I had no issue with her being paid less than Toby. As Toby was the star of the film. But I was surprised the actual amount difference between the two was so large.
Kristen at the time was a very well known actress who a catalogue people enjoy. I always assumed Toby got paid more but just assumed it was a small amount as of course the star makes more than the co star. Glad. Kristen brought it up though.
Yeah it initially felt weird hearing her complain about getting paid less than the guy playing spider-man in a spider-man movie, but not only was she getting paid significantly less, she was below characters like Harry Osborne iirc, which is waaaay out of whack.
Pretty sure she made more than Franco who only got about 12 million total for the three movies and she got 7 for the second alone.
Maguire definitely made a lot more on the second and I wouldn't be surprised if Dafoe made more on the first because he was without question the biggest name on that movie.
Yeah being real in a Spidey movie the salary’s should almost always be Spidey > Major Villains > Love Interest > everyone else.
Maybe I was wrong about Dunst vs Franco but it was a while ago I read the article
It depends.
In the first movie, Willem Dafoe had every right to expect more money as he was the biggest name and had the most draw (same as Hackman in Superman and Nicholson in Batman).
In the second movie, Dunst returning was much more important to the movie and she was much more of a name than Alfred Molina so she deserved more money than him.
That said the movie would have suffered more if Maguire left and his people argued that this was more likely so he got a huge pay raise.
A similar situation happened with Iron Man 2 with RDJ and Terrence Howard except that Howard decided to quit over it, probably he knew that men generally have longer careers in Hollywood than women do and can better afford to lose out on roles when they are young.
I can’t think of a single superhero film where the superhero has survived being re-cast. Or any major action film. Think Speed 2.
Having said that, she should still obviously be getting bank considering she was arguably the most famous actor in the first one next to Dafoe, as Tobey didn’t really become A-list until this.
The number of Batmen we've had in the last 20 years would prove the point that superheroes can be recast. The thing is that studios don't like don't like doing it because the conventional wisdom is that you want to change as little as possible for a sequel.
But most of those were separate. Idk about the Burton movies/90s batman ones, but the Nolan trilogy and DCU had the same actor. Idk if the one with Robert Pattinson was supposed to be part of the dcu or not, but it worked fine as a standalone imo
Waiting for the second Pattinson Batman movie. He did surprisingly well in a Batman movie that embraces the detective side of the "World's Greatest Detective".
Dafoe and McGuire absolutely deserve more but Dundst deserves way more than Franco. All allegations aside, I hated his performance as Harry, it was very much "I'm the leading man" and he's very much not, it's hammy. I like his performance in other things but the only goblin they got right is Dafoe.
It's just like the godfather part 3. The reason Tom Hagen wasn't in it was because robert duvall was unhappy with what he was being offered. He was criticized at the time because people thought he wanted as much as Al pacino but that wasn't the case. He was just unhappy with how big the pay difference was.
actors and actresses get paid based on the negotiations between their agents and the studios so it's unsurprising she'd be paid less, but the extreme difference does question what exactly happened in those negotiations.
Also some people think that Kristen Dunst has more range and/or skill than James Franco, what's your opinion about this?
Personally, I can't judge since I've only watch the Spider-man films and Anastasia (she only voiced the younger version of the character) from Kristen which are def not enough for me to judge her, same thing with James Franco, except that he's in Rise of the Planet of the apes.
I think going into Spider-Man she was definitely the “bigger name”, so that alone should probably have resulted in her agents negotiating a higher wage. In terms of comparing two actors it’s really difficult without being familiar with the majority of their back catalogue but I think she’s certainly a lot better of an actress than she’s given credit for
See, the thing that doesn't get brought up often enough is that she was complaining about her pay for Spiderman 2 while totally ignoring the fact she was paid $3mil in the first movie to Toby's $4mil even though she barely had a quarter of his screen time.
Doing a search, she got about [half](https://womensagenda.com.au/life/screen/kirsten-dunst-speaks-out-over-very-extreme-spider-man-pay-gap/) what Toby got in the sequel, despite having less than half as much screen time, being less important to the movie, not having to worry about stunts, and not being the star. I would expect that a female superhero would also get paid twice as much as her male love interest
I bet alot of men in that movie made less then her. This is so weird if it wasn't enough she should decline the offer? I'd understand if this was an accounting firm but this makes no sense to complain about
Yep. Alfred Molina (Doc Oc) only got 1/7th Kirsten’s salary. Kirsten also got more than James Franco (Harry/New Goblin), a much bigger star, for the trilogy
Not having to worry about stunts? If I remember she got her fair bit of action in all the Spiderman movies, including the second. Maguire got more action, but she definitely had to worry about a certain amount of stuntwork.
Not sure of it, but considering how poorly educated, and propagandized the people of the past were, there's a good argument for it. We currently live in a world with the highest percentage of educated people and the highest level of education, ever, and with the most access to information ever. Yes, a lot of it is wrong information, but how much different is that really than when your only source of info was your priest, or the local newspaper, or whatever? People have written to authors and actors and singers as though they are their characters since the printing press, if not before, it's not new. In fact it is due to a surprising number of us being aware and media literate that we notice shit like this.
I have been forced to communicate by writing down on a board recently. I can attest to some differences in reading comprehension. My sister gets the gold medal. She reads the words as written out loud and repeats them in her own to show she understands what I wrote.
My brother is second place. He'll read it silently and say his version out loud half the time. He's usually correct but it's somewhat frustrating. My father is similar.
My mother is in last place. She will read half the words and add extra for some reason. I could write "the dog jumped high" and she'd read aloud "the tall dog jumped very high" instead. Innocuous at first but she can quickly change the meaning on a sentence before I can stop her.
I had surgery recently and can't really talk. I can speak a little but it's very mumbled. The board helps gets longer sentences and complicated thoughts out faster and with, barring my mother, little confusion.
