The Crown In The Media

[OtterMommy]

I guess I'm stuck on the point that Netflix, or whatever entity was responsible, somehow didn't think that this would come back to bite them.  I mean, I understand the whole Matt Smith is better known than Claire Foy thing--except I just don't believe that Matt Smith was that big of a draw.  Yes, he may have brought in some Dr. Who viewers, but I don't actually see that much overlap between Dr. Who viewers and The Crown viewers.  I *might* be able to buy that if it were, say, Dan Stevens (who, frankly, I think might have actually been a better Prince Philip anyway) because I can see Stevens actually being more of a draw among people who are more likely to watch a show like this.  But, in the end, I really don't think Smith's notoriety was such that it warranted him to be paid, as a supporting actor, more than the clear lead of the show.  Heck, I don't even think he warranted pay equal to John Lithgow.

But, again, this sort of thing always comes out and it always makes the studio/production company/whatever look incredibly bad.  That is why I'm also shocked when a story like this comes out.

[jjj]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

If no one pushes back, the vicious cycle continues. I’m not saying Claire Foy has to be the standard-bearer, but I really hope she has a serious talk with her agents about future projects. And that other actresses’ agents push harder.

Totally agree.  We have two different situations, two years ago, and now:  (1) when she/agent negotiated and signed a contract, which probably seemed like a dream in terms of the dollars and prestige, and they were working in a vacuum of lack of knowledge of other contracts; and (2) the current realization that there was neither parity nor fairness in those contracts.  I can understand all sides agreeing to the original contract; but it is the current situation that needs to be rectified, and only retroactive pay will resolve the inequity.  With the producers waiting this long, it makes me think the differential in those salaries must be massive over two seasons.  But this production can afford another $500K to $1 million, which is what it would cost if his salary was 50% to 100% higher.  YES, she also gained significant prestige and a better bargaining position as a result of this series, BUT SO DID HE!!!  Because *SHE* made this series so great!!! 

New article from Salon today:  "How loudly do we have to ring the shame bell?" 
  https://www.salon.com/2018/03/13/pay-her-shes-the-queen-the-gender-pay-gap-on-the-crown-is-a-disgrace/

30 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

I guess I'm stuck on the point that Netflix, or whatever entity was responsible, somehow didn't think that this would come back to bite them. 

But, again, this sort of thing always comes out and it always makes the studio/production company/whatever look incredibly bad.  That is why I'm also shocked when a story like this comes out.

Yup.

Edited March 15, 2018 by jjj

[ProudMary]

Latest news:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/crown-petition-urges-star-matt-smith-donate-pay-disparity-times-up-1095396?facebook_2018319

Quote

Days after news broke that The Crown star Claire Foy was paid less than male counterpart Matt Smith, a petition is calling on the latter to donate the extra salary he received for the Netflix drama to the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund.

The Care2 Petition urges Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and Smith to "show that they stand with women and do the right thing," while asking the actor and streaming giant to donate the difference in Smith's pay to the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund.

[OtterMommy]

I'm a little torn on this.  Yes, it would be great for Times Up to get more money and I do think that Netflix should be doing something--if not out of plain decency, then at least to try to repair its image on this front.  But, on the other hand, I kind of think that money should be going to Claire Foy....

[dubbel zout]

I think Matt Smith should keep his money, and Netflix should pay Claire Foy more and make a donation to Time's Up. Men giving up part of their salary to women isn't the way to achieve salary parity. That just breeds resentment on their part. Set the budgets properly in the first place.

[OtterMommy]

37 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

I think Matt Smith should keep his money, and Netflix should pay Claire Foy more and make a donation to Time's Up. Men giving up part of their salary to women isn't the way to achieve salary parity. That just breeds resentment on their part. Set the budgets properly in the first place.

I agree.  With the Mark Wahlberg case, it was more like he demanded more money in addition to what he was contracted...but here Matt Smith was just doing his thing.  This is all on Netflix.

[benteen]

While concerns about pay disparity are legitimate in Hollywood and elsewhere, I don't have an issue with Matt Smith being paid more money than Claire Foy for The Crown.  He was a lot more famous than Claire was when he was cast in The Crown.  Being the lead in Doctor Who makes you very famous around the world while Claire was a relative unknown.  The reason I initially became aware of this show was because of Matt Smith's casting.  If their various situation had been reversed, with Claire Foy being the well-known actor and Matt Smith being the relative unknown, it would be outrageous.  But Matt Smith was much more well-known when this project was announced.  He shouldn't have to give back any of his money for this role.  Going forward, I would expect Claire Foy to be paid more than her male co-star.

