Sandra Bullock to earn more than $70m for Gravity

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


The Oscar nominee will earn at least $70 million for Alfonso Cuarón’s space epic, according to The Hollywood Reporter .

That’s because she gets 15 per cent of first-dollar grosses, which is a fancy way of describing the portion of the box office revenue that’s owed to Warner Bros.

That $70 million also includes the initial $20 million Bullock was paid upfront for the role.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Given the length of Gravity, a $70 million pay check means Bullock will have earned about $769,000 for each of the movie’s 91 minutes.

Gravity earnings derive from the studio’s revenue negotiations with theatre owners and the movie’s personnel.

Because the movie has made more than $700 million worldwide and a studio’s cut of box office cash is typically 40 to 50 per cent, Bullock is set to earn more than $50 million from theatrical revenue.

The rest comes from home-video purchases and rentals along with other ancillary income. (Cuarón, co-star George Clooney and producer David Heyman reportedly may see hefty pay checks through these cash flows as well.)

Bullock is already one of Hollywood’s highest-paid stars, as she was No. 7 on Forbes’ list of 2013’s top-earning actresses.

A payday like this should give her an added boost when the next rankings arrive.

Funnily enough, last year’s wealthiest actress was Angelina Jolie, who made $33 million but turned down Gravity so she could work on directorial projects.

Now Bullock can just pay Jolie to decline roles that would otherwise go to her, ensuring that she becomes both the top-earning actress and an Oscar nominee.

Please don't get me wrong because I love Sandra Bullock and bully her for getting such a sweet deal, but seriously? No one, I don't care who you are, is worth $20 million dollars upfront. No matter how hard actors may work on a movie set, it is nothing compared to a educator, healthcare worker, policeman, fireman, day care worker, regular joe who works at the hotdog stand. I just think the money priorities for celebrities and professional athletes and people working on television have gotten completely and utterly wonky. And then they all try to pretend they are normal and like the rest of us. Please.

Okay, sorry for the soapbox diatribe and will not post for a while. But seriously, $70 million dollars? Holy shitsnacks that is a whole lot of money. Wow.   

I agree

but there are taxes (?)
and I know she give a lot for charity

anyway it's really really a lot

but into sport too
there are those kind of things

entertainment

Wayne Rooney, footballer playing for Manchester
United here in UK, just got a new contract.....
for £300,000 PER WEEK .

Speechless

So how much did GC make?

Would guess that he made the same, or around that mark if he too went for a slice of profits.

Some people in entertainment and sports do make an obscene amount of money for what seems to most of us a pretty easy way to make a living. But compared to most other jobs, their careers are often fairly short and unreliable.

Most actors never know where their next job is coming from, or if they'll ever work again. Hell, a lot of them work so little they'd live below the poverty line if they depended solely on their acting income.  Think of all the "where are they now" features in the media. And sports figures are often never given the chance to play in the "majors" - and if they are, they face career-ending injury and the prospect of never being a top tier player, which is where the money is.

Very few make the kind of money Sandra Bullock will make for this movie. George will do o.k., though probably not near what she's getting. As much as I feel there's something wrong with anyone making so much money for what seems like so little work, I can't blame them for getting as much as they can, while they can. You never know when the ride is going to end.

I will now get off my soapbox. Sorry guys.

I guess George got 5% backend.
Read somewhere he also signed the deal.
[and he had one of his famous back-end deals on last year’s science fiction epic “Gravity,” which is approaching $700 million worldwide at the box office. ]

Sure it's a lot of money, but that's an irrelevant argument. People get paid what the world wants to give them. Actors, football players, reality TV celebs get paid $$$$ because they can make that kind of money for someone. That's what they're worth.

Sure a nurse or a teacher or whatever is much more worthwhile and important than an actor, and I'm sure Sandra Bullock would agree. But a nurse doesn't make $70 billion (and counting) in revenue in six months for her employer.

Is it unfair? Yes. Do we have a completely screwed up value system? Totally. But that's life.

In the UK at least, people performing some of the most valuable jobs are paid by the government out of our taxes. If we want to see nurses, teachers, police officers, firefighters etc paid more because what they do is so important then all we have to do is pay more taxes.

Celebrities on the other hand, get paid by money we choose to give, whether it's by watching football on TV (their major source of revenue), or buying albums, or paying to see their film at the cinema etc etc. This we can choose to give money to them - or not. And I like that system because it's entirely elective.

Katiedot wrote:Sure it's a lot of money, but that's an irrelevant argument.  People get paid what the world wants to give them.  Actors, football players, reality TV celebs get paid $$$$ because they can make that kind of money for someone.  That's what they're worth.

Sure a nurse or a teacher or whatever is much more worthwhile and important than an actor, and I'm sure Sandra Bullock would agree.  But a nurse doesn't make $70 billion (and counting) in revenue in six months for her employer.

Is it unfair? Yes.  Do we have a completely screwed up value system?  Totally.  But that's life.

In the UK at least, people performing some of the most valuable jobs are paid by the government out of our taxes.  If we want to see nurses, teachers, police officers, firefighters etc paid more because what they do is so important then all we have to do is pay more taxes.

Celebrities on the other hand, get paid by money we choose to give, whether it's by watching football on TV (their major source of revenue), or buying albums, or paying to see their film at the cinema etc etc.  This we can choose to give money to them - or not.  And I like that system because it's entirely elective.  