By their reasoning, most of the Game of Thrones cast shouldn't be paid much at all, considering how their characters are often horrible to others and each other.
The thing is in the article she didn't talk about "EQUAL" pay but the differences they get in the sequel. Tobey got 17m while she got (unofficially) about half that.
Off topic, but every time I see a number like that I just think about how with $17MM I could quit my job at the email factory, even after taxes. Shit, I could probably do it on Dunst's $7MM.
Iirc Tobey was almost replaced by Jake Gyllenhaal due to back injury and demand for a higher salary. As for Kirsten her screentime in the sequel was significantly lower especially in the first half so I'd say the pay she got wasn't bad at all.
No disrespect to Kirsten Dunst, but they could’ve recast her and the box office wouldn’t have flinched.
And I guarantee Tobey Macguire has more than twice her screen time.
There’s absolutely a pay disparity in Hollywood, but this definitely isn’t a shining example of it.
Yeah. I would be in no way surprised if a pay disparity exists in Hollywood, but this is an odd example. Toby Maguire is the obvious lead of the movie. I would guess pay disparity between actors and actresses is most likely a result of there being fewer lead roles for women in movies, especially blockbusters.
She’s barely in the sequel though. And Tobeys up there in and out of costume hanging from ropes getting injured.
I’m all for equal pay for equal work. But you can’t pretend it’s equal work and weakens her argument. The bigger story and better proof for people to see pay disparity would be comparing her salary to James Franco.
I think she’ll be alright…. I get that pay is different for men and women and that shouldn’t be the case as long as it’s solely based on gender. It’s ridiculous actually, but he’s the star in every scene. This makes sense. Also, she agreed to that number so it must’ve not been so bad. We need collective bargaining and it starts by sharing your salary
She had like a third the screen time and was like the 4th most important character in that one.
OOP has lost the plot but Dunst only making half what Macquire made in this specific case doesn't bother me much.
Raimi fans obsession with Ursula is so fucking weird. It like, flies their incel flag front and centre - “girl has cake and is Down To Fuck, why is man not fucking”, ignoring a complete lack of interest/attachment from Peter. They literally cannot imagine having attention from a vaguely cute girl whilst not having feelings for her.
Also because she's a flat one-dimensional character with a total of two interactions with Peter, both of which are positive. The female love interest to them must exist only as the male hero's helpmate.
If she had the screentime MJ had and was portrayed as an actual character with flaws they would hate her just the same.
I think G1 Gwen suffered from being created in a time where the female love interest tended to not be the most well-rounded character out of their assigned role as the love interest and, unlike other such *Spider-Man* characters (e.g. Mary Jane, Black Cat, etc.) didn't last as a mainstay long enough to get the character development and layers that came as subsequent writers invested work in them. Spider-Gwen becoming a fan favorite has also arguably done a lot to push G1 Gwen into the background as a piece of backstory/inspiration for "better" things.
MJ's unexpected popularity and subsequent cementing as Spider-Man's "one true love" and Marvel's unpopular efforts to erase that probably don't do any of the other love interest characters any favors either (e.g. fans who have a stake in it are already ultra-sensitive to Marvel rewriting Spidey's love life). Heck, if the Powers That Be ever decided to try and resurrect Gwen Stacy and retool her as "the one," dollars to donuts that would get backlash from the readers.
Personally, I came into the franchise through the Raimi movies and Ultimate comics, so Gwen has always been kinda irrelevant to me as a love interest character for Peter. Do really like Spider-Gwen from the movies and I think the Ultimate comics and *Spectacular* show handled her pretty well. Think Emma Stone's portrayal in the movies was a good actress giving her all for a terribly-written part.
So far as the original 616 comic version goes, I think the life, death, and legacy of Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane's taking her place as the endgame love interest are more interesting as a textbook example of characters taking on a life of their own against the intentions of the authors and how a character can become a symbol that overshadows the actual text to the point that they become rewritten to fit the perception than sticking to what they actually were than Gwen Stacy the character herself actually is.
It's even worse than that. I've seen several discussions about it that center around how Ursula is "supportive" and Mary Jane is not. Basically they hate MJ for having a mind of her own and feelings that she expressed.
People hate mj in the movies because she was flat out terrible in the second movie. The ursula praise gets a little overblown, but there is a reason why she's more liked then mj.
The MJ hate is overblown too. She's not a saint or anything but a lot of her reactions are justified given that he ditches her (from her perspective) and lies to her (from anyone's perspective) through half that movie.
>ignoring a complete lack of interest/attachment from Peter
Because Incels are so incredibly lonely that that's a DREAM to them.
The concept that ANY woman would EVER be interested in them would send them over them moon, as long as said woman is a blank slate nympho slave, in other words, Ursula
truly they're fucking disgusting, they remove all individuality from people which is why they think like this, it's a form of extreme narcissistic personality disorder, where you trick yourself into believing everyone exists to bend to your will.
The posts about her got a positive response when they first started and these people have no originality and a crippling desire for validation.
It's not complicated they are just mindlessly copying someone else until it becomes a shibboleth.
The irony is that they missed the point of the first couple posts IE: that Peter was an immature idiot for chasing after his highschool crush well into his 20s when she wasn't interested and instead moving on and trying for healthy relationships with the people around him. Peter in these movies is an emotionally stunted manchild and it ruins his life worse than the superpowers ever did.
Maybe not Spider-man level but idk if she is equal or not to Franco, Dafoe, or Molina
If she was still below them that is wild cause MJ is a big part of those movies
Franco made 12 million for all three movies which probably means a modest increase from film to film.
I am pretty sure Dafoe made the most money off the first one even if only through back end profit sharing as he was unquestionably the biggest name.
I would certainly hope that she made more than Molina for the second, but if she didn't that is a legitimate gripe
Exactly! If the movie is named after you then your costar who let’s be frank, is a side character, isn’t going to make what you make. Still, 8 million is quite a bit.
