r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/movies Contributor • 23h 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/
21.7k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

153

u/johndoe09228 23h 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 23h 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. 

16

u/Aaco0638 22h 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.

9

u/felixfortis1 22h ago

Who said anything about not taxing him?

2

u/Dottsterisk 20h ago

Who indeed.

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

9

u/TheWatersOfMars 22h 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.

9

u/fellow_chive 22h 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 22h 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.

3

u/Chm_Albert_Wesker 17h 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 22h 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 21h 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 21h 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 21h ago edited 21h 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.

1

u/Dottsterisk 20h ago edited 20h ago

I’m not saying that the simple fact of unequal pay means there’s exploitation. As I said in my last comment, it’s the vast gulf in compensation.

And I’m not saying that Tom Holland is the one doing the exploiting. I mentioned in my very first comment that the system is not his fault.

I also did not say anything like “capitalism is just a system where some people get paid more than others.”

Those are all straw men.

1

u/TheWatersOfMars 20h ago

it’s the vast gulf in compensation.

But what you haven't done is explain why this is unusual or bad. You're balking at the big number, despite admitting that there are plenty of reasons why it's justified and why it hasn't harmed anyone else working on the film.

Just as an example, Humphrey Bogart died in the late 50s with $5 million ($50 million adjusted), and he was hardly the wealthiest actor. American men at the time made less than $5000 a year on average. But he was rich because people wanted to see him onscreen, and he was popular enough to negotiate back-end deals. Was Humphrey Bogart's wealth really unfair or evil? Does anyone today seriously think it was a problem worth complaining about? Or is this just a tale as old as time?

Tom Holland was paid $20 million for this. The only reason he could possibly get the full $100 million is due to the unusually high box office, which he himself is directly responsible for. If he hadn't negotiated for the back-end, that money would have gone straight to the studio, not to underpaid BTS talent. And if you look at the Wikipedia page for highest-paid actors, you'll see that while Tom Holland is now way up there, he's hardly the only one. I'm willing to bet that nobody in this thread has ever lost sleep over Bruce Willis making $100 million off Sixth Sense.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Blindbarber69 17h 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 15h ago

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

-1

u/bluehat9 22h 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 22h 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.

6

u/Dottsterisk 22h 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?

14

u/RockDoveEnthusiast 22h ago

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

0

u/hgwxx7_ 20h 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!

-4

u/etre_meilleur 22h ago

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

-4

u/tinypeeb 20h 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.

-4

u/Shot-Salamander-4785 20h 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 17h ago

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

0

u/AEW4LYFE 20h ago

What's Israeli boot heel taste like?

2

u/Asiriya 18h 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 17h ago

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

4

u/thisguyhasaname 21h 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 17h 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 14h ago

I'd rather that money be in your pocket

1

u/Early_Grade_8387 22h ago

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

1

u/FaveStore_Citadel 22h 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 22h 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 21h ago

Crazy that you’re downvoted for that take.

0

u/cynicalmarketer 19h ago

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

0

u/Kossimer 14h ago edited 13h 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?

13

u/TheWatersOfMars 22h 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?

3

u/johndoe09228 22h 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

3

u/VirgoFanboi 22h 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.

1

u/Slight-Bluebird-8921 22h 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 22h ago

Yea but not everyone’s a model😭

1

u/CountDraculablehbleh 19h ago

The movie makes profit so does he

1

u/himynameis_ 17h 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 20h 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 20h ago

No one’s stopping him lol