Edited March 21, 2018 by benteen

[Anothermi]

33 minutes ago, benteen said:

Going forward, I would expect Claire Foy to be paid less than her male co-star.

I understand and take your points except for this one. However, upon reflection I think there might be a typo?

Did you mean you wouldn't expect Claire Fay to be paid less...?

[OtterMommy]

35 minutes ago, benteen said:

While concerns about pay disparity are legitimate in Hollywood and elsewhere, I don't have an issue with Matt Smith being paid more money than Claire Foy for The Crown.  He was a lot more famous than Claire was when he was cast in The Crown.  Being the lead in Doctor Who makes you very famous around the world while Claire was a relative unknown.  The reason I initially became aware of this show was because of Matt Smith's casting.  If their various situation had been reversed, with Claire Foy being the well-known actor and Matt Smith being the relative unknown, it would be outrageous.  But Matt Smith was much more well-known when this project was announced.  He shouldn't have to give back any of his money for this role.  Going forward, I would expect Claire Foy to be paid less than her male co-star.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Matt Smith give back money, or that he was in any way responsible for this.  All the criticism is levied at Netflix (or the production company, which I guess is Netflix?).  

Now, I do understand that these contracts were probably signed about 3 years ago, when the entertainment industry was in a different climate.  However, I actually don't see Matt Smith as being needed to draw in viewers.  I had no clue who Matt Smith was before watching The Crown and, honestly, I would have watched this show no matter who was in it.  And, unlike Dr. Who, this isn't as much of a niche show.  I also really can't justify in my mind how a clearly supporting actor is being paid more than a clear lead.  If this show were called, "Liz and Phil, the early years...." okay, maybe I could buy it.  But it isn't.  It's a show about Queen Elizabeth and her reign and the fact that there was even a question that someone who warrant higher pay than the actress playing Queen Elizabeth, no matter who it was, boggles my mind.  (Not that it is anyone's business, but I wonder where John Lithgow fell in the pay scheme of things--he's a far more established actor than either Smith or Foy, and more in demand--and he gave one hell of a performance.  He also had, in terms of story in the first season, a bigger role than Smith.)

I also wonder if entertainment contracts ever factor in some sort of bonus system.  If an actor turns in an amazing performance, is nominated for nearly every award, and wins a good share of them--is there any sort of monetary compensation for that?

[ProudMary]

Lip service.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/crown-production-company-apologizes-claire-foy-matt-smith-pay-controversy-1095834

Quote

"We want to apologize to both Claire Foy and to Matt Smith, brilliant actors and friends, who have found themselves at the center of a media storm this week through no fault of their own," Left Bank said in a statement. "Claire and Matt are incredibly gifted actors who, along with the wider cast on The Crown, have worked tirelessly to bring our characters to life with compassion and integrity."

The company added: "As the producers of The Crown, we at Left Bank Pictures are responsible for budgets and salaries; the actors are not aware of who gets what and cannot be held personally responsible for the pay of their colleagues."

[PeterPirate]

I doubt that Claire Foy would have made the cover of Vanity Fair with the likes of Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, Nicole Kidman, and Harrison Ford had she not played Elizabeth II.  

[jjj]

I love this: producers are asking us not to blame Matt Smith for this, "absolving Matt Smith in particular of any potential guilt."  WHAT???

Dear Producers: NO ONE is blaming Matt Smith!  Pay Claire Foy what she was worth in Season Two!  

 https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/03/the-crown-claire-foy-queen-elizabeth-paid-less-matt-smith-prince-philip-apology  

6 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

I also wonder if entertainment contracts ever factor in some sort of bonus system.  If an actor turns in an amazing performance, is nominated for nearly every award, and wins a good share of them--is there any sort of monetary compensation for that?

Absolutely, and usually this is in a contract.  

[benteen]

16 hours ago, Anothermi said:

I understand and take your points except for this one. However, upon reflection I think there might be a typo?

Did you mean you wouldn't expect Claire Fay to be paid less...?

That was definitely a typo and I just corrected it.  Thank you for bringing that up.

I have no idea what the contract stipulations are but I would agree that Claire was entitled to a big raise after Season 1 of The Crown.  She should definitely have been paid what she was worth, which is considerable. 

