d argue a 14 million to 500 grand gap is way to big and not fair. They’re co-leads. She arguably does more risky, demanding work–all that nudity compared to his. The idea of paying them equally would be a strawman. Pay her less, but not 13.5 million dollars less.
Pay isn’t typically about fairness, it’s about demand. At the time, there were other productions that would pay Douglas $10+ million to star in their film, so that’s how he gets that salary. If they’d cast Michelle Pfeiffer, she probably would’ve gotten something closer to the $3 million she reportedly got for Batman Forever. If it had been Julia Roberts, probably closer to $7 or $8 million she supposedly earned for Hook and Pelican Brief.
I think a point is being made about the example in the article not being a good one. In 1992, Sharon Stone wasn’t nearly as famous as Michael Douglas. But there are examples of pay disparities now that should not be there, that are primarily because Hollywood powers are still trying to get away with paying women far less than men, even if she’s got far more fame and work on her C.V. than he does. Better to use other examples than Basic Instinct.
When BI was made, Michael Douglas was an Academy Award winning actor with a lot of box office successes under his belt. Stone was a rising star who had a breakout role in Total Recall, but had never (?) been a lead actress in a film.She probably should have been paid more than she got, but Douglas should have definitely been paid more than her.
Wait a second. You’re telling me that the STAR of a STAR VEHECLE got paid much more than the person nobody knew before she was cast in this particular movie?
In entertainment (& sports), you’re paid based on your ability to fill seats & your track record & your star power & your awards etc etc. So stop trying to ALWAYS make it about gender.In ‘92 Douglas was a two-time Oscar winner, with 20 years of movies (& tv) behind him, while Stone was known mainly for being the second female lead in Total Recall, so OBVIOUSLY there was going to be a gigantic difference.If Jennifer Lawrence is paired with some guy from Succession, she’s gonna make a lot more than him. Good grief!!
40 Comments
And she did all the heavy…um…lifting.
Plus, she’s the only one who showed hole.
like I said…
Hello, Newman, amiright?
Indeed!
Well, er – look at her filmography. It’s not like her work prior to that point would command a big salary. Blame her agent for not doing better.
Oh look at what we dug up! OH THE SHAME, OH THE SCANDAL!It’s like, no sh*t Sherlocks. She was a Hollywood nobody at the beginning of her career, he was an A-lister FFS.
The “pay gap” issue is for actors who are in a comparative position in their career. Pair up an unknown actor with Emma Stone and he’s gonna earn only a fraction of her salary also, as he should.Did Stone deserve a bigger salary? Maybe. Did she deserve as much money as Michael Douglas? Not in 1992, she did not.
Heheheh. You said “gap.”
Yeah, the pay gap is a real issue and a serious one. This is not an example of that. This is an example of a mega star getting paid much more than someone who wasn’t one.
I agree, but we also know that even when the male/female stars are equal in fame, the guy still gets paid more. Look at Scarlett Johansson.
I don’t deny that the issue exist, I’m saying that this was a very bad example of it. The video compares her salary with Douglas’, which is meaningless.
It would not have been that hard to compare Stone with an unknown male actor starring in another movie from the same studio around the same time, and show how their pay matched up. That would’ve made more sense.
There are tons of real examples that can be used to make that point. This isn’t one of them.
Look at Jennifer Lawrence when friggin’ Jeremy Renner got more than her in “American Hustle.” That’s patently absurd.However, Sharon Stone was a (near) unknown in 1992 while Douglas was entering his third decade as a household name. Terrible example.
I am . . .
Well, sure, but I’d argue a 14 million to 500 grand gap is way to big and not fair. They’re co-leads. She arguably does more risky, demanding work–all that nudity compared to his. The idea of paying them equally would be a strawman. Pay her less, but not 13.5 million dollars less.
Pay isn’t typically about fairness, it’s about demand. At the time, there were other productions that would pay Douglas $10+ million to star in their film, so that’s how he gets that salary. If they’d cast Michelle Pfeiffer, she probably would’ve gotten something closer to the $3 million she reportedly got for Batman Forever. If it had been Julia Roberts, probably closer to $7 or $8 million she supposedly earned for Hook and Pelican Brief.
“Well, sure, but I’d argue a 14 million to 500 grand gap is way to big and not fair. They’re co-leads.’
No, they’re not. He was a MOVIE STAR and the undisputed lead of the film, and she was literally nobody, playing the villain.
I think a point is being made about the example in the article not being a good one. In 1992, Sharon Stone wasn’t nearly as famous as Michael Douglas.
But there are examples of pay disparities now that should not be there, that are primarily because Hollywood powers are still trying to get away with paying women far less than men, even if she’s got far more fame and work on her C.V. than he does.
Better to use other examples than Basic Instinct.
“In 1992, Sharon Stone wasn’t nearly as famous as Michael Douglas.”Fixed that for you.
seems like everyone knows this but her.
Pet peeve: when people say or write “a fraction” to mean “a small fraction.”
Who knows, maybe she actually got paid 8/5ths what Douglas made!
8/5ths? How vulgar!
It’s an accepted idiom. Get a grip.
When BI was made, Michael Douglas was an Academy Award winning actor with a lot of box office successes under his belt. Stone was a rising star who had a breakout role in Total Recall, but had never (?) been a lead actress in a film.She probably should have been paid more than she got, but Douglas should have definitely been paid more than her.
I guess Douglas was an early nepo baby, too?
“Stone was a rising star who had a breakout role in Total Recall, but had never (?) been a lead actress in a film.”
No, Stone had a ROLE in Total Recall. It was not, in any way shape or form a breakout.Stone’s breakout was Basic Instinct.
It was her “break out” role. Why should she be paid the same as a well established actor?So very, very dumb.
Swing and a miss Peter. Do better.
bet he won’t.
Come on…this is total non-issue.At the time, she was total unknown, and he was a huge star.
And he did show his ass.
No shit, nobody knew who the hell she was, and Douglas was a bankable star. Of course she got paid less
Michael Douglas was fitted for a prosthetic penis but they decided against frontal male nudity. How much more would he have gotten for that?
How much more would we the viewers have gotten?
Wait a second. You’re telling me that the STAR of a STAR VEHECLE got paid much more than the person nobody knew before she was cast in this particular movie?
In entertainment (& sports), you’re paid based on your ability to fill seats & your track record & your star power & your awards etc etc. So stop trying to ALWAYS make it about gender.In ‘92 Douglas was a two-time Oscar winner, with 20 years of movies (& tv) behind him, while Stone was known mainly for being the second female lead in Total Recall, so OBVIOUSLY there was going to be a gigantic difference.If Jennifer Lawrence is paired with some guy from Succession, she’s gonna make a lot more than him. Good grief!!
You mean the multi Oscar winning incredibly famous (At the time) person made more than the relative unknown?!?!?I am SHOCKED!