How unfair is this? {difference in wages} : LUSENET : TitanicShack : One Thread

Okay, I was just checking out the Mr Showbiz site and look what it says: "... If you need further evidence that actresses are Hollywood's second-class citizens, look at the fine print in Forbes' listing: In comparison to DiCaprio's $2.5 million salary, Kate Winslet received just $500,000 for her work in Titanic; when the movie turned into a worldwide hit, she was rewarded with an extra $1 million, which looks measly compared to the added $5 million that Twentieth Century Fox lavished on DiCaprio. Kate may have gotten just as wet as Leo, but she still didn't make the list."

I had heard that they both got a million dollar bonus each after the box office success of Titanic, not that Leo got 5 million and Kate only 1 million. That really sucks! (pardon me)

-- Emma (, September 09, 1998


Yes, Emma. It was terribly unfair for DiCaprio to earn so much more money than Winslet for "Titanic". Especially since everyone knows that the millions of repeat-viewer teenage girls who comprised the bulk of Titanic's audience were going to see Winslet.

-- Dalton (, September 09, 1998.

That pisses me off, too...especially since she is an Academy award nominated actress as well as Leo. That is wrooooooong.

-- Gilded (, September 10, 1998.

Dalton, I mean this in the nicest possible way, but just what is up your clacker? I mean, you're not your usual chirpy self lately.

I can only speak for myself when I say that I didn't go to see Titanic 3 times just because Leo was in it, far from it in fact. And unless you're "batting for the same team" I don't think you saw it on numerous occasions because of him either.

-- Emma (, September 10, 1998.

As unfair as this all may seem it comes down to business. Leo had more notoriety than Kate at this time when they where negotiating their contracts, so it would make a little sense that he got more. Anyway what women in Hollywood ever got more that her male counterpart? If Kate's managerial team where all that smart they should have had her receiving a percentage of the profits as it appears Leo did. I my self do not beleive this is a discrimination thing, but purely circumstance.

-- Shaunna (, September 10, 1998.

Thanks, Shaunna. Your response, while similar to mine was certainly more tactful. Sorry, Emma. It is all business. I'm sure Kate will have more leverage in her next deal. And if the box-office reflects that the movie appeals to teenage boys who want to gawk at Kate the way LdC appealed to teenage girls in Titanic, and if her agent is smart enough to demand a percentage of the gross, she will get what she deserves. Hollywood is VERY liberal. If you think that women are being discriminated against on the basis of gender alone, I think you're mistaken. It's a similar situation with the fashion industry - how much does a MALE supermodel (if there even is such a thing) make compared to a female model? Answer: Exactly what he deserves.

-- Dan Dalton (, September 10, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