I'm curious to about how much John Lithgow made for Season 1 but as pointed out, that's nobody's business.

Edited March 21, 2018 by benteen

[Pallas]

7 hours ago, jjj said:

Dear Producers: NO ONE is blaming Matt Smith!

The producers may be referring to the Care2 petition that ProudMary cited above, which asks Smith to donate the margin between his salary and Foy's to the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund. 

 

14 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

I also really can't justify in my mind how a clearly supporting actor is being paid more than a clear lead.

Actors in principal roles, which both parts were, must be paid scale, and anything above scale is negotiable. What's at issue is how much the producers want that specific actor for that specific role. Producers will pay more if the actor brings them more of what they need. Especially in a two-year serial production as expensive as this, they are looking for reassurance that the actor will help them make money and not lose it. One factor is global name recognition and box office appeal. Another is experience in what the role requires: as a lead in an episodic, two-year series. Matt Smith came with both. So did John Lithgow, who I certainly expect was paid more than Foy for Season 1. 

To these negotiations Claire Foy's agent brought her potential to be outstanding in the role. The producers had reason to expect nothing less. She surely had stiff competition. She was cast from among other British female actors in her age cohort: actors who, like her, are well-trained, much-experienced, and accustomed to taking on complex, literate and "period" parts over a 500-year range or more. And her potential to be outstanding was untested under the pressure of carrying the lead in a very expensive series -- an estimated $7 million per episode -- shot at multiple locations under a heavy schedule over two years. 

Actors aren't paid by the line any more than authors are. The best-paid professionals aren't paid by the hour, nor only by their skill. Seniority and/or results in hand count for more. Residents work longer hours than attendings. Associates work longer hours than partners. Middle managers work longer hours than executives. All receive less pay. And you bet -- given gender inequity as it plays out over seniority, all are much more likely to be women.

Until last year, no woman had ever been given the chance to play Dr. Who. No person of color has yet. (And don't tell me, story-tellers, that an actor as distinctive-looking and attention-seizing as Peter Capaldi passes unnoticed among us...) Judging by film and television, male is still the default for person, and white male the default for a person of consequence. 

Equity UK represents British stage, TV and film performers. The union is now mounting a campaign to remedy the 2/1 ratio of male to female roles on television. Equity UK previously campaigned against the same disparity found in stage roles, making the further point that these theatres were state-subsidized, so that public funds were supporting professional inequity.

That, to me, addresses a greater issue than compensation at the very top. Its resolution would have profound repercussions across society: with everyone who watches TV or goes to the movies. If more roles are played by women, more women will work. Beyond that, if more roles are written for women, more kinds of stories will be told. Women -- even when portrayed as compassionate or flexible; even when portrayed as mothers! -- may come to be seen as no less than human.

Of course, equity in the number of acting jobs available doesn't scale those jobs. The lead roles for women in television dramas come almost entirely in one flavor: crime-fighter; that is, someone who reacts to some man's bad behavior. It's either cop or Queen. And I can easily imagine a new glass ceiling of supporting roles, beneath which they still hear the same old word from above: "I'm not sure audiences see you as the kind of person who can carry a story..."  But the more roles are written for women, the more women will be seen in those roles; the more women are seen in those roles, the more women actors will be able to reply, "Give me a story to carry and get out of my way." 

[AZChristian]

14 hours ago, ProudMary said:

The company added: "As the producers of The Crown, we at Left Bank Pictures are responsible for budgets and salaries; the actors are not aware of who gets what and cannot be held personally responsible for the pay of their colleagues."

And was Matt Smith's paycheck the last blank check in their checkbook, so they can't write a check to Claire NOW?  Lots of companies award deserving employees surprise bonuses.  If anyone deserves it, it's Claire Foy.

[PeterPirate]

Paying Foy less than Smith sends the message:  "Hey, we've cast this cheap (ie talentless) actress in the lead role.  No need to watch this drivel."  

I'm dubious about the notion that the show "owed" Foy as much as Smith, since Smith came in as the more well-known quantity.  I'm more dubious about the notion that the show "owes" Foy more now that the contract is up.  But from a brand management perspective, it would have made sense for the show to pay Foy an equal amount and to make it known. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by PeterPirate

[dubbel zout]

2 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Paying Foy less than Smith sends the message:  "Hey, we've cast this cheap (ie talentless) actress in the lead role.  No need to watch this drivel."  

