2y ago

TIL that Jim Carrey was paid $7 million for ''Dumb and Dumber'', while his co-star Jeff Daniels made just $50,000

www.yahoo.com Jim Carrey Made $7 Million for Original 'Dumb and Dumber,' and Jeff Daniels...Didn't

Jim Carrey was paid $7 million for the original Dumb and Dumber, while his co-star Jeff Daniels — who shared top billing! — made just $50,000. Carrey wasn’t a big star when Dumb and Dumber went into production in 1994 and the comedy’s total budget was just $16 million — so how did he walk away with...

62 comments

Actors get paid based on their popularity, or said differently, you get paid shit if you are not known by millions. You can be the worst actor and get paid millions, while the best actor of the century gets paid minimum wage because noone knows about him.
- It's a little more complicated than that. Carrey was negotiating for Dumb and Dumber when Ace Ventura hit the box office. By the time the negotiations ended, there wasn't much money left for other actors. But that one movie was really all that he was known for at the time. So it was still a huge risk for a potential flash in the pan.
  Daniels wanted to expand his career into comedy, but the producers didn't want him since he wasn't known for comedy. He had done a lot of movies by that point though and was well known, just not for comedy. So they threw him a lowball number to get rid of him. He wasn't suppose to take it.
  It was all just really wild timing on Carrey's part and priorities not focused on money on Daniels' part.
  
  And I hope Daniels made bank off the sequel
  
  Oh, interesting. Thank you for the info! I was going with a general knowledge that the more well known actors get paid more because of their popularity. Seema this one was a different case.
- If nobody knows about him he's not that good
  
  Popularity ≠ Ability
  Source: Adam Sandler
  
  Nobody knew about Patrick Stewart before TNG, and he was quite accomplished.
  
  An actor's popularity is dependent on if they have a major role in popular movies, a large social media presence, or things like that. Many people don't exactly care about quality in movies, or the actors ability to act.
  There are some great actors we probably never heard of, because they are cast in minor roles, or in movies barely anyone knows about.
  
  I don’t know about you either.

Well, that settles it then - Jeff Daniels was the dumber one! 😂

And then they complain they don’t have money to pay their writers and crew members. SMH
- Bob Iger makes 27 million dollars a year, not counting the passive money he makes by investing his excess salary.
  You can literally pay all the writers and crew members what they're asking, on every movie made in a year, with just the studio heads salaries ... let alone the rest of the overpaid executives, board members, and investors.
  
  Bro! I need my third yacht. Don't be selfish.

He was paid in exposure, pride, and accomplishment.
- And it worked out for him.
  
  Yep. Taking the piss aside, it was a smart move to co-star with someone so famous.

Does anybody else find the manic performances of Jim Carrey exhausting after five minutes on the theater screen and sound system?
The same thing happened to me since the eighties with Robin Williams.
And Adam Sandler. Their manic personas fit television better for me, Carrey played much better in the short bursts of In Living Color sketches, Sandler on SNL, and while I never really got into "Mork & Mindy", Williams always killed it in talk show appearances.
Yet their more serious cinematic performances have made for compelling cinema that I do love.
Most audiences, however, seem to disagree with me. For example, I was one of the few who saw "Punch Drunk Love" in the theater back then, and was mesmerized by it.
- Oh yeah. Imo him Carrey is scarily good because he really knows how to let himself go and embrace a role.
  That being said, I think that 90s/2000s era of slapstick, whacky humor of the “hey we slayed our strict parents” era has definitely faded with time. I’d never do it for fear of ruining the nostalgia but I’m sure I would probably hate most of those movies now
- "Punch Drunk Love" in the theater back then, and was mesmerized by it.
  Btw if you liked the female lead of Punch Drunk Love and like movies that explore depressive topics, you should see Breaking the Waves
  
  Ok well maybe. I'm not sure I'd recommend Breaking the Waves based on this information alone.

Makes sense. "Hey, you see that new Jeff Daniels movie?" - things nobody has ever said.
- After The Newsroom I would.
  
  Yeah, Jeff Daniels is a fantastic actor, his name would absolutely get my attention when considering what to watch.
  
  Almost 20 years later. Would he have still been acting without dumb and dumber?
- You're clearly not from Michigan

Jim Carrey is the only reason that movie works at all, and the only reason people went to see it.
- Apparently, according to Carrey himself, they needed a full-range actor and not a comedian to be his counterpart, so...
  
  From what I read Carey himself was the one who wanted that. He told the producers if it was two comedians they'd spend the entire time trying to one up each other
- Yeah, no one would have gone to see Jeff Daniels alone, and this was during Jim Carrey's peak.

It's an easy calculation: how many tickets will that star sell more than if they weren't in the movie? Based on that you'll get an amount of dollars you can pay out to that actor.
- Which is likely true, but kinda weird to me. I do not have a tendency to select the movies I watch based on the actors. But I assume that isn’t true for most folks. I mean apparently.
  
  I'd wager most people prefer movies with actors they know (and like). For example if Morgan Freeman is in a movie I'm already thinking there's at least one decent actor in there, so the likelihood of me watching it goes up.
  And of course you know what you get usually. If Jim Carrey is in a movie, duh, you get slapstick humor most of the time. Samuel L. Jackson will probably play a cool guy and drop a few f-bombs. Chris Pratt? Probably an action movie with lighthearted humor. And so on.
  It's not only about the actor, but each one has a kind of brand too. And if the actor is expensive the production quality is usually decent.
  
  While I don't think it's as straight forward calculation as Norgur thinks, you're forgetting that star power has marketing reach beyond just name recognition on a poster. People want to hear from them. They give interviews, promote at events and give status to the movie: It will be featured more in media which in itself means that more people will hear about it (even if they don't choose the movie based on that name) which means they're more likely to consider seeing it at a later date as they recognize it.
  
  The "A-list actor" isn't much of a thing nowadays - it's all much more about franchises - but star power used to be a real box office draw. People would go to see a film just because it was the new Johnny Depp film, for instance, regardless of the genre/plot/style/quality.
  There aren't many actors these days who have that kind of draw. Two that I can think of are Ryan Reynolds and Tom Cruise - both actors where you have a fairly good idea of what you'll get from a film they're in, even when you know nothing about it.
  Franchises have definitely taken over. People will go to the cinema to see a film because it's a Marvel film, a Star Wars film, etc, regardless of who directed it, who it stars, and the quality of the film. Sequels and cinematic universes sell tickets in the way familiar faces used to.
- Right. How many people saw the sequel without Carrey, and are any of those 12 people in this thread?
  
  You mean the sequel / prequel thing? God that was awful...

62 comments