Culture

Hollywood Male Actors Deserve To Be Paid More Than Female Actresses

171 Comments

According to Forbes’ World’s Highest-Paid Actress list, Emma Stone made $26 million between June of 2016 and 2017. Jennifer Aniston came in second at $25.5 million. Emma made the bulk of this money from her Academy Award winning performance in the highly-acclaimed musical La La Land, which grossed $445 million worldwide.

Should actors make more?

It hasn’t always been so rosy at the top for Ms. Stone. Earlier this year, she was involved in some controversy over equal pay. In an Out magazine interview, she stated:

In my career so far, I’ve needed my male co-stars to take a pay cut so that I may have parity with them. And that’s something they do for me because they feel it’s what’s right and fair.

Jennifer Lawrence, last year’s biggest female earner ($46 million) has had similar trouble in her career. She found out during the Sony hacks that she was making less than her male counterparts in American Hustle. She, at least, took responsibility by blaming her own poor negotiating skills.

Should Emma Stone, or any actress, make as much as their male costars? More importantly, Should male actors be taking pay cuts in order to give their female colleagues equal pay? Let’s investigate.

I’m a poor negotiator

The Women

Here’s a list of the remaining top 10 highest paid Hollywood actresses and what they earned between June of 2016 and 2017:

  1. Jennifer Lawrence ($24 million)
  2. Melissa McCarthy ($18 million)
  3. Mila Kunis ($15.5 million)
  4. Emma Watson and Charlize Theron ($14 million)
  5. Julia Roberts and Cate Blanchett ($12 million)
  6. Amy Adams ($11 million)

To be fair, these ladies don’t all make their money from acting. Some are producers and directors. Some get residuals from hit televisions shows, and some have cosmetics deals and other lucrative ventures.

Maybe a look at their total box office will give a hint as to why these women are so highly paid. To save tedium, I’ll show only at the top 5 (source: Box Office Mojo).

  1. Emma Stone ($1.5 Billion)
  2. Jennifer Aniston ($1.6 Billion)
  3. Jennifer Lawrence ($2.5 Billion)
  4. Melissa McCarthy ($1.1 Billion
  5. Mila Kunis ($1.1 Billion)

Except for Jennifer Lawrence, the list makes sense: the higher the total box office, the higher the pay. Jennifer Lawrence was the highest paid actress last year, so this metric is fairly accurate. A true outlier on this list would have been Emma Watson, whose total box office is $3.2 Billion, and she is only #6 on the list, but most of her money for this list came from the billion dollar hit Beauty and the Beast.

The Men

Of course I’m number 1

Now, let’s take a quick look at the Hollywood actors (From Forbes 2016 list. The 2017 list not published at the time of writing):

  1. Dwayne Johnson ($64.5 million)
  2. Matt Damon ($55 million)
  3. Tom Cruise ($53 million)
  4. Johnny Depp ($48 million)
  5. Ben Affleck ($43 million)
  6. Vin Diesel ($35 million)
  7. Robert Downey, Jr. ($33 million)
  8. Brad Pitt ($31.5 million)
  9. Adam Sandler ($30 million)
  10. Mark Wahlberg ($30 million)

And their total box office (Top 5)

  1. Dwayne Johnson ($2.8 Billion)
  2. Matt Damon ($3.2 Billion)
  3. Tom Cruise ($ 3.7 Billion)
  4. Johnny Depp ($ 3.5 Billion)
  5. Ben Affleck ($2.3 Billion)

The top men make more money for the studios, they provide more entertainment for their audiences, and their characters are more realistic.

The men, front and center, where they belong

It’s easy to name a leading male movie star: Duane Johnson, Mark Wahlberg, Vin Diesel, Tom Cruise, Robert Downey, Jr, Chris Hemsworth, Jason Statham, Daniel Craig, Channing Tatum. The names and their movies just roll off your tongue. Now quickly name some female leads: That chick in the Edge of Tomorrow movie with Tom Cruise, the Hispanic girl in the Fast movies, Tom Cruise’s ex-wife in Logan Lucky (is she even a lead?). The blonde chick in Atomic Blonde.

I’m being facetious, of course, but the male leads are much easier to name because we go to see the movies because of the male leads. The box office numbers don’t support moviegoers watching movies with female leads, with few exceptions.

According to the Motion Picture Association of America, the biggest demographic of moviegoers in 2016 was 18-24 year olds. Are they looking to see a woman almost as old as their moms beat up bad guys in Blonde ($48 million domestic) or a woman over twice their age play an alpha female TV producer in Money Monster ($41 million domestic)? Nope. They’d rather see week 2 of Captain America: Civil War ($408 million domestic).

The types of roles played compared to the box office numbers are telling, as well. For both sexes, I’m going to remove super hero movies, because not only do they both do well, but they are unrealistic. If I left them in, the men would still win, so let’s continue.

