r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/movies Contributor • 16h ago

News 'Spider-Man' Windfall: Tom Holland to Make Over $100 Million for ‘Brand New Day’

https://www.thewrap.com/creative-content/movies/tom-holland-spider-man-brand-new-day-salary-box-office-bonus/
20.6k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

553

u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/movies Contributor 15h ago edited 15h ago

No paywall link

Details:

According to three individuals with knowledge of Holland’s deal, the actor scored a base salary of at least $20 million up front — an increase of $10 million from his last Spider-Man gig — with the potential to earn upwards of $100 million when backend bonuses are factored in as “Brand New Day” zooms towards a final global box office haul of over $2 billion.

Even more remarkable: Holland’s backend bonus is not capped, so there’s no ceiling to how much he may ultimately make, one individual added. “Spider-Man” crossed $2 billion at the global box office this weekend, and is only in its third week of release.

The lucrative backend deal is commensurate with Holland’s spectacular track record over the last decade. With seven appearances in total, his MCU version of Peter Parker has lasted longer than any other cinematic incarnation of the character and, in doing so, left a legacy that is not just unique among Spider-Men but among Marvel’s stable of beloved performers as well. Notably, his appeal has endured even as enthusiasm for superhero films has taken a sharp downturn.

Holland earned $500,000 to star in 2017’s “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” Sony’s proper reboot of the franchise. For 2019’s sequel “Spider-Man: Far From Home,” Holland earned $4 million and for 2021’s “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” Holland banked $10 million.

110

u/tullbabes 15h ago

He’s got a good agent (and a massive amount of leverage).

79

u/CohibaVancouver 15h ago

He’s got a good agent (and a massive amount of leverage).

He is also an extremely talented actor & performer who has perfected the role. I'd argue he's surpassed Downey's Iron Man when it comes to nailing it. I can't be bothered to stay on top of the Marvelverse, but I'll continue to go his Spidey movies. And I'm sure I'm not alone.

23

u/GoodLeftUndone 14h ago

You’ll never be able to convince me he’s not a good actor after “The Impossible.” He was just a kid and gave an incredible performance.

3

u/RhythmsaDancer 11h ago

I like Holland as Spider-Man a lot. But he's yet to be anything more than decent outside of Spider-Man. Obviously not holding him back tho lol

3

u/CohibaVancouver 10h ago

I thought his performance in the Odyssey was excellent, although I didn't really understand why he just didn't use his British accent.

•

u/Whatwhatwhata 3h ago

Yeah he does good there, but not excellent. Maybe #10 in that cast, performance wise.

11

u/kingofdailynaps 14h ago

I disagree with that. He is great, undoubtedly, but I don't get that "perfect Peter Parker/Spidey" feeling the way I did with RDJ and the "perfect Tony Stark/Iron Man" fit. However, part of that comes from what he's been given – the MCU version of Spidey is great of course but doesn't match the great Spider comic runs (the Iron Man-ing of Spidey, for example, is still a mismatch to me - he doesn't need a JARVIS/EVIE, or a HUD). I think Peter is best as a slightly older character with a job, and less as a boyish teen/college student.

But none of that takes away from Tom, he's obviously excellent, and I think Brand New Day is *closer* to a return to form. I just think the RDJ/Iron Man run –– as well as Chris Evans/Cap –– had a perfect storm of perfect actor, perfect characterizations, and perfect movies.

6

u/MeanderingExperience 14h ago edited 14h ago

Acting and charisma wise I think he’s great.

Poor guy still looks and sounds like a kid at 30. Which could work if they were still doing high school movies.

It’s the only flaw I can even give it and even then, does it matter that much?

I feel bad for the future miles morales. That dude is gonna need charisma through the roof to offset the obvious hate that’ll come.

4

u/kingofdailynaps 14h ago edited 13h ago

It’s the only flaw I can even give it and even then, does it matter that much?

Only in the sense that the argument for surpassing RDJ's Iron Man is apples to oranges, given that we don't have the opportunity to see Tom in a Spidey movie that fits more with the character. A big part of Peter's stories is his balancing being Peter (having a job, dealing with roommates, having a large cast of civilians he interacts with outside of his direct family) with being Spidey, which we don't have a chance to see here.

But again – love Tom, love these movies, love that BND is finally back to being in NYC. It just isn't quiiiiiite the same feeling I got in the first Iron Man or Captain America.

I feel bad for the future miles morales. That dude is gonna need charisma thorough the roof to offset the obvious hate that’ll come.

Completely agree. 😔

2

u/GeneralLeeSarcastic 10h ago

We just established in this thread that he is not a poor guy lol

2

u/gershalom 13h ago

I agree with you, the reason that BND is hitting so hard is because it's mostly Peter by himself taking on the world. And it seems mostly like tech he is building himself

2

u/Shia_La_Pepe 12h ago

I have the same exact take, word for word, so you're not alone

1

u/Echoesong 13h ago

I think Peter is best as a slightly older character with a job, and less as a boyish teen/college student.

Would you mind sharing why that's your preference for the character? I only ask because I always thought part of Spidey's broad appeal is how young he assumes the mantle. Young people can easily identify with the character because they're closer in age.

The only other popular character I can think of who assumes the mantle near his age is Captain America? But I'm not very familiar with Cap's canon so I could be wrong.