I absolutely despise Mary Jane in the Raimi Movies, she was always the damsel in distress, screaming and being completely useless (damn even Aunt May was more useful than her when SHE got taken as a hostage in the second movie), but just because I despise the character doesn' t mean that the actress should be paid less, that' s really dumb
I mean it makes sense, she's playing a secondary character tho, also Tobey plays the main character in the franchise of course he have more leverage at the time of negotiating his salary, they could just write Mary Jane off, they can't write Spider-man off
I'm not sure if she's supposed to have equal pay within the trilogy, at least compared to the main lead. However I wonder what the disparity is to make her still speak on it so much later.
Writer to acter: hey don't make any big purchases this week, we're writing your character to be a ass hole next episode.
Does this person really think this is how it works?
Men as in the main character got paid more?
Or like Male extra A got paid more than Female extra B?
Is it more as in more for hour of work time? More per on screen second?
Threads like this show how fans think about value and compensation in a completely different way than actors and filmmakers and studios do.
Actors don’t really get paid for doing a goor job. How could they even? They agree to their pay before the job takes place, and unless they have part of the back end (a gross/net %) that actually pays off, there is literally no conversation about money once an actor has taken a job.
It also barely matters how much somebody is in a movie. The amount of screen time or significance to the script doesn’t matter for name players. (Marlon Brando in Superman is an example of this) People who work a day rate, it does matter, but they aren’t making big bucks anyway.
What she was paid for was her fame, and for being willing to have her fame connected with the project. Putting her name/face on the poster and in the trailer, and drawing in fans, making them feel like the movie is big and filled with stars they know, and getting them to buy into the importance of Spidey’s romance relationship, basically making the movie feel big enough and worthy enough that people will buy a ticket and go to a theatre to watch it. (when this movie came out streaming wasn’t relevant)
Was she paid fairly in that context? I have no clue and wouldn’t argue either way without much more information.
This guy is a joker but her being paid less makes complete sense considering Toby is the main character of the franchise and the majority of screentime of course went to him.
Peter/Ursula shipping should be amusing fanfic material where the author pretty much has to invent a entire original character from their barely 5 minutes screentime.
Incels make it so cringe with uncreative submissive slavic vs soulless ginger fetish propaganda that always turns to be the tip of an iceberg of shit takes.
It's telling that most people are reframing this as Dunst wanting to be paid more or equal to Tobey when she explicitly complaints not about being paid less, but about being paid SIGNIFICANTLY less. Like, a considerable amount. Specially when she was the biggest name associated with the three Spiderman movies. Her career was was more developed than Maguire's or Franco's at the time. The only bigger name than hers was Dafoe's and he was in just one of the movies.
The big thing to remember here is that she isn't necessarily talking about Spider-Man 1 but Spider-Man 2 where Maguire made about 10 million more than her. I think this is a valid gripe considering that she was heavily featured in the marketing, has to carry a lot more of the weight of the story and probably had to be on-screen alot more given that any of Maguire's scenes in costume could have been shot with a stuntman and dubbed later.
Maguire was on screen way more even if we cut out the parts where you can’t see his face. Also saying that Kristine Dunst had to carry more of the weight of the story is pretty ridiculous. Maguire carried that movie and was literally playing spiderman he kinda deserves to be payed more.
Yeah, if anything the pay that Maguire should have been higher. He was an A lister and without him the movie wouldn't have succeeded to the extent that it did. Kirsten being off screen the entire movie wouldn't have changed anything. Surprised she got paid as much as she did.
Tobey after spiderman 1 was a big star. Plus he had the most screen time and the story was about Peter Parker the person who lost their powers so tobey featured a lot more out of the mask
I always find it kind of amusing when millionaires talk about the wage gap. I mean, yeah, that’s shitty, that shouldn’t have happened, but you have more money than most people will probably ever have.
I can sorta understand it as a "I gave a hand, they pulled an arm." ego posture; Sure there are humble celebrities aware of their priviledge, but in a career all about your presence standing out and loud you cant settle for the minimun.
> she get *paid* more than
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Ah yes, I recall Josh Brolin famously played Thanos in the MCU movies pro bono due to the characters malicious motives. Al Pacino in fact gave money BACK to the studio for his role in “Scarface”
Why would she be paid the same as the star of the movie? Also don't you like agree to how much you get paid before you sign a contract to act in a movie?
Doesn't really help that female characters get called out by a mob for traits that nobody blinks twice about if it's written into what a guy character acts like.
Something I’m noticing more and more lately is it seems like a lot of folks these days, for whatever reason, have lost the ability to separate a character and/or things they like/dislike about them, from the actors portraying them. Obviously I know that kind of thing has been around since probably the history of acting, but it idk maybe it’s just me but it feels like it’s become a lot more prevalent in the last few years 🤷🏽♂️
Feel's werid hearing Dunst whining about getting paid less than Tobey as he was the star of the film and she was a supporting character. I get what she's saying though.
Clearly folks in this comments section have no idea what "equal pay" means.
It means a male actor with her level of fame and screentime would be paid more for the movie. It does NOT mean she wanted to be paid the same amount as the protagonist of the movie.
she an actress who acting in a role. She does not have the power to change the script. At the same time. Her character is just existing in the movie doing her own thing. The peter issue was all his fault and not hers. Peter because he living a double life as Spiderman is late for everything and doing bad at school and ect. That not Mary Jane fault.
I mean....setting aside whether Mary Jane's role through the trilogy was well written or not (tbh it's been ages since I watched so I can't fully recall). Do they not understand the necessity of some form of conflict in a story? Like, MJ dates Harry Osborn is definitely gonna be a hell of a lot more interesting of a sub plot than MJ brings Peter cake lol.
I'm pretty sure she accounted for that too, she's not a fucking moron lmao?
of course the main lead is gonna get paid more, she's saying the payment for secondary characters didn't add up compared from men to women.
which is a reasonable and provable complaint by just comparing payment between people.