Let’s look at the biggest money making movies for the top five men and women. Emma Stone played a waitress in La La Land, a traditional female role. Jennifer Aniston’s biggest movie was Bruce Almighty, a Jim Carrey leading role, in which she played a supporting role as a housewife. Jennifer Lawrence? Hunger Games: Catching Fire. Outlier. Female warrior superhero type. Melissa McCarthy scored big in Bridesmaids in a traditional female role. Finally, Mila Kunis’ biggest hit was Oz the Great and Powerful, in which she played a heavy as the Wicked Witch of the West (but not the lead).

What about the men? Duane Johnson played one of the leads in Fate of the Furious, Matt Damon played the lead in The Martian, Tom Cruise played the lead in War of the Worlds, Johnny Depp played the lead in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, and Ben Affleck played the lead in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Give us more money

So, the top women are playing supporting roles as traditional female characters in hit movies with male leads, for the most part, and the top men are playing leading roles in their own hit movies. This is actually how life should work, and the 18-24 year old audience supports that.

If you were a red pill male actor, instead of a beta white knight, would you take a voluntary pay cut, reducing your family’s lifestyle, so that a female who wouldn’t be in a leading role and therefore wouldn’t be working as hard as you, who didn’t have the audience draw that you have, so that her portion of the box office is smaller, who fewer people want to see, can get the same paycheck as you? Of course not. You would tell her to get a better agent.

Conclusion

The answer, obviously, to the headlining question is “no.” Women actresses do not deserve the same pay as their far more successful male counterparts. It’s not even close. Fortunately, the movie industry recognizes this and rewards the performers accordingly. If a male doesn’t bring in the box office numbers, he will make less money and will eventually be out of work. That’s show biz, folks.

It’s too bad that other industries have been beaten down and cucked by the liberal SJWs to the point where society has been gaslighted by the misconception that women make 76 cents for every dollar men make. Intelligent studies have shown this time and again to be untrue.

I fear that if actresses keep whining about gender equality and parity long enough, the motion picture industry will eventually buckle and we’ll be paying double for our movie tickets to see women do less work in supporting roles while making just as much as their box office generating male leading counterparts.

Read More: The Reason Female Actors Get Paid Less That Nobody Wants To Talk About

171 thoughts on “Hollywood Male Actors Deserve To Be Paid More Than Female Actresses”

  1. Actresses are pretty much interchangeable and not in fact any hotter on average than the average American sorority chick. Selecting a female lead doesn’t really matter (just make sure she’s hot), but selection of the male lead can make or break a film.
    As in the sexual marketplace, men require personality and talent to make it in the movies. The male actor’s distinctive personality is what draws the crowds… think of John Wayne, or Harrison Ford, or Bruce Willis, just for starters.

    1. C’mon now! You sexist piglet, give the vaginas more $$$, because, well… vagina. They deserve it because = the patriarchy and blah blah blah.

      1. Rock98i

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
        On tuesday I got a Smart new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        !ai148:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs438CashMediaRock/GetPay$97/Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ai148l..,..

      2. Only female adult film stars earn more than men, but that industry is almost finished.

    2. Actresses many times are LESS hot than your average Middle American woman. They just afford more stylists.

    3. These days, it seems like most actresses look like the chicks you picked up at last call because everyone decent had already left. Makes you long for the days of Rita Hayworth….

    4. That and their careers are usually shorter than most male actors. Harrison Ford has been an A list star since the 1970s and still headlines major films today, 40 years later. Almost no A list actress from the 1970s is active today. Ford must have the greatest longevity in Hollywood, even more than Clint Eastwood, who was headlining major films into the 1990s.

      1. I’ve long said that the career arcs of feature film actors mirrors the different arcs of men and women in the sexual marketplace. It’s a perfect reflection of human nature.

    5. With very few exceptions, women age like milk and thus their careers end quickly because no one wants to see a former hottie all shrivelled up. Men (as long as they didn’t let themselves go) age much better and have longer shelf lives. It really is that simple.

    6. Women don’t even have to be hot. Take Emma Stone. She looks a little bit like a smooshed toad. No idea why she’s “hot”.

      2. She’s “hot” because we’ve been conditioned for the last twenty years or so to consider women who look more and more like 14 year old boys “hot”. Homos run that town, of course they want that standard.

        1. “Homo’s run that town.” I wonder if this is not part of the destruction of the beauty of women I would normally consider hot – Scarlett Johansson’s recent transformation from sexy-fuck-slut to dykish androgyne, for example.

        2. It seems to be pretty consistent, that “make the pretty girl into a faggy dyke bitch” look. And us out here in the great flyover are supposed to gasp in awe and applaud. Looking at box office receipts post-transformation though, doesn’t seem like we are partial to that message.

        3. Also, if you look at box office returns in general for the last couple of years, SJW pandering movies are not doing well at the box office unless the brand is really strong, like Star Wars or “insert superhero name here”-movies.

      3. She is not, she was elevated to hot status, her face look mmmh unconventional, big eyes weird smile, they tend to look cute at best when they were young but unconventional beauty does not work as they age, that´s why we find repulsive some grown up child actors, they were selected because when they were kids they had something cute about them, like a big front head, big cheek bones or look like a puppy, now as adult the “cute” thing is not cute anymore, no, you end as an ugly person with a big ugly head that look like an ugly dog than a puppy. Emma have that toad face that look cute and different when she was 17 as she age she will be more like an ugly toad. The unconventional beauty becomes conventional ugliness with time.

