Payment issue

The remuneration for Hollywood films has been steadily rising, primarily driven by the collaboration of three giants: Creative Artists Agency (CAA), William Morris Endeavor (WME), and International Creative Management (ICM). This partnership has led to a continuous increase in actors' remuneration since the 1980s.

In 1988, Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in "Twins", not only receiving a fixed salary but also participating in box office bonuses, which opened a new chapter in actor remuneration. In the following year, 1989, Jack Nicholson played a supporting role in "Batman" and completely gave up his salary in favor of profit sharing. Regardless of the box office performance, he would receive a percentage according to the contract, without any lower limit. Additionally, he also participated in the profits from the sales of associated merchandise. As a result, Jack earned a remuneration of $50 million from the film.

Since then, Hollywood actor remuneration has entered a new era: a base salary plus box office bonuses.

Actor remuneration has always been a topic that people never tire of, ranking second only to scandals and gossip among celebrities. One important reason for its popularity is that the numbers involved are so large that they seem beyond the reach of ordinary people.

In reality, media reports on actor remuneration often contain substantial elements of misinformation. On one hand, actor remuneration is considered an industry secret and is not disclosed to the public due to internal competition. On the other hand, production companies and actors may deliberately exaggerate or downplay the actual earnings for specific purposes. Generally, exaggeration is for showing off, while downplaying serves to cope with the exorbitant wealth tax imposed by the US tax authorities. The most significant reason is "deliberate simplification". In real life, an actor's remuneration may not be easily quantifiable, but for the media and fans, the most impactful aspect is a number composed of several zeros on the right side.

In Hollywood, actor remuneration was initially straightforward, with production companies paying actors a fixed amount, similar to a salary, for their work in a film. However, when actors were included in the list of profit-sharing recipients, it became more complicated because the concept of box office bonuses is inherently complex.

Due to antitrust laws in the North American film market, production companies, distributors, and exhibitors are often separate entities. Typically, after a production company completes a film, it is handed over to a distribution company for operation, which then contacts major theater chains for exhibition.

There are two ways in which distribution companies and theater chains share profits. The first method involves the distribution company paying a certain rental fee to the theater chain, which then takes a percentage of the box office earnings each week, starting at 10% in the first week and gradually increasing but not exceeding 40%. The second method is where the distribution company does not pay any rental fee, and the theater chain directly takes a percentage of the box office earnings, starting at 30% in the first week and incrementally increasing, with a maximum of 50%.

Generally, theater box office earnings account for 40% of the total box office revenue that a film can generate. In other words, the remaining 60% is left for the production company and distributor to share.

This 60% can be divided into two scenarios. In the first scenario, large production companies have their own distribution departments, so the entire 60% belongs to them. In the second scenario, the production company entrusts distribution rights to a specialized distribution company, resulting in the need for both parties to divide this portion of the profits. Typically, the production company takes 30% to 35%, while the distribution company receives 25% to 30%.

Whether it's the first scenario or the second scenario, the portion of profit that belongs to the "producers" is approximately 30% to 35% of the total. This portion of profit needs to be shared among the production company itself, the director, the producer, the screenwriter, and now, the actor.

25% is the maximum percentage that major Hollywood studios are willing to allocate for actors, directors, producers, and screenwriters as their share in the profit distribution. This percentage represents the collective share of all participants, not individual shares. In other words, what remains with the production company after factoring in the final box office revenue is approximately 10% to 15% of the film's total box office earnings.

In reality, for large film production companies, box office revenue is not their most important source of income. The revenue generated from television, cable TV, video tapes, and other home entertainment projects, as well as ancillary rights revenue, constitutes the true income source for film production companies. These sources often account for more than 80% of the company's profits, sometimes even surpassing the revenue from the film's box office performance. Of course, outstanding box office performance can also drive additional revenue from ancillary rights and merchandise, making them complementary.

The percentage that can be shared among directors, producers, screenwriters, and actors is roughly between 20% and 35% of the box office earnings, with occasional exceptions. However, this trend emerged in the 21st century, and prior to the 1990s, the percentage was generally around this level.

