Julia Roberts Paid $500,000 Per Minute Of 'Valentine's Day' Screen Time

NYMag's Vulture:

Roberts is only in this giant ensemble piece for roughly six minutes. Surely that will stop the inexorable race to Moviefone, right? But who are we kidding: We â€" and Hollywood â€" know that such reality checks will not be nearly enough to keep rom-com-philes away.

New Line Cinema paid Roberts $3 million up front against 3 percent of the gross for what is little more than an extended cameo. That comes out to an astonishing $8,333 per second of screen time, or roughly $500,000 a minute. Verbally, it's a minimum of $11,952 per spoken word.

Read the whole story: NYMag's Vulture

Comments

[JePense]

08:53 PM on 02/14/2010

This was a great Valentine's Day flick from Garry Marshall (Penny's brother).

Several cute "homages" to Pretty Woman and several from that film did make cameos. It showed the regard Hollywood has for Marshall that so many big guys were willing to pull short cameos just to be a part of it. A number of TV-knowns in the cast made it fun for folks who don't usually go to the movies.

There was even an "I hate Valentine's Day" party in the film, and many of the complainers might imagine themselves there.

Let the rest of us enjoy a light-hearted romantic romp that even the fellas in the cinema audience chuckled at.

[stylembe]

04:09 PM on 02/14/2010

Spreading the love...

http://bit.ly/aw0lKw

[IMEHO]

11:52 AM on 02/12/2010

Personally I will see this movie because of Jennifer Garner, Taylor Swift and Julia Roberts.

[Socrmom]

10:51 AM on 02/12/2010

This movie looks aweful. And they keep touting the "super star" cast. Are you kidding me? I'll stay home and watch Love, Actually for the 100th time.

[rzan1]

01:20 PM on 02/12/2010

Love Actually is one of my favorites, and I 've also seen it several times. I am not interested in a cheap imitation.

[hulagirrrl]

06:13 AM on 02/12/2010

That'll feed the babies for a while. I like her movies and do not begrudge her for getting her piece of the pie. After all, it is us who are paying the pie by watching the movie, or not....

[zigzag64]

04:37 AM on 02/12/2010

Julia Roberts is so yesterday and that NOSE

[Thomas Murphy]

01:01 AM on 02/12/2010

Americans are starving and out of work, and half a million bucks that could feed people and pay for their health care is thrown away on a Hollywood robot. Sick.

[jrb35]

01:54 AM on 02/12/2010

Do you say that to every business that spends capital on labor and materials to produce a product or service that is then sold to consumers? What is your problem? As lame as this movie is, it will most likely make money which is the entire point. A lot of people, including Ms. Roberts will pay a whole lot of taxes. Why is it the responsibility of a Hollywood studio, its parent company and their stock holders to feed people and pay for health care?

[lippp]

02:23 PM on 02/12/2010

It is obscene. And yes we all are to blame for this obscenity. Until our values change, we will continue to be a Nation of capitalism unregulated and adoration of superficial/artificial beauty. There is something inherently repugnant spending millions of dollars to entertain those who have the means to be entertained while so many go without. I vacationed some time ago in Mexico. It was difficult for me to relax in comfortable accommodations knowing not too far away there were those having so much less and a much harder time to make it through life. It is so easy to look the other way and have another drink. Wonder if we will ever evolve into a race that really does believe in equality for all - not just for the well connected, well educated and those fortunate enough to be born in a wealthy country.

[Darwinita]

07:35 AM on 02/12/2010

do you watch baseball? If you do, shuddup.

[MikeDu]

12:49 AM on 02/12/2010

I hear a lot of lower tier working actors are having an impossible time making ends meet, they're getting payed chump change for their labors when ten years ago they were making a decent living. And its all because a huge percent of the film budget goes directly into the pockets of Cruise, Roberts, Willis, etc.. These mega-stars have enough money stashed away to last ten lifetimes. Why don't they give back to their comrades, say "I'll take that $16 million role, but 50% of my pay will be spread among the rest of the cast"?