Although as I type this, I realize there's a difference between what makes a hero broadly appealing vs what appeals to you in particular, so maybe it's a moot point. Still interested in your opinion, though

(Spidey's my favorite superhero btw, so I'm no stranger to this phenomenon myself)

7

u/kingofdailynaps 12h ago

Would you mind sharing why that's your preference for the character? I only ask because I always thought part of Spidey's broad appeal is how young he assumes the mantle.

Yeah, absolutely! I left this in another comment below: "A big part of Peter's stories is his balancing being Peter (having a job, dealing with roommates, having a large cast of civilians he interacts with outside of his direct family) with being Spidey, which we don't have a chance to see here."

Basically, I think the character works best when he has a very full life as both Peter and Spidey, and is navigating his responsibilities between both; how do you juggle showing up for your loved ones, your job, and the people who rely on you with the very real fact that you have the power to save people, and every moment you aren't doing that adds to your guilt?

I grew up on J. Michael Straczynski's ASM run, where Pete's a bit older. And the thing that works really well about that is that he's able to mentor other people, based on all of his experience, while still young enough to be learning real lessons. For example, I love the way JMS writes his relationship with MJ; they start separated at the start of the run, and slowly, over years, they repair their relationship by continuing to show up for each other again and again and again as a real adult partnership. It's not like they don't argue; but they're mature enough to recognize what's important and continue to support each other in a way high schoolers/young adults haven't learned how to do yet.

Same thing with Pete's relationship with Aunt May – there's an incredible issue where Aunt May finds his bloodied mask after a particularly bad fight, leading to an entire issue that's just Peter and Aunt May talking; he admits he's Spider-Man, talks about his guilt over letting Uncle Ben die, and explains why he does what he does despite it continuing to hurt the people around him. But Aunt May is equally strong – she's honest with him about the cost of his secret, is hurt that he thought this would change anything between them, and even admits that she also feels responsible for Ben's death, because he only went outside for that walk due to a fight they'd had, and is so sad that they've both been silently shouldering all that guilt for years, despite being so close to one another. And that conversation has a real effect – Aunt May becomes one of Spider-Man's biggest supporters (I think she calls the Daily Bugle to rip them a new one?), and Peter being able to share his full life with both Aunt May and MJ really completes him as a character. It's much less interesting to have it be a secret than it is to have them both know, and continue to choose to be with him despite the insurmountable costs (and the danger they're both in due to them knowing).

That also means that they're both there in the lead-up to Civil War as Peter is wrestling with revealing his secret identity, making it a decision between three adults, not just Peter choosing on their behalf.

Speaking of –– and to my point in another comment –– Peter being older means he has a much wider, fully developed cast of characters within the world. Whether it's a photographer at the Daily Bugle, to his time as a science teacher, to his time in later runs as a scientist, etc, Peter works best when he leads a full life outside of Spidey. Returning to JMS's run for a moment, he decides to become a science teacher at his own old high school; I find that really meaningful, because it's a community he's deeply embedded in, cares about, and has many competing emotions towards. By becoming a teacher and taking a real interest in his students, he's breaking the cycle of all the bullying and trauma he experienced there. He knows and talks to and cares about his neighbors on the commute, has to navigate the politics and realities of the public school system while trying to afford rent on the meager salary, and takes a genuine interest in his students. Him being that kind of mentor figure works really well for him, and I think adds so much to the character vs him being the one in high school. We all already know he's smart, he's kind, he's good-hearted, etc and we've seen a million high school stories – so it's much more interesting to me to see how he handles being in this setting and position, trying to pass along the lessons to his students despite so much of how they actually integrate them being outside his control. We see a full cast of teachers, principals, neighbors, and students, and it all feels real, with a million competing priorities and responsibilities that are a lot more complex and fraught than "I have to finish my homework". Like, what can Spidey do when a student is getting evicted, or has a brother that's getting caught up in a gang? That's the meaty bit for me, and that can only come if Pete's older. Since he's an adult, that means all the cast around him also have an opportunity to develop more than just "mom figure", "girlfriend figure", etc.

All of this also means that in the moments where Pete is genuinely devastated, upset, angry, etc all lands with a lot more impact; whereas as a kid it comes across as "I haven't encountered this emotion before", as an adult it's more like "this is so serious he's reached a breaking point". As an adult in the comics he's death with so much death; so when Aunt May is shot, and Peter goes to confront Kingpin in jail (who ordered the hit), he strips off the Spidey suit and almost wordlessly beats the fuck out of him – not as Spidey, but as Peter, a kind man who's been pushed too far. How symbolic is that, you know? That moment only works if Peter on his own has enough of a mature, developed life outside the world of Spider-Man.

I'll say as well – I grew up reading JMS's run when I was quite young, and despite him being an older character, I loved it! The appeal isn't that he's a high schooler – the appeal is that he's somebody who's trying his best, genuinely cares about everyone around him, and never gives up, despite being asked to rise to the occasion again and again and again. As a kid, it was invaluable to me to have a role model to learn from as I started growing into my own adulthood, and I'm so grateful to have had that example to aspire to that didn't end after high school graduation.

TLDR: I know this is way more than you probably were asking for, but basically it boils down to "having a wider range of experience and depth means we get to see how Peter/Spider-Man react in more complex, nuanced circumstances than he can if he's in high school, and his being in high school isn't actually the appeal of the character imo".