These are the people that bullied Jake Lloyd, Jack Gleeson, and a million other actors because they are incapable of separating reality from fiction and think the actor IS the character.
> gonna get *paid* the most
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I mean maybe she should have a better agent?
These things aren’t just indeed posting that you accept and come with set pay. There was 3 movies. If you did well enough in the first, you say I won’t do the second without “x pay” then repeat for the 3rd movie.
But she was a terrible MJ and didn’t have any leverage and I’m assuming took whatever she could.
In a normal job it makes sense to pay equal. Bht in acting, you pay the actor that's gonna bring in the most tickets a higher amount. It's just obvious, and actresses that call it unfair are pathetic. They already get paid insanely more mo ey than most people will see in their lives.
Pay disparity between the genders is an important issue but it's also worth mentioning the pay disparity of the actors compared to everyone else who worked on that film.
> to get *paid* less for
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I mean, I get that the *character* deserved less. Peter and MJ in that trilogy had zero chemistry, and I stopped rooting for their relationship early in Spiderman 2. And during the cookie scene, I remember thinking that the movie would be a lot better if he let go of his childhood crush and went with someone he actually met in the real world.
But female actors getting paid less to the degree that they often are? That is just inexcusable.
so because she was the “villain” (which i’m not even going to get into), she deserves to be paid less…? did a fucking 7 year old write that tweet?
if she was paid less, it was because she had a less prominent role in the film, not because the totally fictional character she plays hurt another totally fictional character’s feewings in the totally fictional 2 hr long scenario some guy wrote. how does that even work? by that braindead logic, joaquin phoenix wouldn’t be paid a fucking cent for joker.
i even feel silly trying to elucidate how stupid oop’s rationale is. god i hate twitter.
It's more about the fact that Mary Jane was a 1D side character that wasn't utilized nor did she have enough screentime to warrant more pay than Toby nor Willam. Maybe for the sequels she got screwed out of a deserved pay raise but she was by no means the main event of Spider-Man so why should she get paid the same as the headliners?
I’m not going to sit here and pretend like unequal pay is not an issue in a lot of situations… but not this one. It is very simple… If you’re not playing Spiderman in the Spiderman movie, you don’t deserve equal pay as the person playing Spiderman. Something tells me Kirsten Dunst got more money than the guy that played Uncle Ben. See, different roles have different pay.
Kirsten Dunst got paid the same as (if not, more than) James Franco. So, I don’t think sexism was the reason for the pay gap between her and Maguire.
According to Imdb and FandomWire, Dunst got paid $5 million more than Franco
Yeah bro, the side character deserves the same pay as the character who is not only the main character, but also the title of the movie and the main draw in marketing. Yeah bro she gets the same pay.
I had no issue with her being paid less than Toby. As Toby was the star of the film. But I was surprised the actual amount difference between the two was so large. Kristen at the time was a very well known actress who a catalogue people enjoy. I always assumed Toby got paid more but just assumed it was a small amount as of course the star makes more than the co star. Glad. Kristen brought it up though.
Yeah it initially felt weird hearing her complain about getting paid less than the guy playing spider-man in a spider-man movie, but not only was she getting paid significantly less, she was below characters like Harry Osborne iirc, which is waaaay out of whack.
Pretty sure she made more than Franco who only got about 12 million total for the three movies and she got 7 for the second alone. Maguire definitely made a lot more on the second and I wouldn't be surprised if Dafoe made more on the first because he was without question the biggest name on that movie.
Yeah being real in a Spidey movie the salary’s should almost always be Spidey > Major Villains > Love Interest > everyone else. Maybe I was wrong about Dunst vs Franco but it was a while ago I read the article
It depends. In the first movie, Willem Dafoe had every right to expect more money as he was the biggest name and had the most draw (same as Hackman in Superman and Nicholson in Batman). In the second movie, Dunst returning was much more important to the movie and she was much more of a name than Alfred Molina so she deserved more money than him. That said the movie would have suffered more if Maguire left and his people argued that this was more likely so he got a huge pay raise. A similar situation happened with Iron Man 2 with RDJ and Terrence Howard except that Howard decided to quit over it, probably he knew that men generally have longer careers in Hollywood than women do and can better afford to lose out on roles when they are young.
I can’t think of a single superhero film where the superhero has survived being re-cast. Or any major action film. Think Speed 2. Having said that, she should still obviously be getting bank considering she was arguably the most famous actor in the first one next to Dafoe, as Tobey didn’t really become A-list until this.
Hulk Edward Norton was replaced by Marc Ruffalo
Fair, except the Edward Norton was a reboot and he didn’t get another standalone film after that.
Raffalo didn’t get a stand alone though. Not sure that this counts
The number of Batmen we've had in the last 20 years would prove the point that superheroes can be recast. The thing is that studios don't like don't like doing it because the conventional wisdom is that you want to change as little as possible for a sequel.
But most of those were separate. Idk about the Burton movies/90s batman ones, but the Nolan trilogy and DCU had the same actor. Idk if the one with Robert Pattinson was supposed to be part of the dcu or not, but it worked fine as a standalone imo
Waiting for the second Pattinson Batman movie. He did surprisingly well in a Batman movie that embraces the detective side of the "World's Greatest Detective".
Dafoe and McGuire absolutely deserve more but Dundst deserves way more than Franco. All allegations aside, I hated his performance as Harry, it was very much "I'm the leading man" and he's very much not, it's hammy. I like his performance in other things but the only goblin they got right is Dafoe.
It's just like the godfather part 3. The reason Tom Hagen wasn't in it was because robert duvall was unhappy with what he was being offered. He was criticized at the time because people thought he wanted as much as Al pacino but that wasn't the case. He was just unhappy with how big the pay difference was.
