does frid get a cut???

today i read online that forbes.com has compiled a list of hollwood's highest paid and most bankable stars.

it states that johny depp earns approximately twenty million dollars per film and has in most cases proven worth it in terms of the amount of money his films return to the studio.

i certainly don't know how the production costs of his new d.s. project will be broken down but is it possible...or even conceivable...that someone is about to be paid twenty million dollars to portray barnabas collins?!?

i would imagine that that figure is much more than the entire production cost of the original series' five year run and probably more than anyone has made back in terms of syndication,video/dvd sales and so on.

Honestly, yes, it is entirely conceivable that Johnny Depp is about to be paid $20 million to play Barnabas Collins. His name is a HUGE draw in any project he's involved with. Personally, if it wasn't for JD and Geoffrey Rush, I wouldn't have given much love to Pirates of the Caribbean at all.

As for Jonathan getting a cut, unless he's somehow involved in the production it's really not likely. Everyone who has played Dracula doesn't get a cut of the profits whenever another adaption goes on screen.

For the Pirates sequels, I believe that Johnny got a base salary and then a percentage of the profits, and I think it added up to quite a lot!  However, this does not mean that he always gets a huge salary; just that he can command a lot if he wants to.  After the first Pirates movie, he was in a very low budget film called The Libertine that I think only had a total production budget of $10M.  It made very little at the box office, so I doubt he made much on that one, but it was a film he really wanted to do.  The budget of Sweeney Todd is rumored to be only $50M, and I doubt that his salary for this one is a full $20M (though I could be wrong), but I am guessing that he has a similar kind of deal where he'll get a percentage of any profits.  Dark Shadows will be a different case, too, because he will be a producer.  I would guess that again, he will take a base salary but also get a percentage as an actor and as a producer.  But I don't believe his asking alary is out of line at all- it's in step with other actors of his caliber.

Cathy

Frid gets nothing.  He doesn't even get money from all the DS merchandising that has his likeness as Barnabas.  The character of Barnabas belongs to DCP.  If, for example, Frid wanted to do an act of some kind as the character of Barnabas, he would have to request a license and pay a fee to do it.  Back in the day when Frid and other cast members signed contracts regarding merchandising using their likeness, there was not any contigency for merchandising that might be created decades later.  So the actors, including Frid, do not get compensation for most of the merchandising you see for sale.  Likewise, he does not get any compensation when someone else plays Barnabas and stands to make a good profit.

Many many years ago, actor Carroll O'Connor wanted to take his Archie character and make it into a nightclub act. But when he asked Norman Lear for permission and the rights to do it, Lear refused so O'Connor was not able to play Archie in nightclubs.

nancy

In a simiar vein (no pun intended), Suzanne Somers used to do the "Chrissy" character from Three's Company in her Las Vegas routine until the producers of the sitcom took legal action against her.  It led to all sorts of squabbling over who truly created the character, and brings up an interesting point.  How much of a television (or film) character is created by the writer(s) and how much is a creation of the actor portraying the character?

Interesting point.  Since the actor is being paid to create the character as writtten by writers paid by the producer(s) or producing entity, legally the character is owned by the producer(s) or producing entity.  One of the reasons I make part of my living as a paralegal in intellectual property is that this stuff fascinates me. 

Nancy

In a simiar vein (no pun intended), Suzanne Somers used to do the "Chrissy" character from Three's Company in her Las Vegas routine until the producers of the sitcom took legal action against her.  It led to all sorts of squabbling over who truly created the character, and brings up an interesting point.  How much of a television (or film) character is created by the writer(s) and how much is a creation of the actor portraying the character?

I think it all kind of gets sketchy. Because personally, if I wrote something and created characters for that something, they would be MY creations, not anyone elses. Certainly the producers, actors, and many other people involved making whatever I had written into something on screen would be responsible for bringing those characters TO LIFE, nothing more.

In a lot of interviews surrounding the new Buffy Season 8 comics, Joss Whedon is asked if he'll cross over Angel and Spike to the S8 comics, as they were both on Angel the Series when it went off the air. And he always says that while HE OWNS the characters and can do WHATEVER HE WANTS with them, though he chooses not to because he likes what IDW, the publishers behind the current Angel comics, is doing with the characters, and he doesn't want to step on their toes.

Isn't that normal? I mean, I would think it is, because FOX produced Buffy the television show, and if you want to get something licensed with the Buffy name on it, you have to go through FOX and Joss, but generally if Joss approves it, FOX says nothing of it.

I guess it just comes down to small details.