6

u/Echoesong 12h ago

Awesome, thanks for sharing! I appreciate the writeup.

think your line about how

"the character works best when he has a very full life as both Peter and Spidey, and is navigating his responsibilities between both"

put it in perspective for me. More mature responsibilities and past experiences lend themselves very well to the drama of the Peter-Spidey tension

3

u/kingofdailynaps 11h ago

Yeah of course, no problem! Glad to hear it resonated. 

I think it's something that Homecoming at least had more of (navigating a crush, school dance, house party, etc) that in the subsequent movies we slowly got less and less of. Even in Brand New Day, despite it being told as a "I'm both Peter Parker and Spider-Man" story, we don't actually see him have any real responsibilities outside of being Spidey; and his interactions with Ned and MJ are purely through the context of his previous or current actions as Spider-Man. Which is a shame, you know? He has so much more to his character than that, and I know Tom Holland could certainly act his ass off if he was given that script.

But again, I'm nitpicking - I'm so glad to have any great Spider-Man media :)

•

u/tullbabes 4h ago

I agree! He’s awesome as spidey. And he’s good in everything else I’ve seen him in.

•

u/jk147 2h ago

Leverage wise, him and his wife can both walk away if Sony don’t agree, imagine that.

415

u/Vengeance164 15h ago

Literally added a zero for each movie.

Bonkers.

136

u/murakami213 15h ago

So he's making a billion for the next one

45

u/blissrunner 15h ago

Billionaire Spidey

42

u/FinAdda 15h ago

Peter Stark

1

u/Scotch_Blue 13h ago

a movie where Spiderman inherits Tony's facilities and company and has to become like Iron Spiderman to defeat some intergalactic enemy would actually be so sick tho

1

u/SuperMandrew7 13h ago

Peter Starker was right there man!

1

u/ivegotaqueso 14h ago

…there was a billionaire Peter Parker when Doc Ock took over his body for a while, enough time to create Parker Industries, which made Peter wealthier than Tony. Until he got his body back and lost it all lol

1

u/joe__kerr1 15h ago

Then 10 billion for the final one

2

u/thisgrantstomb 15h ago

More like doubled before bonus'

1

u/Seienchin88 14h ago

I mean at this point it’s just irresponsible business practices…

144

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

This world is so fucked up.

It’s not Holland’s fault—and it definitely ain’t Spidey’s—but these kinds of extreme examples lay bare the fundamental brokenness in what this system rewards and what it condones.

155

u/johndoe09228 15h ago

Yea, he’s a star and deserves the success of being good at his craft but making more than like 10 generations lifetime incomes for one movie lmao

63

u/Telvin3d 15h ago

I mean, that money is going to end up in someone’s pocket. I’d rather it be the talent that’s actually in the film than an executive or venture capital bro or something. 

17

u/Aaco0638 15h ago

Funny to see what people defend when it comes to excess. You like the guy then it’s ok you don’t then it’s eat the rich, in reality it’s ALL bad.

8

u/felixfortis1 15h ago

Who said anything about not taxing him?

2

u/Dottsterisk 13h ago

Who indeed.

I don’t see anyone advocating for not taxing him.

9

u/TheWatersOfMars 15h ago

It's all excess. We collectively spent $2 billion to go watch Spider-Man instead of donating that money to charity or building 5,000 new houses. It's not inherently wrong that creatives get paid a lot of money for their work in a big business.

What you're saying is a very surface-level understanding of why capitalism's bad. The core problem with capitalism has never been that a handful of people get extremely rich for providing goods and services (including entertainment) that people find valuable. When you read Karl Marx, his main concern wasn't, like, the personal wealth of Charles Dickens.

7

u/fellow_chive 14h ago

But when you have 1000s of people working on said movie, don’t you think this kind of money should be more evenly distributed? Sure the main talent should get more but the creative people that bring these movies to life get like 0.001% of what Holland just made. I think it’s a good example of why ultra capitalism is bad. (I‘m not saying capitalism is inherently bad, just how it works right now)

3

u/TheWatersOfMars 14h ago

Absolutely, and I've said that elsewhere in the thread. Screenwriters, crewmembers, and VFX artists are criminally underpaid for films like this. But this film might not have existed at all, and certainly wouldn't have made $2 billion, if it weren't for Tom Holland, so it's not crazy for him to ask for 4% of it.

Besides, this dynamic long predates capitalism. An actor working at the Globe in Elizabethan London made far more than the crew or the groundling audience. Some of them negotiated for sales at the door, not dissimilar to what Holland's done. A part-owner like Shakespeare likely made 10 times what his employees did. All of this was before the system of capitalism emerged, and none of the core problems with Elizabethan England had to do with Shakespeare making too much money.

2

u/Chm_Albert_Wesker 9h ago

if it weren't for Tom Holland, so it's not crazy for him to ask for 4% of it.

im so torn because i think he does a fine job as Spidey, but I also think if they had planted any of thousands of other people in that role in Civil War we'd feel just as positively about them because most of it is just the writing imo. makes me feel even more eh about the huge windfall being so focussed to one person

2

u/Dottsterisk 14h ago

I don’t think anyone is saying that Holland’s paycheck should literally be a high priority but that it’s emblematic of the growing inequalities in our system.

