Author Topic: The Prince paid more than the Queen in the Crown  (Read 174 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1285
The Prince paid more than the Queen in the Crown
« on: March 14, 2018, 11:11:19 am »
And it's totally justifiable.

https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/2018/03/14/claire-foy-reportedly-paid-less-than-co-star-matt-smith-for-the-crown.html

Quote
LONDON—A producer of hit royal drama The Crown says Claire Foy, who played the central role of Queen Elizabeth II, was paid less than her onscreen husband.

The Netflix series traces Elizabeth’s journey from princess to queen, beginning in the 1950s.

Trade publication Variety quoted producer Suzanne Mackie as confirming Foy was paid less than Matt Smith, who played Prince Philip in two seasons of the series. She made the reported comment at an industry event in Jerusalem.

She said this was because Smith was better-known after starring in sci-fi series Doctor Who. Mackie said the gap would be closed with the forthcoming third series, saying “going forward, no one gets paid more than the queen.”

Foy’s agent did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

Neither Foy nor Smith will appear in the third series, which will star Olivia Colman as the middle-aged monarch.

I'm a huge fan of this show BTW. Matt Smith STEALS the scenes he's in.

No one knew who Clare Foy was before the Crown. Sure she plays the Queen and she was the focus of "Most" episodes. But the actor who plays her husband is the one that people recognize. AND Dr. Who fans might actually have been attracted to the show because of this casting.

This can't be an example of sexism in the industry can it?
« Last Edit: March 15, 2018, 08:11:09 am by Boges »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


guest4

  • Guest
Re: The Price paid more than the Queen in the Crown
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2018, 05:15:03 pm »
I don't know who either of them are, so the "recognized person" getting more money doesn't work for me personally.

But in the big picture sense of the media industry, it does seem logical that a better known actor would get more money. 

More locally on the morning news, there was a female news anchor who seemed to be the main anchor.  Then they introduced a guy and gradually he seems to have become the main anchor and she's more like the hostess who introduces him.  Annoys me every morning, but sadly the other station annoys me more for different reasons.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10985
Re: The Price paid more than the Queen in the Crown
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2018, 05:47:36 pm »
They can't expect media to NOT be sexist when viewers are sexist.  If people can't watch a woman deliver the news, then guess what - they won't hire one.

This is why liberals are now becoming super insistent on women in roles where they haven't been.  It's basically the same thing that's been happening but in reverse.  I don't think any of it is fair but it is consistent.

Next, there will soon be emancipation for ugly people.  Just watch.

Offline bcsapper

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1476
Re: The Price paid more than the Queen in the Crown
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2018, 08:44:01 pm »
Next, there will soon be emancipation for ugly people.  Just watch.

I can't wait...
Time for bed said Zebedee...

guest4

  • Guest
Re: The Price paid more than the Queen in the Crown
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2018, 11:27:25 pm »
They can't expect media to NOT be sexist when viewers are sexist.  If people can't watch a woman deliver the news, then guess what - they won't hire one.
How do they know, though?  I'm never asked, that's for sure.  I'd have said keep the female anchor, I like her and the guy is kind of annoying.  But I don't think they do ask, I think they just assume.

On the other hand, when women are criticized for being pregnant on air or showing their arms, I guess that's enough evidence of public sexism.

Quote
Next, there will soon be emancipation for ugly people.  Just watch.
Can't wait!  A movement I could actually benefit from!

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8308
Re: The Price paid more than the Queen in the Crown
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2018, 12:05:07 am »
They can't expect media to NOT be sexist when viewers are sexist.  If people can't watch a woman deliver the news, then guess what - they won't hire one.

This is why liberals are now becoming super insistent on women in roles where they haven't been.  It's basically the same thing that's been happening but in reverse.  I don't think any of it is fair but it is consistent.

Next, there will soon be emancipation for ugly people.  Just watch.

I think there are more female news readers on Vancouver television stations than male these days.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 1 View List

guest4

  • Guest
Re: The Price paid more than the Queen in the Crown
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2018, 12:19:13 am »
I think there are more female news readers on Vancouver television stations than male these days.

You bet; one male news anchor surrounded by a female news anchor, the traffic girl and the weathergirl.  Ok, Madriga on Global in the am - but he doesn't show up till 6 am I think. 