      4. Lots of unhot women making money in Hollywood these days. A while ago you needed to be Julia Roberts or Michelle Pfeiffer in their younger years to have a chance in film. Now look at Melissa McCarthy, and other assorted ugly women are now “hot”.
        Only positive about this was those genuinely beautiful women only represented a fraction of American women back in the day. At least people overseas are getting the message that most American women today are fugly.

      5. Take a look at films from decades ago, ever seen some old James Bond films? The Bond girls used to be stunning, compare them to the modern Bond women, they are plain in comparison. And look at the other films, you will notice more feminine and traditionally beautiful women.

    7. … but selection of the male lead can make or break a film.

      Writers and directors will tailor scripts or write them outright with a particular male lead in mind because of what you said.
      That almost never happens for a female lead, unless she is very well-respected or brings something distinct to a role.

      1. Remember the Dark Knight series? They replaced Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal in the second film and nobody noticed.
        If Christian Bale walked away they would have had a serious problem. Actors use the threat of quitting as a way of negotiating better pay. Daniel Craig did it with Bond. Apparently he is going to be paid a giant sum of money for the next movie.

        1. Same with the Back to the Future series. Nobody cared who played Marty’s girlfriend/wife.

        2. Disney wanted to replace Harrison Ford with Chris Pratt as Indiana Jones but that fell apart. Ford is going to make another film.
          Pratt is certainly a rising star but he will never replace Ford.

        3. Agreed. Only Harrison Ford can be Indiana Jones.
          I must be getting old. I re-watched Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and it wasn’t as awful as I remember it being when I first saw it.

        4. That’s cause movies are becoming worse. At least there was some dialogue, story, and emotion in that film. Compare that to the Avengers and Fast and Furious. Those movies were meant for third world retards.

        5. Compare that to the Avengers and Fast and Furious.

          I saw no reason to watch any of the Furious franchise after the first movie. One movie with no plot, scantily clad chicks, fast cars and fighting of various kinds is all I need to see in a franchise like that.
          The closest I came to watching the Avengers was sitting though Captain America Civil War, which sounds a lot like the same movie. Boy did that suck.

        6. Those movies are catering to dumbed down third world types. If you compare Avengers to the Reeve Superman films, the Avengers looks like a cheesy B movie. These new comic book movies are so bad that even Superman IV looks like classic film in comparison.
          And the 3rd and 4th films were horrible but still more watchable than most Marvel movies today.

        7. Modern cinema is catered towards 3rd world Indian and Chinese people. I’m not sure why I watched it (honestly don’t remember) but in the Transformers movie with the Dinobots, there was an entire unnecessary act set in China. Why? To suck the Chinese consumer’s dick.

        8. That’s why you see impulsive behavior and wanton violence in these movies. The carnage in those modern blockbusters is worse than the R rated muscle films of the 80s and early 90s.

    8. I think the only actresses that deserve any merit (in acting and not their bullshit (((virtue signaling))) ) is when they are waaaaay post wall and can only rely on their tour de force performances and nothing else.

  4. Actresses in general are only “hot” because they’re dolled up and famous. Even then, most are 7s at best. When super “hot” Megan Fox from Transformers compared director Michael Bay to Hitler, he fired her from Transformers 3 and replaced her with a Victoria’s Secret model. The franchise did just fine without her. Should actresses make the same or more than actors? Only in porn.

    1. What would have been hilarious would be if Bay found a 21-year-old starlet that looked like Megan Fox and proceeded as normal.

      1. Megan Fox has such a basic look anyway. Find a tanned blue eyed white bitch and dye her hair black.

    2. The only thing that could kill the Transformers franchise was Michael Bay himself. You can only show what is essentially the same movie so many times before people get tired of it.

    3. Right here. Porn is the answer for women that want to make buck in an industry that weighs more money down for women. Male porn stars aren’t paid much

  5. Regarding Jennifer Lawrence
    “She found out during the Sony hacks that she was making less than her male counterparts in American Hustle.”
    On a pay-per-day-worked, she was the highest paid actor on the movie. The male actors, although paid more, also worked more days.
    ETA: Jeremy Renner made some pretty common sense comments regarding it– i.e. he’s got folks who work out his pay, it’s not his business what his fellow actors agree to. He got hammered for it and walked it back a bit. Too bad.

  6. The top men make more money for the studios, they provide more entertainment for their audiences, and their characters are more realistic.

    The reason for the title summed up in one sentence. Of course, the “Girl Power” initiative being shoved down our throats will say it’s because of muh patriarchy. Of course it has to be a man’s fault, otherwise feminists would have to admit that women need to step up and take responsibility. I don’t see that happening for some time now.

  7. I find it hard to believe that anyone interest in the Red Pill-life would be interested in anything these “artists” or studios would create…

      1. Walken, Bale, Pacino,& Crowe have made films that I still watch to this day. Depp heavy put out a watchable film in two decades.