For this reason, many A-list actors, such as Tom Cruise after becoming famous, are reluctant to work with top-tier actresses as it would mean more actors participating in profit sharing, thereby reducing their own share. However, Tom is willing to collaborate with Steven Spielberg because he values the box office influence brought by top directors, which ultimately outweighs the sacrifice in the profit-sharing percentage. In projects where actors participate in a higher percentage of profit sharing, they will undoubtedly go all out in promoting the film. The exposure density during the actor's promotional period can give some indication of their economic benefits. This further deepens the connection between actors and box office performance, increasing the responsibility on actors' shoulders and boosting their motivation, which has positive implications.

Within the portion of box office earnings that can be shared among directors, producers, screenwriters, and actors, the percentage allocated to actors fluctuates greatly, ranging from 5% to 50%. Various factors contribute to this fluctuation, including whether the co-actors are eligible for profit sharing, the actor's personal appeal, and the stature of the director and producer. Ultimately, it boils down to the power dynamics in Hollywood.

So, what role do agents play in all of this?

Firstly, the existence of the three major talent agencies allows for the implementation of profit sharing among directors, producers, screenwriters, and actors, and even pushes for an increase in the profit-sharing percentages, significantly reducing the dominance of production companies and fundamentally changing the power dynamics in Hollywood. Furthermore, the decision of whether an actor becomes a part of the profit-sharing scheme is largely determined by their talent agency.

Furthermore, agents play a decisive role in negotiating actors' salaries. The fundamental ability of an excellent agent is to maximize the actor's benefits, and salary and treatment are the core aspects. For example, Ron was able to negotiate a salary of 6 million dollars for Hugo, while Joseph could only secure 3 million dollars for him. That's the difference. Another example is Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jack Nicholson, who set a precedent for actors to receive profit sharing. However, actors who can actually receive profit sharing are still rare, and the eloquence of agents plays a crucial role.

In simple terms, an agent is a good salesperson. They hold a card worth 3 million dollars. If they sell it for exactly 3 million, they are considered average. If they sell it for only 2 million, they are deemed inadequate. However, if they manage to sell it for 6 million or even negotiate profit sharing, then they are truly outstanding agents.

Hugo currently found himself at a crossroads in Hollywood. After "Scent of a Woman" and "A Few Good Men", the media generally believed that Hugo could join the ranks of A-list actors, which meant a salary of 8 million dollars. However, up until now, no production company had offered him such a salary, so the so-called A-list is just the media's own hype.

Nevertheless, it was undeniable that after the foundation laid by "Scent of a Woman" and "A Few Good Men", Hugo, who had been active in Hollywood for ten years, possessed certain qualifications. So his salary was definitely more than 3 million dollars, and returning to the "Hudson Hawk" era with a salary of 6 million dollars shouldn't be a problem.

However, a 6 million dollar salary was not something that could be achieved through mere words. After the Golden Globe Awards, Hugo's sudden decline in reputation may not have a substantial impact on his salary, but it would inevitably have an influence. Therefore, whether he could obtain a salary of 6 million dollars would test Joseph's personal abilities.

If things were that simple, Joseph would have great confidence in securing the 6 million dollar salary for Hugo. He would be willing to make every effort for him. However, the problem lay in the fact that the "Sleepless in Seattle" production team was not a wealthy one. Although Joseph didn't have accurate information, as far as he knew, the budget for this project was only 20 million dollars.

Additionally, Joseph had also heard the latest news that Meg Ryan had been cast as the female lead in "Sleepless in Seattle". Meg was an actress on a higher level than Hugo. Although actresses have always been paid less than male actors, even a 50% lower salary wouldn't be surprising. But even if Meg's career had been somewhat stagnant in the past three years, a salary of around 4 or 5 million dollars should still be achievable.

In this case, if Joseph were to demand a salary of 6 million dollars for Hugo, the actor's budget alone would account for 50% of the film's total cost, making it an almost impossible task. Moreover, Hugo had gone through countless difficulties to secure the opportunity to act in "Sleepless in Seattle", and he was confident in his performance in this project. So now Joseph had no way of confidently telling Nora, "We won't take the role unless we get 6 million dollars."

Joseph couldn't help but feel a headache. How should the scale of this salary be calculated? This was also why Joseph didn't immediately respond when Nora brought up the salary issue. He never expected that Hugo would actually succeed in the audition, nor did he anticipate that Hugo's first project after "A Few Good Men" would be a romantic comedy.

"Should we really propose a profit-sharing arrangement?" Joseph thought of this method which wasn't really a solution. But the problem was: Hugo hadn't reached the level where he could demand a share of the box office!