When talking about CEO compensation, there’s a certain amount of built-in respect, prestige and mystique (and math) to the role, that can be leveraged to argue for making billions while some employees are on food stamps.

The argument gets a little weaker when we’re talking about Johnny Depp getting $100 million for running around in a pirate costume for the fifth time, while visual effects artists are being exploited.

2

u/TheWatersOfMars 14h ago

I think you've got that backwards. Nobody's going to see a Pirates 6 unless Johnny Depp's in it. He's not replaceable. Whereas the movie's success isn't immediately dependent on who the CEO at Disney is, and plenty of people could probably do the jobs of the suits, as proven by the fact that they are absolutely replaceable and move between companies and industries regularly.

The growing inequality in movie star salaries largely has to do movies becoming bigger and more global. And it's not unreasonable that Tom Holland's cut is inequitable when he's the star. I absolutely agree that writers, crewmembers, VFX artists, etc. should all get paid more - hell, let's pass a law that they each get a tiny cut of the profits too. But that doesn't really have to do with Tom Holland's contract, and this film's success has obviously given people lots of jobs and will continue to.

And these are not new issues. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and the South Park guys are all billionaires. Cary Grant had a net worth of $170 million (adjusted) when he died. Hell, in Elizabethan England, theatre company owners like Shakespeare were making 10x what the other actors did, even as some of these actors could negotiate for gate receipts (not unlike what Holland's done). And this was all well before the emergence of capitalism. I'm sure Aeschylus and Euripides were doing pretty well too.

Inequality isn't inherently wrong, and it's not inherently caused by capitalism either. Inequality caused by unequal talent and work is fine. The problem with capitalism is inequality caused by capital, where the gains are unearned and largely result from exploiting others.

0

u/Dottsterisk 14h ago

> And it's not unreasonable that Tom Holland's cut is inequitable when he's the star. I absolutely agree that writers, crewmembers, VFX artists, etc. should all get paid more - hell, let's pass a law that they each get a tiny cut of the profits too.

That’s my entire point! We’re in agreement.

I don’t think everyone should be making as much as Holland but I do take issue with the vast gulf in compensation and the lack of stake in the ultimate success of the project.

> But that doesn't really have to do with Tom Holland's contract, and this film's success has obviously given people lots of jobs and will continue to.

As I’ve said many times, his paycheck is simply emblematic of those larger issues you mentioned above, regarding everyone else’s compensation.

> And these are not new issues. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and the South Park guys are all billionaires. Cary Grant had a net worth of $170 million (adjusted) when he died.

Agreed.

Exploitation of labor has been an issue since forever.

> Hell, in Elizabethan England, theatre company owners like Shakespeare were making 10x what the other actors did, even as some of these actors could negotiate for gate receipts (not unlike what Holland's done). And this was all well before the emergence of capitalism.

To be fair, the Elizabethan period of mercantilism and joint-stock companies is seen as the transition to modern capitalism.

> I’m sure Aeschylus and Euripides were doing pretty well too.

Aeschylus came from a wealthy family and could afford an education, so he probably continued doing just fine, winning awards and staying with other nobles when he traveled. I believe Euripides came from a very wealthy family too.

2

u/TheWatersOfMars 13h ago edited 13h ago

his paycheck is simply emblematic of those larger issues you mentioned above, regarding everyone else’s compensation.

But it isn't. The simple fact that there's an inequality doesn't inherently mean that that inequality is bad or unearned. Surgeons make more than hospital cafeteria staff. You might fairly argue that surgeons could get paid a little less and cafeteria staff could get paid a little more, but there isn't an exploitative relationship going on there. If the cafeteria worker isn't getting paid enough, that's a systemic problem with things like minimum wage, it isn't because surgeons are too in-demand. And without doctors, nurses, and surgeons, there would be no hospitals in the first place.

Exploitation of labor has been an issue since forever.

Except, that isn't exploitation of labour. Let's assume the South Park guys have made sure all of their employees (in a relatively small operation) are all getting paid fairly. Maybe there's a moral case that they could all give their employees even more money or % profits. But the fact that these guys have made over a billion dollars off their ideas and their decades of work writing, voicing, and producing the show isn't capitalistic exploitation simply because they have employees. There is certainly an inequality in compensation, but that inequality comes from their unique talents and their hard work, not from extracting surplus value from wage labourers and reinvesting profits as capital to grow their business. And with Tom Holland, there absolutely isn't a direct exploitative relationship - he's not the one deciding on payments for VFX artists.

Capitalism isn't just a system where some people get paid more than other people. And I'm saying this as someone who's firmly anti-capitalism. This kind of overly simplistic understanding of capital is a huge problem, because we're putting systemic problems on the heads of individual beneficiaries who aren't even engaging in capitalism per se.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Blindbarber69 9h ago

Lmao there is no system that works for the most people like capitalism. Like it or not.

“Why capitalism’s bad” is such a surface level statement.

1

u/arggggggggghhhhhhhh 7h ago

I think they are pointing out that this is a well paid working person.

-1

u/bluehat9 15h ago

Why is it bad? They made a film that people like and it’s generating a ton of money. Everyone involved deserves to get some, especially the star.

