I am beginning to learn that that’s a myth for most actors. Even if you’re lucky enough to get $200k for a two month shoot, after taxes, Agent and Management fees, and loads more besides, it ends up at maybe $60k. And that may be the only acting role you get for six months or a year. Plus I hear Los Angeles has a high standard of living so that doesn’t go as far. Presumably so does New York.
Knowing what I know about the industry after all these years, the answer is a big fat no. Except for Steve Martin, who’s done more harm than good to the comedy world by accepting so many crap movies.
Most actors, either they couldn’t get out of contract, or they needed the money, or they really believed in the project.
There are so many things that can make a movie bad that have nothing to do with the actors.
Legends got to eat too.
I’m pretty sure they usually realise, but what can they do? They’re all invested in it by that point and at least if they see it through they should get a bit of return on it. Read Richard E Grant’s book With Nails. It has a section on the making of Hudson Hawk. They all knew it was a slow-motion car crash, which actually seemed to increase the camaraderie between the actors.
BTW what exactly is the Caine quote? It’s been referenced several times but not quoted, though I’m sure I must have heard it.
Re Jaws: The Revenge.
‘I have not seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific.’
One of two good things to come out of that movie. The other being the late Richard Jeni’s standup routine about watching it.
For what it’s worth, TV Tropes lists that one alongside a good-sized collection of similar quotes.
James Spader: “Acting, for me, is a passion, but it’s also a job, and I’ve always approached it as such. I have a certain manual-labourist view of acting. There’s no shame in taking a film because you need some fucking money.”
Chloe Sevigny: “I did that job. For money. I was paying my mom’s mortgage. I’ve still never seen that movie.”
Steve Buscemi: “I wanted a bigger house.”
Michael Madsen: “I’ve made some crap but you’ve got to pay the bills.”
Laurence Olivier: “People ask me why I’m playing in this picture. The answer is simple: Money, dear boy.”
Donald Pleasence: “I think I did that solely for the money. I have six daughters, and they can be quite expensive, so one has to keep working and be able to pay the bills.”
It goes on to spell out that Michael Shanks did a movie “solely to obtain a new US work visa”; that Lance Henriksen “has admitted to taking some less-than-stellar roles for the money because he owed alimony to his ex-wife”; that Sean Astin “talks at length about reconciling the conflict between the desire as an actor to do serious, important work, and the need to pay the bills by doing things like Encino Man”; and that Christopher Eccleston “has no illusions about the artistic merit of any of the Hollywood movies he’s been in, and that he only does these jobs to be able to afford concentrating on the infrequent and not-too-generously-paid TV and theatre roles he really cares about.”
Ron Perlman? Sigourney Weaver? John Cusack? Helen Mirren? David Cross? Sandra Bullock? Anthony Hopkins? Just keep reading; they’re all there.
Let’s face it: has every project you’ve been involved in at work been of tip-top quality? 
That’s very true. I’m sure every actor would want to have critically acclaimed, award-winning movies on their resume. But great movies can be terrible to work on, and terrible movies can be a lot of fun.
I’m reading the book Vic Armstrong wrote. He’s not an actor, but he’s a famous stuntman who’s worked on tons of movies, most famously the Indiana Jones movies. He talks about many movies that were a lot of fun to work on, with the great camaraderie with the cast and crew, and the fun and beautiful shooting locations, with great food and the great parties they had. And some of those he’ll mention that the movie turned out to be terrible. Then some of the movies that turned out to be good were not fun when making them, because they were filming out in the middle of nowhere, or half the crew was getting sick, or there were stressful fights between the director and producers or other people, or various other reasons that make the movie a slog to get through.
Also, so much of Hollywood is networking. So maybe a formerly high profile actor might be embarrassed to work on some low budget cheesy sci-fi movie. But he could meet producers or other people on set who are impressed by his talent and work ethic. Those people might help him get an audition or part in another movie or TV show. Maybe in something better, or maybe something equally cheesy, but almost any actor would prefer to making money, even if it’s for ridiculous movies.
To the question of whether actors know they’re making a terrible movie, the answer is… sometimes they do know it. Sometimes they have absolutely no idea how it’s going to turn out. And sometimes when they THINK they know, they’re wrong.
My brother has worked on a lot of movie sets. One of the movies he worked on was Martin Scorsese’s Bringing Out the Dead. Now, according to my brother, EVERYTHING on that set went off without a hitch. They had what seemed like a great script, based on an acclaimed novel. Scorsese and his actors were skilled professionals who got all their scenes done perfectly in one or two takes. It was, my brother said, a joy to watch such talented people doing their jobs so well.
And yet, the movie was an utter turd!
My brother has also told me hilarious stories about egotistical, incompetent directors (John Singleton, for instance) who got into screaming matches with their stars, of sets where nothing seemed to be going right… and yet, sometimes the end result was a very entertaining movie.
Look, if you’re starring in a Sci Fi network monster movie, you KNOW it’s probably going to be worthless junk. But it’s not always obvious to an actor, even while filming is gong on, whether the end product is going to be any good.
