MovieChat Forums > Erin Brockovich (2000) Discussion > Julia Roberts - salary

Julia Roberts - salary

posted 17 years ago by capricor-1
32 replies | jump to latest

First of all, I'd like to admit that I love the movie. It's entertaining and funny and well done.

But everytime I see the ending - where Erin tells Donna Jenson about the 5 million dollar and that it'll be enough money for her children and her grandchildren and so forth - explaining that it's a huge amount of money - I can't help myself but thinking about Julia Roberts salary for the movie which was 20 million dollar! It ruins the emotional ending for me. I don't believe her anymore in that scene.

I don't mind huge salaries for actors in general. Considering the success of the movie Mrs. Roberts was worth every penny. But I can't help it. It sounds all wrong to me when she stumbles about a 2 million dollar cheque in the last scene while everybody knows she earned ten times more!

[–] EllawoodBlues 17 years ago

Yeah but that was Julia the person vs. the character she plays in the movie. They're not connected at all.

To alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.

[–] capricor-1 17 years ago

I konw that, Punkella.
The point is - I can't seperate the actress from the character while watching the scene.
It's almost painful because I want to. But I simply can't.

[–] sheymabuali 17 years ago

very interesting point. it's actually quite painful.

[–] Rypm25 16 years ago

the only thing painful here is reading your ridiculous post capricor-1! shes an actress...get over it and enjoy the movie.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Studman_Productions 16 years ago

a similar post is on the "Pursuit Of Happyness" board about Will smith.

[–] ChiBear 16 years ago

But is it called acting, they are playing a part. Will Smith and Julia Roberts are acting in a movie and they do not only play people who have $20 million.

[–] Studman_Productions 16 years ago

true.

[–] horrorfanaticgirl 16 years ago

I always laugh when someone complains about how much an actor makes. Does anyone realize that the people who go see the movie in the theater or buys the DVD or merchandise, that is how those actors get paid that much? It isn't like they are stealing your money or stealing it from the poor.

The patient's screaming disturbing me, performed removal of vocal chords. ~Zombie Holocaust

[–] capricor-1 16 years ago

O dear, no one was complaining! Check your ability to read if you want to add something useful.

I don't care about actors/actresses salaries. If someone is willing to pay it... I'm fine. I was simply talking about MY problem to separate the actress from the character at the end of the movie. Julia Roberts portrayed Erin Brockovich amazingly well but in the last two scenes I can't believe her anymore.

It's clearly my incapacity to differentiate. Although I find it a little cynical when Roberts' character's saying that 5 million dollars is enough money for Donna Jensen and her family ("for your girls and your girls' girls"). And I'm sitting there thinking that Mrs. Roberts wouldn't have done the movie for just 5 million dollars. I repeat that I really love the movie. But I can't help myself having a strange feeling about these last moments. That's all.

If you don't understand try to imagine a movie where Hugh Grant would say that he will never go to a prostitute...
... or Brad Pitt would say that he probably will never be a movie star
... or Tom Cruise would say that love is a private matter, etc. etc.

Reality comes to mind sometimes, you know.

[–] horrorfanaticgirl 16 years ago

Sorry but someone saying that the ending is ruined because the actress makes more than was offered in the movie is a boneheaded thing to say...

The patient's screaming disturbing me, performed removal of vocal chords. ~Zombie Holocaust

[–] capricor-1 16 years ago

You haven't even tried to understand my point, have you?

Well, anyway. Thank you for sharing a REALLY interesting thought.

[–] Authoring 16 years ago

capricor, you're seriously coming off as an idiot. What do you expect people to respond with? It's called acting, you moron. This is a discussion board, how else is anyone supposed to respond to your idiotic post? Read your own post and see how stupid it is.

Is it wrong to assure a young girl that she's ugly? I mean what's wrong with not being pretty?

[–] capricor-1 16 years ago

I was sharing a thought, sweety. If you think that's stupid I feel sorry for you.
And if you really believe that it's all just about acting then do me a favor and put away your glamour magazine with all the Paparazzi pictures of Jennifer Aniston or Angelina Jolie in it, will ya.

Next time you call someone a moron do it in front of a mirror.

[–] jmrex 12 years ago

Usually I side with those being attacked. But these people are just giving you tough love. Are you a new breed of troll? One that says such things and then doesn't leave but hangs around to stoke it? God, I hope not. But that only leaves something worse. C'mon...let us in on the joke.

[–] capricor-1 12 years ago

So what do you suggest? That I just shut up when someone call me an idiot? And if I don't I'm a troll?

No, sir.

I'll never understand why so many people love to call others names - especially here. "Tough love" has nothing to do with that.

But anyway. It's all water under the bridge.

Yeah? Well, you know, that's just, like, uh... your opinion, man.

[–] jaddison383 16 years ago

It is an interesting point you're making, tho it didn't strike me at the time. It's ironic, isn't it? However, I think it kinda makes me appreciate the movie more, because I was so caught up in Roberts performance by that point that the thought never crossed my mind. And it's interesting that she would still play the part so well.

LAST MOVIE SEEN: Star Trek
RATING: 8.5/10 stars!!!

[–] capricor-1 16 years ago

Yeah, she's really great in the movie.
Thank you for responding to what I actually meant with my OP.