I disagree. It sends the message: "A woman might be the main character in this series, but the men are still more important, and we'll pay accordingly. And if we cast a lesser known actress, we don't have to pay her as much. Win win!"

[biakbiak]

2 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Paying Foy less than Smith sends the message:  "Hey, we've cast this cheap (ie talentless) actress in the lead role.  No need to watch this drivel."  

Not really simce the only reason this came to light because the show is a huge hit. The producers never expected this to get out.

[Roseanna]

On ‎20‎.‎3‎.‎2018 at 10:41 PM, benteen said:

Being the lead in Doctor Who makes you very famous around the world while Claire was a relative unknown.  

Before this show I had never seen Matt Smith nor heard of him and this thread is the first time I have ever learned of Doctor Who whereas I had did know Claire Foy after watching her in Wolf Hall. 

[biakbiak]

29 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Before this show I had never seen Matt Smith nor heard of him and this thread is the first time I have ever learned of Doctor Who whereas I had did know Claire Foy after watching her in Wolf Hall. 

Yes, there are always niches of fandom but Matt Smith had been on the cover of multiple issues of Entertainment Weekly, TV Guide, and several other magazines, talk shows, sold out panels at ComicCon, a gazillion podcasts, etc and had a demonstrable higher profile.

[orza]

I would guess that John Lithgow was paid more than both Foy and Smith. He is an established star with a lot of high-profile successes over the years. It would also would not surprise me if Anton Lesser and perhaps Jeremy Notham were also paid more than Claire Foy. They are also established stars. Lesser has created a memorable character on the currently most watched TV show in the world and has recently worked with the likes of Brad Pitt in big Hollywood productions. That counts for something in contract negotiations. An actor's market value and proven ability to carry a show and bring eyeballs to the screen plays a really big role in contract negotiations. Claire Foy didn't have much in the way of big international successes to point to at the time she negotiated her contract.

[PeterPirate]

7 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I disagree. It sends the message: "A woman might be the main character in this series, but the men are still more important, and we'll pay accordingly. And if we cast a lesser known actress, we don't have to pay her as much. Win win!"

I think we agree that it sends a negative message. The actual wording depends on one's taste in snark. 

 

7 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Not really simce the only reason this came to light because the show is a huge hit. The producers never expected this to get out.

Yeah, but engaging in snark is more fun.

Edited March 22, 2018 by PeterPirate

[andromeda331]

12 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I disagree. It sends the message: "A woman might be the main character in this series, but the men are still more important, and we'll pay accordingly. And if we cast a lesser known actress, we don't have to pay her as much. Win win!"

 

12 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Not really simce the only reason this came to light because the show is a huge hit. The producers never expected this to get out.

I wouldn't be surprise if both were true. 

On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 8:06 PM, dubbel zout said:

I think Matt Smith should keep his money, and Netflix should pay Claire Foy more and make a donation to Time's Up. Men giving up part of their salary to women isn't the way to achieve salary parity. That just breeds resentment on their part. Set the budgets properly in the first place.

Exactly, its Netflix that should to pay up not Matt Smith.

[OtterMommy]

Here is a pretty good write up of the whole salary situation.  There is nothing "new" in it, but it does bring up some issues that we haven't really been picked at here....namely that the pay disparity in this case was sort of a double-whammy for Foy, since it was established that she would be in the role for only 2 seasons and would never have the opportunity to negotiate a higher salary based on her accomplishments in this show.

 

‘The Crown’: The Story Behind The Salary Soundbite That Went Viral

[biakbiak]

1 hour ago, OtterMommy said:

namely that the pay disparity in this case was sort of a double-whammy for Foy, since it was established that she would be in the role for only 2 seasons and would never have the opportunity to negotiate a higher salary based on her accomplishments in this show.

I don't find that argument very compelling because multiseason contracts are standard and it would be very rare for renogations after only one season. As the article points out she can now leverage her success in future projects.

Edited March 22, 2018 by biakbiak

[dubbel zout]

Here's hoping her agents do a good job using all of this to get Foy proper compensation. 

[CelticBlackCat]

6 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Here's hoping her agents do a good job using all of this to get Foy proper compensation. 

Claire Foy should be paid in line with her success on two seasons of The Crown on future projects, for sure.  Matt Smith is under no obligation financially or morally to donate any of his pay to anyone or any legal defense fund or any other organization.  He worked for the money he negotiated to be paid and that should be the end of it.  It would be nice if Netflix gave Claire a bonus out of their own pockets to make up for the pay disparity, since she did play Queen Elizabeth and did a wonderful job doing so!  This is all IMHO.