The first movie I thought of when I saw this thread was the recent travesty “The Oogieloves,” which somehow managed to get Cloris Leachman, Chazz Palminteri, Toni Braxton, Christopher Lloyd, and Cary Elwes to debase themselves. I’m convinced they must have either been paid VERY well, or the producers have compromising photos of all of them stored somewhere safe.
I don’t have a cite handy for this, but Jason Lee (several Kevin Smith movies, My Name is Earl) was purportedly asked why keep doing the Chipmunk movies. He replied, “I made more money on those than everything else I’ve done put together.”
And, if my $200k for 2 months of filming got cut down to $60k, that’s still enough for me to live on for that year. Not a bad payoff.
Still, I feel bad when I see Gandhi playing a vampire in a D grade movie on the scifi channel.
See, it’s the second situation of your post that I was clearly talking about in my OP. Something that wouldn’t pay anywhere near the magnitude of $200K. Something where the entire production seems to have cost less than that. Something that didn’t include goddamn Sir Laurence Olivier.
Just wanted to bump this and recommend THAT GUY…WHO WAS IN THAT THING, now on Netflix’s instant-view: a dozen recognizable “working stiff” character actors who get tv work when they can, and land the occasional role in blockbuster movies (“we need the attorney who’s gonna lose the case … or we need the axe-murderer who’s gonna, y’know, kill the little girl”), talk about making a living in the industry; plenty of Emmy nominations between 'em, but the story’s always the same:
“What’s difficult is getting work.”
“There’s one thing worse than being typecast, and that’s not cast.”
“I’m a hack. I’m a prostitute. I can’t choose what my customers are.”
“Any time you’re out of work, you’re not sure how long that period will be.”
“I did ten televisions in one year, and then … I didn’t work for eighteen months.”
“We are working actors because we work. The job comes, and we pretty much take it.”
“And, uh, the show ends, and I go back to driving a cab, and I’m wondering what’s going to happen, and a month later the phone rings…”
“I read this script, and I thought, ‘no’. So you say, I’m not going to do it unless what I get out of it makes a big difference, maybe, to my private life. So it’ll be tuition for my daughter to go to NYU. It will, y’know, pay bills; I mean, let’s be practical.”
The bit that really sticks out is one guy explaining how he designed his lifestyle around lining up acting jobs that last for at least the minimum number of weeks to collect unemployment benefits in between.
Good actor totally out of work, I feel sorry for. Every show is a chance to inspire someone.
I don’t get actors who won’t do commercials [or tv] and whinge when they aren’t constantly getting movie offers, they only want artistic roles or some such crap. They are actors, acting is a job skill, it doesn’t matter if it is four an enema commercial or the next installment of The Hobbit, a bit part, or a lead.
If I was an actor, I would be out there getting all the commercials, walk on bit parts and anything I could shoehorn my fat ass into with a script. Wouldn’t matter, commercial, cartoon voice over, video game motion capture, tv show, mad for syfy movie or oscar winning movie epic.
Jewel Shepard is a good actress and a talented writer. She wrote a really good book about her struggles to find work as an actress called If I’m So Famous, How Come Nobody’s Ever Heard of Me?
I can’t imagine the pressure that someone like Robert Downey Jr. must be under to help make sure that the latest IronMan movie is a hit. (It’s not just the long hours involved in acting, but also the high tempo of post-production stuff to help market the film. That’s also got to be a lot of hours.)
So I imagine that when an actor is in a low budget movie, the pressure is much lower.
Is that correct? If it is, it might actually be a relief to be able to earn a few bucks to pay rent, and brush the dust of the movie off of your hands relatively quickly, and move on.
That depends on the type of low budget movie it is and where the actor is in terms of his or her career. Compared with a special-effects laden explosion-fest like Iron Man III, a relatively small-scale drama or comedy is going to be “low budget” even if the actors, screenwriter, and director involved are all A-List talent. In that situation, the pressure may be lower because the amount of money at stake is less.
However, if you’re a former A-List star who, due to any number of circumstances, is reduced to appearing is some cheap Iron Man knock-off (let’s call it “Bronze Boy”) so you’ll have enough money to pay your alimony, child support, monthly rent, food bills, and/or union dues and are fully aware that doing this movie may only lead to smaller parts in cheaper and crappier films and TV shows (or no roles at all), I would argue that the pressure you would feel would be considerably greater.
Who are these people? (Besides Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie, that is.) I’ve been in tons of casting directors offices with actors going for commercials, and no one felt oppressed. Not to mention that agents and managers make money no matter what the job is. An actor refusing work (unless it will hurt his/her career in some way) is going to get dropped.
Actors in general love commercials. If you get a movie, and are not a big star, you often wind up on location forever getting scale. Commercials film in a day or two, usually, and if it gets run a lot you get residuals upon residuals.
I understand that in most threads like this one people use actor as a synonym for star - but that is really far from the truth.
Not to mention that many actors just get the sides for their part, and have no idea of whether the movie is going to be a good one or a bad one.
This does not seem to be the consensus opinion among critics. (Haven’t seen it myself.)