Sunday, March 19, 2017

Stingy Disney

For a company that grosses nearly 30 billion dollars annually (according to the NYSE), they are... how do I put this nicely... Exceedingly frugal with their paychecks. I read an article the other day that discussed Disney's poor payout to actors who star in their films, and more specifically Emma Watson's paltry paycheck of a meager 3 million dollars (no comment). 

While there is the potential to earn upwards of 15 million dollars, that all depends on how Beauty and the Beast does in the box office. While I'm sure the timeless tale will smash it, it is curious why an actress of Emma Watson's caliber would not be compensated more for her work. According to the article, Watson earned $60 million for her role in the Harry Potter series, which equates to $7.5 million per film. More than double what she is earning playing the lead role, Belle. Now, I'm not one to advocate for an increase in pay for actors, because I find it hard to justify such a loaded paycheck, but for a multi-billion dollar company such as Disney, I find a $3 million paycheck rather disrespectful. 
According to a producer at Disney, the lead role is of little importance. Apparently Disney's brand is so large that it doesn't need to rely on casting to do well.
*cue arrogant Disney retort 

He makes the point that if Jennifer Lawrence were to play Belle, the box office outcome would be the same. This is where I disagree. Nothing against Jennifer Lawrence, because she is one of my faves, but personally there is something special about having Emma Watson play Belle. When I saw the very first Beauty and the Beast teaser trailer I got goosebumps, and a large portion of that reaction can be attributed to seeing Emma Watson's face appear on the rose's glass. Maybe it's her effortless english accent, or maybe my allegiance lies through my adoration for Harry Potter, but a big part of my excitement for this film is centered around the fact that Emma Watson is Belle.
If you haven't seen the teaser trailer, i'll leave the link below.

GOOSEBUMPS

No comments:

Post a Comment