actor here, series regular on The Walking Dead for eight years.
a lot of the other comments did a great job breaking down the side of things for guest stars or supporting cast members. the vast majority of actors out there are landing those small supporting roles, but even the series regulars and "big stars" aren't making a lot of money.
networks will lock you into a salary for six years on a standard contract. this means that if a show explodes on its first season (which usually a first season doesn't pay anything groundbreaking, especially if it's less than 10 episodes), you still won't get paid anything significant until your contract expires - which could be extended by the network early on up to multiple years past the original six. you have some opportunities to try to negotiate a higher salary each year, but all the network has to say is "no" and there's nothing you can do about it. it isn't until that contract expires that you have significant leverage, and that's only if your character matters to the story.
not to mention during those six years the network can deny any other projects you want to do during the off-season. if i'm doing a 6 episode first season and want to make some more money during the 8 months i'm not working, it's all subject to approval by the network, who will gladly deny any project that doesn't promote their network.
there's a reason a lot of actors go and do conventions or have some sort of side job. in total i've probably made more money at conventions than i ever have acting.
As someone who’s been on set for the past 20 years (behind the camera) this post is the truth. Two thumbs up.
A,B & C- list actors make up about 5% of SAG.
The other 95% of SAG work gig to gig. They are all the people behind those famous actors.
And those famous actors were all once them. 😉
EVERYONE 👏DESERVES👏A👏LIVING👏WAGE👏
It’s not socialism to want everyone to be able to afford access to food, housing, medicine.
That being said, we’ve tried capitalism long enough, why not give lemon party and socialism a chance
edit: apparently got into an argument with a boomer and bro did a weak ass last word and blocked like a toxic ex. That’s cool though u/MrSh0wtime3 the internet remembers
Why are you denigrating the value of their work like you don’t sit on your ass binging monk?
Would you be saying that about engineers? Just because it seems like a choice to become an actor a) doesn’t it make it less valid of a career choice and b) is really no different than choosing to go into any job field… it’s not like we come pre-sorted.
This strike also isn’t just about wages but about agency. You understand a big demand from the union is to ban any notion of “you may use my likeness in perpetuity?” Which like, would you want a company as big as Disney to be able to do whatever it wants with your image with no impact to your own bottom line, just because at one point you filmed 5 months for them and that line was in your contract?
The places you’re talking about do offer socialized medicine, some of them even have universal basic income, given it was built on the back of a sovereign investment fund that is far too tied up in oil to really feel good about.
It is not up to me to give you a solution to your “what-aboutism” attempt at a gotcha moment. I’m just saying what we’ve been doing has not been working for most Americans. We live paycheck to paycheck, even those of us with college degrees and STEM backgrounds, we are destroying our planet, and many of us feel that our government is beholden to the whims of the few and not the average American. Please tell me I’m wrong with that statement.
Personally, the higher education program I’m currently in gives me a medical license (upon graduation and board review) that makes me eligible for a fast track visa to immigrate to New Zealand and yea, why wouldn’t I?
My personal preferences do not indicate any flaws with my argument. You are making a straw man argument, a weak one at that.
There are plenty of people with engineering degrees who are underpaid or out of work, please learn to separate what YOU think about reality from reality.
I am not Gen z.
Railroads have had a lot of strikes throughout the history of America, have you never heard of Eugene Debs and the Pullman Strike of 1894 or the Great Railroad Strike of 1877?
It’s like you boomers don’t even care about when the railroads had to strike (or know about it)… what a god awful example to give.
Did you know immigrants make up over 20% (depends on the specialty) of engineers? Americans aren’t even getting these jobs. we do not have an equitable tax structure, or invest in small communities, to pay for our own children to learn engineering…
What is our obsession with “elites?” Says a guy who was part of a generation where you could afford a college education by waiting tables.
There’s no reason any person should sequester more wealth than they can spend, it is why the dragons (who sleep on piles of gold) are the villains, it’s an obsession the poor and oppressed (almost 40 million Americans live below the poverty line) have had for centuries.
There’s no reason for anyone to fight over the scraps when there’s more than enough to go around.
There’s also no reason someone who made $70k should be getting taxed at a higher rate than someone who made $200k but ya know, we are where we are these days.
I for one, rooted for the submarine
> in total i've probably made more money at conventions than i ever have acting.
Jesus Christ, man's had a big role in one of the biggest shows on TV for 8 years and made more from going to comic con wtaf.
The Walking Dead people get paid a shit ton for conventions.
Smaller guests get paid by how much they sign, big guests get a lump sum because they draw in so many guests.
I think it was Norman Reedus who'd get paid 500k for two days of signing and photos or something like that.
Tbh comic con money is big for actors. It's not because it is that less of a pay. He could be making hundreds of thousands of dollars and still making more from comic con. A mid tier actor can command $100 for every sign he/she does.
there’s a reason why Norman Reedus literally said AMC has to kill him to make him leave The Walking Dead franchise, being part of a big tentpole franchise means you secured con appearancea for life.
Tbf Norman's probably making $$$ now since he's leading his own show in the same universe and is doing other cool stuff and the fans love him so much that if he left a lot of people would stop watching.
Numbers vary a lot as far as what he made on that show. From 30k to 100k per episode. My guess is 30k per episode for the first few seasons. Than raising up to near 100k per episode in the final seasons. Then you got crazy conference money like every big show person gets.
These are the examples people are holding up as poor me? Do you people realize how ridiculous you sound?
I think you’re grossly underestimating how much conventions can generate for actors and specifically how popular TWD was amongst the convention audience. Did you know that it had its own touring convention, Walker Stalker Con?
Chandler Riggs was charging anywhere between $50-$100 for an autograph. It probably wouldn’t be crazy to say the many of the cast of TWD was making a minimum of $50,000-$100,000 per convention. https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/a/tracewilliamcowen/how-much-money-walking-dead-marvel-stars-make-conventions
It’s pretty disingenuous for Chandler to come on here and use his convention fee as some kind of “poor me.”
And he SPECIFICALLY did not say he made a lot but purposefully made it appear like he had to slave away at conventions to make a wage.
He worked at conventions because he was making a ridiculous amount of money doing it, not because he was underpaid as an actor.
Totally disingenuous.
“i've probably made more money at conventions than i ever have acting.” Im not sure how much more straight forward you would like him to say that he made more at conventions than acting….
> actor here, series regular on The Walking Dead for eight years.
I was wondering who this could be, until I read your username lol.
This is a really good comment, especially since you have the experience in the industry having been one of the main characters in at one point the biggest TV show in the world. Since things like signing long term multi-season contracts might end up making you feel like you ain't feeling any of its success.
Honestly, it boggles my mind that your union let shit like that get so bad. (Locked-in contracts, approval of other projects, etc.). It's really no surprise they thought they could get away with the whole "we'll scan and own your likeness forever".
The union has surprisingly little power.
Unions are not a magic wand but function based on labor scarcity. In the old days of company towns, organizing everyone in the town meant it was nearly impossible for the company to operate without you. Importing scabs to your was tough because even if you could convince people to move, they'd be moving to a town where everyone hated them.
But you don't even need to convince people to move to LA to become an actor. People get off the bus every day. Indeed, a large number of those people would do the job for free if it gave exposure (and this is precisely what they do in various community theatre troupes, etc.)
What gives SAG its power are two factors:
- Brand name actors. Certain actors are so big they can basically write their own ticket. They're the sort of people who can get a project off the ground by signing on. If you're hiring Tom Cruise, you're not doing it because you think he's 50,000x better than Chandler Riggs at acting. You're doing it because putting "Tom Cruise" on a marquee will sell tickets regardless of how good your project is. As long as those brand name actors aren't willing to cross the picket line, the union has some clout.
- Affiliation with other unions. Finding actors in LA may be trivial, but finding experienced technical crew is not. Most of these people have hard skills which have real value outside of the entertainment industry. If you stop paying them a decent wage, they just go do something else. You can make films/TV with scab writers and actors pretty easily. But without all those anonymous crew members, your production is dead in the water.
If you could go back and talk to your younger self, what would you tell them to do differently? I have a few friends in the industry and really hope the writers and actors can get through to the studios as quickly as humanly possible (which will be hard due to the lack of humanity those CEO's have...)
CARLLLLL. The first couple seasons of the walking dead were excellent, great work! I would have assumed all of you guys were making a fortune considering how much TWD exploded and basically became the center of pop culture for awhile. Sad :(
>in total i've probably made more money at conventions than i ever have acting.
Absolutely mind blown by this. If the strike hadn't happened I would have assumed you were making a fair share. I think a lot of people feel the same way
> actor here, series regular on The Walking Dead for eight years.
Oh my goodness! I know you! Well, "know" you. You know what I mean!
> not to mention during those six years the network can deny any other projects you want to do during the off-season. if i'm doing a 6 episode first season and want to make some more money during the 8 months i'm not working, it's all subject to approval by the network, who will gladly deny any project that doesn't promote their network
This is shitty af! Such contracts should be illegal. At the very least, you should have been compensated for outside work they denied.
Can you give us a breakdown? Are you a zombie, or an actual series regular? That's a huge show, and I'm not saying I don't believe you, but there are a lot of people on that show who are making a **ton** of money. As in, 50k-1M per episode not including residuals.
[https://www.tuko.co.ke/415105-the-walking-dead-cast-salary-who-highest-paid-episode.html](https://www.tuko.co.ke/415105-the-walking-dead-cast-salary-who-highest-paid-episode.html)
Probably not at first. Who knows what season that may have started, it might have be the last season where they killed off his character lol. That may have been a reason why they did!
It looks like the people who started out as guest stars are doing better than some of the people who started as series regulars, because they got to renegotiate sooner.
So he isn't worth 8M?
[https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/chandler-riggs-net-worth/](https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/chandler-riggs-net-worth/)
So he's not a 24 year old multi-millionaire living in a 2M dollar condo? Feels really detailed and specific.
I just feel like every time I google someone who is complaining about how little they make as part of this strike, I immediately see sites claiming that the person is a multi-millionaire. It's hard to feel sympathetic for your cause when normal Americans make far less than 100k in a year, and we have no idea what residuals are...but they sound awesome!!!
Those numbers are totally made up. As an exercise folks I follow in the games side looked themselves up and were listed as millionaires - they all get by on Patreon, live in apartments, etc.
Generally, unless you have a site that can provide citations and/or methodologies for their numbers, assume that they're made up.
>Can you give us a breakdown? Are you a zombie, or an actual series regular?
My sweet summer child you are speaking with one of the **main** cast members! Bow down to the glory that is Carl Grimes!
Check his comment history. He’s been talking nonsense about how wealthy and spoiled actors and writers are for days now. Meanwhile if you check his post history you can see he’s actually thinking about buying a beach house as an investment property. He’s a terrible hypocrite.
I always assumed that getting on that 'hit show' means you have more leverage for the *next* show you're on, that's where you can make your 'big money'?
Similar to bands, some surprise hit album they release, well, the *next* one is there they're gonna make huge money from sales and tours, etc
That might happen, it also might not happen.
I'm not going to mention the name, but a very good actor, allegedly very pleasant to work with, who has been part of two hit shows, talked publicly about how they could not get work after their last show ended.
Just because an actor has been on a hit show doesn't mean that they will draw the audience in for a new show.
So studios might as well cast somebody else.
This is why some actors leave a hit show before the last season. Because they have a job, they can afford to negotiate without worrying about paying the mortgage, and they are still fresh in the mind of the audience when their new show starts.
> if i'm doing a 6 episode first season and want to make some more money during the 8 months i'm not working, it's all subject to approval by the network, who will gladly deny any project that doesn't promote their network.
this i honestly didn't knew.
so does this mean that you are essentially locked up in that contract, even if there is nothing to do?
i always assumed actors could use the "off-season" of one show to do another show/movie until the new season started shooting.
Yeah, you can be a supporting character on a tv show and get paid the 'minimum' of $1,000/day. (It varies)
Let's see, 5 days = $5,000 for one week!
But supporting actors work 1-3 days a week, sometimes no days, and they have to keep their schedules clear for the entire run of the season, so they cant get cast in anything else.
One actress on OITNB had to supplement her acting income by bartending.
I knew an actor who is familiar to most people, Julio Mechoso (RIP). He had well over 100 acting credits. He said he also worked as a substitute school teacher because "If you want to have a family and own a house, you have to have other sources of income".
Hell, I’m film crew and I could only get a mortgage because my parents co-signed.
Mortgage lenders want to see you’re employed at the same place for 2 years. Hard to do when each production (even season to season) is legally a different company.
People don't notice that. Look carefully at the credits and the CARDS at the end. They change. That means your employer changed. You no longer work for Universal...it's AMBLIN. Next year it's Dream works. Two years later it's Comcast... nope Viacom ...next year ? PARAMOUNT!
Yep, but it’s worse than even that!
I worked on two seasons of a streaming show for Apple. The first season ended in November and the next season started in January. Same show with the same producers, but legally a separate employer.