        1. I recently watched Serpico on Grit. Because I was running errands I didn’t get to watch the whole thing, but good movie by Pacino.

        2. All 70s Pacino is topnotch. Pacino is amazing. I think Heat is by far his best role, though: an earnest detective entangled with a po-mo LA women that is a shitty mother. He is outstanding in Heat.

  8. This is why I like Adam Driver, Tom Hardy, DDL. They really don’t care about money.
    You hardly hear anything about their public lives and they just work.
    Acting was once a craft that was refined and revered. Now acting is just who’s got the biggest tits and prettiest face.

  9. Neither men nor women deserve to be paid more. You deserve what you get, because that’s what you lobbied and negotiated for. Or your agent by proxy. So become a better actor, become a better draw, or find a better agent if you want more money.
    Simple: People deserve whatever they get.

    1. Fucking A, best post on the thread, bar none.

      1. Data104e

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
        On tuesday I got a Smart new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        !ao124d:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs414CashMarketData/GetPay$97/Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ao124l..,……

    2. The box office performance for the male actors are well above the females so they make more money.

    3. Yep.
      No such thing as overpaid.
      You deserve whatever you have the power to negotiate.

    4. Agreed but that’s now how life actually is, especially in bizarre, fringe positions like entertainment. The only true meritocracy in this world is professional sports and even that has big flops for the money some of them make.

      1. Connor McGregor, 5 years ago he was on welfare, now he just bagged nearly $100 million.His rags to riches story reminds me of JK Rowling, she used to be on welfare but made millions from Harry Potter. McGregor now blurred the line between pro sports and Entertainment.

    5. Well, a lot of feminists feel they’re entitled to more, and others fit the bill.

    6. Pretty stunning that there are enough idiots out there that will pay their hard earned money to see Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson for two to three hours in a dark theater. Humanity has reached a new level of stupid. And imagine both of these meatheads in the same movie, and it makes nearly a billion dollars? And real movies like Blade Runner and Citizen Kane barely earned a cent.
      Rutger Hauer was a cool actor, he was in the big lug category, but he had a brain and played interesting characters. Imagine if Schwarzenegger had a triple digit IQ, you would have Rutger Hauer.

      1. I don’t pay for any of it, on the rare occasion that something piques my interest, I pirate it.

        1. Great idea. Nothing worth paying for these days. I loved the Alien and Aliens movies. Was hyped to see the new film
          and it was horrifically bad. Anyway only paid in Hungarian money to see it.

  10. Neither male nor female actors deserve their salaries, most of the box office for these people are made overseas. Hollywood no longer caters to an English speaking audience, they also cater to a less intelligent audience. Most movies have changed their pacing to put in action from the minute the movie starts, in the Batman Begins movie, it was a whole hour before the title character shows up, in Avengers Age of Ultron the title characters appear in the very first scene.
    Part of traditional film making combined plot, character development, and then action. It made you connect to the characters more effectively. Now you don’t really care what happens to the characters. Look at the latest Alien film, you have absolutely zero connection to anyone in the film, the villain of the movie described the humans as “meat”, could not have been a better description, all the humans in the movie were just prey for the predator alien characters.
    I saw an millennial pan the original Batman movie from 1989, but compared to today’s endless comic book films, that movie was on the level of Citizen Kane. And that being said that idiot millennial would not have so many comic book movies to see if it wasn’t for the more slow paced original Batman and Superman films.
    Dwayne Johnson is the highest paid actor in Hollywood, there hasn’t been a single movie of his that I could sit through.

      1. His older movies were good, most of what came out of the last 10 years has been mediocre. His latest film failed. He seems to be churning out Mission Impossible sequels left and right. He usually avoids making sequels.

        1. Ditto Mel Gibson and Bruce Willis. These guys are probably well invested in stuff outside entertainment that they keep secret for obvious reasons. Not to mention the checks they get from their past work such as syndication and rights from digital downloads.

        3. I seem to be one of the few extremely rare people(or so it is perceived) that hasn’t seen any Tom Cruise movie except Collateral(which was amazing). Any recommended movies with him?

        4. Most of his movies in the 1980s to early 1990s. Top Gun and A Few Good Men are quality movies.

      1. Only thing I can say about Gere is he lives his ideals. Compare him to George Clooney who is Hollywood’s biggest SJW. Clooney keeps harping about social justice but most of the time he lives his luxurious life.

        1. Plus, you know, Clooney is a not so closeted homo, rumor has it.

        2. Well these days homosexuality is acceptable. The main thing about Clooney is both he and his wife Amal harp about accepting refugees and poverty but neither have used any of their substantial resources to do anything about it.
          Look at Bill Gates, he talks about poverty but he was sincere and donated billions of his own money to various causes.
          I see nothing wrong with caring about people less fortunate than you as long as it’s sincere. The fake virtue signaling is pure evil.

  11. I would suggest that the male actors taking a pay cut for “equal pay” just want to bang those actresses and figure working along them is the easiest way to make it happen, with a very high success rate it seems.