[–] claudia_vz86 16 years ago

I can see the point you were trying to make with this post, so I'm not about to label you an "idiot" as a few other people have hastily done. It is true that there was a sense of irony watching that scene and knowing how rich Julia Roberts actually was.

I guess the only way to look at it is to remember that Julia Roberts came from humble beginnings herself...she grew up in a regular middle class family and had a public school education. Her parents divorced when she was young. Her father, who was a vacuum cleaner salesman, died when she was 10. She also shared a flat with her sister in New York while she was trying to break into acting. Hardly a glamourous start in life. She, like Erin, and many other successful actors, actresses, musicians and other artists had to work hard earn her success...it wasn't inherited.

So, whilst she is currently very wealthy, she wasn't exactly born with the silver spoon in her mouth, and so I know that she would more than likely have been able to empathise with and relate to the characters and situations in this film. It is a mark of a truly good actor to be able to place themselves in someone else's shoes, and I think this is part of what won her the oscar.

[–] CCRider01 14 years ago

"It is true that there was a sense of irony watching that scene and knowing how rich Julia Roberts actually was".

Yes, calling the scene ironic would be more accurate, Juila Roberts is just an actress and her salary should not have any bearing on how good of a scene it was.

[–] KAnnD86 16 years ago

I see your point, but I don't think the actors' salaries are relevant. It's an interesting thought though. Also, 5 million dollars, while it's a lot of money, might not last that long. Somehow it doesn't seem like enough.

Tomorrow's just your future yesterday!

[–] paultpault 12 years ago

I never thought of it as I was still only thinking of Erin getting that huge cheque and never occured to me about Julia Roberts cheque for the movie. I will have to rethink Mel Gibson in Ransom and wonder why he didn't just use his pay cheque to pay off the kidnappers, very interesting.

[–] Spunk_Stain 12 years ago

What a ridiculous thing to say OP. Thanks for making me laugh. Helped lighten up a dull Monday morning.

Cop:"You think you're Rambo!"
Tango (Stallone): "Rambo's a pussy!"

Tango & Cash

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Laurynmari 12 years ago

I totally agree w/ original poster, I think exactly the same everytime I watch that scene. I love the film and think Robert's is fantastic in it but her salary and what the film is about morally regarding the settlement for the plantiffs feels a little hyprocritical and distasteful. It lessens its emotional impact for me, especially when she opens her two million dollar cheque and is totally gobsmacked, even though the two are totally unrelated it just somehow feels sort of false.

Take no crap. Be your own person. .

[–] willard86 12 years ago

I had a similar removed-from-scene feeling when she talked about the five million and received the two million. The OP is not a moron or an idiot or a bonehead for having feelings. I'd say those who name-called are the less intelligent on this thread for lashing out over someone having a feeling.

[–] larpine 12 years ago

I think the OP makes a very good point, for I thought the same.

Another element that took away for me was taxation. The plaintiffs would not have been taxed on their settlement, however the same would not be so for Ed and Erin.

That said, a two million check would have been taxed as a bonus, so about half would have been withheld and gone to the government.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] larpine 12 years ago

Agreed! I've haven't gone to a cinema to watch a film in over a decade, however and to add to that, they figured out how to reach into the pockets of people like myself, for I'm constantly fighting and order termination of service to keep my cable bill remotely inline to where it needs to be.

Consider, Comcast now owns NBC Universal and CBS owns Showtime and of course, HBO is owned by Time Warner. While subscribing to the premium channels is still relatively cheap, (less than half the cost of a single movie ticket). The money is made by requiring subscribers to spend around a hundred dollars a month for the extended basic cable, which consist of hundreds of channel of pure crap, before we can order the premium channels.

That said, I don't watch, never have and probably never will watch Dexter, however, I take offensive with Michael C. Hall's holding out for a $1,000.000 per episode paycheck, for now like everyone who subscribes to cable, I'm paying for it monthly and probably will for years to come.

[–] ModarNow 11 years ago

It sounds to me that it's your problem that you don't have the ability to enjoy the performance itself regardless of the personal reality of the actress ! . it's a huge dilemma !

The way you think about this thing actually could ruin the concept of cinema . Not artistic at all !

The mission of the actor is to convince you with his performance inside the film , he's not responsible of your mixing his real personality with it !

[–] larpine 11 years ago

The way I think about this thing actually could ruin the concept of cinema??

And if that, according to you, is the mission of the actor, well I'd say she, not he, failed.

[–] CromeRose 11 years ago

I totally understand the point you're making but have to say it never occurred to me with this movie. I did think of it when her character says in Notting Hill that she earned $15 million for her last picture. I thought ha! And Julia earned the same for Notting Hill. But I never was bothered by the amounts in Erin Brockovich. For me, I have a harder time believing certain actors in certain movies because I cannot separate their celebrity from the role - oddly, I never had a problem with Tom Hanks in Castaway but couldn't believe him as the non-English speaking guy in The Terminal. Weird huh? I just can't enjoy that movie because I keep thinking come on! It's Tom Hanks - he can speak English! Tom Cruise is another one - lately I just see him as Tom Cruise - but in A Few Good Men I really believe him.