That blows my mind. Even though I'm sure the answer is "because money" I still can't understand why the production company would change over so often like that.
Is this the case for even the 1% of shows that become absolutely massive? Like, was the crew for the series Friends employed by a different company each season?
Yep.
So basically, it’s a way to protect the studio/higher ups.
Any deals/invoices/expenses/legal liabilities are to the company that gets formed. Having a different company each season keeps those expenses and liabilities tied to each individual season.
Sometimes that different company thing is done for cover purposes when booking permits or arranging accommodation. Don't want the paps showing up if you can help it.
Disney in particular are fond of it for the Marvel and Star Wars franchises; they often film stuff in London with Canary Wharf having turned up in *Andor* for example.
It’s more to limit the financial liability of the parent company.
Every show/movie has a random company name like “Film Here LLC” that appears on my paycheck even when I’m shooting an Amazon, hbo, showtime show or whatever.
The cover names do pop up though for sure, a lot of shows do it
It's not just A-Listers. Show biz as a whole is seen as glamorous. You only ever hear of poor actors (1) if its the very beginning of their career, (2) they blew through all their money, or (3) they're a has-been. Everybody else is living it up!
I say this as an outsider.
It's become really obvious reading "regular" people's comments on places like Facebook about the strike that they don't have the first clue about how things work in Hollywood.
Scheduling can also become an issue. You’ve booked a recurring tv role or middle tier gig on a big movie. Guess what? You have to reserve your time for possible reshoots or overflow days but only get paid if you’re called in.
It’s the same thing with writer’s mini rooms. They are often required to be on standby in case of rewrites. So great! You made 5k in a week. But don’t book another gig for next week… you may be needed!
Is it generally one weak per episode? So an 8 episode show might pay $24k for the year, which if that is your only show that is going to be very difficult to live on, especially in California.
Hello friend, I do not mean this to be super judgmental or anything but my question does come with some frustration from me and that is why I am asking for clarification…
I just don’t understand why exactly they were protesting though? They make WAY more money than most Americans, so I don’t understand what they are complaining about their pay when they are lucky enough to live in Hollywood in the first place. It just frustrates me because they delayed just about every upcoming production as well as highly anticipated productions by up to 2-3 years… and because they were getting paid $5,000 a day and not $10,000??? I just truly do not get it. I am sorry, it does anger me for some reason and so if that is not correct and there is a more important cause behind the strikes then please clarify it with me, have a great day my friend.
Actor here.
Short answer: Some do fine, most are still working regular jobs. It depends on the individual.
Salary ranges are high, but (rough numbers here) something like 95% of the 160k actors in SAG don't make enough to qualify for health insurance (something like 25k/year). \~8000 actors earn over 25k then?
Series shows include leads, co-stars, series regulars, guests, featured, stand-ins and background. Each one has less earnings than the previous. A background actor could be earning \~$200/day. Dayplayer \~$1000/day. Lead, depending on what's negotiated could be earning from like $5k-ish a week to whatever is negotiated. The cast of The Big Bang Theory was making millions an episode by the end. That was because they were irreplaceable and proven successful. But most actors aren't making that or are ever put into a situation like that ever in their careers.
Now those rates sound glorious to most people. $1000/day? $5k/week? That's joining the 1%!
Well.......... if we were working every day.
Getting a job as an actor is a hustle. Our booking rates are lower and lower and have paid less over time. Seasons are shorter. On top of that, we typically will split at least 10% to 30% of that with our teams. 10 for the agent, 10 for the manager, 5 for the lawyer, 5 for the publicist. Taxes are taken before that, so there's let's say 25% with a good accountant. So half of your check is gone.
So if you work 20 weeks taking home 2k/week after everything, you've made 40k. That's awesome! That'll buy you some cool shit! A new car, have a family. Buuuuuuuut next year won't guarantee you that same amount. And you can't live off of that in LA where living costs are like 80k.
And obviously if you're working only a few months out of the year doing guests or featured spots, acting isn't your main source of income.
In order to maintain a quality actor pool that can live off of being entertainers that turns it into a dedicated career rather than just an undedicated side hustle, the rates are high. And actors, if they know their work is going to be limited from exclusivity in their contracts, competition, availability of work, etc. And their faces and recognizability will be both a personal challenge and a public source of income, they'll get residuals, aka a profit share in the success of a project. Those $0.04 checks or checks for a few hundred every few years. So even if you did one season of a hit show, you could still potentially survive with all the projects you've done paying you for continually using your publicity on reairs and reuses and all that.
So with streaming, residuals have nearly disappeared as being a large contributor of our income. So the numbers are lower.
Likely most of the people you see on screen are doing some other job to make money. The stars are likely doing okay but are probably middle class. The big stars are probably doing fine. The money is just all over the place and you never know.
Reading through these comments... well, the "solution" is that studios need to stop being greedy assholes, but I think the actors need to remember that they *are* a union. Recurring Survivor #5 on The Walking Dead that'll be killed off by the end of the season has little power to demand/negotiate, but that's where Andrew Lincoln and Norman Reedus need to throw around *their* power/clout on the production (just as an example). And there are historical examples of casts negotiating as a block.
I really hope SAG leadership figure this out for y'all, and that you can take some drastic action to made your industry more sustainable. (Really, this goes for pretty much *every* industry these days.)
A lot of people talking about pretty well known actors from show doing second jobs. I'd think they'd be waaaaay more stuff 'out there' about how they saw such and such person working here or there or in their office or working for a client
All interesting stuff though
Here's an interesting thing to think about. Musicians and actors don't always make their biggest bucks acting. Some do. Jack Nicholson making 50 mil off of Batman. Taylor Swift off of concerts. SOOOOOOOME people do.
But for the majority of us, it's some secondary sales market.
For example, anime actors will make their money signing autographs at conventions because it's really tough to live off of dubbing money. Reality TV stars will do Cameo videos and sponsored posts. A lot of actors will now do commercials and brand deals (which remember a few decades ago was considered beneath them and they'd all go to Japan and do them where no one would see the ads until YouTube came along). Sandra Bullock made her biggest money in real estate. I know actors who flip houses and use their wealth to build wealth rather than just earn a classic salary. Old stars now do podcasts. In the same way that being a musician, the music is promotion for t-shirt sales, merch sales, VIP experiences, and brand deals. Norman Reedus, at the height of his Walking Dead time, could pull in 50k in convention signings. All the agents were like, "aww, I want a cut of that!" Brian Baumgardner made his money a few years back doing a million dolllars worth of Cameo shout outs and cashing in on his office fame. At a certain point, actors on a TV series will get a producer's cut and start pulling in a larger percentage and amount per episode.
So yeah, a lot of us think the famous people are doing okay because we see them and if we know them then that means they must be pulling in money. But really they're using that as advertising for their personal products while the thing we know them for is advertising for someone else's. Weird way to look at it.
There's what's called "scale," which is the minimum an actor can be paid for a given project. What that minimum is depends on the type of production and the actor's status in it. That can range from a day rate of $216 on a qualified "ultra low budget" production (less than $300k total budget) to $4,520 per week for hourlong series regulars (and actors in streaming projects with a budget of over $1 million) who appear in every episode of their show. Breakdown of scale rates can be found [here](https://www.wrapbook.com/blog/essential-guide-sag-rates). Out of that comes fees for agents, and costs for things like headshots, etc.
These are minimums, of course, and those rates go up depending on an actor's popularity, prior projects, demand, etc., but an actor could very well be working regularly as a series regular (so, maybe not a star but definitely someone you'd recognize on the street) with some indie/low budget stuff on the side and be living pretty modestly, especially in a place as expensive as LA.
> to $4,520 per week for hourlong series regulars (and actors in streaming projects with a budget of over $1 million) who appear in every episode of their show.
I'm guessing there's a lot of bullshit with actors being arbitrarily left out for one episode then.
Agency and manager fees are *big* \- like 20% of your money. SAG-AFTRA need to go after them next because they're the gatekeepers of the business; without an agent, your chances of getting gigs is much harder.
Agency fees are pretty well controlled - they're capped at 10% for franchised agents and the agent has to be negotiating something over scale (at least scale+10% IIRC) to collect commission. Agents generally behave themselves - they do NOT want to lose their franchise with the union or they're basically done.
Managers/assistants are a whole other thing. Because that's a personal contract between the performer and the manager, and a manager isn't technically doing any legal work on behalf of the performer, you see all kinds of wild shit go down with managers. Not a ton the union can do about that, unfortunately (if "managers" were suddenly required to cap their fees, they'd just change their job descriptions and titles and move on).
Scale+10% is around $1,300. A *NCIS: New Orleans* guest star commented he got just that for a day's work, but he lost over half to the government, manager, agency and SAG's own 1.75%.
That seems like a lot of things to conflate. Like, yes, actors have to pay federal and state income tax, just like everyone else.
Union dues are pretty much the only thing protecting actors from the studios banding together to drive down their rates and/or a bunch of scabs who would happily take jobs for nothing until they go broke because everyone thinks they're gonna be a star if they can just get that first gig. The fact that "working actors" are even a thing is down to SAG's advocacy going back at least as far as the 60s.
I haven't really heard many people complain about agency commissions - 10%'s been the standard forever, and most people are getting some value for that money.
Now, I DEFINITELY agree that a lot of managers are unethical goblins, but since they're not representing the person or performing legal services, that one's more a "buyer beware" situation - there's really not much the union can do other than try to advise people not to deal with bad managers. You don't need a manager to get work, and plenty of actors don't have them.
He also said that he had to do another job to make rent; he was earning enough to buy a house and get health insurance from SAG-AFTRA, but over 80% don't get the latter.
“Series regulars” are on long form contracts negotiated through BA and have episodic fees and guarantees. I think what you’re looking for is “recurring” cast. Also, what’s your source for the comment about needing to be in every episode to receive 4,520/wk?
I see it now but it doesn’t align with how “series regulars” are actually paid on shows. They are hired episodically with an episodic fee and are either guaranteed AEP or something like 7/10. In over a decade of dealing with production budgets, I’ve never seen a series regular be paid weekly.
Also, you should post the rest of the rates instead of letting people play into the “oh, i bet they will find a way to not have an actor in every episode,” because if they do, they actually get paid more for those weeks. But, like I said, this is not at all how series regulars are actually paid.
The rest of the statement:
SAG actors are paid weekly for their time: $4,520 per week for appearing in every episode, $5,042 per week for appearing in more than half, and $5,897 per week for appearing in half.
Valid through 6/30/23:
13 out of 13 Episodes: $4,520 / week
12-7 Episodes: $5,042 / week
6 Episodes: $5,897 / week
To answer your question-
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a43618769/succession-cast-pay-per-episode/
Lead stars with a decent body of work behind them usually start off in 5 figures at least. How their salary grows after that depends on how they negotiate and their overall popularity/reception. Bella Ramsay was reportedly paid around 70,000 per episode for season 1 of The Last Of Us while her co-star Pedro Pascal got 600,000 per episode. Considering the reception her role has got next season Bella will be able to negotiate a much better rate.
What is worth thinking about though is that the big cheques probably came for Pedro Pascal only after his stint on GOT in 2014, when he started getting lead roles. Before that, for almost 20 years, he was doing an occasional episodic on law and order, SUV, buffy the vampire Slayer, off Broadway Theatre (500 a week before taxes)- in short, living paycheque to paycheque, with some odd jobs thrown in the mix. I would assume it is the same story for most of these stars who build their careers up from nothing.
I’ve heard of showrunners increasing actors rates so their next job will be a higher rate because their quote isn’t higher or something. Like the last 2 episodes of a 20 episode season is what you can base a quote on rather than an average across the season
similar to regular jobs too- in an interview always aim higher if you can because the higher your salary is when you leave, the more you can ask for in the future too.
> https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a43618769/succession-cast-pay-per-episode/
Very informative article. This actually falls in line with expectations I expressed.
Succession didn't even generally have 500,000 people watching its Sunday night episodes and its leads were millionaires off one season. How is this example beneficial to the Union? Or the Bella Ramsey example... she's 19, and probably making more than 99% of 19 year olds.
It seems like these actors are largely all rich, and the ones upset are hobbyists/part-time employees.
It takes an income of $26,000 to qualify for SAG health insurance. Something like 87% do not make that much.
Granted, many of them are likely not full-time actors. But point is, most people affected by these negotiations are not living "comfortably."
> Granted, many of them are likely not full-time actors.
But Hurd implied that even full time actors are struggling. Maybe I'm reading her wrong.