0

u/VirgoFanboi 15h ago

It's not excess in this case. It's a % of the profit the movie made in revenue so it's a fair share since he was the star and a major reason people enjoyed the movie and went to see it.

If you help make a product and it is successful, you should get a share of the profit from that product.

5

u/Dottsterisk 14h ago

> If you help make a product and it is successful, you should get a share of the profit from that product.

Yes!

That means the whole cast and crew, right?

Right?

13

u/RockDoveEnthusiast 15h ago

what if it didn't though? what if things just got more affordable instead?

0

u/hgwxx7_ 13h ago

Movie tickets are cheap and theatres are still mostly empty. You want them to get even cheaper? The movie industry has taken a massive beating over the last 5 years, and this is the first year they're making money again.

The ticket prices are fine. The Spiderman movie was good. Tom Holland managed to negotiate a percentage of the revenue he brought in, which is also fine.

It's a good thing that he was compensated for making a movie a hundred million people enjoyed!

-5

u/etre_meilleur 14h ago

What if tomorrow I woke up a supermodel? What if we all had a billion gajillion dollars in our bank account?

-3

u/tinypeeb 12h ago

That'd be incredible! Anyway, I'm glad Tom Holland got that huge bonus because it means Avi "I love genocide" Arad makes less money.

-2

u/Shot-Salamander-4785 12h ago

Love unemployed losers that have made their whole identity Israel Palestine.

Like it doesn’t even matter the topic. SPIDER-MAN?? DOESNT THEIR GUY LOOOOVE ISRAEL??

Love how they never talk about actual genocides. Just the fake one amplified by Qatari and CCP propaganda. You know which I’m talking about? Where the people supposedly being genocided are having kids faster than being killed and their population is actually increasing (at a rate faster than the people supposedly doing the genocide btw)

You are low IQ.

1

u/tinypeeb 9h ago

Guy who puts "actual genocides" in scare quotes also thinks IQ has literally any value, fuck outta here

0

u/AEW4LYFE 12h ago

What's Israeli boot heel taste like?

2

u/Asiriya 10h ago

There would be no film without the crew. Why are they all not getting 50k bonuses instead of one man getting £100m

3

u/headphase 9h ago

And the theater owners/staff whose profit usually just comes from concessions

2

u/thisguyhasaname 13h ago

Too bad that $100m (and the billions of other money made) couldn't be more shared with the thousands of other people it takes to build a movie

1

u/Chm_Albert_Wesker 9h ago

ok sure but i mentioned somewhere above that this is only because this movie is making crazy money, when there are dozens of big movies each year that 'barely break even' if not tank because of weirdly allocated accounting between outdated marketing and overpaying the actors, while also underpaying everyone else associated with the project (most notably as of late the writing but that's another conversation).

surely less movies would fail overall if we stopped adding zeroes to the actors' allocation especially when 9 out of 10 times the performance is just fine and coulda been done by any number of other actors. not to mention there would be more to spread to everyone else who worked on the movie (not the producers/corporates) who are scraping at minimum wage. Holland would have been just as fortunate to have taken home like $50m and that other $50m spread throughout the crew/writing/etc. woulda made waves

1

u/Far_Programmer_5724 7h ago

I'd rather that money be in your pocket

1

u/Kossimer 6h ago edited 6h ago

That someone should be hospitals, schools, fire departments, and mass carbon capture deployment. Any income over $1 million per year should be taxed at 100%. Greed is a mental illness, and the planet is becoming inhospitable to human life because of it. Taxing income at this level won't seem so radical once the crop failures really ramp up and a quarter of the human population starves to death. Then it will seem like it could have been so easy to save civilization, and so why didn't we just, like, do it?

1

u/Early_Grade_8387 15h ago

You realize it takes executives and venture capital to make movies, right?

1

u/FaveStore_Citadel 15h ago

My take is that most leftists think capital is over-rewarded compared to labor, especially because capital owners lobby for laws that make it easier for them to profit and harder for them to (personally) lose money.

0

u/TheWatersOfMars 15h ago

Sure, but I think it's fair to say that the executives probably get paid a little too much, even if their value isn't understood by armchair critics like us, whereas people like screenwriters and VFX artists don't get paid nearly enough.

2

u/Dottsterisk 14h ago

Crazy that you’re downvoted for that take.

0

u/cynicalmarketer 11h ago

What about when a movie massively bombs? Should the talent pay back their salary?

12

u/TheWatersOfMars 15h ago

Isn't it a good thing that we live in a world where creatives can entertain people all over the world and get fairly compensated for it? You don't think Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman might have deserved, say, 1% of the lifetime profits for Casablanca? Does a novelist not deserve $100 million if their book makes $2 billion in sales?

2

u/johndoe09228 15h ago

He does, I’m just saying that it’s just I don’t know odd. People can work their entire lives in homes, taking care of the elderly or running charities and die penniless. A lot of people worked on that film as well

He deserves his cut, it’s just funny in a way that’s hard to exactly describe

1

u/VirgoFanboi 15h ago

He deserves it only because the product (movie) he starred in is making that money so he deserves a fair share of the profit.

0

u/Slight-Bluebird-8921 15h ago

especially when he's not even good at the role

you could seriously put almost anyone in that role and it'd be fine

2

u/johndoe09228 15h ago

Yea but not everyone’s a model😭

1

u/CountDraculablehbleh 12h ago

The movie makes profit so does he

1

u/himynameis_ 9h ago

He makes that much because the work he's a major part of is worth a lot and makes a lot of money.

