or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Kristen Stewart, Cameron Diaz Make Bank as Forbes' Highest-Paid Actresses
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kristen Stewart, Cameron Diaz Make Bank as Forbes' Highest-Paid Actresses

post #1 of 59
Thread Starter 
Something is seriously wrong with Hollywood if this is the trend. For the love of god this Twilight era needs to stop soon...

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni30418521/

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

Something is seriously wrong with Hollywood if this is the trend. For the love of god this Twilight era needs to stop soon...
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni30418521/

honestly I would have thought more than 34 million. That's what Johnny Depp gets for one Pirates movie excluding backend compensation. Well, good for her! I'm no fan of Twilight but I like Kristen!wink.gif
post #3 of 59
God that Kristen chick can not even act, she just shows up and speaks the lines she is fed.

But seriously I do not really know of any actor/actress that deserves the amount of money they are making.
post #4 of 59
In a field where men have historically made considerably more money than women I say - GOOD FOR THEM!
post #5 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuie675 View Post

God that Kristen chick can not even act, she just shows up and speaks the lines she is fed.

How many films have you seen with her?
post #6 of 59
I like Kristen and Cameron. I think they're good actresses.
post #7 of 59
God that Kristen chick can not even act, she just shows up and speaks the lines she is fed.


She was quite good in Adventureland.
post #8 of 59
She was also pretty good as Joan Jett in The Runaways. But there is no way in Hell that she should be the highest paid actress.
post #9 of 59
Stewart is so dominant, I have never heard of her.
post #10 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.G View Post

In a field where men have historically made considerably more money than women I say - GOOD FOR THEM!

Agree. I do think Stewart and Diaz are okay actresses as well. Its not like the best actors make the most money, its the guys who sell tickets and that usually mean action stars. And some good actors dumb it down for action movies.
post #11 of 59
These salaries are nothing but a reflection of how much someone wants to pay another for services rendered.
It's America, folks, not the USSR.

Talent doesn't have much to do with it....take a look around the office the next time you go to work.
post #12 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

These salaries are nothing but a reflection of how much someone wants to pay another for services rendered.
It's America, folks, not the USSR.
Talent doesn't have much to do with it....take a look around the office the next time you go to work.

hehehe ...+1.

Twilight is making around 300 million per movie and 600+ worldwide. It's simply logical that she's getting that big salary... She's one of the reasons people pay to see these films.
post #13 of 59
Good points...that explains Kristen Stewart.

Now how about Cameron Diaz?? Aside from being a VA in Shrek, hasn't most of her recent stuff bombed?
post #14 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ballen420 View Post

Good points...that explains Kristen Stewart.
Now how about Cameron Diaz?? Aside from being a VA in Shrek, hasn't most of her recent stuff bombed?

You got me there wink.gif Besides being a less than average actress, she's not even good-looking.
post #15 of 59
The first time I saw Kristen was when she did a Porsche commercial. She would intentionally miss the school bus so her dad would have to drive her to school in that car.

Hard to believe Diaz is getting more cash than the likes of Streep, Theron, Jolie, Johansson, Winslet, and a bunch of others.
post #16 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

These salaries are nothing but a reflection of how much someone wants to pay another for services rendered.
It's America, folks, not the USSR.
Talent doesn't have much to do with it....take a look around the office the next time you go to work.
Precisely,..and when the Twilight series is over she'll fade out to obscurity and B movies or prob end up with a TV deal. I can't see her lasting much longer, all her earnings are from Twilight so good for her..get it while it's hot cause it'll be gone.
post #17 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloCreed View Post

But there is no way in Hell that she should be the highest paid actress.
At $12.5 million per movie, Stewart isn't the highest paid actress. The reason she came out on top ($34.5M) is because she worked in multiple high grossing movies, like Breaking Dawn and Snow White. Note that the $34.5M figure doesn't include her revenues from Breaking Dawn part 2 (which isn't out yet).

Likewise, Diaz came in second ($34M) by being in several movies: Green Hornet, What to Expect When You're Expecting, Bad Teacher. The latter cost only $20M but made $216M, so you can see where her money is coming from (not salary). It is the combination of all these projects that put her in second place, not being the highest paid actress.

By comparison, the actress in 3rd place ($25M), Sandra Bullock, made all that money from one film (her salary for Alfonso Cuaron's film Gravity). She really is high paid compared to those other two.

Just pointing out the distinction.
post #18 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

Precisely,..and when the Twilight series is over she'll fade out to obscurity and B movies or prob end up with a TV deal. I can't see her lasting much longer, all her earnings are from Twilight so good for her..get it while it's hot cause it'll be gone.

