I get he probably got paid lower than the other actors, but 250k in 2003 is like 450k today. More than a large majority of the workforce makes in a decade.

He is talking like he was in poverty. Probably was just living beyond his means.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 36 minutes ago* (last edited 35 minutes ago)

four years of filming. He probably made about the same as a corporate director but less than a corporate vp.

While it's more than a greeter at Walmart, it's not megabucks.

Pay in the industry has dramatically decreased too. If you're very successful as an actor you'll get 3 gigs a year, probably averaging around 10 grand a role. And that's VERY successful.

Sean here is in the star category and probably made 10x that.

That's still not beating the average corporate salary.

Acting is hard, often 12 hour days 6 days a week with an hour off in 10 min chunks across the whole day is considered a light and easy schedule and most jobs pay 4 figures.

Long gone are the days you could do a commercial and it'd keep you afloat for 6 months.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 29 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The 250k number is what he made for all of the films combined. Years of filming. For films that grossed almost 3 billion box office alone.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 hour ago

14 months, not several years. They did it in one stint to avoid having to work around a bunch of scheduling conflicts with such a large cast. And a few short follow-up shoots later I believe.