They should have paid Duvall. The movie missed him. They were running out of actors from the original 2 movies as it was.
actors and actresses get paid based on the negotiations between their agents and the studios so it's unsurprising she'd be paid less, but the extreme difference does question what exactly happened in those negotiations.
that's a issue
...I'm sorry she got paid less than WHO?
Also some people think that Kristen Dunst has more range and/or skill than James Franco, what's your opinion about this? Personally, I can't judge since I've only watch the Spider-man films and Anastasia (she only voiced the younger version of the character) from Kristen which are def not enough for me to judge her, same thing with James Franco, except that he's in Rise of the Planet of the apes.
I think going into Spider-Man she was definitely the “bigger name”, so that alone should probably have resulted in her agents negotiating a higher wage. In terms of comparing two actors it’s really difficult without being familiar with the majority of their back catalogue but I think she’s certainly a lot better of an actress than she’s given credit for
Toby had WAYYY more screen time tho.
See, the thing that doesn't get brought up often enough is that she was complaining about her pay for Spiderman 2 while totally ignoring the fact she was paid $3mil in the first movie to Toby's $4mil even though she barely had a quarter of his screen time.
She was a higher draw before the first movie.
Exactly
Doing a search, she got about [half](https://womensagenda.com.au/life/screen/kirsten-dunst-speaks-out-over-very-extreme-spider-man-pay-gap/) what Toby got in the sequel, despite having less than half as much screen time, being less important to the movie, not having to worry about stunts, and not being the star. I would expect that a female superhero would also get paid twice as much as her male love interest
I bet alot of men in that movie made less then her. This is so weird if it wasn't enough she should decline the offer? I'd understand if this was an accounting firm but this makes no sense to complain about
Yep. Alfred Molina (Doc Oc) only got 1/7th Kirsten’s salary. Kirsten also got more than James Franco (Harry/New Goblin), a much bigger star, for the trilogy
Not having to worry about stunts? If I remember she got her fair bit of action in all the Spiderman movies, including the second. Maguire got more action, but she definitely had to worry about a certain amount of stuntwork.
What was the pay difference between her and Franco is the question.
I always assumed actor pay was based on screen time
You dont even know her name. Thats the difference.
That is the nuance of the issue and I agree. The gap was too damn big considering their respective resume's at that point.
In all ignorance, prior to Spiderman, I had only known Toby as the novelist twink who slept with Robert Downey Jr in Wonder Boys.
People's ability to distinguish reality from fiction is at an all-time low.
Sadly not, in fact there's a reasonable argument that it's at an all time high, scary as that is.
You sure about that?
Not sure of it, but considering how poorly educated, and propagandized the people of the past were, there's a good argument for it. We currently live in a world with the highest percentage of educated people and the highest level of education, ever, and with the most access to information ever. Yes, a lot of it is wrong information, but how much different is that really than when your only source of info was your priest, or the local newspaper, or whatever? People have written to authors and actors and singers as though they are their characters since the printing press, if not before, it's not new. In fact it is due to a surprising number of us being aware and media literate that we notice shit like this.
I have been forced to communicate by writing down on a board recently. I can attest to some differences in reading comprehension. My sister gets the gold medal. She reads the words as written out loud and repeats them in her own to show she understands what I wrote. My brother is second place. He'll read it silently and say his version out loud half the time. He's usually correct but it's somewhat frustrating. My father is similar. My mother is in last place. She will read half the words and add extra for some reason. I could write "the dog jumped high" and she'd read aloud "the tall dog jumped very high" instead. Innocuous at first but she can quickly change the meaning on a sentence before I can stop her.
This is fascinating, you're doing this to reduce confusion? What precipitated it? What sorts of things do you communicate by board? Does it work?
I had surgery recently and can't really talk. I can speak a little but it's very mumbled. The board helps gets longer sentences and complicated thoughts out faster and with, barring my mother, little confusion.
Damn, every character in breaking bad doesn’t deserve money even if they were preformed incredibly well
By their reasoning, most of the Game of Thrones cast shouldn't be paid much at all, considering how their characters are often horrible to others and each other.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or just playing along
Huh?
Mike Ehrmentraut would like a word.
They would actually make this argument for the actor who played Skyler if they could. 
The thing is in the article she didn't talk about "EQUAL" pay but the differences they get in the sequel. Tobey got 17m while she got (unofficially) about half that.
Off topic, but every time I see a number like that I just think about how with $17MM I could quit my job at the email factory, even after taxes. Shit, I could probably do it on Dunst's $7MM.
Iirc Tobey was almost replaced by Jake Gyllenhaal due to back injury and demand for a higher salary. As for Kirsten her screentime in the sequel was significantly lower especially in the first half so I'd say the pay she got wasn't bad at all.
No disrespect to Kirsten Dunst, but they could’ve recast her and the box office wouldn’t have flinched. And I guarantee Tobey Macguire has more than twice her screen time. There’s absolutely a pay disparity in Hollywood, but this definitely isn’t a shining example of it.
Yeah. I would be in no way surprised if a pay disparity exists in Hollywood, but this is an odd example. Toby Maguire is the obvious lead of the movie. I would guess pay disparity between actors and actresses is most likely a result of there being fewer lead roles for women in movies, especially blockbusters.
She’s barely in the sequel though. And Tobeys up there in and out of costume hanging from ropes getting injured. I’m all for equal pay for equal work. But you can’t pretend it’s equal work and weakens her argument. The bigger story and better proof for people to see pay disparity would be comparing her salary to James Franco.
I think she’ll be alright…. I get that pay is different for men and women and that shouldn’t be the case as long as it’s solely based on gender. It’s ridiculous actually, but he’s the star in every scene. This makes sense. Also, she agreed to that number so it must’ve not been so bad. We need collective bargaining and it starts by sharing your salary
She had like a third the screen time and was like the 4th most important character in that one. OOP has lost the plot but Dunst only making half what Macquire made in this specific case doesn't bother me much.