I wouldn't be so sure... Come back to this thread 10 years from now and we'll talk wink.gif
post #19 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

I can't see her lasting much longer, all her earnings are from Twilight so good for her..get it while it's hot cause it'll be gone.
Snow White and the Huntsman has made over $250 million in only 19 days, demonstrating she can carry a non-Twilight film sucessfully.
post #20 of 59
KS hasn't shown exceptional talent...yet.
She doesn't strike me as someone with a lot of charisma and she will need some to keep her career at its current level.
Who knows?
Maybe she will be biggest star in the world in 10 years...or not.wink.gif
post #21 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ballen420 View Post

Now how about Cameron Diaz?? Aside from being a VA in Shrek, hasn't most of her recent stuff bombed?

Keep in mind she's had a lot of success earlier in her career with There's Something About Mary, Charlie's Angels, and a few others, so her salary was already up there, and her agent/management isn't going to let her asking price go down without a fight. Regardless of what the movies make, she's guaranteed her initial asking price. And it's only two years removed from the last Shrek film. It takes a lot longer than that for an entrenched star to fade.
post #22 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

At $12.5 million per movie, Stewart isn't the highest paid actress. The reason she came out on top ($34.5M) is because she worked in multiple high grossing movies, like Breaking Dawn and Snow White. Note that the $34.5M figure doesn't include her revenues from Breaking Dawn part 2 (which isn't out yet).
Likewise, Diaz came in second ($34M) by being in several movies: Green Hornet, What to Expect When You're Expecting, Bad Teacher. The latter cost only $20M but made $216M, so you can see where her money is coming from (not salary). It is the combination of all these projects that put her in second place, not being the highest paid actress.
By comparison, the actress in 3rd place ($25M), Sandra Bullock, made all that money from one film (her salary for Alfonso Cuaron's film Gravity). She really is high paid compared to those other two.
Just pointing out the distinction.

Gotcha. Even so, her earnings grossly exceed her talents. My opinion, of course, doesn't matter as she will likely ride the coattails of Twilight for many years to come.
post #23 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloCreed View Post

Even so, her earnings grossly exceed her talents.

So chalk it up to an industry frittering away their own money on questionable talent. It's not like there has ever been a shortage.

And you know, I'm not blaming any of these actors (or sport stars, or reality TV stars, or whoever.) If someone is throwing a lot of money their way, it's no fault of their own to take it and run. It's not like any of us would turn down a raise or bonus because we didn't think we deserved it.
post #24 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloCreed View Post

My opinion, of course, doesn't matter as she will likely ride the coattails of Twilight for many years to come.
Probably, but not forever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post


It's not like any of us would turn down a raise or bonus because we didn't think we deserved it.
Exactly.
post #25 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

If someone is throwing a lot of money their way, it's no fault of their own to take it and run.
They'd be fools not to, considering how fleeting a career in the entertainment industry can be.
post #26 of 59
It's nice to see so many people talking about other people's money. Can we talk about Tom Cruise now? biggrin.gif
post #27 of 59
A few years back Harvard released a study showing that Hollywood was wasting money paying stars so much. Obviously it fell on deaf ears. How many films have you watched lately where it was "there so and so playing so and so". IOW, if a unknown actor had played the part the part the "suspension of belief" would not have been broken.
post #28 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

KS hasn't shown exceptional talent...yet.
She doesn't strike me as someone with a lot of charisma and she will need some to keep her career at its current level.
Who knows?
Maybe she will be biggest star in the world in 10 years...or not.wink.gif

Why? I'd call it quits after this year and enjoy an opulent lifestyle.cool.gif
post #29 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

A few years back Harvard released a study showing that Hollywood was wasting money paying stars so much.

Studies like that are moronic, though. Who cares? Is Alex Rodriguez worth the quarter of a billion two teams agreed to pay him? Obviously those teams thought so at the time. If studios think they have to pay the stars that much, so be it. Even if you took star salaries out, Hollywood movies are still expensive to make, and it wouldn't translate into lower ticket prices if you got rid of the overpaid stars.

Meanwhile, we had hedge fund CEOs and Wall Street guys making ten times what those actors and sports stars made, using our 401ks to burn the entire economy to the ground and walked away rich as hell, and that doesn't even generate a 10th of the outrage.
post #30 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

A few years back Harvard released a study showing that Hollywood was wasting money paying stars so much.
In 2011 there was a list of most overpaid stars (i.e., lowest return on investment) from the same people that brought you the list that is the topic of this thread. For example: Drew Barrymore's films return 40 cents at the box office for every dollar she is paid (no joke). Eddie Murphy's films return $2.70 for every dollar he is paid.

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mfl45hlff/hollywoods-most-overpaid-actors/

In 2009 they did the opposite list, looking at best bang for the dollar actors (total compensation of actors vs what their movies brought in). For example: Shia LaBeouf's movies bring in $160 for every dollar he is paid. Michael Cera's movies bring in $102 for every dollar he is paid.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/24/best-actors-for-the-buck-business-entertainment-payback.html
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Kristen Stewart, Cameron Diaz Make Bank as Forbes' Highest-Paid Actresses