Admittedly, I never see the noon news, working and all, but thats the only one I can think of that lacks the male authority figure as the centerpiece of the news tableau.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The Price paid more than the Queen in the Crown
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2018, 12:49:21 am »
I don't know who either of them are, so the "recognized person" getting more money doesn't work for me personally.
Why not? "Known actors" attract interest to a show in a crowded media environment. This contributes directly to the money investors earn. Furthermore, "known actors" put their reputation on the line for every show. A string of bombs will kill an actors career no matter how talented. Furthermore, "unknown actors" need the role more than the makers need them in particular. So "unknown actors" have an incentive to reduce their price so they have a chance to become "known actors"

Given these factors "known actors" definitely deserve more than "unknown actors".

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10985
Re: The Price paid more than the Queen in the Crown
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2018, 06:10:39 am »
How do they know, though?  I'm never asked, that's for sure.  I'd have said keep the female anchor, I like her and the guy is kind of annoying.  But I don't think they do ask, I think they just assume.

You don't think they test and ask people, look at ratings and try to get the most watchable and compelling people possible ?  You think they just guess at it ?

Here's the thing, the FIRST person that tested, polled and asked who the people wanted to watch would win the ratings.  And then the competition would say "why are they winning the ratings ?" and the answer would be "because they test and poll their viewers !".  In reality, polling and ratings have been around for generations.

Quote

On the other hand, when women are criticized for being pregnant on air or showing their arms, I guess that's enough evidence of public sexism.
Can't wait!  A movement I could actually benefit from!

Speak up !  A powerful social tool is "shaming".  So get on Facebook and promote a news reader that you want to see.  It won't make a difference, but it will change how people talk about it, and you know that thing about a butterfly flapping its wings....

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10985
Re: The Price paid more than the Queen in the Crown
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2018, 06:11:11 am »
I think there are more female news readers on Vancouver television stations than male these days.

Really ?  Well that's something then. 

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10985
Re: The Price paid more than the Queen in the Crown
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2018, 06:15:05 am »
Why not? "Known actors" attract interest to a show in a crowded media environment. This contributes directly to the money investors earn. Furthermore, "known actors" put their reputation on the line for every show. A string of bombs will kill an actors career no matter how talented. Furthermore, "unknown actors" need the role more than the makers need them in particular. So "unknown actors" have an incentive to reduce their price so they have a chance to become "known actors"

Given these factors "known actors" definitely deserve more than "unknown actors".

You have stated something I learned long ago in the entertainment business:

"It's not fair, and don't waste energy expecting it to be"

It also extends to the governance-entertainment industry.  "Not fair"

So if people don't want to see a woman read the news, only legislation will force broadcasters to be "broad" casters.  "Not fair".  And if some dude (Louis CK, Patrick Brown) is slightly implicated in something distasteful, people don't want to see their mugs anymore and they're gone.  Due process has nothing to do with it "Not fair"

This is mass communication, which is the opposite of public engagement.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4781
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: The Prince paid more than the Queen in the Crown
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2018, 08:50:32 am »
Entertainment people are independent contractors who negotiate their own salary on the basis of what they, and the producer, think their value to a production might be. Actors might take roles for reasons where money is hardly a consideration at all.  Kristen Stewart made a huge salary working on Twilight movies, but at the same time she was also appearing in small-budget movies where she was paid very little, just because she wanted to try different things. Nicolas Cage, on the other hand, only cares about money right now. He'll appear in any piece of crap as long as the pay is right, because he has to pay off debts.

For a little-known actress, taking a small salary for a big role might be a great career move if it brings recognition that boosts her career.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2955
Re: The Prince paid more than the Queen in the Crown
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2018, 10:33:14 am »
Entertainment people are independent contractors who negotiate their own salary on the basis of what they, and the producer, think their value to a production might be.
 -k
Sure. And I suppose it's just a "coincidence" that women are pretty consistently considered less valuable.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The Prince paid more than the Queen in the Crown
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2018, 11:03:22 am »
Sure. And I suppose it's just a "coincidence" that women are pretty consistently considered less valuable.
No it means woman are pretty consistently willing to work for less rather than walk away from a role. IOW - it is their choice. No one is going to pay more than they demand. If they want more they have to be willing to turn down roles that don't offer what they want.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10985
Re: The Prince paid more than the Queen in the Crown
« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2018, 12:30:16 pm »
Sure. And I suppose it's just a "coincidence" that women are pretty consistently considered less valuable.

The market is a real ... bastard I guess...

We all sell ourselves out to mammon.