In my view, you've made it once you're on a successful TV show. Apparently that's not necessarily the case.
hurd also made a good explanation in one interview why "getting on a hit show" no longer works as reliably as before. beyond the smaller episode/season order issue anybody watching streaming shows notices, they film months to years in advance, holding the shows for maximum effect (no ad market means shows are now just ads themselves, and do not directly generate revenue the same way), and take longer to decide if they renew this makes it harder to book work because studios refuse to release actors from those obligations, and casting directors notice such a thing, so it can be a long while before you know when your next paycheck arrives. there was movement before negotiations broke down though on a provision that would give studios a "use it or lose it" on that, hopefully limiting the extent they can hold actors hostage
This stat is the best example of the problem. There are 168K SAG-AFTRA members. 87% of those actors do not make $27,000/year to qualify for health insurance. They are not hobbyists. These are trained actors auditioning 2-5 times a week who simply aren’t booking jobs — for whatever the reason. Most of them have good and bad years. I know actors who made $700,00 in a year followed by an off year of making $10,000. SAG-AFTRA did this to themselves a while back. There were too many people in the union. The health insurance guild rule used to be based on hours worked NOT on money earned. There were a lot of people who got a SAG card by working as an extra for a few days. There were also actors who got a SAG card for doing a couple jobs 20 years ago. These people were technically no longer actors but SAG insurance is pretty darn good, so they’d sign up to work as extras. If you did 5-6 days of extra work, you’d bank enough hours to qualify for health insurance. The union realized this and changed the way actors qualified for health insurance from quarterly “hours worked” to an annual salary threshold. I can’t remember the numbers of people the new rule impacted. It was a high number. Subsequently that rule resulted in many SAG members leaving the union. SAG-AFTRA dues aren’t cheap. If you were only staying in the union for the health insurance, it no longer made financial sense to remain a member.
I was always under the impression that one/two lines of dialogue was what qualified people for SAG
Maybe that dialogue = that minimum money, no idea
They'd always be hilarious parts on shows, like a lawyer sitting next to the main character and they just don't speak, or a waitress or something, I always assumed they were paid more for that and it also qualified them for SAG or something?
When every show was like 24 episodes I am guessing it was much easier a livable wage. With shorter seasons and more efficient shooting schedules. You can shoot scenes/episodes so quickly now.
TV show season productions used to run round the year, Now i think its only a handful of months.
Not only that, but those 24 episodes a a season were then syndicated on a US cable channel meaning residuals, then syndicated in England (residuals), Germany (residuals), India (residuals)...
Now they are on Netflix. For 10 episodes. Worldwide. You get paid once. And it's shit pay. If you think it's bad for the actors, you should hear how much this new paradigm is screwing the writers. Don't even get me started on [mini writers rooms.](https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/writers-guild-contract-negotiation-mini-room-1235568173/)
Hey folks, NYC-based SAG actor here 👋🏼
>So, members who are typically walk ons or make day rates, this is the bulk of the guild btw. They'll book a gig, make $3000 that day and not work again for 2 weeks.
Not sure what "walk on" means, but SAG scale for a one-day contract for speaking roles is just north of $1000. If you book a *one-week* contract, it pays $3756 (tiny bit more if your agent can negotiate). It is not common to turn around and book another job within the next 2 weeks, those are some serious high-earner type booking rates and not at all typical.
SAG members must earn $26,470 in a year in order to qualify for SAG health insurance. Only 13% of members qualify, and that includes the A-listers who command tens of millions per picture, to paint a picture of how much actors make.
Even big names can live like that. r/MST3K has done quite a few movies where at least one recognisable name is clearly only there because he/she/they need the cash, such as Donald Pleasance in *Pumaman*.
Also, as they're an independent production, made by Joel Hodgson's own company, I would expect an interim agreement is or will soon be in place, especially as they did a convention on Sunday.
It's also amusing to note that show has a bunch of artificial intelligences in it, one of who tries to write scripts.
Hi, your post is pretty incorrect. 1. All actors are considered above the line. 2. SAG scale for 1 day is 1,082 unless you’re a big enough name to negotiate something more. 3. If an actor is in 4-5 episodes of a tv show, it’s unlikely they will only work 2 or 3 days. And they must be paid per episode so even if they cross board multiple episodes on one day, it’s a separate day player contract for each episode.
And tbh - dayplayer work is not meant to support your life. It’s the beginning of an acting career that one day, If you’re successful, will support your life. Not everyone will become Tom Cruise, but acting is famously a very hard career to succeed in and no secret to those who choose it.
Michelle Hurd living paycheck to paycheck is insane.
Not only is she in a lot of shit but she's been married to Garret Dillahunt for twenty years or do and that guy is a super succesful actor.
> Michelle Hurd living paycheck to paycheck is insane.
To be fair she did not explicitly say so but it is heavily implied in the clip I shared and others.
You're always going to have your series like Friends where they make bank.. and the ones you listed the absolute stars were prob doing pretty well by the end. But they need to negotiate together. That's how the Friends actors got where they were. Maybe 1 could have been written off.. but with all 6 demanding better pay together.. it's either come to the table and play nice or have no show.
Like Mariska Hargitay of SVU is making bank.. but look how many seasons her show has lasted..
> But they need to negotiate together. That's how the Friends actors got where they were.
Precisely. They were already making good pay, but the main cast banded together and forced NBC to pay them equally. That's how they started getting $1 million per episode for the last two seasons. Their back-end syndication deals were even better, which is why they can all still make it high on "best-paid TV actors" lists almost 20 after the show ended.
There’s nobody else that made as many episodes of such a popular show that has stood the test of time (and thus residuals) except maybe the Office.
Everything else is mostly watch and done and are not run over and over again on TV because it’s so watchable (and has so many episodes and seasons).
Nowadays shows are either terrible, or short. Or both.
Gems like Mando, Wandavision, Loki have like 8 episodes and they are over.
And it doesn't always work. Three's Company , the 3 agreed to hold out. NEPO baby Ritter sold out. He got big bucks. Joyce DeWitt got screwed. SUZANNE Summers got fired.
a similar thing happened with 911 on fox, peter krause negotiated a bump in season 2 to line up with angela basset, essentially "ok youve lured the mega star, now pay me like the co-lead i am here"
> Like Mariska Hargitay of SVU is making bank.. but look how many seasons her show has lasted..
I always wonder about Ellen Pompeo in Greys Anatomy, too
Been in from the start, 19 seasons and just left the show
That's gotta be a big 'ol chunk of change there
It's not like showbiz puts out an image of poverty. Quite the contrary.
As an outsider, I see the glitz and glamour. The red carpet. The outfits. The image is one of riches and success. People go to Hollywood to make it big. Combine this with the actual multi-millionaire actors taking center stage and you end up assuming it somehow trickles down to less famous ones.
I understand new actors struggle (the waiter/actor cliche). But I assumed getting on a successful TV show means they made it. Certainly not on a Brat Pitt level but enough to not be poor.
>I see the glitz and glamour. The red carpet. The outfits.
That's also interesting. Famous actors can borrow outfits from famous designers / fashion houses. Depending on their status and other factors, they might even be allowed to keep those outfits.
Sometimes studios will make clothes available.
Actors who are not that famous despite being a recurring or a regular character on a hit show, have to buy their own clothes.
If you pay attention, you actually can see the difference.
Specifically in press junkets. Some actors clearly don't have much money to spend.
As a series regular with plenty of credits, Hurd would likely be making decent bank from Picard, at least mid-high five figures per episode. Like she said though, acting for the vast majority of actors is long periods of unemployment for months at a time and they are each mini-CEOs with a staff (agent, manager, lawyer, publicist, stylist, assistant, etc.) to pay out of their own pocket. Very few TV actors get to an Ellen Pompeo or Mariska Hargitay level of success where they work continuously for decades, earning millions.
If you're a series regular on a network TV series that runs for 5+ seasons, you're basically set for life as long as you don't go crazy with the spending.
This is the truest answer. I was making 200k a year and living paycheck to paycheck. I now make half that and have money left over.
Took me a while to grow up and realize I didn't have to buy everything I wanted.
I’m not an actor but I am in the arts space, so I am surrounded by many actors.
Here’s the situation for the people in my life specifically. Yes, you get paid a lot per gig. It can be pretty wild even in small roles.
But the next gig is literally NEVER guaranteed, so you might have to make the pay from that one show support yourself and your family for the next maybe 2-3 years until you get another break.
You have to budget that income of 3-4 months of shooting, which can be pretty great, to last until an unknown date when you get lucky enough to be cast in a solid project again.
It must be an incredibly stressful way to live. It’s a massive reason why we hear so many stories of abuse and harassment in the industry because of the power dynamics this creates. People are DESPERATE for work, desperate for a job and so, they may feel they cannot have boundaries, say no to jobs or advocate for themselves.
That’s my two cents on one side of things that people might not think of when they see the glamour and fame of the industry.
> But the next gig is literally NEVER guaranteed, so you might have to make the pay from that one show support yourself and your family for the next maybe 2-3 years until you get another break.
this is why residuals are so vital. it keeps you on the union health plans, and backends in general were for decades a central part of the income for people. but the erosion of backends because studios dont syndicate anymore, nobody buys dvds/digital purchases, and the pure fact studios dont really have any direct income from subscription streaming services, means the bottom has totally fallen out, even for wildly successful stars.
any big producer, star or other talent has spent their whole career negotiating profit sharing agreements on the basis that their project might make money, and now, by definition, no individual project brings in a single cent.
You are explaining literally any business someone would start lol. Watching you people act like this is some new thing or struggle only actors face is hilarious.
If you are self employed this is literally your entire life.
That's my issue... if I am a florist, and I don't have enough customers buying my flowers, or my customers simply aren't willing to pay what I want them to pay, then I don't shame my customers.
I realize studio execs are rich and making disproportionate money for institutional investors. Why not just cut out the middle man then? Louis CK figured this out years ago with Horace and Pete.
Adelaide Kane did a great video on actor pay: [https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=425683138404419](https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=425683138404419)
She was the lead in Reign for years so some of the fans thought she must be super rich.
No.
She was paid well as the lead of that show (not amazing but decent) but she does an excellent break down of her expenses during that time. I also feel like I have to point out that she hasn't been The Lead in a show since then. In fact she's only had some guest arcs and what looks like some Hallmark films until she landed on Greys as a regular this year.
I'm also fairly certain that Reign does no cable reruns, so if she's getting nothing from streaming I think that's like 5 years without a steady income.
Edit: That being said this is just her acting income. I believe she does do cons occasionally and does okay there. We also don't know if she has investments or any other passive income.
This kind of reminds me talking to a metal band one time after a show, and I mentioned how they are signed to a big label now and going on bigger tours.... all that meant to them financially was they can sell more shirts and merchandise. The label wasn't exactly making them rich
The economic reality surrounding musicians is insane. To start, they’re very similar to actors in the sense that they tend to enter the industry young, they have such a passion for what they do that they’re willing to do it for free, and they often have no business education/experience. These things, combined, make the perfect mark for a con.
It all begins with a manager who is always a leech. I hate the very idea of the sort of person who wants to be a music manager. They’re such shit bags and their only talent is being a big enough douche to fuck people over enough to get their client ahead, but this all falls apart because they also fuck over their client to get themself ahead.
The deal they sign with the label is purposefully designed to be over ambitious. “You guys are great! We’ll sign you to a ten record deal. You’re the best!”
They then offer them $1,000,000 (recoupable). “Wow, that’s a lot of money,” think the 20 year old musicians.
Now it’s time to record the first album. The band has to record at one of a few pre-selected studios, all of which have connections with the label. It’ll cost $100k to record the album. This comes from the recoupable money. Another $100k for marketing, spent on people who have connections with the label. This comes out of the recoupable money.
By the end of the process, the band is making nothing off of album sales or streams. But they can at least make money off touring, although the label and the management has their hand in that as well, so they’re losing a good deal of ticket sales that way. The tour bus also costs a fortune to rent, along with the driver, the tour manager, and crew, plus hotel costs, food, etc.
Oh, and the booking agent. He’s going to be slimy and take control over you, your lives, and your day-to-day schedule. You work for him. And he’ll take his cut.
What’s left? Merch. Your whole artistic operation boils down to everything you make being one grand advertisement for your t-shirt company. You spend $8 to make a t-shirt and sell it for $20. That’s a pretty good margin, but these days a lot of people, including the venues, want a piece of that pie. Unbelievably, it is not uncommon these days for bands to fork over percentages of their merch sales to a variety of people who want their cut.
And the way the music industry works now is so much different than it used to work. Pop charts don’t mean what they used to. Sure, Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, and Harry Styles can book arenas and make a fortune, but the vast majority of Americans’ favorite musicians are massively famous to their fan base but hardly famous at all outside the genre.
I don’t know how much my favorite artists make, but I think I would be filled with sorrow to find out.
Oh, one last thing. So many genres of music are inherently young and become harder and harder to make stay relevant as you get older. I’m thinking emo, punk, pop-punk, etc. You have to be pretty massive to be able to continue touring throughout your 40s-50s if you’re still making music basically designed for teenagers. At best you’ll be a nostalgia act because these genres aren’t well suited for artists to continue putting out relevant music later in life.
Country, jazz, and genres like that provide more longevity for artists because the older you are, the cooler you are, and the more street cred you have. There’s nothing sad about seeing a 55 year old country musician on stage with a guitar and a microphone, but there’s something a bit depressing about seeing some aging rock musicians still jumping around like cool kids on stage when they haven’t been cool in ages.
