Chapter 207: Plummeting Salary
This is utterly preposterous!
From "The Pacific" to "Buried," and now to "Like Crazy," Renly's remuneration has been dropping with each project, making him look like a washed-up actor hitting a career dead end. The $100,000 he received for "Buried" was already low, comparable to what third-tier actors earn, with many TV actors making more than that. But now, the offer has plummeted to $20,000? Is this not a slap in the face? It sounds like the kind of money you'd offer a fresh-faced model in the fashion industry.
Moreover, Renly is now an Emmy Award-winning actor! An Emmy! One of the four major American arts awards! And $20,000? What kind of joke is that?
As for profit-sharing? That's pure fantasy!
From the few clues available, it's evident that "Like Crazy" hasn't secured a production company, only some investment, much like "Buried." This means what? It means that the director and producer have no say in profit-sharing. How much they can share, the profit ratio, how it gets distributed with the distribution company and major theaters, and even finding a suitable buyer, all these details are undecided and will be determined by others. The profit-sharing ratio for "Buried" was decided by Focus Features.
Even if the production and distribution companies agree to profit-sharing, how much could Renly get?
Hollywood actors have increasingly engaged in profit-sharing since the early 2000s. Although it existed before, it wasn't mainstream; fixed pay was the norm. The 2006 film "Pirates of the Caribbean 2" brought attention to profit-sharing. Before that, the $20 million club was the industry's gold standard, but "Pirates of the Caribbean 2" earned Johnny Depp $33 million – basic pay plus North American profit-sharing, shocking the industry. "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" followed suit, prompting Disney to offer Depp a record-breaking $55 million for the fourth film. Disney's internal estimate included basic pay and profit-sharing, paying Depp in full upfront. If the film surpassed expectations, all the profits would go to Disney.
After that, while the $20 million club still exists, it is largely symbolic. Actors are more willing to participate in profit-sharing rather than insist on high base pay. This benefits production companies by saving budgets and sharing box office risks with actors, so studios are happy to oblige.
In other words, production companies favor profit-sharing to mitigate risks, not to split profits. Naturally, only top-tier actors with box office appeal are included in profit-sharing deals. Others are sidelined.
Though Renly just won an Emmy, he's barely a blip in star-studded Hollywood. With only two works under his belt, he's not even considered a second-tier actor, maybe a third-tier at best. Even if he gets profit-sharing, 1% is the ceiling, and studios won't easily concede even that.
Chances are, even that 1% won't be offered by the studio. Getting blood from a stone would be easier.
Of course, Andy hasn't forgotten another possibility – if "Like Crazy" is picked up by an independent production and distribution company.
For low-budget indie films, profit-sharing is often used to attract first or second-tier actors. Actors see it as a chance to try their luck in awards season, while production teams save costs, creating a win-win scenario.
A famous example is 1994's "Pulp Fiction." John Travolta's career was at rock bottom then, but despite his decline, he wasn't a star that any indie film could easily hire. Quentin Tarantino, a fan of old movies, was fond of Travolta and invited him to star in "Pulp Fiction." However, Tarantino was strapped for cash. Travolta's $3 million market rate was beyond Tarantino's reach, so he negotiated, offering $170,000 upfront plus profit-sharing.
Travolta, thinking his career couldn't get any worse, accepted.
"Pulp Fiction" became a classic, earning Travolta over $10 million and revitalizing his career, even garnering an Oscar nomination.
But "Pulp Fiction" was a unique case. It made over $100 million domestically. "Like Crazy"? Hitting even $30 million for an indie film is no easy feat. "Buried" struggled, and so will "Like Crazy."
In summary, the situation is utterly ridiculous, leaving Andy feeling suffocated.
An actor's remuneration is more than just pay. Firstly, it's their investment cycle guarantee. The image-building investment isn't covered by a few hundred thousand dollars. Moreover, Renly's "Buried" still has potential this awards season, and publicity expenses are no small change. Without this investment, future opportunities vanish.
Secondly, remuneration reflects an actor's industry status. Top actors occasionally lower their fees for art films, which is seen as "having aspirations." But a newbie with no achievements, whose pay keeps dropping, is self-destructive.
Lastly, Andy's own share is negligible because nurturing new talent doesn't profit top agents much, and he has to invest his own money.
Looking at Renly's nonchalant demeanor, Andy felt like crying. Since taking on Renly's management a month ago, his emotional rollercoaster has surpassed that of the past year. Deep breaths, deep breaths. "Can you tell me why you want to do this film? Give me a reason."
"A reason?" Renly didn't seem to grasp Andy's perspective. He's an actor, Andy is an agent; their viewpoints differ naturally.
Andy crossed his hands on the chair's armrest and leaned slightly forward. "For instance, do you think this project is even more challenging than 'Buried' and has the potential for Golden Globe or even Oscar buzz?"
Renly chuckled, "Ha." Indeed, the focus of an agent and an actor is worlds apart.
Not every film needs to be tied to awards or box office success. Take the most underrated film of the 21st century, "Mulholland Drive." It was divisive upon release – adored by some, hated by others. It received just a token Best Director Oscar nomination, seemingly a consolation for David Lynch, angering many fans.
Today, it's a favorite among critics and cinephiles, often ranking in the top five of 21st-century film lists, showcasing its significance in film history. Yet, Naomi Watts's career was rejuvenated thanks to it, leading to a turning point.
Similar cases include "Fight Club," "Donnie Darko," "Requiem for a Dream," and more. These films might not have been box office hits or award season darlings but are nonetheless critically acclaimed and significant in film history. They also became notable entries on actors' or directors' résumés, paving the way for their future careers.
Actors care about the work itself, while agents care about the impact of the work. This is the fundamental difference.
However, Renly understood Andy's concern, so he nodded, giving a reassuring response. "That's the goal."
Andy sighed in relief. "Once we get the script, I need to review it." This time, Andy didn't pose it as a question but as a statement. Renly didn't mind, nodding in agreement.
The agent-actor relationship is an equal partnership. Even a newbie signs their own contracts. If they disagree, the agent can't force them. Typically, newbies follow the agent's advice due to their lack of experience and knowledge. Even established stars listen to their agents' professional opinions.
There are partnerships like Renly and Andy's. Both sides need to keep exploring to reach a win-win situation. Otherwise, the actor suffers in the end—agents can find countless other actors, but actors may miss their prime career opportunities. Not everyone gets a second chance like Robert Downey Jr. or John Travolta.
"So, what did you come to see me about?" Renly glanced at the wall clock and asked.
Andy realized he'd almost forgotten his purpose, overwhelmed by the "Like Crazy" bombshell. Reminded by Renly, he recalled his intent. "I came to discuss your next project. I've found two suitable ones. If you're interested, I can arrange private interviews to see the feedback before we discuss further."
Clearly, Andy hadn't been idle these past days at Telluride.
Weekly Power Status
-- Power
Ranking 
-- Power
stone