    1. All the blithering is about base pay. Gal Gadot will make somewhere are $300,000 in base pay from Wonder Woman. What they won’t tell you is that she’ll make money from royalties, ticket sales, merchandising, DVD sales, etc, etc. So Chris Hemworth can lose 50K to get a massive positive buzz from the media for his ‘sacrifice.’

      1. Comparing equivalent net worths it would be like an average guy paying 2k$ to do Jennifer Lawrence or whoever the hot young actress is these days for a few months. Thirsty guys pay more than that for sub par pussy all the time.

  12. The new Disney Aladdin “remake” will feature an Arab actor as Aladdin, and a white British actress as his love interest. Got to wonder about this, shouldn’t the SJWs scream cultural appropriation when a white woman plays an Arab princess? Or I guess they want to put a subversive message about interracial love. I am guessing its the latter.

  13. Two points:
    1) Author is only discussing films, not television. Television is a much wealthier marketplace, with much more money on the table, for many more people, including more opportunities for women. Feature film, on the other hand, has always been and always will be a men’s club.
    2) Author ignores the role of international feature film box office. In the last thirty years, it’s climbed from 35% of total box office to 65% of total box office. Movies can’t even get made anymore without international financing. As a result, films today are largely made for Chinese teenagers, and Chinese teenagers want to see male leads blowing up shit.

    1. Good point. Jackie Chan was on the ’16 list. Author probably took him out because he’s not “Hollywood.” Maybe he should write another article reflecting your view. Or, just go along with the basic flow of this awesome Red Pill, masculine male website and agree that women should stop trying to be our equals and celebrate every time they get smashed by reality.

  14. people pay money to see tom cruise. people do not pay a lot of money to see jennifer aniston

    1. People might have paid a bit of money for the opportunity to see an 18 year old Jennifer Aniston, but mostly for the opportunity to see her naked. A 40 something year old Jennifer Aniston? Meh, not so much. On the other hand, people will always pay to see Tom Cruise, either as a small steel town football player who gets to bang young Lea Thompson, as a Navy lawyer facing off against Marine Jack Nicholson, as Maverick, or rappelling down the Burj Khalifah in Mission Impossible.

  15. also there is a reason why Tom Cruise is paired up with 25 year old women despite being 55 years old. Old women don’t sell movies

      1. men retain their appeal to everyone. no one likes to see old women on screen though. maybe cause HD makes their wrinkled faces look even worse.

        1. Stallone is over 70 and still making movies, do you think his Rocky and Cobra female co-stars are active today? Nope. Bridgette Nielsen was mudsharking with that Flava Flave idiot.

    3. Tom cruise use CGI to look younger. Tom cruise will be doing movies forever, that technology is very convincing now, the scene where they made Robert downing Jr young in Avenger is very convincing also they did it with johnny deep in his last pirate movie. we will have eternal actor, there are plans to revive classic actor like Marlon Brandon with CGI so you can now have a feminist John Wayne.

      1. The tech is still pretty far off, judging from the multi-million dollar failure that was Grand Moff Tarkin.

        1. that crap move fast, getting actors look young is far from TRON when they use ugly CGI for young Jeff bridges. But Young Phony depp look convincing enough. Grandma tarkin indeed look weird. Actors now don´t even need to even hit the gym they can make them buff with CGI like captain America, Fake everything, fake beauty. Actors are and always will be fake.

  16. Those underpaid and oppressed actresses make far more than most of us will make in our working lives.

  17. You know partly why men make more money than women in movies? Because horny women and teen girls are willing to go and pay (or rather, a man has to pay) for a chance to see Dwayne Johnson and Mark Wahlberg shirtless. Which leads us to three conclusions. One, women objectify men more than vice versa. Two, while I wouldn’t mind seeing Katniss Everdeen’s or Wonder Woman’s tits, clearly men appreciate the art of acting as a whole more than women do. And three, in reality, women do give two shits about their own gender.

    1. Only when it comes time to prove a point like Wonder Woman. But yes women objectify men too. It’s just that modern women like to he hypocrites and live a “do as I say and not as I do” lifestyle. They can objectify men, and deep down they lime being objectified by the men they themselves would objectify. They would never admit that though because it sounds better to blame all men.

      1. The same women who whine about being objectified won’t date any guy who isn’t at least 6 feet tall, 12 inches hung, has a 6 pack abs, a 750+ credit score, earns at least 6 figures, has a huge house, extra cars, etc.

    1. But… But.. (((art))), the million shekels industry… How am I going to get my brain washed without those (((master)))pieces?

  19. None of those actresses can compare to the cinema beauties of yesteryear; even Charlize Theron is on decline.

        1. Steph daddy and they were both on the inside, he was outside banging on the door… Lot more to this one than is available on-line.

        3. Not surprising, Hollywood has a tendency to choose weak-willed people with troubled pasts, especially women, because they are easy to manipulate. And if they are not broken when they enter the industry…? They’ll certainly become so afterwards.