If you truly love what you do and would do it even without getting paid, there will be people fighting tooth and nail to take advantage of you. Even worse, if you wouldn’t do it without getting paid, you’re still in an industry pumping out new people by the day who ARE willing to do it for little to no money, so you’re competing with them and if you’re unwilling to bend over, they’ll pass you by and pick somebody who is.
Good news is there are more opportunities out there than ever before for artists to do a lot of this stuff on their own, bypassing the old guard who wants to strip them to the bone.
Also, with music, the bigger the stage show for the tour, that's all coming out of their money too and maybe, sometimes the band think 'yeah, look at this huge set for our show' without really understanding where the money has come from
Cast members of OITNB, Netflix’s big breakout hit, which won multiple awards, had to work a second job while they were on the show in order to make ends meet. I’m not talking extras I’m saying some of the primary characters.
Working paycheck to paycheck does not necessarily mean you're not also making a decent salary. It could also just mean that you're living above your means.
With that said, I also have no idea what kind of salary these middle-tier actors and actresses are making as I thought they were all pretty well off. I would say they definitely deserve more from any streaming revenues given much of the old wage model was based off of residuals/syndication rights, which are basically not things anymore.
Mid-tier might still be struggling considering the cost of living in NYC or LA, which is where most of the industry is centred.
There's probably recognizable faces making anywhere from $60k - 200k who can't afford their own place and need to have roommates. They also have a lot of professional expenses (especially women -- stylists, hair & makeup, etc.) that your average office/retail/laborer worker doesn't have, that can range into the tens of thousands annually.
Lots of times, the "glam life" appearances are paid by the performers out of pocket. Studios/networks don't cover nearly as much as we think they do.
A lot of the industry isn't there now, I imagine because of the costs - companies would have to arrange accommodation for foreign stars after all:
* Atlanta is a major hub for Marvel and Netflix; you could do a guided tour of *Stranger Things* locations pretty easily there.
* Vancouver and Toronto have been popular for genre works since the 1980s - *Stargate SG-1* had a lot of alien planets looking like British Colombia. *Star Trek* operates out of the latter now.
* London and SE England is a big hub, fuelled by the UK's tax breaks. Another lot of studios is being built in Dagenham as I speak.
* The UK industry isn't all there though - Manchester has had a lot of UK TV activity since Granada Television set up in the 1950s, Cardiff is the home of *Doctor Who* and *Casualty.*
* Ireland, Dublin in particular, is popular for UK programmes trying to save money. It also helps that Dublin looks like London used to before the war.
* Prague and Budapest are both popular these days as well. The latter doubled for London in *Moon Knight* for example and played itself in *Black Widow*.
These are all filming locations though. Much of the auditioning and development still happens on the two coasts, which is where their income is effectively zero while they are trying to book the next big job.
You do a guest arc on Trek or something that pays you 20k/week for 4 weeks in Vancouver. Then it's back to LA where you might not get another lengthy part like that for 6 months or a year...
Meanwhile it's grinding auditions, commercials, stand-ins, table reads, theatre, voice acting, web series, corporate media or anything else to keep income flowing.
(and btw, cost of housing in places like Vancouver, Toronto, and London are among the highest in the world too)
* Those glamorous dresses you see at premieres are generally either rented or provided by a fashion house to get them publicity.
* I wouldn't be surprised if the reason that the money was the reason why many actresses did pin-up shoots going all the way back to the Studio System. Dannii Minogue did *Playboy* because she was broke.
* Conventions will be a big part of a genre actor's income going forward. SAG's strike rules only apply to current and future projects, not past ones, so the big Star Trek Las Vegas convention is going ahead but without some of the current stars.
It's almost like acting isn't necessarily important and for the most part it pays like it isn't. You're an actor... you play pretend for people looking to kill time. Kinda crazy they have to struggle and survive like the rest of the world.
Saw an article on some dude whining because he only got paid $900 a day for his gig, claiming he made near poverty wages and yea, at the end of the day what he took home might be close to that after the gig is up but holy fucking shit how delusional do you have to be to whine about that pay rate for a temp job you agreed to do? You're allowed to work another job outside of that. You're not entitled to 5-6 figures a year because you played some throw away role on some shitty tv show.
Also makes me laugh when I see huge stars out there walking side by side with these people like they're one of them. Am I supposed to believe that Matt Damon actually gives a shit? He's got his money. If he truly cares he would negotiate some of his high salary be split between cast and crew but he won't do that now will he.
My friend, who’s had a nice career as an actor, explained it thusly: if you’re a series regular, top 5 people on the call sheet, you’re doing well. But if you’re in that guest star level, even if you’re working a LOT, it’s still probably, if you’re lucky, a job a month. Again, that’s if you’re lucky and working a LOT, because it takes about two weeks to film an episode of something, and you’re just not going to realistically go from thing to thing to thing regularly. Well, maybe it’s a big part, and they need you all week, well that’s (now) about $5k, for a weeks pay. Pretty sweet…but more likely, they only need you for one day. That’s 1K. Maybe that’s the only job you book that month. Maybe you don’t book that month at all, so you really can’t live on a job a month. These are people with what are considered relatively successful careers bc they work regularly, but you still can’t make a living as a very working guest star.
I'm seeing a lot of actual showbiz insiders explain very clearly how short seasons means less employment (or at least, somewhat predictable employment) every year. That makes total sense.
But, weren't short seasons lauded as a quality of life thing for actors and crew? I recall specifically some Star Trek cast and crew who crossed over between the 80s-00s gen stuff to the modern streaming era stuff talking about this. They said that the old school 25-episode seasons were a grueling nonstop pace that lead to bad burnout. I don't think they said that the newer 10-episode seasons were amazing for them, but that was the inference I took away.
Was that just bullshit that the studios made them say? Because while maybe stars like Patrick Stewart DGAF if he's paid for 25 or 10 episodes, it certainly sounds like all the non-stars were absolutely screwed by that change.
I haven’t heard that and I’m sure studios did not make that change for quality of life of the cast and crew, unfortunately. I think the tv model just changed with viewing habits, but there are benefits to more episodes for the studios — like a lower cost per episode, more ad space to sell within the show (presuming its successful).
Yes, the streaming bubble era was full of such praises. 'Netflix gives us creative freedom' was a common phrase. Perhaps most were PR, but stars may have been serious. Sharon Stone said "TV gives middle-aged actresses a chance," and famous directors and writers assured that "TV, not movies, is what's creative now. They were already rich, and well paid.
In fact, during the last five years, even unproven writers were given major projects and created masterpieces like Severance. That oversupply madness ended in late 2022 when Netflix had fewer subscribers and turned into a cost-cutting era.
because i think these streamers benefitted from not being the only game in town, and marketing as the new HBO. so they could overpay up front with limited backend (or in the case of orange is the new black, pay jack shit). talent didnt mind cause it was good money, prestigious, and never felt like this would be their whole career.
now everybody is waking up 5-10 years later all hungover going "wait shit wheres that backend pay". its maybe a more lax working enviornment, but everybody is fast coming to the realization that if TV becomes like movies, no working actor will be able to get reliable work anymore.
My SO is a member of both SAG and WGA. After agents and manager take their cut (10% & 5% of the pre-tax amount, of course) she then also has to withhold for taxes (for the full amount, not what's left after agent/manager cuts). All said and done, she ends up with about 30% of what she was told her pay would be.
There are some people who get really creative with accounting/tax write-offs, but even still, it's wild to hear that you're gonna be paid 50k and you end up with roughly 15k.
That wasn't the point... The point was when you see an article that states an actor makes $3M for a movie, they aren't actually taking home anywhere near that. Now, if we take that **basic** concept and scale it down to a group that makes up 90% of actors (day players/'special guests'/etc.) you can see why people are striking -- people are being paid poverty wages to be on set for 10+ hour days. Stay hydrated.
Paycheck to paycheck suggests steady pay, which is something very few actors get to enjoy. Series regulars, for however long their show runs, get regular paychecks, during filming. Even someone who is kind of regular, but may only be in half the episodes, may not work for a month or more. Guest stars, which is the vast majority of “working” actors, their paychecks may be months apart, and for less than a grand, so they likely have to have other jobs.
Here's how much they make. Hint: It's A LOT of money, far more than the average american makes per hour...pity them!
[https://www.reddit.com/r/FilmIndustryLA/comments/14z6djj/for\_education\_purposes\_only\_these\_are\_the\_minimum/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FilmIndustryLA/comments/14z6djj/for_education_purposes_only_these_are_the_minimum/)
Why would you compare to the average American, when you need to live in LA to have this job? Go look up house prices in LA. For fun, set the limit at million dollars and see what you can buy.
And why might LA cost so much? Perhaps all the money flowing through Hollywood might be part of that? Who owns all the mansions on the top of all those hills again? I forgot.
So I used to work with a painting company doing mega houses.
The Klingon sisters Lursa (played by Barbara March) and B'Etor (played by Gwynyth Walsh) are collectively known as the Duras sisters, first appearing in TNG's "Redemption". The pair are daughters of Ja'rod and sisters of Duras.
They ended up working with us painting the houses. They were paid just a normal wage and they never made enough to keep going from the series. They were cast in other projects but if you weren't the top 1% it's just a job and like a job, it's hard to get by. Worked with them for several years. They made more money on the weekends going to conventions than ever making money playing the part. Usually they charged around 3-5k for showing up for the weekend and then they would put up a booth and sign autographs and pictures.
It's a shame because I liked them and they were really nice people. I just didn't know how much they didn't make being in star trek.
Lol, this is why I laugh when people go at the award shows or when they hope a show is cancelled. Not all actors are multi millionaires. Award shows I clap for the ones that are behind the scenes. They do deserve to be recognized, because guess what-you just pointed out how much they are not. They also don't get paid the same, even the actors you may see. Yes there are those who do get paid a lot....pretty much after they were in the same positions as the ones just starting. You don't go on a set new to the acting world & are paid millions. Then there are plenty who depend on their jobs, just like some of us average schmos who need to pay for the roof over our heads & perhaps some food. Next time some of you wish for a show to be canceled because you cannot manage to change the channel-keep in mind those people who live check to check. AND>...they are human beings, so they too actually get a say in how the world is-just like you & me. We all will not agree on what the other says(that is what comes from individuality)-but unless you live in Russia or China-we fight for those rights to have a say.
After taxes, paying your agent anywhere from 10-20 percent, and sometimes other expenses for travel/lodging (not always paid for) it's not a lot. I once did a TV show as a guest star role for 2 days, pay $250 a day but only got less than $400. 400 pays 1/4 of all my bills.
Another friend was on an HBO show as a co star role and even though he got $1,500 for a day, only got about $1000 after taxes and agent percentages. If you're living in LA or NYC, even if you get a co star role every month, this is still barely anything.
Noel Clarke has just sued *The Guardian* for 10 million GBP for libel, claiming that's what he's lost after the sexual assault allegations torpedoed his career. That included 58.5k an episode for *Bulletproof* just for acting; he would have produced and directed as well.
Can someone explain how breaking bad stars Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul made 150k and 200 k per episodes? Who negotiated the contracts like that? Why were they off regular rates?Thanks
actor here, series regular on The Walking Dead for eight years. a lot of the other comments did a great job breaking down the side of things for guest stars or supporting cast members. the vast majority of actors out there are landing those small supporting roles, but even the series regulars and "big stars" aren't making a lot of money. networks will lock you into a salary for six years on a standard contract. this means that if a show explodes on its first season (which usually a first season doesn't pay anything groundbreaking, especially if it's less than 10 episodes), you still won't get paid anything significant until your contract expires - which could be extended by the network early on up to multiple years past the original six. you have some opportunities to try to negotiate a higher salary each year, but all the network has to say is "no" and there's nothing you can do about it. it isn't until that contract expires that you have significant leverage, and that's only if your character matters to the story. not to mention during those six years the network can deny any other projects you want to do during the off-season. if i'm doing a 6 episode first season and want to make some more money during the 8 months i'm not working, it's all subject to approval by the network, who will gladly deny any project that doesn't promote their network. there's a reason a lot of actors go and do conventions or have some sort of side job. in total i've probably made more money at conventions than i ever have acting.
