How does Bruce Willis pull it off?

The largest paychecks in acting history, Brian Warner on April 30, 2013
#1: Tom Cruise – $290 million from Mission: Impossible I, II, III and IV
#2: Keanu Reeves – $262 million from The Matrix I, II and III
#3: Johnny Depp – $185 million from Pirates of the Caribbean I, II, III and IV
#4: Bruce Willis – $120 million from The Sixth Sense
#5: Tom Cruise – $100 million from War of the Worlds
#6: Tom Hanks – $70 million from Forest Gump
#7: Harrison Ford – $65 million from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
#8: Jack Nicholson – $60 million from Batman
#9: Adam Sandler – $60 million from Anger Management
#10: Leonardo DiCaprio – $59 million from Inception
#11: Will Smith – $54 million from Bad Boys II
#12: Robert Downey, Jr – $50 million from The Avengers
#13: Will Smith – $44 million from Men in Black II
#14: Leonardo DiCaprio – $40 million from Titanic
#15: Tom Hanks – $40 million from Saving Private Ryan
#16: Johnny Depp – $40 million from Alice in Wonderland
Bonus: Mel Gibson – $400 million from The Passion of the Christ

It looks like the biggest haul for a single movie was earned by Mel Gibson. For just acting alone, it was Bruce Willis for Sixth Sense. He was given a huge number of points since the film was a long shot, and it paid off as his biggest film worldwide.

While Bruce Willis's biggest film is Sixth Sense, he has made 54 films that have earned $7 billion worldwide. If he made $120 million on one film, you would think he would be worth a lot more than his reputed net worth of $150 million. The guy must spend some serious cash.

[While Bruce Willis's biggest film is Sixth Sense, he has made 54 films that have earned $7 billion worldwide.

just wondering, I don't get why Mel Gibson is treated differently on that list

Quote: odiousgambit

just wondering, I don't get why Mel Gibson is treated differently on that list

Because he did not act in the film. The other entries are actors. He produced and directed and marketed the film because nobody else would back it.

American Graffiti paid George Lucas $150K as a director's salary. Fox offered him $500K to direct "Star Wars". Instead of accepting the pay raise, George went to Fox with a proposition. He would keep his old salary in exchange for 1) That he retain all merchandising rights, and 2) that he would retain the rights to any sequels. The studio thought they had pulled a lucrative deal giving up worthless options for $350K in cash. Lucas is now worth in excess of $7 billion 40 years later.

So Mel Gibson probably shouldn't be on the list as Spielburg and Lucas and other director/producers or studio owners have made a billions of dollars.

Quote: Pacomartin

While Bruce Willis's biggest film is Sixth Sense, he has made 54 films that have earned $7 billion worldwide. If he made $120 million on one film, you would think he would be worth a lot more than his reputed net worth of $150 million. The guy must spend some serious cash.

Might be my imagination but he seems to have slowed down since the 1990s when he did so many movies you thought he owed someone money. I think the guy does like his craft and he is the rare actor who does multiple kinds of roles.

Quote: AZDuffman

Might be my imagination but he seems to have slowed down since the 1990s when he did so many movies you thought he owed someone money. I think the guy does like his craft and he is the rare actor who does multiple kinds of roles.

When they were making "The Sixth Sense" they gave Bruce Willis 17% of the gross because they basically wanted to get the movie made. No one ever thought that this little story would end up in the top 10 worldwide gross. At the time the rank looked something like:


Titanic
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
Jurassic Park
The Lion King
Independence Day
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
Star Wars (1977)
Forrest Gump
The Sixth Sense

Sixth Sense passed Forrest Gump if you adjust for inflation over 5 years between the movies.

I realize that Bruce Willis got divorced the year after he made the movie, but she had her own money. If Bruce has slowed down, the reduction is almost imperceptible. But if B.W. had a $120 million dollar payday 13 years ago, then he must have made an aggregate of several hundred million over the other 53 movies plus other deals. I would assume that he would be worth much more than $150 million today.

Give away seventeen percent of the gross...
heck...
That Pittsburgh Dancer film gave away fifty percent of the net just before opening because they thought the film would be a flop.

Producers don't know what they are doing: they just either get lucky or they get unlucky.

Quote: Fleastiff

Producers don't know what they are doing: they just either get lucky or they get unlucky.

The advent of computers doing everything killed movies. Keeping on Willis, look at how good the first "Die Hard" was. It was one of the last action movies made where they had to do all the effects manually. So they controlled themselves and still had to do story. I didn't even see "Live Free or Die Hard" because the effects on the trailer looked so overdone.

Imagine how it went for "Star Wars" back in the 1970s---

Lucas: Son, in this scene we need to make sound of a light sabre cutting thru the air
Sound Guy: What on earth does that sound like
Lucas: Your job to figure it out, I have meet with Matel

Of course "Star Wars" had fantastic sounds. Today they can just do it on computer, which is why it is not as good.

With World War Z the theaters tried an early show at 5 theaters. The price is $50 for the first person, and regular price for everyone in the group after the first. In exchange you get to popcorn, sodas, a party atmosphere, and a free DVD when they are released.

When I lived in Washington DC I got a ticket to the premier of Fat Man and Little Boy. I sure didn't pay a premium. I did enjoy the DJ and the air of exclusivity. However, the movie bombed and was a critical failure.

So presumably you could go with a group of 4 people and pay roughly $20 apiece and draw straws for the DVD.

What do you think? Would it be worth it to pay a premium?

While most theaters are charging a premium for 3D or other embellishments like IMAX , the production companies have resisted variable prices for movies. As close as they come is to see some movies, they will not accept coupons or discount tickets.

Variable pricing is very common for Pay Per View, with some movies discounted.

There have always been some people who felt that movies should be priced differently, but so far the companies have decided against it. but with the bigger budgets some of the most powerful people in Hollywood are starting to call for variable pricingat the theater.

Quote: Pacomartin

While most theaters are charging a premium for 3D or other embellishments like IMAX , the production companies have resisted variable prices for movies. As close as they come is to see some movies, they will not accept coupons or discount tickets.

Variable pricing is very common for Pay Per View, with some movies discounted.

There have always been some people who felt that movies should be priced differently, but so far the companies have decided against it. but with the bigger budgets some of the most powerful people in Hollywood are starting to call for variable pricingat the theater.

Work was so boring last week that I ran a quickie-spreadsheet on what a matinee and full-price show should be based on the price when I was a kid, $1.50/$4. Today's prices vs inflation were about 20% low. Some other crunching showed evening shows should be a touch north of $15. For many reasons they are not there. Nor do I see them getting there. Too many other entertainment options.

The Chinese seem to be the latest people wanting to lose money running theaters. Let them enjoy themselves.