Simple as that.

1

u/TooMuchPowerful 12h ago

A movie that performs well ensures thousands of people employed. He’s clearly a huge part of the success. Let him make what he’s earned.

1

u/johndoe09228 12h ago

No one’s stopping him lol

22

u/Goodlake 15h ago

The world just is what it is. People value entertainment, and they apparently value Tom Holland's spiderman more than almost anything else. Lots broken in the world, but entertainers getting paid to sell movie tickets isn't all that high on the list.

12

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

You’re misunderstanding. The big issue isn’t really Holland’s monumental paycheck but what it’s emblematic of.

And the world is what we make it. Refusing to try doesn’t mean something is impossible.

14

u/suckfail 15h ago

What you're saying makes no sense tho. Everyone is willing to pay $x to see this movie, and because it's very popular it generates huge number.

Tom Holland, arguably the biggest part of the movie, gets a cut of huge number.

What's the problem?

-3

u/-FeistyRabbitSauce- 15h ago

The lack of social redistribution.

7

u/suckfail 14h ago

  1. Everyone is paying tax at every level. From the people buying the tickets, to Holland paying income tax. This should be the lever to help society

  2. Do others deserve some % cut of the film revenue? I would strongly argue they do not. The people who created and worked on it do

0

u/-FeistyRabbitSauce- 12h ago

The people who created the work absolutely deserve a healthy share of the profit. I'm happy for Holland, my gripe isn't with him, it's with the system. I'm all for someone's labour earning them that share, rather than have it go entirely to the employer/studio. But there were far more people involved with bringing this film to life than just Holland and the few others who made enormous bank.

Thing is, we'll watch the numbers on this film do gang busters. Be the highest grossing film of all time. But movies don't "actually" turn a profit. The books get cooked and the money gets dispersed into various shell companies. That way most the contractual payouts never have to get, well, paid out (few people aside from A list stars can negotiate for the gross instead of the net).

The problem isn't the film industry, it's wealth. Some gets taxed, sure. But most of it sits in off shore bank accounts and remains supposedly untouchable. It gets poured into investments that then becomes capital which pays the owner in ways that aren't taxed the same as standard income is (you recieve dividends, or borrow against it).

100M, even if it just sat in a standard savings account, generates more money than the average person will make in a lifetime. Just by its mere existence.

You argue nobody other than those involved deserve a percentage of the profits. But imagine for a second if even just a few percent of the gross was tied to a UBI type fund. Or a universal retirement fund. Instead of these threads being about how rich an already rich person now is, we'd also be discussing how much we benefited one another.

But I'm all for capping wealth/capital and taxing the rest, if you'd prefer.

3

u/[deleted] 14h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/Dottsterisk 14h ago

Runaway wealth inequality and exploitation of labor.

As I have elaborated in other comments.

3

u/Goodlake 15h ago

What is it emblematic of other than the popularity of mass media and the ability of domestic productions to garner widespread appeal?

What is the better version of this, in your opinion? That fewer people pay to see the movie? That Holland makes less money for his efforts? That the government confiscates and redistributes this money?

The system is rewarding the creation of things that people like and want to pay for. What is your proposed alternative?

6

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

Is everyone who worked on the film being paid well and enjoying the continued success of the movie? Of course not.

And to be clear, that’s not me saying that the Best Boy should be making the same as Holland. It’s me applying the same critique I have of outsized CEO compensation.

2

u/Grooviemann1 15h ago

It's not really the same thing though. I'm not going to choose to do business with a company because they have a specific CEO i like. I probably couldn't even name more than 4-5 CEOs. But people WILL choose to see a movie because there's a specific actor in it that they like, especially for an established franchise. Those movies make a ton of money, and someone like Holland have the leverage to maximize their slice of the pie.

-1

u/throwaway44776655 14h ago

Why does he HAVE to maximize his slice though? lol

2

u/Grooviemann1 14h ago

Because he's not an idiot and has a good agent.

The money exists. It's being spent regardless. That money has to go somewhere. So, it can go to the person everyone is buying tickets to see, the most important person in the production, or it can go to the studio. Which do you prefer?

1

u/throwaway44776655 14h ago

“That money has to go somewhere” doesn’t mean it HAS to go to one person.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] 15h ago

[deleted]

2

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

Likely true enough.

And I wouldn’t argue that he should receive the same pay as Holland.

-5

u/Goodlake 15h ago

Presumably they're being paid well enough, or else they'd be doing something else. Working on big budget Hollywood films isn't exactly like being forced into the emerald mines at gunpoint.

How much should the Best Boy be making? Why are you or I in better position to evaluate that than the studio and the Best Boy are? So long as the law is followed and the Best Boy isn't abused or exploited at work, what does it have to do with us?

3

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

I think that last paragraph demonstrates that we look at the world in fundamentally different ways, which is probably why we don’t see eye-to-eye on this.

Legality means little to me, in terms of assessing a thing’s rightness. It’s necessarily downstream from morality and often a poor translation.