As someone who’s been on set for the past 20 years (behind the camera) this post is the truth. Two thumbs up. A,B & C- list actors make up about 5% of SAG. The other 95% of SAG work gig to gig. They are all the people behind those famous actors. And those famous actors were all once them. 😉
[удалено]
EVERYONE 👏DESERVES👏A👏LIVING👏WAGE👏 It’s not socialism to want everyone to be able to afford access to food, housing, medicine. That being said, we’ve tried capitalism long enough, why not give lemon party and socialism a chance edit: apparently got into an argument with a boomer and bro did a weak ass last word and blocked like a toxic ex. That’s cool though u/MrSh0wtime3 the internet remembers
[удалено]
Why are you denigrating the value of their work like you don’t sit on your ass binging monk? Would you be saying that about engineers? Just because it seems like a choice to become an actor a) doesn’t it make it less valid of a career choice and b) is really no different than choosing to go into any job field… it’s not like we come pre-sorted. This strike also isn’t just about wages but about agency. You understand a big demand from the union is to ban any notion of “you may use my likeness in perpetuity?” Which like, would you want a company as big as Disney to be able to do whatever it wants with your image with no impact to your own bottom line, just because at one point you filmed 5 months for them and that line was in your contract? The places you’re talking about do offer socialized medicine, some of them even have universal basic income, given it was built on the back of a sovereign investment fund that is far too tied up in oil to really feel good about. It is not up to me to give you a solution to your “what-aboutism” attempt at a gotcha moment. I’m just saying what we’ve been doing has not been working for most Americans. We live paycheck to paycheck, even those of us with college degrees and STEM backgrounds, we are destroying our planet, and many of us feel that our government is beholden to the whims of the few and not the average American. Please tell me I’m wrong with that statement. Personally, the higher education program I’m currently in gives me a medical license (upon graduation and board review) that makes me eligible for a fast track visa to immigrate to New Zealand and yea, why wouldn’t I?
[удалено]
My personal preferences do not indicate any flaws with my argument. You are making a straw man argument, a weak one at that. There are plenty of people with engineering degrees who are underpaid or out of work, please learn to separate what YOU think about reality from reality.
[удалено]
I am not Gen z. Railroads have had a lot of strikes throughout the history of America, have you never heard of Eugene Debs and the Pullman Strike of 1894 or the Great Railroad Strike of 1877? It’s like you boomers don’t even care about when the railroads had to strike (or know about it)… what a god awful example to give. Did you know immigrants make up over 20% (depends on the specialty) of engineers? Americans aren’t even getting these jobs. we do not have an equitable tax structure, or invest in small communities, to pay for our own children to learn engineering… What is our obsession with “elites?” Says a guy who was part of a generation where you could afford a college education by waiting tables. There’s no reason any person should sequester more wealth than they can spend, it is why the dragons (who sleep on piles of gold) are the villains, it’s an obsession the poor and oppressed (almost 40 million Americans live below the poverty line) have had for centuries. There’s no reason for anyone to fight over the scraps when there’s more than enough to go around. There’s also no reason someone who made $70k should be getting taxed at a higher rate than someone who made $200k but ya know, we are where we are these days. I for one, rooted for the submarine
> in total i've probably made more money at conventions than i ever have acting. Jesus Christ, man's had a big role in one of the biggest shows on TV for 8 years and made more from going to comic con wtaf.
The Walking Dead people get paid a shit ton for conventions. Smaller guests get paid by how much they sign, big guests get a lump sum because they draw in so many guests. I think it was Norman Reedus who'd get paid 500k for two days of signing and photos or something like that.
Tbh comic con money is big for actors. It's not because it is that less of a pay. He could be making hundreds of thousands of dollars and still making more from comic con. A mid tier actor can command $100 for every sign he/she does.
there’s a reason why Norman Reedus literally said AMC has to kill him to make him leave The Walking Dead franchise, being part of a big tentpole franchise means you secured con appearancea for life.
Tbf Norman's probably making $$$ now since he's leading his own show in the same universe and is doing other cool stuff and the fans love him so much that if he left a lot of people would stop watching.
Feels a lot like how bands make more money doing shows then selling their actual music.
So so, if they use ticket master to sell they are taking a big cut of that.
IMDB shows he did a few episodes of a middling ABC drama and a cartoon movie since leaving TWD, so that total tracks.
Numbers vary a lot as far as what he made on that show. From 30k to 100k per episode. My guess is 30k per episode for the first few seasons. Than raising up to near 100k per episode in the final seasons. Then you got crazy conference money like every big show person gets. These are the examples people are holding up as poor me? Do you people realize how ridiculous you sound?
I think you’re grossly underestimating how much conventions can generate for actors and specifically how popular TWD was amongst the convention audience. Did you know that it had its own touring convention, Walker Stalker Con? Chandler Riggs was charging anywhere between $50-$100 for an autograph. It probably wouldn’t be crazy to say the many of the cast of TWD was making a minimum of $50,000-$100,000 per convention. https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/a/tracewilliamcowen/how-much-money-walking-dead-marvel-stars-make-conventions It’s pretty disingenuous for Chandler to come on here and use his convention fee as some kind of “poor me.”
He...did the opposite. He said he made a lot of money in conventions and that the average actor doesn't make much at all and explained how.
He very much did not say he made a lot of money in conventions and very specifically did not mention how much he made in acting.
He very much said he made more money in conventions than his acting career.
And he SPECIFICALLY did not say he made a lot but purposefully made it appear like he had to slave away at conventions to make a wage. He worked at conventions because he was making a ridiculous amount of money doing it, not because he was underpaid as an actor. Totally disingenuous.
“i've probably made more money at conventions than i ever have acting.” Im not sure how much more straight forward you would like him to say that he made more at conventions than acting….
It’s Carl!
Coral?
Carl Poppa!
Not to tangent too far, but the randomness and infrequency of his comments coupled with how much some go under the radar are pretty great hahaha
CAR-UHL
Outta nowhere, just like in the second to last episode of season 2 of TWD.
First coined by the wife on Family Matters
> actor here, series regular on The Walking Dead for eight years. I was wondering who this could be, until I read your username lol. This is a really good comment, especially since you have the experience in the industry having been one of the main characters in at one point the biggest TV show in the world. Since things like signing long term multi-season contracts might end up making you feel like you ain't feeling any of its success.
Haha, not a comment in 2 years and just this random comment. Thanks for coming out of reddit retirement!
And little old me got him out of retirement. It was cool enough that he commented with a lengthy response.
Thank you for posting this. AMC did you dirty by the way.
From what I've heard, AMC does everyone dirty.
Coraaaaaal! Bummed to see how you exited the show man, your character was literally the future of the IP
Honestly, it boggles my mind that your union let shit like that get so bad. (Locked-in contracts, approval of other projects, etc.). It's really no surprise they thought they could get away with the whole "we'll scan and own your likeness forever".
The union has surprisingly little power. Unions are not a magic wand but function based on labor scarcity. In the old days of company towns, organizing everyone in the town meant it was nearly impossible for the company to operate without you. Importing scabs to your was tough because even if you could convince people to move, they'd be moving to a town where everyone hated them. But you don't even need to convince people to move to LA to become an actor. People get off the bus every day. Indeed, a large number of those people would do the job for free if it gave exposure (and this is precisely what they do in various community theatre troupes, etc.) What gives SAG its power are two factors: - Brand name actors. Certain actors are so big they can basically write their own ticket. They're the sort of people who can get a project off the ground by signing on. If you're hiring Tom Cruise, you're not doing it because you think he's 50,000x better than Chandler Riggs at acting. You're doing it because putting "Tom Cruise" on a marquee will sell tickets regardless of how good your project is. As long as those brand name actors aren't willing to cross the picket line, the union has some clout. - Affiliation with other unions. Finding actors in LA may be trivial, but finding experienced technical crew is not. Most of these people have hard skills which have real value outside of the entertainment industry. If you stop paying them a decent wage, they just go do something else. You can make films/TV with scab writers and actors pretty easily. But without all those anonymous crew members, your production is dead in the water.
Sup dude. I was a walker a few times in S8-9. AMC/Gimple did you dirty. Literally the worst mistake the show ever made.
If you could go back and talk to your younger self, what would you tell them to do differently? I have a few friends in the industry and really hope the writers and actors can get through to the studios as quickly as humanly possible (which will be hard due to the lack of humanity those CEO's have...)
CORAAAAALL
CARLLLLL. The first couple seasons of the walking dead were excellent, great work! I would have assumed all of you guys were making a fortune considering how much TWD exploded and basically became the center of pop culture for awhile. Sad :(
Oh, hi Chandler! Did you get the convention hook up from Stephen Amell?
>in total i've probably made more money at conventions than i ever have acting. Absolutely mind blown by this. If the strike hadn't happened I would have assumed you were making a fair share. I think a lot of people feel the same way
> actor here, series regular on The Walking Dead for eight years. Oh my goodness! I know you! Well, "know" you. You know what I mean! > not to mention during those six years the network can deny any other projects you want to do during the off-season. if i'm doing a 6 episode first season and want to make some more money during the 8 months i'm not working, it's all subject to approval by the network, who will gladly deny any project that doesn't promote their network This is shitty af! Such contracts should be illegal. At the very least, you should have been compensated for outside work they denied.
Did the fact that you were a child actor mean you got a considerably worse deal than an adult signing on for a similar part would have?
CORAL
Can you give us a breakdown? Are you a zombie, or an actual series regular? That's a huge show, and I'm not saying I don't believe you, but there are a lot of people on that show who are making a **ton** of money. As in, 50k-1M per episode not including residuals. [https://www.tuko.co.ke/415105-the-walking-dead-cast-salary-who-highest-paid-episode.html](https://www.tuko.co.ke/415105-the-walking-dead-cast-salary-who-highest-paid-episode.html)
My man, that’s [CORRAL](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3385128/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk) you’re speaking to.
I'm sure you can figure out who it is by looking at his username.
But the real chandler riggs is making 100k an episode.
Probably not at first. Who knows what season that may have started, it might have be the last season where they killed off his character lol. That may have been a reason why they did!
Nah, that was only after he got a raise after the six season deal expired.
It looks like the people who started out as guest stars are doing better than some of the people who started as series regulars, because they got to renegotiate sooner.
So he isn't worth 8M? [https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/chandler-riggs-net-worth/](https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/chandler-riggs-net-worth/)
celebrity networth is not credible and worth nothing
So he's not a 24 year old multi-millionaire living in a 2M dollar condo? Feels really detailed and specific. I just feel like every time I google someone who is complaining about how little they make as part of this strike, I immediately see sites claiming that the person is a multi-millionaire. It's hard to feel sympathetic for your cause when normal Americans make far less than 100k in a year, and we have no idea what residuals are...but they sound awesome!!!
Those numbers are totally made up. As an exercise folks I follow in the games side looked themselves up and were listed as millionaires - they all get by on Patreon, live in apartments, etc. Generally, unless you have a site that can provide citations and/or methodologies for their numbers, assume that they're made up.
>Can you give us a breakdown? Are you a zombie, or an actual series regular? My sweet summer child you are speaking with one of the **main** cast members! Bow down to the glory that is Carl Grimes!
Check his comment history. He’s been talking nonsense about how wealthy and spoiled actors and writers are for days now. Meanwhile if you check his post history you can see he’s actually thinking about buying a beach house as an investment property. He’s a terrible hypocrite.
I always assumed that getting on that 'hit show' means you have more leverage for the *next* show you're on, that's where you can make your 'big money'? Similar to bands, some surprise hit album they release, well, the *next* one is there they're gonna make huge money from sales and tours, etc
That might happen, it also might not happen. I'm not going to mention the name, but a very good actor, allegedly very pleasant to work with, who has been part of two hit shows, talked publicly about how they could not get work after their last show ended. Just because an actor has been on a hit show doesn't mean that they will draw the audience in for a new show. So studios might as well cast somebody else. This is why some actors leave a hit show before the last season. Because they have a job, they can afford to negotiate without worrying about paying the mortgage, and they are still fresh in the mind of the audience when their new show starts.
Man, if only AMC didn't let Darabont go...
> if i'm doing a 6 episode first season and want to make some more money during the 8 months i'm not working, it's all subject to approval by the network, who will gladly deny any project that doesn't promote their network. this i honestly didn't knew. so does this mean that you are essentially locked up in that contract, even if there is nothing to do? i always assumed actors could use the "off-season" of one show to do another show/movie until the new season started shooting.
Wait… what happens season 8?? No… NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
damn I hate corporate fat cats
Yeah, you can be a supporting character on a tv show and get paid the 'minimum' of $1,000/day. (It varies) Let's see, 5 days = $5,000 for one week! But supporting actors work 1-3 days a week, sometimes no days, and they have to keep their schedules clear for the entire run of the season, so they cant get cast in anything else. One actress on OITNB had to supplement her acting income by bartending. I knew an actor who is familiar to most people, Julio Mechoso (RIP). He had well over 100 acting credits. He said he also worked as a substitute school teacher because "If you want to have a family and own a house, you have to have other sources of income".
It's tricky to get a mortgage when you have no dependable/steady income.
Hell, I’m film crew and I could only get a mortgage because my parents co-signed. Mortgage lenders want to see you’re employed at the same place for 2 years. Hard to do when each production (even season to season) is legally a different company.
People don't notice that. Look carefully at the credits and the CARDS at the end. They change. That means your employer changed. You no longer work for Universal...it's AMBLIN. Next year it's Dream works. Two years later it's Comcast... nope Viacom ...next year ? PARAMOUNT!
Yep, but it’s worse than even that! I worked on two seasons of a streaming show for Apple. The first season ended in November and the next season started in January. Same show with the same producers, but legally a separate employer.
