Kirsten Dunst said the pay gap between her and Tobey Maguire in 'Spider-Man' was 'extreme'

This ungrateful cunt should be even glad she landed such an iconic role. Most people nowadays know her because of her role as Mary Jane.

The pay gap between myself and Tobey was even more extreme, and I was also in that movie--I played Frightened Times Square Bystander #4!

EQUITY FOR ME!!

Love her or hate her, you can't deny that Mary Jane is a major part of the story. Without her Peter Parker wouldn't really have a personal life.

[quote] Love her or hate her, you can't deny that Mary Jane is a major part of the story. Without her Peter Parker wouldn't really have a personal life.

***ahem***

What were the Clovers paid in Bring It On?

Well, TBH, Maguire wasn't really the household name that opens the movie at the time. People watched it not for him and she maybe right to say that there wasn't really a reason to have a massive pay gap in that case.

Ummmm HE IS THE TITLE CHARACTER

How hard do you think it was to cast the role of “girlfriend?”

Aunt May deserved more pay than Kirsten.

Am I missing something or was the person getting paid "much more" playing the titular role?

Equal work for Equal pay

How about all the work he put into working out and all the many more days filming and stunts he did?

R10, not necessarily. While the title character would usually get paid more, there are plenty of example when the pay been less desperate. Particularly when we are talking about Maguire and Dunst at that time. It is less about the title character but more about how good your agent is and what's in it for the studio.

I would still pay more Maguire but it would not be a massive pay difference, at least not for the first film, which was a bit of gamble for the studio.

He had to kiss her while hanging upside down and looking up her nose. He deserved the higher pay

[quote] Well, TBH, Maguire wasn't really the household name that opens the movie at the time. People watched it not for him and she maybe right to say that there wasn't really a reason to have a massive pay gap in that case.

Neither was she. And the movie rested squarely on HIS shoulders.

I love her, but like others have said, she wasn’t the title character, and really, any young actress could have played that part.

Any actress could have played Dunst's part and wouldn't have been wasted out of her fucking mind and messing up, delaying and constantly causing problems on the Spiderman set. There was a reason she was dropped from the films.

Cant compare the salary of a supporting role to a leading role

Even more unfair was that I was paid far less than Brad Pitt AND Tom Cruise when I was in "Interview with the Vampire," and far less than Patrick Stewart when I appeared on "Star Trek: The Next Generation"!

He sucks as an actor and brought nothing to the role. She deserved her $$$, he didn't

R16, any actor can play Spider-Man (even ones as boring as Tobey and Tom Holland) because the sheeple will watch any comic book movie

Her paycheck would have gone farther if she hadn't drank so much of it away.

Tone down the hysteria. She said "extreme". We can assume she knows how big the pay difference between the star and the co-star usually is, and was saying this was greater.

[quote]I love her, but like others have said, she wasn’t the title character, and really, any young actress could have played that part.

"Any" young actress didn't play that part. She did.

I know how Datalounge gets sometimes when it comes to anything involving "women" (and it's increasingly getting worse) but people really sound biased when they pretend Kirsten Dunst wasn't already a name by the time she got Spider-Man.

She was the "it" girl/teen dream actress of the moment with Dick, Drop Dead Gorgeous, The Virgin Suicides, Crazy/Beautiful and of course Bring it On.

She'd already been the lead in movies.

She has been acting damn near her entire life.

If at this point she's saying the pay gap was "extreme" between herself and Maguire, then she's worked with enough people to know the meaning of the term "extreme."

She's not saying she should have gotten the same as him, she is saying whatever she was she got, it was ridiculous in comparison for who she was at the time.

Bullshit. She could've had his salary verified before she signed her contract. And where was her manager? At the car wash?

She's such a victim!

Well maybe she wasn't doing silly stuff like dressing up like Sailor Moon and dancing in the street singing '80s songs she would get paid a lot more

I wouldn't say that being the title hero is an argument that should end the discussion. Different characters carry different worth. And there is a tiered system to define that worth. Spider-Man is the most important character (obvs). The movie also needed a villain or villains. They went with Green Goblin and son. And they also needed an Uncle Ben, Aunt May, and Mary Jane, who are significant characters to the Spider-Man story, especially an origins story. Like it was said, MJ gives Peter Parker an interior life. Dunst also had a significant amount of screen-time. Now set THAT aside.