        4. Yep, I was in the same primary school, some years ahead of said actress, small semi-rural community. She would have been there from 1980 to 1987, went to art school after that.
          https://www.google.com.au/maps/search/putfontein+primary+school/@-26.1278081,28.3758385,13z
          Abusive, Steph dad got home drunk, I think after being kicked out of the mansion he paid for, then got shot through the front door. Police declared it self-defence on the spot, never made the courts and family secrets hushed.

    2. Ain’t that the truth. And they used to be real box office draws, too. Wasn’t Rita Hayworth the studios biggest box office maker in the 1940s? A real looker, great personality, and boy could she dance! Then Ingrid Bergman, Susan Hayward, Marilyn Monroe, Bridgit Bardot, Sophia Loren, I could go on to a dozen easily. Very memorable actresses, great figures, beautiful, and people you would want to see in a film. I can’t think of any actresses at the moment that have that kind of draw, in fact it is hard to bring any names to mind. The general deterioration in the quality of Western women applies here too.

  20. Apparently the free market is to be controlled by neo-feminists. Why are there not that many female composers? Who is denying women of the “right” to be just as creative? Let me guess. Somehow, somewhere, the Patriarchy is preventing women from putting out the next great symphony.
    Also…
    Neo-feminists love to believe that “feelings” count, but even that is not their forte. They conflate immature emotions with real emotive power. THAT is why the arts are also dominated by men. It is time we send these children to bed without their supper (so they can contemplate growing up).

    1. I love to use that kind of kill shot-I tell the feminist types that now more than ever women have an embarrassment of opportunity and yet not one has been able to display virtuosity or genius in any field despite their constant squealing that women can do anything men can. It causes head explosions every time.

      1. Sooner or later, madam Curie is mentioned, and they pretend all the Teslas, Einsteins and daVincis have the same relevance. Darn it, daVinci was unearthing corpses late in the night (something viewed as witchcraft) in order to study Anatomy. Galileo Galilei defied the church, on account of the Earth revolving around the Sun, and he was on the verge of being sentenced to death for it. Meanwhile, those shits complain about patriarchy? Either they had no ideas to offer or they had no guts to follow those ideas. One way or the other, they’ve always been losers, who belong in the kitchen (and even there, everybody knows, the world’s best chefs are all men)

        2. I’d ask them when was the last time they discovered a new aromic element or made a new recipe for a dish never seen worthy of recognition and rave. If they didn’t, tell em to shut the fuck up until they do.

        3. Madame Curie, whose husband and uncle (I believe it was her uncle) did most of the work I believe? Every time I read about her “discovery” I come away thinking “But her husband was there and….her uncle was postulating….and….” Even the awful black and white movie showed the men doing the lion’s share of the work while she stood around and basically started to glow in the dark.

        4. Yeah, that’s how I see it too. She was a Pole, back then (nationalist late 19th century) it was seen as a shameful disability. She was surrounded of beta frenchies who white knighted like “oh, don’t pick on her, she is super inteligent, despite a foreigner. She is the queen of the lab. What would we do without aour little Marie…” And they took it too far. It was good publicity, anyway, as feminism was becoming popular, and France always suffered from Mariannism (since at least Joan of Arch)

        5. That’s because women are naturally followers. Let them run wild without supervision and you get what’s currently happening all over the world.

        7. Galileo’s story is a little more complex, and different than what you’ve probably been led to believe. He was actually very good friends with the Pope, and a huge asshole.

        1. There you go. I’d opt for a rabbit punch but they don’t let you do that no more :p

        3. Oh yes-that. Must have had a past life flashback where I engaged in Pankration at the Olympiads.

    2. A controlled market by definition isn’t a free market.

    3. I heard the argument that women were not allowed to study music back in the day so basically they need 1000 years to catch up before having their first Mozart.

      1. Feminists have a long laundry list of things they “weren’t allowed to do back in the day” that, if investigated, either are outright lies, or belong to other cultures such as Asians. Turns out your average Saxon woman in the year 900 A.D. could own property in her own name, divorce as she wished, marry as she wished, own a business on her own and had a voice at the Witan (or Moot, depending, which is basically Germanic for “Parliament”) just like the other citizens of her group.
        The mythical “We were kept in bondage” usually stems from Asia, or the ancient Greeks, and even there it’s pretty suspect.

        1. The mythical “We were kept in bondage” usually stems from Asia, or the ancient Greeks, and even there it’s pretty suspect more often than not.

          The irony is seeing just how many modern day Western women are completely into being in bondage. >coughcough< “Fifty Charades of Grey” >coughcough< anyone?

      2. I heard the argument that women were not allowed to study music back in the day so basically they need 1000 years to catch up before having their first Mozart.

        No doubt this argument has been propagated by the neo-feminists for sometime. It is replete with the usual illogic that false egalitarians use to rationalize their belief of some phantom impediment to the “equal outcome” they profess is the “truth”.
        Certainly, a Mozart or a beet garden (who would dominate today by bringing things to a level of consciousness don’t even know of right now) is a rarity, but with the plethora of women being allowed to explore the musical universe in the past several generations, we should see some coalescing of genius that is also female. No man has any more a head start than any woman since both are at “equal” liberty to lead by the masters of the past.
        The bar is not set at being a peer with the Olympians of Orchestra. Even a bit of modern day musical magic would suffice. Yet… still… most of that is from the soul of… drum roll… men.
        Unfortunately for neo-feminists, stamping one’s feet and declaring one is “strong” just doesn’t lead to anything artistic (unless we consider a life of disappointment and too many house cats somehow “artistic”).