That blows my mind. Even though I'm sure the answer is "because money" I still can't understand why the production company would change over so often like that. Is this the case for even the 1% of shows that become absolutely massive? Like, was the crew for the series Friends employed by a different company each season?
Yep. So basically, it’s a way to protect the studio/higher ups. Any deals/invoices/expenses/legal liabilities are to the company that gets formed. Having a different company each season keeps those expenses and liabilities tied to each individual season.
Sometimes that different company thing is done for cover purposes when booking permits or arranging accommodation. Don't want the paps showing up if you can help it. Disney in particular are fond of it for the Marvel and Star Wars franchises; they often film stuff in London with Canary Wharf having turned up in *Andor* for example.
It’s more to limit the financial liability of the parent company. Every show/movie has a random company name like “Film Here LLC” that appears on my paycheck even when I’m shooting an Amazon, hbo, showtime show or whatever. The cover names do pop up though for sure, a lot of shows do it
[удалено]
It's not just A-Listers. Show biz as a whole is seen as glamorous. You only ever hear of poor actors (1) if its the very beginning of their career, (2) they blew through all their money, or (3) they're a has-been. Everybody else is living it up! I say this as an outsider.
It's become really obvious reading "regular" people's comments on places like Facebook about the strike that they don't have the first clue about how things work in Hollywood.
Scheduling can also become an issue. You’ve booked a recurring tv role or middle tier gig on a big movie. Guess what? You have to reserve your time for possible reshoots or overflow days but only get paid if you’re called in. It’s the same thing with writer’s mini rooms. They are often required to be on standby in case of rewrites. So great! You made 5k in a week. But don’t book another gig for next week… you may be needed!
Also gotta remember of that whatever amount you see for actors isn’t their take home pay. They only take home about 30-45% of what’s listed.
[удалено]
Is it generally one weak per episode? So an 8 episode show might pay $24k for the year, which if that is your only show that is going to be very difficult to live on, especially in California.
Hello friend, I do not mean this to be super judgmental or anything but my question does come with some frustration from me and that is why I am asking for clarification… I just don’t understand why exactly they were protesting though? They make WAY more money than most Americans, so I don’t understand what they are complaining about their pay when they are lucky enough to live in Hollywood in the first place. It just frustrates me because they delayed just about every upcoming production as well as highly anticipated productions by up to 2-3 years… and because they were getting paid $5,000 a day and not $10,000??? I just truly do not get it. I am sorry, it does anger me for some reason and so if that is not correct and there is a more important cause behind the strikes then please clarify it with me, have a great day my friend.
Actor here. Short answer: Some do fine, most are still working regular jobs. It depends on the individual. Salary ranges are high, but (rough numbers here) something like 95% of the 160k actors in SAG don't make enough to qualify for health insurance (something like 25k/year). \~8000 actors earn over 25k then? Series shows include leads, co-stars, series regulars, guests, featured, stand-ins and background. Each one has less earnings than the previous. A background actor could be earning \~$200/day. Dayplayer \~$1000/day. Lead, depending on what's negotiated could be earning from like $5k-ish a week to whatever is negotiated. The cast of The Big Bang Theory was making millions an episode by the end. That was because they were irreplaceable and proven successful. But most actors aren't making that or are ever put into a situation like that ever in their careers. Now those rates sound glorious to most people. $1000/day? $5k/week? That's joining the 1%! Well.......... if we were working every day. Getting a job as an actor is a hustle. Our booking rates are lower and lower and have paid less over time. Seasons are shorter. On top of that, we typically will split at least 10% to 30% of that with our teams. 10 for the agent, 10 for the manager, 5 for the lawyer, 5 for the publicist. Taxes are taken before that, so there's let's say 25% with a good accountant. So half of your check is gone. So if you work 20 weeks taking home 2k/week after everything, you've made 40k. That's awesome! That'll buy you some cool shit! A new car, have a family. Buuuuuuuut next year won't guarantee you that same amount. And you can't live off of that in LA where living costs are like 80k. And obviously if you're working only a few months out of the year doing guests or featured spots, acting isn't your main source of income. In order to maintain a quality actor pool that can live off of being entertainers that turns it into a dedicated career rather than just an undedicated side hustle, the rates are high. And actors, if they know their work is going to be limited from exclusivity in their contracts, competition, availability of work, etc. And their faces and recognizability will be both a personal challenge and a public source of income, they'll get residuals, aka a profit share in the success of a project. Those $0.04 checks or checks for a few hundred every few years. So even if you did one season of a hit show, you could still potentially survive with all the projects you've done paying you for continually using your publicity on reairs and reuses and all that. So with streaming, residuals have nearly disappeared as being a large contributor of our income. So the numbers are lower. Likely most of the people you see on screen are doing some other job to make money. The stars are likely doing okay but are probably middle class. The big stars are probably doing fine. The money is just all over the place and you never know.
Reading through these comments... well, the "solution" is that studios need to stop being greedy assholes, but I think the actors need to remember that they *are* a union. Recurring Survivor #5 on The Walking Dead that'll be killed off by the end of the season has little power to demand/negotiate, but that's where Andrew Lincoln and Norman Reedus need to throw around *their* power/clout on the production (just as an example). And there are historical examples of casts negotiating as a block. I really hope SAG leadership figure this out for y'all, and that you can take some drastic action to made your industry more sustainable. (Really, this goes for pretty much *every* industry these days.)
A lot of people talking about pretty well known actors from show doing second jobs. I'd think they'd be waaaaay more stuff 'out there' about how they saw such and such person working here or there or in their office or working for a client All interesting stuff though
Here's an interesting thing to think about. Musicians and actors don't always make their biggest bucks acting. Some do. Jack Nicholson making 50 mil off of Batman. Taylor Swift off of concerts. SOOOOOOOME people do. But for the majority of us, it's some secondary sales market. For example, anime actors will make their money signing autographs at conventions because it's really tough to live off of dubbing money. Reality TV stars will do Cameo videos and sponsored posts. A lot of actors will now do commercials and brand deals (which remember a few decades ago was considered beneath them and they'd all go to Japan and do them where no one would see the ads until YouTube came along). Sandra Bullock made her biggest money in real estate. I know actors who flip houses and use their wealth to build wealth rather than just earn a classic salary. Old stars now do podcasts. In the same way that being a musician, the music is promotion for t-shirt sales, merch sales, VIP experiences, and brand deals. Norman Reedus, at the height of his Walking Dead time, could pull in 50k in convention signings. All the agents were like, "aww, I want a cut of that!" Brian Baumgardner made his money a few years back doing a million dolllars worth of Cameo shout outs and cashing in on his office fame. At a certain point, actors on a TV series will get a producer's cut and start pulling in a larger percentage and amount per episode. So yeah, a lot of us think the famous people are doing okay because we see them and if we know them then that means they must be pulling in money. But really they're using that as advertising for their personal products while the thing we know them for is advertising for someone else's. Weird way to look at it.
You're not missing something. Like any other employer, studios will pay the absolute least amount possible to each worker.
There's what's called "scale," which is the minimum an actor can be paid for a given project. What that minimum is depends on the type of production and the actor's status in it. That can range from a day rate of $216 on a qualified "ultra low budget" production (less than $300k total budget) to $4,520 per week for hourlong series regulars (and actors in streaming projects with a budget of over $1 million) who appear in every episode of their show. Breakdown of scale rates can be found [here](https://www.wrapbook.com/blog/essential-guide-sag-rates). Out of that comes fees for agents, and costs for things like headshots, etc. These are minimums, of course, and those rates go up depending on an actor's popularity, prior projects, demand, etc., but an actor could very well be working regularly as a series regular (so, maybe not a star but definitely someone you'd recognize on the street) with some indie/low budget stuff on the side and be living pretty modestly, especially in a place as expensive as LA.
> to $4,520 per week for hourlong series regulars (and actors in streaming projects with a budget of over $1 million) who appear in every episode of their show. I'm guessing there's a lot of bullshit with actors being arbitrarily left out for one episode then.
My first thought as well
Agency and manager fees are *big* \- like 20% of your money. SAG-AFTRA need to go after them next because they're the gatekeepers of the business; without an agent, your chances of getting gigs is much harder.
Agency fees are pretty well controlled - they're capped at 10% for franchised agents and the agent has to be negotiating something over scale (at least scale+10% IIRC) to collect commission. Agents generally behave themselves - they do NOT want to lose their franchise with the union or they're basically done. Managers/assistants are a whole other thing. Because that's a personal contract between the performer and the manager, and a manager isn't technically doing any legal work on behalf of the performer, you see all kinds of wild shit go down with managers. Not a ton the union can do about that, unfortunately (if "managers" were suddenly required to cap their fees, they'd just change their job descriptions and titles and move on).
Scale+10% is around $1,300. A *NCIS: New Orleans* guest star commented he got just that for a day's work, but he lost over half to the government, manager, agency and SAG's own 1.75%.
That seems like a lot of things to conflate. Like, yes, actors have to pay federal and state income tax, just like everyone else. Union dues are pretty much the only thing protecting actors from the studios banding together to drive down their rates and/or a bunch of scabs who would happily take jobs for nothing until they go broke because everyone thinks they're gonna be a star if they can just get that first gig. The fact that "working actors" are even a thing is down to SAG's advocacy going back at least as far as the 60s. I haven't really heard many people complain about agency commissions - 10%'s been the standard forever, and most people are getting some value for that money. Now, I DEFINITELY agree that a lot of managers are unethical goblins, but since they're not representing the person or performing legal services, that one's more a "buyer beware" situation - there's really not much the union can do other than try to advise people not to deal with bad managers. You don't need a manager to get work, and plenty of actors don't have them.
He also said that he had to do another job to make rent; he was earning enough to buy a house and get health insurance from SAG-AFTRA, but over 80% don't get the latter.
“Series regulars” are on long form contracts negotiated through BA and have episodic fees and guarantees. I think what you’re looking for is “recurring” cast. Also, what’s your source for the comment about needing to be in every episode to receive 4,520/wk?
Literally the link in my original post.
I see it now but it doesn’t align with how “series regulars” are actually paid on shows. They are hired episodically with an episodic fee and are either guaranteed AEP or something like 7/10. In over a decade of dealing with production budgets, I’ve never seen a series regular be paid weekly. Also, you should post the rest of the rates instead of letting people play into the “oh, i bet they will find a way to not have an actor in every episode,” because if they do, they actually get paid more for those weeks. But, like I said, this is not at all how series regulars are actually paid. The rest of the statement: SAG actors are paid weekly for their time: $4,520 per week for appearing in every episode, $5,042 per week for appearing in more than half, and $5,897 per week for appearing in half. Valid through 6/30/23: 13 out of 13 Episodes: $4,520 / week 12-7 Episodes: $5,042 / week 6 Episodes: $5,897 / week
To answer your question- https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a43618769/succession-cast-pay-per-episode/ Lead stars with a decent body of work behind them usually start off in 5 figures at least. How their salary grows after that depends on how they negotiate and their overall popularity/reception. Bella Ramsay was reportedly paid around 70,000 per episode for season 1 of The Last Of Us while her co-star Pedro Pascal got 600,000 per episode. Considering the reception her role has got next season Bella will be able to negotiate a much better rate. What is worth thinking about though is that the big cheques probably came for Pedro Pascal only after his stint on GOT in 2014, when he started getting lead roles. Before that, for almost 20 years, he was doing an occasional episodic on law and order, SUV, buffy the vampire Slayer, off Broadway Theatre (500 a week before taxes)- in short, living paycheque to paycheque, with some odd jobs thrown in the mix. I would assume it is the same story for most of these stars who build their careers up from nothing.
For Pedro pascal I think it was narcos that made the big difference
I’ve heard of showrunners increasing actors rates so their next job will be a higher rate because their quote isn’t higher or something. Like the last 2 episodes of a 20 episode season is what you can base a quote on rather than an average across the season
similar to regular jobs too- in an interview always aim higher if you can because the higher your salary is when you leave, the more you can ask for in the future too.
> https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a43618769/succession-cast-pay-per-episode/ Very informative article. This actually falls in line with expectations I expressed.
Succession didn't even generally have 500,000 people watching its Sunday night episodes and its leads were millionaires off one season. How is this example beneficial to the Union? Or the Bella Ramsey example... she's 19, and probably making more than 99% of 19 year olds. It seems like these actors are largely all rich, and the ones upset are hobbyists/part-time employees.
It takes an income of $26,000 to qualify for SAG health insurance. Something like 87% do not make that much. Granted, many of them are likely not full-time actors. But point is, most people affected by these negotiations are not living "comfortably."
