Current Events > Kirsten Dunst: "Toby McGuire got paid much more than me"

(+) Yeah! (+)

What is the actual screentime for each of them? That's what matters in my opinion. If they worked the same time then it would be unfair. If she barely worked compared to Spidy then fair next

---

As Toby should have.

Veggeta_MAX posted...

harley2280 posted...

The difference was so extreme between lead actors is the issue.

Alright let's take your number then. 20 vs 67. Is that still really an extreme difference based on who is who?

You're purposely ignoring the rest of the post. It's more like 20 vs 100 and yeah that's really fucking extreme for two leads.
---

She deserves equal pay for those amazing hard nips in the rain scene tbh

They were truly spectacular.

---

Veggeta_MAX posted...

Going by this websight she made about 20 million from the Spiderman trilogy:

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/kirsten-dunst-net-worth/

20 mil a lot IMO and I personally would not complain about it but since her complaint was the difference between her and Toby.

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/tobey-maguire-net-worth/

So I estimate Toby made well over 40 million for playing Spidy. Would you guys consider that an extreme difference?

Definition of first world problems

---

It'd be a real stretch to argue that she deserved equal of better pay than Maguire.

However, she doesn't appear to be saying that. She seems to be claiming that the gap between their pay was bigger than it should have been, but without numbers, that's fairly meaningless.

DeadBankerDream posted...

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. I don't think people watch spider man to see tobey maguire. They watch Spider-man to see Spider-man. People watch Iron Man to see Robert Downey Jr., or X-Men to see Hugh Jackman. I don't think Maguire pull the same kind of audience for the role.

Edit: What a weird edit to that post.

I definitely watched it for Tobey. I always thought he was Spidey. If him and the villains were played by worse actors, I don't think it would have had half the charm it could've.
---

The star of a movie gets paid the most? What a twist.

---

CanuckCowboy posted...

She looks old for 39. Shes got the neck and chin waddle thing of an elderly lady.

That's what happens when you date fat Damon

---

The numbers keep going up. Apparently Toby made 100 million from the trilogy.

---

harley2280 posted...

You said he got 7.5% of Spiderman 3 gross.
Spiderman 3 made $894.9 million
That's $67 million

I think you said 5% for Spiderman 2. It made $788.6 million. So he earned $39.43 million

She made 20 million.

So he made 5 times as much with just that. That's not counting what he was actually paid, or Spiderman 1.

Again the issue isn't that she was paid less. The difference was so extreme between lead actors is the issue.

Apparently she didnt renegotiate her contract like Tobey did.

---

ViewtifulGrave posted...

Apparently she didnt renegotiate her contract like Tobey did.

honestly I liked her in the films but if she had been recast, few would have cared.

Remember The Dark Knight?

How many people walked out of that film complaining that it was awful because the love interest changed actress?

Meanwhile the lead is a different story


---

She was a horrible MJ and got more than she deserved.

---

harley2280 posted...

You're purposely ignoring the rest of the post. It's more like 20 vs 100 and yeah that's really fucking extreme for two leads.

Sounds fair to me, considering only one is the lead. You could replace her with literally anyone and it'd have the same impact

---

I think people are seriously dense when they think the guy playing Spider-Man should get much more just because hes the main character in the story. Are you serious? Its all fake, hes not really Spider-Man

It should come down to the amount of work needed to fulfil the role. Dunst was the lead female so I imagine had a comparable amount of time on set and days worked as Tobey so why should he get millions more? A little more, maybe, but millions? How is that fair?

NullAndVoidFC posted...

It should come down to the amount of work needed to fulfil the role.

So by this logic all actors should be paid the same hourly rate, correct?

I suppose you apply this same logic to other professions that currently compensate individuals on performance based metrics?


---

Clutch posted...

So by this logic all actors should be paid the same hourly rate, correct?

I suppose you apply this same logic to other professions that currently compensate individuals on performance based metrics?

Not really. Were beyond that when were talking about people getting millions for a role. You cant really apply accepted normal people working practices at this level of the industry.

The guy playing Spider-Man in Spider-Man probably does put in more work than any other actor on that film so should probably get the highest salary. I dont think Dunst would disagree with that. I think the disparity is the issue, when she dedicated a similar amount of her life to the film on set and in promotion. Id be interested to know if James Franco earned more than her, and if he did it would really strengthen her argument.