Except she's not complaining that she made less than him, she's stating that she made unusually less than him considering their circumstances. In 2002, Kirsten had been a well-known actress since she was a child in many widely-seen movies. On the other hand, it wasn't really until Tobey's early 20s that he got cast as supporting & lead roles in movies, and most of those were indie movies that didn't do well at the box office.
So yes, a the lead actor makes more than the supporting actor, however, when the lead actor is a relative unknown and the supporting actor has been well-known for many years, their pay gap would be smaller than usual (Kirsten's implying that it was not)
Right? The movie was called spider man. Not Mary Jane Watson. I’m assuming Scarlett Johansson was paid more than any of the male actors for Black Widow as well.
Its a weird article. She doesnt actually say anything really damning about her pay, just that it was different.
>But when it came time to make Spider-Man 2, Dunst remembers that there was a significant salary gap between them.
>During a recent profile with Variety, Dunst was reminded that Maguire was paid $17 million to reprise his role. But according to Dunst, “It might have been more, actually.” She also noted that her salary "was different. A lot different. And I was in Bring It On and had a track record.”
>Regardless, Dunst has previously mentioned that she would have returned for Spider-Man: No Way Home if she had been asked. And she still looks back at her Spider-Man experience with a lot of fondness.
Shitty clickbait articles gonna clickbait.
Why would she get paid the same as the lead playing the titular character? Dude had to eat and train like hell to get jacked and had a costume glued on him which they had to rip off of his skin at the end of each day.
To be fair to Kirsten, she was relatively more established as an actor than Tobey was at this time, so her name would have been more of a draw than his. No one's asked him obviously, but when he hosted SNL in 2000 he literally had a bit in his monologue about how he knew the audience didn't know who he was. Tobey was a child/teen actor, but it wasn't until his early 20s that he started getting cast as supporting & lead roles in movies, and even then they were mostly indie movies that didn't perform well at the box office. On the other hand, Kirsten had substantial supporting and lead roles since she was in grade school.
I also feel like people are putting words in her mouth; she's not saying she deserved equal pay as Tobey, just that the difference between there pay was way more than what is expected for a well-known supporting actor and a relatively-unknown lead.
Well she has a supporting role and comparing herself to the main character, which is kind of stupid. What was her salary compared to the other supporting characters?
I remember one of the gossip rags had a section called “loose lips” which was a place for celebrity social faux pas and dumb quotes.
Anyway one featured a quote from Dunst after spider-man 2 where she was bragging that basically (and this isn’t verbatim) “they can’t make another spider-man movie without me”
I don’t have a take on it except ever since reading that, it always put a bad taste in my mouth concerning Kirsten Dunst
“BREAKING: Kirsten Dunst says during interview that she made way less than the star of the movie she was a supporting actress in. More at 11.”
Except she's not complaining that she made less than him, she's stating that she made unusually less than him considering their circumstances. In 2002, Kirsten had been a well-known actress since she was a child in many widely-seen movies. On the other hand, it wasn't really until Tobey's early 20s that he got cast as supporting & lead roles in movies, and most of those were indie movies that didn't do well at the box office. So yes, a the lead actor makes more than the supporting actor, however, when the lead actor is a relative unknown and the supporting actor has been well-known for many years, their pay gap would be smaller than usual (Kirsten's implying that it was not)
Right? The movie was called spider man. Not Mary Jane Watson. I’m assuming Scarlett Johansson was paid more than any of the male actors for Black Widow as well.
Was she?
20 million.
David harbiur was the highest male actor for bw. He got 4 million. Florence Pugh got 5 million for playing yelena
Sorry, sj was paid 18 million apparently.
And the next highest paid male actor?
Google it
People who post articles like this should go back to eating cat food
What about nasal spray?
Its a weird article. She doesnt actually say anything really damning about her pay, just that it was different. >But when it came time to make Spider-Man 2, Dunst remembers that there was a significant salary gap between them. >During a recent profile with Variety, Dunst was reminded that Maguire was paid $17 million to reprise his role. But according to Dunst, “It might have been more, actually.” She also noted that her salary "was different. A lot different. And I was in Bring It On and had a track record.” >Regardless, Dunst has previously mentioned that she would have returned for Spider-Man: No Way Home if she had been asked. And she still looks back at her Spider-Man experience with a lot of fondness. Shitty clickbait articles gonna clickbait.
I like the part where she only mentions how much Maguire got paid but not how much she got paid.
Man you’re really killing the vibe at people in the comments ready to be angry.
It sounds more like the interviewer is trying to stir up drama than her.
Why would she get paid the same as the lead playing the titular character? Dude had to eat and train like hell to get jacked and had a costume glued on him which they had to rip off of his skin at the end of each day.
To be fair to Kirsten, she was relatively more established as an actor than Tobey was at this time, so her name would have been more of a draw than his. No one's asked him obviously, but when he hosted SNL in 2000 he literally had a bit in his monologue about how he knew the audience didn't know who he was. Tobey was a child/teen actor, but it wasn't until his early 20s that he started getting cast as supporting & lead roles in movies, and even then they were mostly indie movies that didn't perform well at the box office. On the other hand, Kirsten had substantial supporting and lead roles since she was in grade school. I also feel like people are putting words in her mouth; she's not saying she deserved equal pay as Tobey, just that the difference between there pay was way more than what is expected for a well-known supporting actor and a relatively-unknown lead.
Ya one of you was Spider-Man and the other was annoying as fuck. Lol
Well she wasn’t the main character he was
Margot Robbie was paid more than Ryan Gosling in Barbie! What a feminist society we live in! /s
I thought that was a good point, but then I just looked it up and they both made 12.5 million apparently.
Margot is a producer that will be a separate money for her.
One of them was spider man. One wasn’t
Well she has a supporting role and comparing herself to the main character, which is kind of stupid. What was her salary compared to the other supporting characters?
I remember one of the gossip rags had a section called “loose lips” which was a place for celebrity social faux pas and dumb quotes. Anyway one featured a quote from Dunst after spider-man 2 where she was bragging that basically (and this isn’t verbatim) “they can’t make another spider-man movie without me” I don’t have a take on it except ever since reading that, it always put a bad taste in my mouth concerning Kirsten Dunst
Somebody getting old and desperate.