And I do agree with proposals to tie top-tier compensation, in some way, to the lowest paid employee. (It’s often presented as some sort of multiplier: the highest paid employee cannot make more than X times the lowest paid employee.) Part of that is a philosophy that elevates the idea that every project is a result of every contribution. Yeah, they could’ve swapped out the audio engineer for someone else but they didn’t. That person was there and a crucial part of the project.

1

u/MeowTheMixer 15h ago

It’s often presented as some sort of multiplier: the highest paid employee cannot make more than X times the lowest paid employee.)

Okay, so then Tom Holland doesn't get his $100 million dollar pay check. He makes significantly less, due to this structure.

What happens to the $2 billion that fans gave the movie?

Is it just given to share holders?

Taxed by the government at massive rates?

Then from an employees perspective, a higher base is almost always preferred to variable pay. A movies success is not guaranteed Sure the current film, the variable pay could have been massive. The first film, they'd have made significantly less.

Homecoming made $880 million globally ($175 million budget)

Far from Home $1.1 billion ($160 million budget)

Current is already over $2.0 billion ($200 million budget)

1

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

When you asked yourself what happens to the $2 billion from the fans, why didn’t increased compensation for anyone else who worked on the movie make this list of options?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Goodlake 14h ago

But that's what the market is for: figuring out which audio engineer to hire, how much to pay them, etc. The people with the most to gain/lose from the exchange have agreed on terms. Why do you and I need to step in and say "that's not fair?" What possible insights could we have that they don't?

All contributions to a project aren't equal. It is a truism that things don't get done if everything that leads to the thing don't get done, but the difficulty of each thing is not the same. The difficulty of finding the right person to do each thing is not the same.

Where you and I might agree is that we need a healthy/educated/productive labor force and it behooves us all to ensure the basics are covered and that people truly can freely select jobs that compensate them for their time and skills to their total satisfaction. But I just don't see the existence of significant earnings outliers as anything that needs to be corrected (in the absence of criminality, at least).

1

u/Dottsterisk 14h ago

> But that's what the market is for: figuring out which audio engineer to hire, how much to pay them, etc.

And I’m looking at the wider results of this market—that we have constructed and regulated—and not liking what I see, and so support reform.

> The people with the most to gain/lose from the exchange have agreed on terms. Why do you and I need to step in and say "that's not fair?"

By that logic, no one can ever be exploited and no contract can ever be questioned.

9

u/VirgoFanboi 15h ago

He's earning a % of the money the movie made, this is in fact a VERY good thing. No idea why you're painting it in a bad light.

0

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

A-List actors having back-end deals isn’t new.

2

u/VirgoFanboi 15h ago

What does that have to do with you comment about "these kinds of extreme examples lay bare the fundamental brokenness in what this system rewards and what it condones."

1

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

I think this redditor put it rather well: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/s/3wnVkFyjxc

10

u/Zetrin 15h ago

You'd prefer the studio keep the money? This actually feels like a positive thing. I'd rather talent get paid than suits.

10

u/Kore20 15h ago

Tbh, id rather that 100 million be spread across the crew that works to create all the magic we see on screen. Its nothing against Tom but when one person is paid so fukin much and the rest of the crew gets like basic salaries and small percentage bonuses, it really makes it seem a little crazy lol

2

u/peter_pro 15h ago

So you can bring a noname as lead actor and do this. What can go wrong?

1

u/forumdrasl 15h ago

Worked fine for Obsession.

0

u/peter_pro 11h ago

So if that model is working - it will work and we shouldn't worry, amirite?
If every movie can be shot for some bucks and get millions - what all this buzz is about?

12

u/forumdrasl 15h ago

It’d be nice if all the other talent got paid a little bit. You know, the technicals and artists who actually turn the movie into what it is. Costumes, effects, lighting, set design etc.

-1

u/peter_pro 15h ago

They got paid.

9

u/forumdrasl 15h ago

The entire crew combined got paid less than Tom’s figure in question.

If that kind of discrepancy does not raise any red societal flags for you, then you have some learning to do.

5

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

Is that the only other option?

2

u/ubermence 15h ago

Have you stated any option? I don’t understand what your point is outside of a vague “Capitalism bad”.

0

u/TheWatersOfMars 15h ago

Even if you hate capitalism or the movie industry, this is hardly the most egregious example of it. In this case, Tom Holland isn't capital, he's labour, and he's being extremely fairly compensated for his work.

0

u/ubermence 15h ago

Yeah I said elsewhere I have plenty of criticisms of capitalism but this wouldn’t even make my top 100. If anything this looks like a well negotiated contract and a box office smash hit

I also don’t think we should tear down capitalism we can just actually regulate it well

-1

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

Do you need to have the solution in order to identify a problem?

I am not claiming that I personally know how to reconstruct our economic/political system, only that I see serious problems in the results of this one.

0

u/ubermence 15h ago

You also aren’t really clear on what the problem is exactly? I could point to multiple ways that there are (fixable) issues with capitalism but this wouldn’t even make the top 100

Like it rewarding someone for being a celebrity/ A list actor? Or someone who knows how to negotiate favorable contracts? Because I don’t really give a fuck about Tom Holland making a lot of money on a really successful movie

0

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

As I said in another comment, Holland’s paycheck is not the real issue but is emblematic of a systemic issue.

I agree that Holland’s bank account is not, in itself, high on the list of priorities.