[Arynm]

I don't think that Matt Smith should feel like he needs to give any of his salary away. He is worth what he was paid, regardless of the issue with Claire's pay. She started at a different place than Matt did, and unfortunately that means she gets paid less. I also think that every contract should have a clause for performance bonuses. Maybe something off the back or a set amount based on the awards. Claire is now in a much better place to negotiate for a much higher salary going forward.  I really don't think this is a gender thing as much as a disparity due to known work.

[dubbel zout]

6 hours ago, Arynm said:

I really don't think this is a gender thing as much as a disparity due to known work.

Imagine if the show were about Prince Philip as the main character, and the actor playing Queen Elizabeth got paid more. You can bet there'd be a big stink. I don't think you can take gender out of it, even if the renown of the actors is a factor. Men in general are paid more than women.

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

Imagine if the show were about Prince Philip as the main character, and the actor playing Queen Elizabeth got paid more. You can bet there'd be a big stink. I don't think you can take gender out of it, even if the renown of the actors is a factor. Men in general are paid more than women.

There wouldn't be a stink if the actress playing Elizabeth was more well-known than Matt Smith.

Which leads to another, more general question on this topic:  How many actresses of Claire Foy's age (say, 28 or 29 when she was first cast)  are more famous than Matt Smith?

It's a chicken-or-egg question. Matt Smith got paid more because he was more well-known. But he was more well-known because the entertainment business favors men over women.

Edited March 24, 2018 by PeterPirate

[OtterMommy]

12 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

There wouldn't be a stink if the actress playing Elizabeth was more well-known than Matt Smith.

Which leads to another, more general question on this topic:  How many actresses of Claire Foy's age (say, 28 or 29 when she was first cast)  are more famous than Matt Smith?

It's a chicken-or-egg question. Matt Smith got paid more because he was more well-known. But he was more well-known because the entertainment business favors men over women.

That is an interesting question.  I think the pool is very small--a few actresses from Game of Thrones and some singers who might know how to act?  (I don't watch GoT and I can't think of any singers, so I can't provide any names).  The only I can think of off the top of my head who could have possibly been a contender for Elizabeth is Jessica Brown Findlay and, sadly, I'm sure that she would not have been deemed a draw either.  (Which is too bad because, again, I was far more impressed in Foy's performance, and would have expected Findlay had she been cast, to do as well, than I was of Smith's performance).

Queen Elizabeth is definitely a plum role and Foy is clearly reaping benefits outside of a paycheck from playing her.  That still doesn't make the situation sit right with me.   Perhaps if I felt that no one else could have played Philip other than Matt Smith (which I don't...I think any number of actors could have done at least an equal, if not better, job), I would be a little more tolerant of the "he's a bigger draw" argument.  But that is not the case.

[dubbel zout]

54 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

There wouldn't be a stink if the actress playing Elizabeth was more well-known than Matt Smith.

I think there would be. Meryl Streep had to fight for more money for The Devil Wears Prada because she felt she was being low-balled, and her costar was Anne Hathaway.

It is what it is a this point, and hopefully the entertainment business in general—not just movies and TV, but books, music, etc.—will be more thoughtful about how salaries are paid.

[Pete Martell]

What I wonder about is whether Claire Foy and Matt Smith were consulted before the production company made this announcement. Claire Foy mentions how uncomfortable they both feel with the media attention:

http://ew.com/tv/2018/03/24/claire-foy-the-crown-pay-controversy/

“I’m surprised because I’m at the center of it, and anything that I’m at the center of like that is very very odd, and feels very very out of ordinary,” Foy told EW on Friday. “But I’m not [surprised about the interest in the story] in the sense that it was a female-led drama. I’m not surprised that people saw [the story] and went, ‘Oh, that’s a bit odd.’ But I know that Matt feels the same that I do, that it’s odd to find yourself at the center [of a story] that you didn’t particularly ask for.”

If they were not included before the production company decided to break the story, then that means not only was Claire Foy not paid equal to Matt Smith, but she and Smith were both left hanging out to dry with so much media attention swirling around them, in a way that will bring backlash for them both. 