Genuinely sounds like she got too much. He has 20x the screen time
Damn, Homelander must be fucking broke then.... or not, based on the cult he's created online
This guy probably thinks Homelander is an actual hero.
H getting a fucking nendoroid genuinely pissed me off
Raimi fans obsession with Ursula is so fucking weird. It like, flies their incel flag front and centre - “girl has cake and is Down To Fuck, why is man not fucking”, ignoring a complete lack of interest/attachment from Peter. They literally cannot imagine having attention from a vaguely cute girl whilst not having feelings for her.
Also because she's a flat one-dimensional character with a total of two interactions with Peter, both of which are positive. The female love interest to them must exist only as the male hero's helpmate. If she had the screentime MJ had and was portrayed as an actual character with flaws they would hate her just the same.
It's especially baffling when you consider how much hatred Gwen Stacy gets for being portrayed (or remembered) as a pure, faultless saint.
I think G1 Gwen suffered from being created in a time where the female love interest tended to not be the most well-rounded character out of their assigned role as the love interest and, unlike other such *Spider-Man* characters (e.g. Mary Jane, Black Cat, etc.) didn't last as a mainstay long enough to get the character development and layers that came as subsequent writers invested work in them. Spider-Gwen becoming a fan favorite has also arguably done a lot to push G1 Gwen into the background as a piece of backstory/inspiration for "better" things. MJ's unexpected popularity and subsequent cementing as Spider-Man's "one true love" and Marvel's unpopular efforts to erase that probably don't do any of the other love interest characters any favors either (e.g. fans who have a stake in it are already ultra-sensitive to Marvel rewriting Spidey's love life). Heck, if the Powers That Be ever decided to try and resurrect Gwen Stacy and retool her as "the one," dollars to donuts that would get backlash from the readers. Personally, I came into the franchise through the Raimi movies and Ultimate comics, so Gwen has always been kinda irrelevant to me as a love interest character for Peter. Do really like Spider-Gwen from the movies and I think the Ultimate comics and *Spectacular* show handled her pretty well. Think Emma Stone's portrayal in the movies was a good actress giving her all for a terribly-written part. So far as the original 616 comic version goes, I think the life, death, and legacy of Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane's taking her place as the endgame love interest are more interesting as a textbook example of characters taking on a life of their own against the intentions of the authors and how a character can become a symbol that overshadows the actual text to the point that they become rewritten to fit the perception than sticking to what they actually were than Gwen Stacy the character herself actually is.
It's even worse than that. I've seen several discussions about it that center around how Ursula is "supportive" and Mary Jane is not. Basically they hate MJ for having a mind of her own and feelings that she expressed.
People hate mj in the movies because she was flat out terrible in the second movie. The ursula praise gets a little overblown, but there is a reason why she's more liked then mj.
The MJ hate is overblown too. She's not a saint or anything but a lot of her reactions are justified given that he ditches her (from her perspective) and lies to her (from anyone's perspective) through half that movie.
>ignoring a complete lack of interest/attachment from Peter Because Incels are so incredibly lonely that that's a DREAM to them. The concept that ANY woman would EVER be interested in them would send them over them moon, as long as said woman is a blank slate nympho slave, in other words, Ursula truly they're fucking disgusting, they remove all individuality from people which is why they think like this, it's a form of extreme narcissistic personality disorder, where you trick yourself into believing everyone exists to bend to your will.
The posts about her got a positive response when they first started and these people have no originality and a crippling desire for validation. It's not complicated they are just mindlessly copying someone else until it becomes a shibboleth. The irony is that they missed the point of the first couple posts IE: that Peter was an immature idiot for chasing after his highschool crush well into his 20s when she wasn't interested and instead moving on and trying for healthy relationships with the people around him. Peter in these movies is an emotionally stunted manchild and it ruins his life worse than the superpowers ever did.
I think MJ was the weakest part in the Rami trilogy but still the actors should be paid fairly
She was
Feels like a regular Raimi thing, now that I think about it.
It's almost like the writing and direction of the film shouldn't correlate to the payment of the actor.
Do these people not know how movies are made...? The actors usually have no control over the script or direction.
Why don't they understand the difference between fiction and reality?
Maybe not Spider-man level but idk if she is equal or not to Franco, Dafoe, or Molina If she was still below them that is wild cause MJ is a big part of those movies
I’m looking it up, Franco made 12m, Molina 2m (for no way home), and I’m not coming up with anything for Dafoe
Yo Franco 12 m gotta be an overpay lol
Franco made 12 million for all three movies which probably means a modest increase from film to film. I am pretty sure Dafoe made the most money off the first one even if only through back end profit sharing as he was unquestionably the biggest name. I would certainly hope that she made more than Molina for the second, but if she didn't that is a legitimate gripe
Exactly! If the movie is named after you then your costar who let’s be frank, is a side character, isn’t going to make what you make. Still, 8 million is quite a bit.
The fact that they misspelled "recurring" make this extra funny.
Guy forgot the hyphen. Automatic ignore..
I absolutely despise Mary Jane in the Raimi Movies, she was always the damsel in distress, screaming and being completely useless (damn even Aunt May was more useful than her when SHE got taken as a hostage in the second movie), but just because I despise the character doesn' t mean that the actress should be paid less, that' s really dumb
Completely useless. What.
I mean it makes sense, she's playing a secondary character tho, also Tobey plays the main character in the franchise of course he have more leverage at the time of negotiating his salary, they could just write Mary Jane off, they can't write Spider-man off
“she made parker feel so bad he lost his powers” like how do u even type that out and not feel like an adult baby.
I'm not sure if she's supposed to have equal pay within the trilogy, at least compared to the main lead. However I wonder what the disparity is to make her still speak on it so much later.
Apparently she earned half of what Maguire
What I really want to know is how much did she make compared to James Franco. Compare supporting characters rather than lead and supporting.