Different actors also carry different worth. At the time, Maguire was hoping to breakout with this franchise. He was completely untested as commercially viable (and the evidence thus far didn't show he could deliver much of anything). The movie was going to do way more for him than vice-verse. His most "prominent" roles at the time were in Pleasantville and Cider House Rules. Pleasantville was a clever film that was most known for its cinematography and concept which time-travelled its modern day characters to a traditional past decades before them. It was also a commercial flop. It's admired, but the fans point out the technological aspects and story as the main selling points. He's just, you know, along for the ride. Cider House Rules was a seasonal Oscar-Bait pushed to some awards success by Miramax. It was a hit, but Michael Caine most of the acclaim and it's probably more remembered for being about abortion than Maguire's performance.

R24 already kind of covered it, but at the time, Dunst was looking to also raise her profile. However, as an actress, commercially, she brought a lot more to the table than Maguire. Eight years before, critics made special mention of her child-star performance in Interview with the Vampire (Boston Film Critics Society gave her the supporting actress win that year, along with her performance in Little Women; she also got a Golden Globe nomination). She was also part of a well-received, highly rated storyline between her and George Clooney on ER. She had several high-school films that built cult followings like The Virgin Suicides, Drop Dead Gorgeous, and Bring It On (which was a big hit and she was the headlining star). She also got strong critical ink for her performance in Crazy/Beautiful (and it made its money back).

I don't think anyone (or her) believes she should have been paid the same or more than Maguire. She is just sharing that the gap shouldn't have been as extreme. And when you look at their resumes, I imagine there's some truth there. I'm not sure why it triggers OP and others. Calm yo' tits.

Dunst and Maguire have agents who negotiate their salaries. Obviously, Maguire has the more competent agent.

She was free to turn the role down for a less whiny fellow nobody!

I see Cinesnatch has yet again appointed himself hall monitor.

[quote]Dunst and Maguire have agents who negotiate their salaries. Obviously, Maguire has the more competent agent.

That can exist alongside Dunst's observation about the extreme pay gap. To say that it's all about agent "competency" and completely ignoring the disadvantages female actors faced seems unfair.

Look at Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves, for example. Speed (1994) was a huge hit and both of them did very well after. Let's look at the immediate years before they got pay-checks for what would become their next biggest hit. They both had hits and misses during that period. But, Sandra had more hits, they were bigger, and they more often rode on her shoulders. Her most profitable films: While You Were Sleeping (1995), The Net (1995), A Time to Kill (1996), and Hope Floats (1998). The respective domestic grosses were: $81, $51M, $109M, $60M. John Grisham gets the lion's share of credit for Kill's success (he was huge back then), but, to note, Bullock was the biggest star of the movie and was promoted as such (despite not being "the lead").

Now look at Reeves. He had two hits: A Walk in the Clouds (1995), and Devil's Advocate (1997). We can give him all the credit for Clouds, which grossed a domestic $50M (comparable to The Net). Devil's Advocate made $61M domestic (comparable to Hope Floats), and Reeves doesn't get all the credit there, as the movie was also sold on Al Pacino in addition to his performance as "the Devil." ​

Now, let's look at the end of that century. After the aforementioned films and some other less successful ones, Reeves signed onto The Matrix with a backend deal that ended up being quite lucrative. He hadn't proven to carry very many films by himself, and he had already flopped in the science-fiction genre (Johnny Mnemonic). But, what did he get upfront? $10M. Okay. Surely Bullock is worth way more than that, no?

Bullock signed onto to rom-com Miss Congeniality. She had more hits than Reeves, with much higher grosses, as well as a more valuable-name brand in a genre she had already proven to be viable in (While You Were Sleeping). What did she get paid? $13M. She got more than Reeves, but not really much more, even though there is black & white evidence that she carried a much greater disparity of value to Reeves.

So, agents matter, R24. But you're over-simplying things to ignore the degree of sexism that influenced these negotiations during this time. It played a role ... in salaries, in films that got green-lighted, in how people were treated behind-the-scenes.

Am I "whining" about it? No. I'm just acknowledging how things were. Times have changed some (I think). But, then, metrics of an actor's value is much more difficult to measure these days as we transition to streaming (the raw data of which is left up to the studios and largely kept private) and away from box-office/Nielsen ratings.