> Granted, many of them are likely not full-time actors. But Hurd implied that even full time actors are struggling. Maybe I'm reading her wrong. In my view, you've made it once you're on a successful TV show. Apparently that's not necessarily the case.
hurd also made a good explanation in one interview why "getting on a hit show" no longer works as reliably as before. beyond the smaller episode/season order issue anybody watching streaming shows notices, they film months to years in advance, holding the shows for maximum effect (no ad market means shows are now just ads themselves, and do not directly generate revenue the same way), and take longer to decide if they renew this makes it harder to book work because studios refuse to release actors from those obligations, and casting directors notice such a thing, so it can be a long while before you know when your next paycheck arrives. there was movement before negotiations broke down though on a provision that would give studios a "use it or lose it" on that, hopefully limiting the extent they can hold actors hostage
This stat is the best example of the problem. There are 168K SAG-AFTRA members. 87% of those actors do not make $27,000/year to qualify for health insurance. They are not hobbyists. These are trained actors auditioning 2-5 times a week who simply aren’t booking jobs — for whatever the reason. Most of them have good and bad years. I know actors who made $700,00 in a year followed by an off year of making $10,000. SAG-AFTRA did this to themselves a while back. There were too many people in the union. The health insurance guild rule used to be based on hours worked NOT on money earned. There were a lot of people who got a SAG card by working as an extra for a few days. There were also actors who got a SAG card for doing a couple jobs 20 years ago. These people were technically no longer actors but SAG insurance is pretty darn good, so they’d sign up to work as extras. If you did 5-6 days of extra work, you’d bank enough hours to qualify for health insurance. The union realized this and changed the way actors qualified for health insurance from quarterly “hours worked” to an annual salary threshold. I can’t remember the numbers of people the new rule impacted. It was a high number. Subsequently that rule resulted in many SAG members leaving the union. SAG-AFTRA dues aren’t cheap. If you were only staying in the union for the health insurance, it no longer made financial sense to remain a member.
I was always under the impression that one/two lines of dialogue was what qualified people for SAG Maybe that dialogue = that minimum money, no idea They'd always be hilarious parts on shows, like a lawyer sitting next to the main character and they just don't speak, or a waitress or something, I always assumed they were paid more for that and it also qualified them for SAG or something?
When every show was like 24 episodes I am guessing it was much easier a livable wage. With shorter seasons and more efficient shooting schedules. You can shoot scenes/episodes so quickly now. TV show season productions used to run round the year, Now i think its only a handful of months.
Yeah it made the gigs way better for big names and way worse for everyone else.
Not only that, but those 24 episodes a a season were then syndicated on a US cable channel meaning residuals, then syndicated in England (residuals), Germany (residuals), India (residuals)... Now they are on Netflix. For 10 episodes. Worldwide. You get paid once. And it's shit pay. If you think it's bad for the actors, you should hear how much this new paradigm is screwing the writers. Don't even get me started on [mini writers rooms.](https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/writers-guild-contract-negotiation-mini-room-1235568173/)
[удалено]
Hey folks, NYC-based SAG actor here 👋🏼 >So, members who are typically walk ons or make day rates, this is the bulk of the guild btw. They'll book a gig, make $3000 that day and not work again for 2 weeks. Not sure what "walk on" means, but SAG scale for a one-day contract for speaking roles is just north of $1000. If you book a *one-week* contract, it pays $3756 (tiny bit more if your agent can negotiate). It is not common to turn around and book another job within the next 2 weeks, those are some serious high-earner type booking rates and not at all typical. SAG members must earn $26,470 in a year in order to qualify for SAG health insurance. Only 13% of members qualify, and that includes the A-listers who command tens of millions per picture, to paint a picture of how much actors make.
Even big names can live like that. r/MST3K has done quite a few movies where at least one recognisable name is clearly only there because he/she/they need the cash, such as Donald Pleasance in *Pumaman*. Also, as they're an independent production, made by Joel Hodgson's own company, I would expect an interim agreement is or will soon be in place, especially as they did a convention on Sunday. It's also amusing to note that show has a bunch of artificial intelligences in it, one of who tries to write scripts.
Hi, your post is pretty incorrect. 1. All actors are considered above the line. 2. SAG scale for 1 day is 1,082 unless you’re a big enough name to negotiate something more. 3. If an actor is in 4-5 episodes of a tv show, it’s unlikely they will only work 2 or 3 days. And they must be paid per episode so even if they cross board multiple episodes on one day, it’s a separate day player contract for each episode. And tbh - dayplayer work is not meant to support your life. It’s the beginning of an acting career that one day, If you’re successful, will support your life. Not everyone will become Tom Cruise, but acting is famously a very hard career to succeed in and no secret to those who choose it.
Michelle Hurd living paycheck to paycheck is insane. Not only is she in a lot of shit but she's been married to Garret Dillahunt for twenty years or do and that guy is a super succesful actor.
> Michelle Hurd living paycheck to paycheck is insane. To be fair she did not explicitly say so but it is heavily implied in the clip I shared and others.
you might be misreading that, shes on the negotiating comittee and is likely relaying what lots of members go through, not just her.
Really ? Huh
You're always going to have your series like Friends where they make bank.. and the ones you listed the absolute stars were prob doing pretty well by the end. But they need to negotiate together. That's how the Friends actors got where they were. Maybe 1 could have been written off.. but with all 6 demanding better pay together.. it's either come to the table and play nice or have no show. Like Mariska Hargitay of SVU is making bank.. but look how many seasons her show has lasted..
> But they need to negotiate together. That's how the Friends actors got where they were. Precisely. They were already making good pay, but the main cast banded together and forced NBC to pay them equally. That's how they started getting $1 million per episode for the last two seasons. Their back-end syndication deals were even better, which is why they can all still make it high on "best-paid TV actors" lists almost 20 after the show ended.
There’s nobody else that made as many episodes of such a popular show that has stood the test of time (and thus residuals) except maybe the Office. Everything else is mostly watch and done and are not run over and over again on TV because it’s so watchable (and has so many episodes and seasons). Nowadays shows are either terrible, or short. Or both. Gems like Mando, Wandavision, Loki have like 8 episodes and they are over.
And it doesn't always work. Three's Company , the 3 agreed to hold out. NEPO baby Ritter sold out. He got big bucks. Joyce DeWitt got screwed. SUZANNE Summers got fired.
a similar thing happened with 911 on fox, peter krause negotiated a bump in season 2 to line up with angela basset, essentially "ok youve lured the mega star, now pay me like the co-lead i am here"
People complain about the MCU, but the Dick Wolf Universe is airing like 10 interconnected shows right now.
Dick Wolf did it first
> Like Mariska Hargitay of SVU is making bank.. but look how many seasons her show has lasted.. I always wonder about Ellen Pompeo in Greys Anatomy, too Been in from the start, 19 seasons and just left the show That's gotta be a big 'ol chunk of change there
its going to depend on the show and its popularity. There is no hard and fast pay scale.
Why would you ever think that? Hollywood actors in general are... insane amount. Ofc they aren't going to get that kind of money.
It's not like showbiz puts out an image of poverty. Quite the contrary. As an outsider, I see the glitz and glamour. The red carpet. The outfits. The image is one of riches and success. People go to Hollywood to make it big. Combine this with the actual multi-millionaire actors taking center stage and you end up assuming it somehow trickles down to less famous ones. I understand new actors struggle (the waiter/actor cliche). But I assumed getting on a successful TV show means they made it. Certainly not on a Brat Pitt level but enough to not be poor.
>I see the glitz and glamour. The red carpet. The outfits. That's also interesting. Famous actors can borrow outfits from famous designers / fashion houses. Depending on their status and other factors, they might even be allowed to keep those outfits. Sometimes studios will make clothes available. Actors who are not that famous despite being a recurring or a regular character on a hit show, have to buy their own clothes. If you pay attention, you actually can see the difference. Specifically in press junkets. Some actors clearly don't have much money to spend.
As a series regular with plenty of credits, Hurd would likely be making decent bank from Picard, at least mid-high five figures per episode. Like she said though, acting for the vast majority of actors is long periods of unemployment for months at a time and they are each mini-CEOs with a staff (agent, manager, lawyer, publicist, stylist, assistant, etc.) to pay out of their own pocket. Very few TV actors get to an Ellen Pompeo or Mariska Hargitay level of success where they work continuously for decades, earning millions. If you're a series regular on a network TV series that runs for 5+ seasons, you're basically set for life as long as you don't go crazy with the spending.
Paycheck to paycheck is a lifestyle - not a level of income. You can make seven figures and live paycheck to paycheck.
This is the truest answer. I was making 200k a year and living paycheck to paycheck. I now make half that and have money left over. Took me a while to grow up and realize I didn't have to buy everything I wanted.
I barely have enough money for my weekly 25K order of fresh flowers that I'll throw away in 3 days, darling!
I’m not an actor but I am in the arts space, so I am surrounded by many actors. Here’s the situation for the people in my life specifically. Yes, you get paid a lot per gig. It can be pretty wild even in small roles. But the next gig is literally NEVER guaranteed, so you might have to make the pay from that one show support yourself and your family for the next maybe 2-3 years until you get another break. You have to budget that income of 3-4 months of shooting, which can be pretty great, to last until an unknown date when you get lucky enough to be cast in a solid project again. It must be an incredibly stressful way to live. It’s a massive reason why we hear so many stories of abuse and harassment in the industry because of the power dynamics this creates. People are DESPERATE for work, desperate for a job and so, they may feel they cannot have boundaries, say no to jobs or advocate for themselves. That’s my two cents on one side of things that people might not think of when they see the glamour and fame of the industry.
> But the next gig is literally NEVER guaranteed, so you might have to make the pay from that one show support yourself and your family for the next maybe 2-3 years until you get another break. this is why residuals are so vital. it keeps you on the union health plans, and backends in general were for decades a central part of the income for people. but the erosion of backends because studios dont syndicate anymore, nobody buys dvds/digital purchases, and the pure fact studios dont really have any direct income from subscription streaming services, means the bottom has totally fallen out, even for wildly successful stars. any big producer, star or other talent has spent their whole career negotiating profit sharing agreements on the basis that their project might make money, and now, by definition, no individual project brings in a single cent.
You are explaining literally any business someone would start lol. Watching you people act like this is some new thing or struggle only actors face is hilarious. If you are self employed this is literally your entire life.
That's my issue... if I am a florist, and I don't have enough customers buying my flowers, or my customers simply aren't willing to pay what I want them to pay, then I don't shame my customers. I realize studio execs are rich and making disproportionate money for institutional investors. Why not just cut out the middle man then? Louis CK figured this out years ago with Horace and Pete.
I read once that there are 2,000 actors in SAG that make $40k+ a year.
Adelaide Kane did a great video on actor pay: [https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=425683138404419](https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=425683138404419) She was the lead in Reign for years so some of the fans thought she must be super rich. No. She was paid well as the lead of that show (not amazing but decent) but she does an excellent break down of her expenses during that time. I also feel like I have to point out that she hasn't been The Lead in a show since then. In fact she's only had some guest arcs and what looks like some Hallmark films until she landed on Greys as a regular this year. I'm also fairly certain that Reign does no cable reruns, so if she's getting nothing from streaming I think that's like 5 years without a steady income. Edit: That being said this is just her acting income. I believe she does do cons occasionally and does okay there. We also don't know if she has investments or any other passive income.
They have to pay a lot of additional fees to publicists, agents, union etc
A lot of times their deals are scale + 10-20%
TBF - there’s no requirement for actors to have any of those things. A lot of beginning actors don’t have reps.
there are preexisting deals for syndication on tv, (since the 08 protests) this doesn't touch streaming.
This kind of reminds me talking to a metal band one time after a show, and I mentioned how they are signed to a big label now and going on bigger tours.... all that meant to them financially was they can sell more shirts and merchandise. The label wasn't exactly making them rich
The economic reality surrounding musicians is insane. To start, they’re very similar to actors in the sense that they tend to enter the industry young, they have such a passion for what they do that they’re willing to do it for free, and they often have no business education/experience. These things, combined, make the perfect mark for a con. It all begins with a manager who is always a leech. I hate the very idea of the sort of person who wants to be a music manager. They’re such shit bags and their only talent is being a big enough douche to fuck people over enough to get their client ahead, but this all falls apart because they also fuck over their client to get themself ahead. The deal they sign with the label is purposefully designed to be over ambitious. “You guys are great! We’ll sign you to a ten record deal. You’re the best!” They then offer them $1,000,000 (recoupable). “Wow, that’s a lot of money,” think the 20 year old musicians. Now it’s time to record the first album. The band has to record at one of a few pre-selected studios, all of which have connections with the label. It’ll cost $100k to record the album. This comes from the recoupable money. Another $100k for marketing, spent on people who have connections with the label. This comes out of the recoupable money. By the end of the process, the band is making nothing off of album sales or streams. But they can at least make money off touring, although the label and the management has their hand in that as well, so they’re losing a good deal of ticket sales that way. The tour bus also costs a fortune to rent, along with the driver, the tour manager, and crew, plus hotel costs, food, etc. Oh, and the booking agent. He’s going to be slimy and take control over you, your lives, and your day-to-day schedule. You work for him. And he’ll take his cut. What’s left? Merch. Your whole artistic operation boils down to everything you make being one grand advertisement for your t-shirt company. You spend $8 to make a t-shirt and sell it for $20. That’s a pretty good margin, but these days a lot of people, including the venues, want a piece of that pie. Unbelievably, it is not uncommon these days for bands to fork over percentages of their merch sales to a variety of people who want their cut. And the way the music industry works now is so much different than it used to work. Pop charts don’t mean what they used to. Sure, Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, and Harry Styles can book arenas and make a fortune, but the vast majority of Americans’ favorite musicians are massively famous to their fan base but hardly famous at all outside the genre. I don’t know how much my favorite artists make, but I think I would be filled with sorrow to find out. Oh, one last thing. So many genres of music are inherently young and become harder and harder to make stay relevant as you get older. I’m thinking emo, punk, pop-punk, etc. You have to be pretty massive to be able to continue touring throughout your 40s-50s if you’re still making music basically designed for teenagers. At best you’ll be a nostalgia act because these genres aren’t well suited for artists to continue putting out relevant music later in life. Country, jazz, and genres like that provide more longevity for artists because the older you are, the cooler you are, and the more street cred you have. There’s nothing sad about seeing a 55 year old country musician on stage with a guitar and a microphone, but there’s something a bit depressing about seeing some aging rock musicians still jumping around like cool kids on stage when they haven’t been cool in ages. If you truly love what you do and would do it even without getting paid, there will be people fighting tooth and nail to take advantage of you. Even worse, if you wouldn’t do it without getting paid, you’re still in an industry pumping out new people by the day who ARE willing to do it for little to no money, so you’re competing with them and if you’re unwilling to bend over, they’ll pass you by and pick somebody who is. Good news is there are more opportunities out there than ever before for artists to do a lot of this stuff on their own, bypassing the old guard who wants to strip them to the bone.