[Belowtheline]

02:08 AM on 02/12/2010

I think that is probably because there are too many actors in the biz competing for the same jobs. SAG day players get a min $782 for 8 hours of work...almost $100 an hour? That makes no sense to me, that said, I agree with the comment about the mega-stars. Studios manufacture these people, why cater to that kind of salary demand?! All I hear is we're broke, but they keep banging their heads against the building because that's way it was done when they got there.

[hulagirrrl]

06:15 AM on 02/12/2010

they used to call acting or writing a "starving" profession...

[Darwinita]

07:36 AM on 02/12/2010

and for 99% of them, it is.

[jasch]

12:38 AM on 02/12/2010

Wow, that paycheck was so suprising esp., her last two films bombed big time.
(Charlie Wilson's War made only US$ 119M and Diplicity earned US$ 78M)

[Leslib]

12:33 AM on 02/12/2010

Somebody got punk'd!

[DogTown]

09:21 PM on 02/11/2010

Julia Roberts 15 minutes are up, and have been for many years now.

[DnDCfromChi-town]

12:07 AM on 02/12/2010

apparently not

[nik101]

09:00 PM on 02/11/2010

Box Office draw. Hope she gives it to Haiti.

[hulagirrrl]

06:16 AM on 02/12/2010

Just because her good deeds do not make headlines, I will bet she does charity. I read an interview once where she sounded very much engaged in protecting the environment.

[Lucky123]

08:54 PM on 02/11/2010

You are worth what someone is willing to pay for you.

It's not our money, so why do we care? If it were you or me collecting that salary, we'd be thrilled. So, good for you, Julia!

[devadasi]

10:17 PM on 02/11/2010

You miss the point Lucky....this is as repugnant as the CEO overpaid bonuses. The entire value system reflects poorly on a culture and especially youth who buy into the notion that one's self worth is all about about looking pretty and getting paid big bucks. China and India are producing smart kids; we're producing ill informed and poorly educated people.

[lmab]

12:03 AM on 02/12/2010

Not the same as CEO bonuses....far from it.....and I know many young people just out of college who are well educated, intelligent and working hard to make it in these very difficult times.

Yes, they are hard to understand. They live in a new world.

You sound like an old fa rt.

"Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'."

Art is timeless.

[Lucky123]

03:57 PM on 02/12/2010

It's not even close to being the same. CEO's work for one company, and they have control over their salary. They determine what they will make, and how big their bonus will be, then that's approved or disapproved by a board of directors, all of whom are hoping to cash in, as well.

Actors are free agents, independent contractors, working for any company they choose, (usually one that will pay them their desired salary). When approached to work on a film, they are offered a salary. The actor can say yes, no, or negotiate. If the actor asks for millions more than the producers think they are worth, the actor is turned down. There is no insider manipulation, unless of course, if the actor is also the executive producer, then they can name their own price. The only leverage an actor has is their past performances and audience draw. So, opposite of CEO's who can give themselves ridiculous bonuses even if they've had an unsuccessful year, actors are judged by what they've done in the past, and how much money they've earned for the studios.

[stylembe]

08:07 PM on 02/11/2010

Julia Roberts Paid $500,000 Per Minute Of 'Valentine's Day' Screen Time? Julia it's time to buy some serious art,

http://stylembe.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/br

[OneConservative]

08:00 PM on 02/11/2010

Why are Libs OK with this? Yet, when CEO's make this kind of money, it is an outrage?

BTW, did anyone notice Obama's change of position on CEO pay?

[skippy20008]

08:46 PM on 02/11/2010

If the studio got bailout money, by all means, I wouldn't be okay with this.

[Lucky123]

08:53 PM on 02/11/2010

Because she wasn't paid with taxpayer money, Einstein.

But let me ask you ~ why are wrong wingers okay with W inva@ding a country for false reasons, wiret@pping American citizens, emptying the federal reserve into an off shore H@lliburton account, deregulating the market to the point of a collapse, bending and sometimes breaking the Constitution, etc., but they are so outraged because BO wants to make sure EVERY American receives affordable health care?

[Peggy Duncan]

10:22 PM on 02/11/2010

'nuf said. Thanks!