  22. I just wonder why people who pretend to be ordinary people like me and you make like ten times what I’ll make in my entire life for making one awful movie.
    Is that the price of a soul?

    1. Humm.. During Middle Ages, actors, comedians were considered as prostitutes the bottom of the pile ?? Today it’s the same, only the get more money ??

  23. An actress charges $ 24 million and thinks that it is not enough in comparison to other more popular actors…
    What injustice, do not you believe it?

    1. Women actors provide no other entertainment except their bodies. They should be receiving a porn actress salary. Heck a porn actress does more crazier stunts than they do.

      1. It’s okay to see some female beauty in movies or series. But when the actresses get involved in political campaigns to promote libshit, it is not funny any more.
        Are there people so stupid to base their political decisions on what celebrities say?
        Yes, there are.

  24. The Hollysluts age so bad and fast, they aren’t even worth remembering their names.

  25. .
    That’s the world’s smallest violin.
    Someone who sees more money in one hour or one day than most other people see in a year has nothing to complain about.

      1. “feewings”? Free wings, pussy wings. Vagina rights explained: I’ve got one, give me everything

      1. $46 million comes out to a little over $126K a day. Most wage earners earn less than half of that in a year.
        She really doth protest too much.

    3. Another aspect of this is free market economics: There’s hundreds of thousands of actors (and even more actresses) competing for a small set of high paying roles. It’s not something for someone looking to strike it rich easily or have a family. They’d be better off getting some decently paid trade. Check out the film “Bowfinger” by Steve Martin that tears into Hollywood in nearly every way possible. One of my favorite films.
      Actresses griping about the low pay will be the first to chase after wealthy men in L.A. and use sexism to demand that men provide for them. Heck, that may be why there are so many more women competing as actresses compared to men: Except for those “in the closet” (wink wink South Park episode), men in Hollywood can’t use a casting couch to pay the rent while trying to get their break. They’ll have to work as waiters to get by.
      In the meantime, there’s another aspect to acting in that men who spend more than a decade to make it big (such as Mad Men’s Jon Hamm) can later settle down and have kids with a nice 20 something waitress when he’s in his 40’s. An actress blowing her youth trying to make it big will statistically find herself in her 30’s with little income to show for her effort. If she does strike it big, she’s not going to marry some schmoe cameraman most of the time and will wind up like Jennifer Anniston running around.
      Where are the parents in all this as their daughters waste their prime years in an endeavor unlikely to bring them happiness?

      1. You know, this sounds like Penny from the Big Bang Theory. Of course, in the later seasons they do make her as some sort of a Mary Sue character who magically changes her life around by getting a job as a sales rep at Bernadette’s pharmaceutical company. But she out earns Leonard by the virtue of her (albeit fading) sexuality.

        1. I had to look up Mary Sue on wiki, thanks. Interesting concept.
          I remember an RoK article poking fun at the ‘nerd’ concept in Big Bang Theory where the typical nerd in fictiion is still way less geeky than in real life. In the film “Real Genius”, a nerd was portrayed by a (young) Val Kilmer.
          From the 5 minutes I watched the show, I found Bernadette to be a super hotty compared to the star Penny which I found amusing as an illustration of typical American fiction tastes where the plain looking women who require lots of makeup are the stars compared to the more feminine pretty character actresses.
          That being said, most engineers and geeks I know don’t make a serious amount of money and it’s not uncommon for saleswomen especially in pharmaceuticals to make big bucks.

        2. In a nutshell, the Big reason Bernadette took Penny’s thunder was that her personality is as adorable and bubbly as her ample bewbs

    4. Damn sexism she could bought 5 mansion and 2 castles but now she only can afford 3 mansion and 1 castle, damn patriarchy.

      1. Partly it’s muh patriarchy, mostly, it’s just greed and avarice. These people have nothing else going for them and they know it

  26. “I fear that if actresses keep whining about gender equality and parity long enough, the motion picture industry will eventually buckle and we’ll be paying double for our movie tickets to see women do less work in supporting roles while making just as much as their box office generating male leading counterparts.”
    Either that or male actors will dress up in drag and take female roles like in ancient times. In fact, I’m surprised that Hollywood being Hollywood and the pushing of LGBTFN#ISJN!32$3BUTTFUCK issues, male actors haven’t done so already.

    1. and the Oscar for best lead actress goes to a transgender haha So men are better at everything even at being woman.

  27. Why do women make less, well the pic of the pink and whites sluts is why. What do you see? Shoes short dresses and pouting faces…like they deserve more than the line up they were staged in….I’ll give em more money, nickels with a slingshot. Chicken thighs and hairy clams, that’s what I see. Reminds me that I need to go shopping for a BBQ.

