Jump to content


- - - - -

Jodie Prenger


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
29 replies to this topic

#11 Matthew Winn

Matthew Winn

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bletchley

Posted 14 June 2008 - 01:26 PM

QUOTE(Guest @ Jun 14 2008, 02:08 PM) View Post
Jodie is on a more than fair wage at 3000 a week once she starts performing. That is a fortune for someone who has no experience, no name and isn't even playing a lead.

That's a fortune by any standard, and way above what most people could dream of earning per month. It puts her well inside the top 1% of earners. Just for acting.
I have always hated eggs. I remember back when I was a sperm I tried to head-butt one. It did not end well.

#12 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 June 2008 - 03:02 PM

As has been said it is all relative 3000 p/w is a fortune and I can only dream of taking a salary like that, however the salary should reflect the profit being made out of the performer which in this instance will be astronomical.

Its the same as being paid for a TV advert, you may only film for 2 days but you can easily take home 15000 for those 2 days, the advertisers are paying you for the money they will make out of using your skills.

Having said that I don't think Jodie will or should be too upset with 3000 a week but compared to what the producers will be making off having her in the show it will be minimal.



#13 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 June 2008 - 03:43 PM

That depends on how the show does financially, lets see what it looks like 6 months after it opens. It's an expensive show to keep running and Atkinson will also be on a tidy sum.

#14 Guest_Guest sadie_*

Guest_Guest sadie_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 June 2008 - 12:10 PM

As a theatre goer who works in a completely different walk of life - teaching - can I just say that I am aware that especially during the rehearsal period the entertainment industry is a hard working profession, however, put up against other professions its a pretty ridiculously high salary!!!  8 shows a week?  yes, hard work, but how many hours is that in total?  Part time in most others peoples lives!! I don't actually begrudge it to them, I have many happy times watching their work, and up against say footballers its still not huge pay.  But I think people in the industry should be aware that there are MANY people for who this sort of salary would be manna from heaven!!!

#15 Annasette

Annasette

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 454 posts

Posted 15 June 2008 - 03:55 PM

That shows a level of understanding that is quite lamentable!

#16 Guest_Emma_*

Guest_Emma_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 June 2008 - 04:45 PM

I'm not sure why it's lamentable - I think it's perfectly valid for someone to call 3000 a week a high salary that is overpaid compared to other professions (although I think it's perfectly acceptable in this instance).  I speak as an actor, and I think there are lots of ordinary theatregoers who would be shocked to know that Equity demands a MINIMUM wage far above that of every other worker in the country, when acting is one of the most (if not the most) oversubscribed professions there is.

And the whole argument about people training to get there just makes me laugh.  Most people now go to University and still only have the protection of the government's minimum wage.

Equity is far too powerful and gives so many actors a bad reputation, as well as leading to boring, safe productions of musicals because producers are nearly all losing money on plays at the moment and just can't afford to put more risky shows on, especially if Equity continues to demand 550 a week as the minimum wage even for someone with no lines.

No one needs to come into this profession.  We desperately need Equity to protect us from practical things like safety standards, working hours, etc.  But personally I think they are damaging actors by making headline-grabbing demands about money.  It's different for nurses, firemen etc when those professions are under-subscribed, but should actors really get any special treatment?  

I know this is controversial, and it isn't meant to inflame anything, but I just think that we should stop and think about how it looks to our audiences, especially in the current economic climate.

#17 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 June 2008 - 08:17 PM

Well said, Emma, agree with all that. Its not lamentable to suggest that 3000 pds per WEEK is somewhat over the top when lots of people at the moment are struggling to pay bills, find homes etc.

#18 Annasette

Annasette

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 454 posts

Posted 15 June 2008 - 10:11 PM

Could neither of you previous two posters read the other "guest" post? She didn't mention 3000 a week. She didn't mention Jodie. She was talking in the plural, re PEOPLE in the industry in general to start with, and then referred it down to the PART TIME work indulged in by the obviously mollycoddled stage performers who she obviously doesn't seen to think know what real work is! Or is she so unimaginative and/or so lacking in understanding, that she thinks 3000 a week is normal? The other guest poster who followed with "Well said, Emma, agree with all that. Its not lamentable to suggest that 3000 pds per week is somewhat over the top when lots of people at the moment are struggling to pay bills, find homes etc", apparently does. Because I didn't say that. And if you are going to disagree or even criticise, then at least bother to know what it is you are talking about and to do it accurately.    

And just for the record this PART TIME work was criticised by a teacher, who seems to think she has a right to do that when she gets how many weeks holiday a year? And this also from a teacher who is in long term employment, who doesn't have to take short term contracts not knowing when, or if, the next one will materialise with all the accompanying stress that entails. This from someone who doesn't have to work as a waitress half the time, or whatever, to make ends meet when the "ridiculously high" (?) salary from a previous job doesn't last to the next. She doesn't have to live from hand to mouth most of the time. She doesn't have to do a job that precludes a normal social life because of antisocial hours. She doesn't have to work over the holiday periods like Christmas. She doesn't have to expend hugely more energy in a few hours than a teacher would have to in a week. She doesn't have to maintain the level of fitness required to be able to do that.

The payments made to Hollywood stars and to television names are just insane, but the reality of life for the majority of actors is that they STRUGGLE! To be so unimaginative that you can't even think what it might be like to NOT have a sinecure of a job is just shameful!

I have long thought that it would be a good idea to somehow oblige everyone to have to work for at least 5 years in some self employed capacity. I have been on the receiving end of the most ridiculous attitudes too many times. Those working in sinecure jobs, with a regular salary coming in at the end of every month that you can rely on, should know how much tougher the alternative is and what the real world is like when you don't have that.

#19 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 June 2008 - 09:50 AM

I think the thing is, 3k a week is a fortune for most professions, including the west end, but wheres the money going from the mass ticket sales? Straight to Cameron Mackintosh. Many people will want to see Oliver just for Jodie, rightly or wrongly, so if I was her i'd get an agent and get as much as I can, like Connie did, I mean 10k a week was huge, even though her part was much bigger. If I was a lead in another show doing 8 shows a week in a successful show, I would feel very resentful, not to mention the struggling shows that get no support because they don't get a 12 week advert as Spacey commented.

#20 Oxford Simon

Oxford Simon

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 590 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxford!
  • Interests:Shakespeare, Sondheim, Bernstein, Blitzstein and on and on and on and on....<br />

Posted 16 June 2008 - 10:08 AM

Am I alone in thinking that the discussion of what someone earns it a little distasteful?

If we were talking about the level of some TV performers - ($1million dollars each for the 6 Friends stars in the final series or the multi-million pound deals of Messers Ross and Norton) - then that is worthy of comment because the sums are extreme

However it feels somewhat intrusive to go over the deal that Jodie/Connie etc might have struck.  It does no-one any good




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users