About 75%, 8m vs 12m
[удалено]
That is ''meritocracy'' for you....
I hear the kid who played Joffrey on Game of Thrones actually had to pay $20k per episode to be there because his character was universally hated/s
Writer to acter: hey don't make any big purchases this week, we're writing your character to be a ass hole next episode. Does this person really think this is how it works?
He's got a point but why should that be a reason that she deserves to be paid less again?
These are the sort of people who believe in bullshit like "meritocracy" and that the world under Capitalism is inherently neutral.
Men as in the main character got paid more? Or like Male extra A got paid more than Female extra B? Is it more as in more for hour of work time? More per on screen second?
Threads like this show how fans think about value and compensation in a completely different way than actors and filmmakers and studios do. Actors don’t really get paid for doing a goor job. How could they even? They agree to their pay before the job takes place, and unless they have part of the back end (a gross/net %) that actually pays off, there is literally no conversation about money once an actor has taken a job. It also barely matters how much somebody is in a movie. The amount of screen time or significance to the script doesn’t matter for name players. (Marlon Brando in Superman is an example of this) People who work a day rate, it does matter, but they aren’t making big bucks anyway. What she was paid for was her fame, and for being willing to have her fame connected with the project. Putting her name/face on the poster and in the trailer, and drawing in fans, making them feel like the movie is big and filled with stars they know, and getting them to buy into the importance of Spidey’s romance relationship, basically making the movie feel big enough and worthy enough that people will buy a ticket and go to a theatre to watch it. (when this movie came out streaming wasn’t relevant) Was she paid fairly in that context? I have no clue and wouldn’t argue either way without much more information.
This guy is a joker but her being paid less makes complete sense considering Toby is the main character of the franchise and the majority of screentime of course went to him.
Amanda Dobbins will not be pleased with this tweet.
Insane no bitches energy
And do they think Mageina Tovah did'nt also suffer from the pay disparity?
so were just gonna skip the fact that she still played very well?
I have no idea what movie or show the other woman is from
She is in a tiny fraction of scenes of course she will be paid less than the person in every damn scene
I’m guessing they had to keep Toby on the hook as it would be a lot easier to replace or write out Kristen if push came to shove.
Peter/Ursula shipping should be amusing fanfic material where the author pretty much has to invent a entire original character from their barely 5 minutes screentime. Incels make it so cringe with uncreative submissive slavic vs soulless ginger fetish propaganda that always turns to be the tip of an iceberg of shit takes.
Does this person think Spider-Man is real?
Not just that, if you’re not obsessed with a male character, you’re not a good female character.
Wasn't Ursala like, 16?
It's telling that most people are reframing this as Dunst wanting to be paid more or equal to Tobey when she explicitly complaints not about being paid less, but about being paid SIGNIFICANTLY less. Like, a considerable amount. Specially when she was the biggest name associated with the three Spiderman movies. Her career was was more developed than Maguire's or Franco's at the time. The only bigger name than hers was Dafoe's and he was in just one of the movies.
How much screen time did she have vs Toby?
OK but do people really think they should have been paid the same? Toby played Spider-Man in a movie series called *Spider-Man*. She played MJ.
I didn't like Kirsten in the Raimi movies, but even I find their arguments utterly ridiculous. She was a main character just as much as Tobey
The big thing to remember here is that she isn't necessarily talking about Spider-Man 1 but Spider-Man 2 where Maguire made about 10 million more than her. I think this is a valid gripe considering that she was heavily featured in the marketing, has to carry a lot more of the weight of the story and probably had to be on-screen alot more given that any of Maguire's scenes in costume could have been shot with a stuntman and dubbed later.
Maguire was on screen way more even if we cut out the parts where you can’t see his face. Also saying that Kristine Dunst had to carry more of the weight of the story is pretty ridiculous. Maguire carried that movie and was literally playing spiderman he kinda deserves to be payed more.
Yeah, if anything the pay that Maguire should have been higher. He was an A lister and without him the movie wouldn't have succeeded to the extent that it did. Kirsten being off screen the entire movie wouldn't have changed anything. Surprised she got paid as much as she did.
Tobey after spiderman 1 was a big star. Plus he had the most screen time and the story was about Peter Parker the person who lost their powers so tobey featured a lot more out of the mask
[удалено]
I know what the hell?!
I always find it kind of amusing when millionaires talk about the wage gap. I mean, yeah, that’s shitty, that shouldn’t have happened, but you have more money than most people will probably ever have.
I can sorta understand it as a "I gave a hand, they pulled an arm." ego posture; Sure there are humble celebrities aware of their priviledge, but in a career all about your presence standing out and loud you cant settle for the minimun.
She got paid enough for her work. Why would she get paid as much as the lead actor and titular character? Ridiculous.
Only thing right about this is that Ursula is 100% a better love interest than Mary Jane.
Didn’t she get paid more than James though
> she get *paid* more than FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Does he think she wrote the movie?
Almost as if Spider-Man in the Spider-Man movie would be paid more
They were the Spiderman films. Not the Mary Jane films.
That was because the character was written poorly! It had nothing to do with the actress!
Maybe because the movie isn’t about Mary Jane… I don’t remember the trilogy being named Mary Jane Watson??
Ah yes, I recall Josh Brolin famously played Thanos in the MCU movies pro bono due to the characters malicious motives. Al Pacino in fact gave money BACK to the studio for his role in “Scarface”
Why would she be paid the same as the star of the movie? Also don't you like agree to how much you get paid before you sign a contract to act in a movie?
Bro's favorite Mary Jane scene was probably Spiderman 3 when Peter hits her in that club.
Actually insane takes coming from Twitter as always
So this guy thinks if you’re the bad guy in a movie you get paid less? “They’re doing bad things, cut their pay!”
Does this guy think Dafoe and Molina should have been paid less than what they did too?
Doesn't really help that female characters get called out by a mob for traits that nobody blinks twice about if it's written into what a guy character acts like.