I think $70 billion is a bit high katie. They're reporting the film has made $700 million so far and counting.

Oops! It sounded right when I typed it!! Thanks.

Makes sense what you wrote Katie. Interesting system........

George always makes a deal like Sandra did, he takes some up front. He feels if the movie doesn't do too good nobody get's hurt too bad. They all have a chance to make something. He is not the highest paid because he is not greedy. Apparently Sandra is of a similar mind. She is not greedy. Just think if the movie had failed they would get much less,

right

@Katie and there are the neoconservatives in this country that want to CUT the pensions and salaries of our teachers, police and fire fighters because they DON'T VALUE THEM!  

It's all in what you value...and apparently, we value entertainers and sports figures more than we do the people who educate us, nurse us back to good health or protect us and our property.  With those workers, we just assume we have all their hard work coming to us for free and begrudge every dollar spent on them from our taxes!

Lighterside wrote:@Katie and there are the neoconservatives in this country that want to CUT the pensions and salaries of our teachers, police and fire fighters because they DON'T VALUE THEM!  

It's all in what you value...and apparently, we value entertainers and sports figures more than we do the people who educate us, nurse us back to good health or protect us and our property.  With those workers, we just assume we have all their hard work coming to us for free and begrudge every dollar spent on them from our taxes!

You shouldn't be surprised at this.  Look at the type of shows that seem to be the highest rated - keeping up with the Kardashians - for instance.  These folks are making multi-millions for what?  Being followed around by cameras whilst living pretty cheap lives in my opinion.  Same with all those Wives of Whatever Freakin City We're Promoting this Week shows.

People pay hundreds of dollars to go to a sporting event - by the time they're done with the seats, the overpriced food and drink, the fan jerseys that the absolutely MUST have to support their team, but often those same folks have trouble paying their own rent.  I just don't get that.

I do give pro athletes one positive comment - the dedication and practice that it takes to become and stay on top of athletics IS something to emulate - but often their actions off-court or field leaves much to be desired.

Our ticket purchases are what pay for these folks to live the lifestyles they do.  But that doesn't mean they're any better than nurses, teachers, etc.  If we had a system that for every dollar we spend on entertainment we had to also put a dollar in a pool for nurses, etc.  then they wouldn't have such low paying jobs, now would they.

interesting point
indeed

@Lorna...I'm too long in the tooth to be surprised by much of anything anymore! LMAO

I have very mixed feelings about this. As a former teacher I am very aware of the disparity between my salary and the paychecks of public figures. But I am also aware that my profession offered security and benefits that come with civil service jobs. Many in the private sector are not so lucky.

Do I wish things were more equitable? Absolutely. Do I resent the people, like Sandra Bullock and George, who make outrageous amounts? No. They took risks I wouldn't want to take. There were no guarantees they would have the careers they ultimately got - and worked hard for. If they hadn't been lucky they could just as easily have ended up in another line of work.

If you resent the fact that "reality stars" and no-talent celebutards get rich for no reason, you're wrong. They get rich because we pay attention to them. Stop watching their stupid shows and buying the magazines that feature them, and see how fast they go away.

Katiedot wrote:Sure it's a lot of money, but that's an irrelevant argument.  People get paid what the world wants to give them.  Actors, football players, reality TV celebs get paid $$$$ because they can make that kind of money for someone.  That's what they're worth.

Sure a nurse or a teacher or whatever is much more worthwhile and important than an actor, and I'm sure Sandra Bullock would agree.  But a nurse doesn't make $70 billion (and counting) in revenue in six months for her employer.

Is it unfair? Yes.  Do we have a completely screwed up value system?  Totally.  But that's life.

In the UK at least, people performing some of the most valuable jobs are paid by the government out of our taxes.  If we want to see nurses, teachers, police officers, firefighters etc paid more because what they do is so important then all we have to do is pay more taxes.

Celebrities on the other hand, get paid by money we choose to give, whether it's by watching football on TV (their major source of revenue), or buying albums, or paying to see their film at the cinema etc etc.  This we can choose to give money to them - or not.  And I like that system because it's entirely elective.  

Exactly... except for the $70B number :-). People get what the market says they're worth. It's not fair, it just is. You can get rich from everything from monetizing your genitals to being a world-class acting talent to coming up with a new invention, as long as somebody is willing to pay you for it.

-I don't follow anyone else so I'm not aware of their situation. George went how many years before he started making decent money living in a friends closet. He wasn't a real success until he was 33 years old. Had he not been lucky and landing the part in ER he could still be an actor that just got bit parts, and barely making ends meet. He also is a very frugal person and does't really waste money.

He paid cash for his houses because he saved money and to him a house was an investment. Also he didn't want to be without a home ever again. It cost them to be a celebrity whether it's security or any extras that you would not have if you were say a shoe salesman. He naturally wants to make money, but he does not demand outrageous sums of money for what he does. For him he would rather take less and get the projects made that he is interested in. In his case I don't feel that he is over paid.

We can see from George's wardrobe he is not wasteful there either not to mention what he gives to charity.

As far as these reality stars I think are a total waste of the air waves they use, never watch them.

Joanna wrote:Wayne Rooney, footballer playing for Manchester
United here in UK, just got a new contract.....
for £300,000 PER WEEK .

Speechless

And footballclubs have not enough ! Really, they should make those footballplayers pay !!! But hey I always forget: it's still a men's world !