[biakbiak]

25 minutes ago, Pete Martell said:

If they were not included before the production company decided to break the story, then that means not only was Claire Foy not paid equal to Matt Smith, but she and Smith were both left hanging out to dry with so much media attention swirling around them, in a way that will bring backlash for them both. 

It was a quick answer to a question in a panel discussion in Jerusalem. I don't think anyone in production decided to break the story or imagined that it would get the traction that it did. 

[formerlyfreedom]

It wasn't an announcement, it was the result of a question on a panel;

Quote

“Were Claire Foy and Matt Smith paid equally for their star turns on Netflix’s The Crown?” I thought it was a topical, yet relatively straightforward, question that would illicit some variation on the “We’d rather not talk about money, we’re British” answer.

However, it didn’t, and it turns out they weren’t. When I agreed to moderate a panel on The Crown, with exec producers Andy Harries and Suzanne Mackie and production designer Martin Childs, at the INTV conference in Jerusalem, I figured we’d have a pleasant chat about a show that’s been heavily dissected since its launch in November 2016 and potentially fish out a few hints about the next two seasons. I certainly didn’t expect to secure a royal scoop.

It seems they had no clue the can of worms that was opened during the event.

[Pete Martell]

35 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

It was a quick answer to a question in a panel discussion in Jerusalem. I don't think anyone in production decided to break the story or imagined that it would get the traction that it did. 

Thanks. 

Given the current climate, especially after everything with Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg, I'm not surprised it went the way it did.

I'm glad they apologized to Foy and Smith as they put them both in a bind. At least their time on the show is over and they have moved on to other projects. 

Edited March 25, 2018 by Pete Martell

[Roseanna]

On ‎21‎.‎3‎.‎2018 at 4:24 PM, Pallas said:

And her potential to be outstanding was untested under the pressure of carrying the lead in a very expensive series -- an estimated $7 million per episode -- shot at multiple locations under a heavy schedule over two years. 

But there is no guarantee that a star will succeed. Each role begins at zero.

The producers must have great faith Foy, because if she had failed, the whole show would have failed. Instead, chosing the actor for Philip's actor wasn't equally important, because Philip's character and therefore the story about Elizabeth and Philip's  marriage isn't so well written as Elizabeth's relationship with her prime ministers and her growth to the role of the Queen.   

[Pallas]

40 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

But there is no guarantee that a star will succeed. Each role begins at zero.

No, there is no guarantee that this time, an actor who has previously stood up to the test will do it again. But it's not beginning at zero, and that's not nothing. 

[txhorns79]

Quote

Imagine if the show were about Prince Philip as the main character, and the actor playing Queen Elizabeth got paid more. You can bet there'd be a big stink. I don't think you can take gender out of it, even if the renown of the actors is a factor. Men in general are paid more than women.

I always go back to the example of the 1978 Superman movie.  Marlon Brando made nearly 4 million dollars for about two weeks work, and maybe, ten to fifteen minutes of total screentime.  He also got a percentage of the box office gross.  Christopher Reeve, on the other hand, made about $250,000.00.  My only point being that renown does count, and I don't have an issue with the star of the show making less than a more well known co-star.        

Edited March 26, 2018 by txhorns79

[Inquisitionist]

 Back in 1939, Vivien Leigh was in about 90% of the scenes of Gone With the Wind, while Clark Gable was in about a third of the movie.  Gable was paid at least 4 times as much as Leigh based on track record and name recognition.  These are business decisions. I'm glad there is more awareness of such disparities now, but Foy's agent had every incentive to negotiate the best compensation for her without risking the role (i.e., it could have gone to someone else about whom we'd be raving now).

On 3/21/2018 at 4:01 PM, Roseanna said:

Before this show I had never seen Matt Smith nor heard of him and this thread is the first time I have ever learned of Doctor Who whereas I had did know Claire Foy after watching her in Wolf Hall. 

And anecdotes are not data.  ;-)

[dubbel zout]

Not to mention this isn't 1939. Or 1978. Matt Smith is not Marlon Brando in any comparison. (I don't mean that to sound snotty.)

[doodlebug]

2 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Not to mention this isn't 1939. Or 1978. Matt Smith is not Marlon Brando in any comparison. (I don't mean that to sound snotty.)

And, in virtually any profession, those with more seniority, experience, accolades are usually paid more than those who don't have those things.  I don't doubt that John Lithgow made more than either Smith or Foy if we look at his salary vs hours of work.  And Meryl Streep probably got more than Anne Hathaway for The Devil Wears Prada. 

