Refusing star billing?
- Thread starter Eddie Roth
- Start date
According to the AFTRA pay schedule for "Exhibit A Programs (primetime)for 2004" these are the minimum scale rates of pay for performers on a weekly series.
Regular
(min of 13 out of 13 or more eps)
$2,899
Semi Regular (guest)
(Less than 13, but more than 6 eps)
$3,235
Recurring (guest)
(No more than 6 eps)
$3,783
These are from the 2004 schedule, and the current rates are probably quite a bit higher, though still proportionate to one another. Keep in mind that these are minimums, and that most shows pay higher rates, but usually maintain these same proportions in pay scale for the various classes of performers.
Regular
(min of 13 out of 13 or more eps)
$2,899
Semi Regular (guest)
(Less than 13, but more than 6 eps)
$3,235
Recurring (guest)
(No more than 6 eps)
$3,783
These are from the 2004 schedule, and the current rates are probably quite a bit higher, though still proportionate to one another. Keep in mind that these are minimums, and that most shows pay higher rates, but usually maintain these same proportions in pay scale for the various classes of performers.
Yeah, as a former talent agent and a former SAG employee, I am EXTREMELY familiar with the minimums and I can tell you with 100% certainty that there isn't a single series on the air right now where the series regular cast members earn less than an ordinary guest star*.
*Guest star rates are affected by numerous factors, including not just the SAG rates but the rates set by the networks the shows are on(referred to as "top of show") and, of course, by the quotes of the actors themselves.
A high profile guest star might fetch a pretty penny if they are a big enough name.
Sorry. I'm not doubting that what you say is true with regards to your own past professional experiences, but I stand by what I've said. My information isn't limited to the published MBA and pay schedules, but from friends who are current SAG and AFTRA members, and contacts I've developed over the years at CAA and throughout the industry.
There are perhaps a couple of dozen shows where the lead players have some extra clout because of past successes, and therefore command higher than normal salaries, which are more than the average guest star will earn. This is almost certainly the case in shows where the show has been specifically developed for that star, and said star has a production credit and ownership interest in the show.
Outside of shows that are such "star vehicles"... payrolls tend to adhere to the proportions set forth by the union pay schedules. Or so I'm told, by virtually everyone I know in the business.
There are perhaps a couple of dozen shows where the lead players have some extra clout because of past successes, and therefore command higher than normal salaries, which are more than the average guest star will earn. This is almost certainly the case in shows where the show has been specifically developed for that star, and said star has a production credit and ownership interest in the show.
Outside of shows that are such "star vehicles"... payrolls tend to adhere to the proportions set forth by the union pay schedules. Or so I'm told, by virtually everyone I know in the business.
You think I pulled that out of my ear?
The billing order of "X-Men" sequels may well have been set into the contract of the first film. In fact, it was mooted that, after Ms Berry won her award, she'd pull out of the sequels altogether.
Also, by the time "X-Men" was being made, Patrick Stewart had his own box office clout. But "Generations" was his first chance at top billing.
None of this is set in stone. But there is etiquette that is expected to be followed.
I said I wondered, because it sounds implausible. If it really was the case, then I'm amazed. But it would still appear something could've been worked out where Goldberg could've been credited, just not at the top spot.
It seems though she wasn't so keen on it anyway.
I'm guessing most things are really in the realm of how well you negotiate your contract....
It seems though she wasn't so keen on it anyway.
I'm guessing most things are really in the realm of how well you negotiate your contract....
Her agent wanted her to go for top billing and, rather than have it go to arbitration, or have a lengthy argument with her own agent, Whoopi Goldberg chose to waive billing. It simplified the whole process.
It's not as if she needed her name on the movie to prove she was in it. The woman has said she'd work on Trek for free if Hollywood permitted it.
Sometimes a largish, but uncredited, role carries a certain prestige in Hollywood. I was surprised to note that Owen Wilson waived billing on "Night in the Museum". His role was quite meaty, much more than a cameo.
And ditto Ashton Kutcher in "Cheaper by the Dozen".
I just want to back up chardman's info here. And, if you take into account that the entire production cost for a TNG episode was around $1 million (in early seasons; probably increased somewhat by season 7), the idea that one or all of the cast salaries totalled $2 million per episode is ludicrous.
Doug
The last contract I worked on (admittedly nearly ten years ago) was for a virtually unknown actress. It was a series regular role on a half hour sitcom (hour long dramas pay more, FYI.)
This relatively unknown actress on this half hour had in her contract an episode payment in the first season of $25K per episode.
A guest starring role (for a similarly unknown actor) on that same series (the show didn't get past pilot, but pick any show at the time) would have topped out at less than $2500.
Regulars get more. It's a fact. It's consistent and always has been.
The instances where a guest star is going to get more than a regular are very rare and only happen for big name guest stars and when compared to relatively new or unknown regulars.
That's just the way it is.
Similar threads