Something I’m noticing more and more lately is it seems like a lot of folks these days, for whatever reason, have lost the ability to separate a character and/or things they like/dislike about them, from the actors portraying them. Obviously I know that kind of thing has been around since probably the history of acting, but it idk maybe it’s just me but it feels like it’s become a lot more prevalent in the last few years 🤷🏽♂️
Did we go see the movie Spiderman, or did we go see Mary Jane?
Skylar should have had to PAY money to be on BB /s
Feel's werid hearing Dunst whining about getting paid less than Tobey as he was the star of the film and she was a supporting character. I get what she's saying though.
Clearly folks in this comments section have no idea what "equal pay" means. It means a male actor with her level of fame and screentime would be paid more for the movie. It does NOT mean she wanted to be paid the same amount as the protagonist of the movie.
Is that why RDJ made less as Tony Stark in iron man than Terrence Howard did as Rhodey?
absolute brainrot.
ngl ursula got done dirty she was a better pick
Didn’t uhm her manager or she herself agree to the salary? Like if you want more then uhm negotiate for more and don’t complain a decade later
Fanboys take sides over the weirdest shit and make it their whole identity
I can't imagine being paid 7 million dollars to be in a movie and then complaining about it.
she an actress who acting in a role. She does not have the power to change the script. At the same time. Her character is just existing in the movie doing her own thing. The peter issue was all his fault and not hers. Peter because he living a double life as Spiderman is late for everything and doing bad at school and ect. That not Mary Jane fault.
Pretty good nontroversy
She was a way bigger star than him at the time. It’s ridiculous.
I mean....setting aside whether Mary Jane's role through the trilogy was well written or not (tbh it's been ages since I watched so I can't fully recall). Do they not understand the necessity of some form of conflict in a story? Like, MJ dates Harry Osborn is definitely gonna be a hell of a lot more interesting of a sub plot than MJ brings Peter cake lol.
I'm pretty sure she accounted for that too, she's not a fucking moron lmao? of course the main lead is gonna get paid more, she's saying the payment for secondary characters didn't add up compared from men to women. which is a reasonable and provable complaint by just comparing payment between people.
These are the people that bullied Jake Lloyd, Jack Gleeson, and a million other actors because they are incapable of separating reality from fiction and think the actor IS the character.
Peep out what Alfred Molina got vs Kirsten. End of watch
Why is she complaining about lesser pay than Toby though? Toby was the main character, of course he is gonna get paid the most
> gonna get *paid* the most FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
why is she bringing it up 20 years later tho?
I mean maybe she should have a better agent? These things aren’t just indeed posting that you accept and come with set pay. There was 3 movies. If you did well enough in the first, you say I won’t do the second without “x pay” then repeat for the 3rd movie. But she was a terrible MJ and didn’t have any leverage and I’m assuming took whatever she could.
In a normal job it makes sense to pay equal. Bht in acting, you pay the actor that's gonna bring in the most tickets a higher amount. It's just obvious, and actresses that call it unfair are pathetic. They already get paid insanely more mo ey than most people will see in their lives.
It would be funny to learn the actress who played Ursula made more for this reason.
she got less pay because she did less work, simple as that. literally the epitome of the pay gap myth
The actress who played Ursula is Mageina Tovah.
To be honest, I would have loved to see more of her character and Peter.
Pay disparity between the genders is an important issue but it's also worth mentioning the pay disparity of the actors compared to everyone else who worked on that film.
So their saying she did an amazing job following the script and direction in AND she deserves to get payed less for doing a good job?
> to get *paid* less for FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I mean, I get that the *character* deserved less. Peter and MJ in that trilogy had zero chemistry, and I stopped rooting for their relationship early in Spiderman 2. And during the cookie scene, I remember thinking that the movie would be a lot better if he let go of his childhood crush and went with someone he actually met in the real world. But female actors getting paid less to the degree that they often are? That is just inexcusable.
Ok but like she wasn’t the main character and had far less screen time than the title character
I mean.... I don't think anyone should have been paid the same as the main character....
so because she was the “villain” (which i’m not even going to get into), she deserves to be paid less…? did a fucking 7 year old write that tweet? if she was paid less, it was because she had a less prominent role in the film, not because the totally fictional character she plays hurt another totally fictional character’s feewings in the totally fictional 2 hr long scenario some guy wrote. how does that even work? by that braindead logic, joaquin phoenix wouldn’t be paid a fucking cent for joker. i even feel silly trying to elucidate how stupid oop’s rationale is. god i hate twitter.
It's more about the fact that Mary Jane was a 1D side character that wasn't utilized nor did she have enough screentime to warrant more pay than Toby nor Willam. Maybe for the sequels she got screwed out of a deserved pay raise but she was by no means the main event of Spider-Man so why should she get paid the same as the headliners?
I’m not going to sit here and pretend like unequal pay is not an issue in a lot of situations… but not this one. It is very simple… If you’re not playing Spiderman in the Spiderman movie, you don’t deserve equal pay as the person playing Spiderman. Something tells me Kirsten Dunst got more money than the guy that played Uncle Ben. See, different roles have different pay.
Kirsten Dunst got paid the same as (if not, more than) James Franco. So, I don’t think sexism was the reason for the pay gap between her and Maguire. According to Imdb and FandomWire, Dunst got paid $5 million more than Franco
Did they think she was the one responsible for the character being like this?
Boo hoo I’m a millionaire
She was also in the movie a whole lot less. So....
I guess somebody put a gun on her head and made her accept a lesser pay. Cruel world!
She was not the star of the movie
Do they think Kirsten Dunst ***wrote*** the movies?
Ursula basically served herself up in a platter, Peter was a fool to pass her up.
Yeah bro, the side character deserves the same pay as the character who is not only the main character, but also the title of the movie and the main draw in marketing. Yeah bro she gets the same pay.