When it comes to salary paid, there needs to be a combination of factors considered; not just how big the role, but also the experience and overall talents of those involved.  In many, if not most, professions; those who have more experience and who bring something extra to the job (in acting: name recognition or prior awards) are going to be paid at a higher rate than those who don't have those things. 

In retrospect, it is clear that Foy brought something special to the role and her contributions to the series were invaluable.  It would be nice of the producers to have recognized that and given her a bonus for the second season; but, it didn't happen.

[PeterPirate]

There's also another factor to consider:  Elizabeth was more pro-active and assertive in the second season than the first season.  In the second season of the show, she met secretly with Lord Altrincham and approved of significant changes to the monarchy; she went to Africa in defiance of her advisers and surprised everyone by dancing with a regional leader, thereby saving that part of the continent for the empire; she dressed down her personal secretary after giving a disastrous speech; she dressed down her uncle for collaborating with the Nazis.  

If you consider Elizabeth of the first season, she was not much more than the living person underneath The Crown, and didn't have many accomplishments of note, beyond enduring a long overseas tour of the Dominion lands.  It wasn't therefore all that important to cast a "star" in the role; that position went to Lithgow.   Accordingly, there wasn't a real need to boost Foy's profile by giving her a performance bonus after the first season.  We can only speculate whether Foy's acting chops helped entice Morgan into writing a more assertive version of Elizabeth for the second season, which then led to her increased fame.  

Edited March 27, 2018 by PeterPirate

[Athena]

Tobias Menzies will play Prince Philip for the next two seasons.

I have mixed feelings because while Menzies is a good actor, he has played a lot of villains and feckless men in the past. He's very good at being unlikable which won't help the Prince Philip character as it is. He was an antagonist to Olivia Coleman's character in The Night Manager as well. They were good at disliking each other there.

[Eureka]

36 minutes ago, Athena said:

Tobias Menzies will play Prince Philip for the next two seasons.

I have mixed feelings because while Menzies is a good actor, he has played a lot of villains and feckless men in the past. He's very good at being unlikable which won't help the Prince Philip character as it is. He was an antagonist to Olivia Coleman's character in The Night Manager as well. They were good at disliking each other there.

I’m excited to see what he does with this. I am a huge Outlander fan, and although I am not a fan of Frank (or BJR for that matter), I think he’s got great range.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Eureka

[Pallas]

14 hours ago, Eureka said:

 I think he’s got great range.

That he does. And now that they think of it, Menzies has a lot of Philip's high-headed look of eagles. He's someone who draws the audience in to see what's going on in his inner life. An inspired choice. I think the key will be if Peter Morgan can continue to write Philip in The Crown with more nuance than he did in The Queen: not really the challenge of a lifetime. 

[Atlanta]

I was bummed Paul Bettany dropped out, but am now thrilled with the choice of Menzies. He's a wonderful actor.

[benteen]

Menzies casting was unexpected but he's really good and I look forward to him in the role.  It's ironic...he and Olivia Coleman are the same age but Helena Bonham Carter, whose Margery is Margaret is supposed to be 4 years younger than Colman's Elizabeth, is 8 years older than both Colman and Menzies.

[jjj]

On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 10:38 PM, saoirse said:

It wasn't an announcement, it was the result of a question on a panel;

It seems they had no clue the can of worms that was opened during the event.

This. This. This.  I find this to be the most revealing part of this incident:  Not that they were paid differently, but that the producers HAD NO CLUE that this was in any way problematic.  I'm not talking about the specific actors, but about the concept of pay equity.  (Which is not the same as equal pay, but the public and the profession have a very different sensibility about equity.)

10 hours ago, benteen said:

Menzies casting was unexpected but he's really good and I look forward to him in the role.  It's ironic...he and Olivia Coleman are the same age but Helena Bonham Carter, whose Margery is Margaret is supposed to be 4 years younger than Colman's Elizabeth, is 8 years older than both Colman and Menzies.

Well, Princess Margaret was going in for hard and fast living, so casting someone older, who might even *look* older, could play well on the screen.

Edited March 31, 2018 by jjj

[Thumper]

Just chiming in, and I know it's anecdotal, but I had never heard of Matt Smith before this series either.  I would bet most of my friends who watched the series hadn't as well.    I believe the posters here who said that in the acting world, he was more well-known and perhaps paid more as he was a known talent, but for most of us out here, he was not known.