    1. “Chicken thighs and hairy clams, that’s what I see.”
      And suddenly I lost my appetite for fresh oysters. Thanks a lot asshole. 🙁
      But on a more serious note, believe it or not, I did like Bridesmaids. But it’s not Dumb and Dumber, which I can watch over and over again and it’s just hysterically funny. This one? Not so much. The whole female drama factor is what wears it down

      1. Yea I’ve watched the movie. I didn’t mind it but must be a pretty lousy bunch of films coming out that anyone got nominated for it..
        I was recommended to watch it because I liked whiplash, now that’s a great fucken movie! With all the Hollywood related junk articles on here lately, maybe they should use that movie as a basis for a 5-10 on how to be successful…
        “not quite my tempo”

  29. I highly suggest the two films “The guy who was in that thing” and the female counterpart:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2402200/
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4406298/
    Expectedly, the gal version delves into sexism issues more than the guys version does which is a neat microcosm of feminism versus men’s perspectives overall. Men are likely to look at things from a big picture while the feminists will try to focus upon their gender rather than broader economic issues. In the guy version, nobody goes into how one minor character actor died alone and childless and discovered by his agent and how being a minor actor can be a difficult life path journey for a man who wants to raise a family. Men simply “get” that there are sacrifices for different careers. That if a man wants to be a traveling circus lion tamer, he may not be able to live in a house in the suburbs.
    These films reveal that there are something like 4 times or so women in hollywood trying to make it big compared to men. The roles for women are limited but this is partly due to feminism where they would object to roles that men typically accept such as dying in gruesome ways and being portrayed as villains. I actually think that back in the 1970’s there were more roles for women and minorities back when there wasn’t a need for them to be politically correct. Hollywood has a huge need for stupid action figure guys getting themselves killed and less of a need for snarky wisegals to lecture to the camera.
    Next, Hollywood like the author of this piece assumes that big name actors translates into money and to a certain extent, it does. There’s a lot of **** that gets out there that people go to see because there’s a big name by it but also, it gets distributed better. I rarely go to the cinema today because the good stuff is available online a year or so later and better distributed. Consider Star Wars where all the major roles except for Obi Wan were filled by character actors.

  30. The men have been somewhat more successful at brand-building. Jennifer Lawrence let slip what she had been doing wrong.
    Being successful as a Hollywood actor is a business in itself, & has only a tangential connection with talent. Tom Cruise probably represents the pinnacle of Hollywood actor “brand development” in our current era. He can actually act decently, but stopped circa 1990 and simply cultivated his brand by playing the same character in movie after movie & people flock to them. Studios actually can’t afford to cast someone like Jennifer Lawrence next to him… and actually I think he would refuse to work with someone of her caliber, which is by design to *protect his brand.* That’s why the female leads in his movies are so interchangeable.
    Although the “chick from Edge of Tomorrow” was Emily Blunt – to her credit she’s springboarded from that really well. She’s the lead in Disney’s “Mary Poppins” sequel next year which will probably equal Beauty and the Beast.

  31. Emma Stone.
    Not that attractive for a “big hollywood star”.
    Maybe a 7.5?
    Will fall below a 7 in 2 or 3 years.

    1. In that photo I’d give her a 6 at best. No disrespect, she’s one of my favorite actresses, but yikes!

  32. Entertainment earning is pretty easy compared to other occupations. You get paid for asses you put in the seats. Quit whining.

  33. Most of the actors of the Hollywood Golden Era, the major stars were all taller men, over 6 feet tall. I just noticed only Dwayne Johnson and Ben Affleck are the only ones over 6 feet tall, Johnson is supposed to be 6’5″ and Affleck is 6’2″, for some reason he’s listed as 6’4″ by some sources but he appears more like 6’2″.

  34. I’m pretty sure all the male actors and male movie workers in general know this and they’re not going to let the liberals know while at the same time they pull the strings of the libtards to force equal pay on other jobs, they don’t want their expensive lavish lifestyles ruined, they’d rather ruin men of other jobs so they can make money acting like they’re morally great people. Also I don’t see a jew among any of these male actors. How’s that anti-semites?

  35. “we’ll be paying double for our movie tickets”
    I’ll be fine with that. Zero doubled remains zero.

  36. Women want men to make more than them, to be providers, but they also want to be paid the same as men.
    Women = Morons.
    Of course feminist mewling about unequal pay is just gaslighting, shit-testing, and trying to take more money from men.
    Same with taxes.
    Same with everything women do.
    When are we going to put them back in the kitchen already?

  37. The question is why do you care dude? Are you an actor affected by how much a movie makes.

  38. Vin Diesel and The Rock in a movie, man that would be fun to sit down for two hours. I think my brain would be numb at seeing both idiots on screen.
    I was shocked when I found out Vin is only 5’11”, I used to think he was 6’3″ to 6’4″. He looked noticeably taller than Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan. That was the only good role he had, he was only in the film for a few minutes. All his other films have been mindless idiotic movies.

  39. Has any female actress even come close to the levels of physical transformation guys like Bale, Hardy etc go through between roles? (Getting fat and make up doesn’t count!)

Comments are closed.