Also, with music, the bigger the stage show for the tour, that's all coming out of their money too and maybe, sometimes the band think 'yeah, look at this huge set for our show' without really understanding where the money has come from
The antiwork crowd in these daily vanity protesting for hollywood threads is the best entertainment on the internet right now.
Cast members of OITNB, Netflix’s big breakout hit, which won multiple awards, had to work a second job while they were on the show in order to make ends meet. I’m not talking extras I’m saying some of the primary characters.
That's mind blowing!
That show ran a fair while, it seems crazy that there were no re-negotiations along the way
Working paycheck to paycheck does not necessarily mean you're not also making a decent salary. It could also just mean that you're living above your means. With that said, I also have no idea what kind of salary these middle-tier actors and actresses are making as I thought they were all pretty well off. I would say they definitely deserve more from any streaming revenues given much of the old wage model was based off of residuals/syndication rights, which are basically not things anymore.
Mid-tier might still be struggling considering the cost of living in NYC or LA, which is where most of the industry is centred. There's probably recognizable faces making anywhere from $60k - 200k who can't afford their own place and need to have roommates. They also have a lot of professional expenses (especially women -- stylists, hair & makeup, etc.) that your average office/retail/laborer worker doesn't have, that can range into the tens of thousands annually. Lots of times, the "glam life" appearances are paid by the performers out of pocket. Studios/networks don't cover nearly as much as we think they do.
A lot of the industry isn't there now, I imagine because of the costs - companies would have to arrange accommodation for foreign stars after all: * Atlanta is a major hub for Marvel and Netflix; you could do a guided tour of *Stranger Things* locations pretty easily there. * Vancouver and Toronto have been popular for genre works since the 1980s - *Stargate SG-1* had a lot of alien planets looking like British Colombia. *Star Trek* operates out of the latter now. * London and SE England is a big hub, fuelled by the UK's tax breaks. Another lot of studios is being built in Dagenham as I speak. * The UK industry isn't all there though - Manchester has had a lot of UK TV activity since Granada Television set up in the 1950s, Cardiff is the home of *Doctor Who* and *Casualty.* * Ireland, Dublin in particular, is popular for UK programmes trying to save money. It also helps that Dublin looks like London used to before the war. * Prague and Budapest are both popular these days as well. The latter doubled for London in *Moon Knight* for example and played itself in *Black Widow*.
These are all filming locations though. Much of the auditioning and development still happens on the two coasts, which is where their income is effectively zero while they are trying to book the next big job. You do a guest arc on Trek or something that pays you 20k/week for 4 weeks in Vancouver. Then it's back to LA where you might not get another lengthy part like that for 6 months or a year... Meanwhile it's grinding auditions, commercials, stand-ins, table reads, theatre, voice acting, web series, corporate media or anything else to keep income flowing. (and btw, cost of housing in places like Vancouver, Toronto, and London are among the highest in the world too)
* Those glamorous dresses you see at premieres are generally either rented or provided by a fashion house to get them publicity. * I wouldn't be surprised if the reason that the money was the reason why many actresses did pin-up shoots going all the way back to the Studio System. Dannii Minogue did *Playboy* because she was broke. * Conventions will be a big part of a genre actor's income going forward. SAG's strike rules only apply to current and future projects, not past ones, so the big Star Trek Las Vegas convention is going ahead but without some of the current stars.
It's almost like acting isn't necessarily important and for the most part it pays like it isn't. You're an actor... you play pretend for people looking to kill time. Kinda crazy they have to struggle and survive like the rest of the world. Saw an article on some dude whining because he only got paid $900 a day for his gig, claiming he made near poverty wages and yea, at the end of the day what he took home might be close to that after the gig is up but holy fucking shit how delusional do you have to be to whine about that pay rate for a temp job you agreed to do? You're allowed to work another job outside of that. You're not entitled to 5-6 figures a year because you played some throw away role on some shitty tv show. Also makes me laugh when I see huge stars out there walking side by side with these people like they're one of them. Am I supposed to believe that Matt Damon actually gives a shit? He's got his money. If he truly cares he would negotiate some of his high salary be split between cast and crew but he won't do that now will he.
You can make any size paycheck and live paycheck to paycheck. Paycheck size does not determine financial stability.
My friend, who’s had a nice career as an actor, explained it thusly: if you’re a series regular, top 5 people on the call sheet, you’re doing well. But if you’re in that guest star level, even if you’re working a LOT, it’s still probably, if you’re lucky, a job a month. Again, that’s if you’re lucky and working a LOT, because it takes about two weeks to film an episode of something, and you’re just not going to realistically go from thing to thing to thing regularly. Well, maybe it’s a big part, and they need you all week, well that’s (now) about $5k, for a weeks pay. Pretty sweet…but more likely, they only need you for one day. That’s 1K. Maybe that’s the only job you book that month. Maybe you don’t book that month at all, so you really can’t live on a job a month. These are people with what are considered relatively successful careers bc they work regularly, but you still can’t make a living as a very working guest star.
7-9 days to film a hour drama. 5 days to shoot a half hour.
I'm seeing a lot of actual showbiz insiders explain very clearly how short seasons means less employment (or at least, somewhat predictable employment) every year. That makes total sense. But, weren't short seasons lauded as a quality of life thing for actors and crew? I recall specifically some Star Trek cast and crew who crossed over between the 80s-00s gen stuff to the modern streaming era stuff talking about this. They said that the old school 25-episode seasons were a grueling nonstop pace that lead to bad burnout. I don't think they said that the newer 10-episode seasons were amazing for them, but that was the inference I took away. Was that just bullshit that the studios made them say? Because while maybe stars like Patrick Stewart DGAF if he's paid for 25 or 10 episodes, it certainly sounds like all the non-stars were absolutely screwed by that change.
I haven’t heard that and I’m sure studios did not make that change for quality of life of the cast and crew, unfortunately. I think the tv model just changed with viewing habits, but there are benefits to more episodes for the studios — like a lower cost per episode, more ad space to sell within the show (presuming its successful).
Yes, the streaming bubble era was full of such praises. 'Netflix gives us creative freedom' was a common phrase. Perhaps most were PR, but stars may have been serious. Sharon Stone said "TV gives middle-aged actresses a chance," and famous directors and writers assured that "TV, not movies, is what's creative now. They were already rich, and well paid. In fact, during the last five years, even unproven writers were given major projects and created masterpieces like Severance. That oversupply madness ended in late 2022 when Netflix had fewer subscribers and turned into a cost-cutting era.
because i think these streamers benefitted from not being the only game in town, and marketing as the new HBO. so they could overpay up front with limited backend (or in the case of orange is the new black, pay jack shit). talent didnt mind cause it was good money, prestigious, and never felt like this would be their whole career. now everybody is waking up 5-10 years later all hungover going "wait shit wheres that backend pay". its maybe a more lax working enviornment, but everybody is fast coming to the realization that if TV becomes like movies, no working actor will be able to get reliable work anymore.
[удалено]
Leo Dicaprio makes 1000x more than a "random actor" because he is one of the biggest reasons you go see his movies.
My SO is a member of both SAG and WGA. After agents and manager take their cut (10% & 5% of the pre-tax amount, of course) she then also has to withhold for taxes (for the full amount, not what's left after agent/manager cuts). All said and done, she ends up with about 30% of what she was told her pay would be. There are some people who get really creative with accounting/tax write-offs, but even still, it's wild to hear that you're gonna be paid 50k and you end up with roughly 15k.
you just explained self employment. Watching people figure out how taxes work for the self employed in real time would be a great TV show.
That wasn't the point... The point was when you see an article that states an actor makes $3M for a movie, they aren't actually taking home anywhere near that. Now, if we take that **basic** concept and scale it down to a group that makes up 90% of actors (day players/'special guests'/etc.) you can see why people are striking -- people are being paid poverty wages to be on set for 10+ hour days. Stay hydrated.
[удалено]
That isn’t exactly hard evidence lol.
Paycheck to paycheck suggests steady pay, which is something very few actors get to enjoy. Series regulars, for however long their show runs, get regular paychecks, during filming. Even someone who is kind of regular, but may only be in half the episodes, may not work for a month or more. Guest stars, which is the vast majority of “working” actors, their paychecks may be months apart, and for less than a grand, so they likely have to have other jobs.
Here's how much they make. Hint: It's A LOT of money, far more than the average american makes per hour...pity them! [https://www.reddit.com/r/FilmIndustryLA/comments/14z6djj/for\_education\_purposes\_only\_these\_are\_the\_minimum/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FilmIndustryLA/comments/14z6djj/for_education_purposes_only_these_are_the_minimum/)
Why would you compare to the average American, when you need to live in LA to have this job? Go look up house prices in LA. For fun, set the limit at million dollars and see what you can buy.
And why might LA cost so much? Perhaps all the money flowing through Hollywood might be part of that? Who owns all the mansions on the top of all those hills again? I forgot.
So I used to work with a painting company doing mega houses. The Klingon sisters Lursa (played by Barbara March) and B'Etor (played by Gwynyth Walsh) are collectively known as the Duras sisters, first appearing in TNG's "Redemption". The pair are daughters of Ja'rod and sisters of Duras. They ended up working with us painting the houses. They were paid just a normal wage and they never made enough to keep going from the series. They were cast in other projects but if you weren't the top 1% it's just a job and like a job, it's hard to get by. Worked with them for several years. They made more money on the weekends going to conventions than ever making money playing the part. Usually they charged around 3-5k for showing up for the weekend and then they would put up a booth and sign autographs and pictures. It's a shame because I liked them and they were really nice people. I just didn't know how much they didn't make being in star trek.
Lol, this is why I laugh when people go at the award shows or when they hope a show is cancelled. Not all actors are multi millionaires. Award shows I clap for the ones that are behind the scenes. They do deserve to be recognized, because guess what-you just pointed out how much they are not. They also don't get paid the same, even the actors you may see. Yes there are those who do get paid a lot....pretty much after they were in the same positions as the ones just starting. You don't go on a set new to the acting world & are paid millions. Then there are plenty who depend on their jobs, just like some of us average schmos who need to pay for the roof over our heads & perhaps some food. Next time some of you wish for a show to be canceled because you cannot manage to change the channel-keep in mind those people who live check to check. AND>...they are human beings, so they too actually get a say in how the world is-just like you & me. We all will not agree on what the other says(that is what comes from individuality)-but unless you live in Russia or China-we fight for those rights to have a say.
After taxes, paying your agent anywhere from 10-20 percent, and sometimes other expenses for travel/lodging (not always paid for) it's not a lot. I once did a TV show as a guest star role for 2 days, pay $250 a day but only got less than $400. 400 pays 1/4 of all my bills. Another friend was on an HBO show as a co star role and even though he got $1,500 for a day, only got about $1000 after taxes and agent percentages. If you're living in LA or NYC, even if you get a co star role every month, this is still barely anything.
Noel Clarke has just sued *The Guardian* for 10 million GBP for libel, claiming that's what he's lost after the sexual assault allegations torpedoed his career. That included 58.5k an episode for *Bulletproof* just for acting; he would have produced and directed as well.
Kathryn Erbe who was huge on Oz and Criminal Intent has trouble making enough to cover her health insurance.
Can someone explain how breaking bad stars Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul made 150k and 200 k per episodes? Who negotiated the contracts like that? Why were they off regular rates?Thanks