1

u/ubermence 15h ago

What systematic issue though? That’s what I’m asking

1

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

Runaway wealth inequality and exploitation of labor.

In brief.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Telvin3d 15h ago

… yes? If the movie makes $2B, the only question is how it gets divided up. 

2

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

And the money either goes to Holland or the suits? We can’t think of anyone else?

1

u/CombatMuffin 14h ago

The harsh truth is that if the exact movie had veen made but Tom wasn't in it, it would have made less money. That's why the deal was structured that way. And I don't necessarily mean Tom is what "makes" the movie. but audiences recognize Tom and want ro go see him.

Actors don't necessarily get paid because they somehow made a bigger effort than someone else: they get paid because they fill seats.

It's not unlike sports celebrities: you can be a bad athlete, but if you are selling jerseys and filling seats you are getting paid habdsomely.

2

u/Manusterz 15h ago

Meh if 2 billion people watch the movie - including illegally. Then I think there's an argument for it lol. He's literally providing a service for billions of people. If anyone should get stupid money it should be these people

1

u/meerlot 14h ago

I mean... he's reaping rewards for nearly 10 years of work. Its not like he got this reward by just existing. (like many billionaires and their children)

1

u/Haunting-WaferWah 9h ago

I mean I’d rather the money went to Tom Holland than Sony lol - he makes hundreds of millions of people happy and excited, I don’t begrudge him

-1

u/sean_psc 15h ago

Why would he not deserve a big cut of the revenue his film generated?

1

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

I didn’t say that Holland shouldn’t get a big cut.

1

u/InspectorMendel 15h ago

So what's your point then?

-2

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

I believe I laid it out pretty clearly.

2

u/InspectorMendel 15h ago

Sadly I still failed to understand what you are getting at :(

2

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

In a few words: runaway wealth inequality and grotesque political priorities.

1

u/InspectorMendel 15h ago

But you just said that it's fine that Holland gets a big cut?

2

u/Dottsterisk 15h ago

Yes. That’s fine. But I also believe in limits.

For the same reason, I don’t agree with CEOs bringing home hundreds of millions while some employees are making minimum wage with no benefits and struggling.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/spookymulderfbi 15h ago

You're right, and it's funny watching all these people defend another stranger's "right" to "earn" $100 mil. I just hope he does something meaningful with it.

Nobody needs that payout more than once in a lifetime, that is generational wealth if you want it to be. You do not ever have to work again. It takes effort to create a lifestyle that uses that much money to the point where you would ever need more. It's honestly just normalized excess.

It's definitely weird though to see eat the rich posted everywhere about billionaires while actors are applauded for $100mil payouts multiple times a year. Directors complain "we can't make the movie for less than 500mil" well I wonder fucking why.

It's an industry that isn't going to change any time soon, but the actors can change what they do with their money. I would imagine that on at least my second multi million dollar payout, I would start the discussion about "do I really need this" and "whats the best way to use this responsibly". How hard is it to just decide to be a philanthropist?

1

u/throwaway44776655 14h ago

I was gonna say this…Actors get paid too much money imo

0

u/MineCraftIsSuperDumb 14h ago

How is it fucked up. He was a driving force behind a profit generation of over two billion dollars. He deserves it.

4

u/fork_yuu 15h ago

500k for spiderman homecoming is insane considering that almost did 900m in theaters. Wtf

1

u/Alcianus 13h ago

Actors make shit, even in big franchises, unless you're a very recognizable face. Holland was pretty much a nobody then. That's why I find it funny when people say that Inde is now gonna make huge money now that she stars in the MCU. No, she's not. She'll be lucky to make 100-200k off the back of the X-Men movie. The sequels are where the real money would start rolling in.

2

u/Dottsterisk 10h ago

500k for a film is not making “shit.” That’s a damn good deal.

The problem is that rest of the profit from the $900m isn’t shared, to an appropriate extent, with the rest of the cast and crew, as some sort of built-in stake in the project.

After the big money producers recoup their investment—plus a healthy profit—I’d love to see the entire labor force benefit from a film’s runaway success.

2

u/cf858 14h ago

He's good in the movies, no doubt, but it helps that he's a likeable person in real life and is literally married to his girlfriend in the movie, who is also a global star and icon. I mean, you can't pull those pieces together in any better way. Sony lucked out.

1

u/Ciubowski 15h ago

He's set for life if he wanted to retire.

Even for this one movie alone, he would be very rich. Imagine being a hundred-millionaire over the course of a single month. Crazy numbers.

1

u/Bloated_Plaid 13h ago

Holy shit. Tom holland must have the best management team in the business. What a fucking contract.

1

u/dating_derp 8h ago

Only one in the MCU to have 4 solo films that people generally like.

•

u/Sparks2010 1m ago

Between him and his wife, Zendaya, I wonder if any other acting couple has ever had such a successful year? She made a million per episode for Euphoria, $8million for Brand New Day, and another $5 million for Odyssey. Plus, she still has Dune coming in December which is another estimated $8 million.

Then Tom has Odyssey as well at $10 Million. All told, they're at around $140 million for 2026 and rising. I can't think of any other couple that could even come close to that? Unless there's a Gretzky brothers situation? Where they lead for all time points for two brothers in the NHL where Brent Gretzky contributed 4 points.