[quote]She was free to turn the role down for a less whiny fellow nobody!

Wow, what contribution, what discourse. Thank you for such insight.

Wow the audacity on this bitch. She’s lucky to be in Hollywood at all; complaining about not being paid as much as an A-list leading man is a poor choice.

[quote] He had to kiss her while hanging upside down and looking up her nose.

To be fair, you don’t really need to be upside down to look up her nose. Anyone can do it without so much as a tilt of the head.

[quote] "The pay disparity between me and Spider-Man was very extreme," Dunst told the outlet. "I didn't even think about it. I was just like, 'Oh yeah, Tobey [Maguire] is playing Spider-Man.'"

[quote] "But you know who was on the cover of the second Spider-Man poster?" she continued. "Spider-Man and ME."

Anyone who defends her should be drawn & quartered.

R6, I disagree, at that time, Tobey Maguire had been in The Ice Storm, Pleasantville, Cider House Rules, Wonder Boys. I’d say he was just as high profile, if not more, than Kirsten Dunst at the time.

Could it also be a supply and demand issue as well? Aren’t there more actresses than actors in Hollywood? Surely there was another actress besides Kirsten Dunst who could have done the role for the same salary or less.

R28 R32 Get a blog, girl.

Poor dear. I don't even remember her being in the film.

[quote]Dunst and Maguire have agents who negotiate their salaries. Obviously, Maguire has the more competent agent.

[quote]To say that it's all about agent "competency" and completely ignoring the disadvantages female actors faced seems unfair.

R32 Unfair? This is about business. The bottom line. Who will insure the asses in the seats. And of course egos. Monumental egos. No doubt Dunst let loose with a few "my films have grossed far more than Macguire's" as incentive to higher pay and a greater slice of the film pie.

But it has nothing to do with sexism. If Maguire were in a film with Kidman or Jolie, he'd make about 50% of what they do. That sexism? Or keeping an eye on the bottom line. And the difference is Maguire wouldn't be whining about "sexism". He'd take the money and say thank you very much.

The bottom line in all this is that Dunst is just another actress who knows that she's close to her cinematic use-by date and wants to keep herself "out there". As it were.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

My post was removed when I submitted that link.

Anyway, also along with mentioning the extreme pay discrepancy, Dunst recalled her experience with a controlling boyfriend to inform her performance in The Power of the Dog.

[quote]The bottom line in all this is that Dunst is just another actress who knows that she's close to her cinematic use-by date and wants to keep herself "out there". As it were.

R40, as it were, she is promoting her latest film. GoldDerby has her at #1 right now in the supporting actress race. But, thanks for not comprehending either of my posts.

Stop the women bashing!

[quote] If Maguire were in a film with Kidman or Jolie, he'd make about 50% of what they do. That sexism? Or keeping an eye on the bottom line. And the difference is Maguire wouldn't be whining about "sexism". He'd take the money and say thank you very much.

That's pretty generous of you to give him that much, considering he was never a box-office draw on his name alone, nor won any awards. His last lead turn was made on a budget of $19M. It grossed $2.4M. Bottom line?

The bottom line suggests he's worth much less than half of Kidman (who has won a bunch of awards and considered one of the best/most respected actresses of her generation) or Jolie (who could open movies on her name alone in her prime), today or pre-Spiderman, R40. Of course he would say "thank you very much." He'd be getting paid far more than he's worth.

Please bitch. The pay gap between her and the guy holding the boom was extreme.

The movie is called Spiderman, not Mary Jane. How much did she make in Marie Antoinette vis-a-vis the guy who played Louis XVI?

R9 Rosemary Harris (Aunt May) was indeed the best actor in that film

Be interesting to hear Topher Grace’s take on this. If one listens closely, his arch comments on things can often carry a grain or several of truth.

His performance as Eddie Brock was off-model, but underrated in retrospect. He had a lot of sexual tension with Maguire.

Dunst deserved all the $$$ for her sheer talent in manufacturing chemistry with Maguire. Peter Parker is not necessarily supposed to be a looker, but... It really was a feat when you compare the total absence of chemistry in the relationships presented in the Garfield and Holland versions. On top of that, Maguire is an absolute douchebag - so she deserved hazard pay.

If she didn't like the pay she should have turned the job down.

Kiki should get compo for having to appear in that howler SPIDER-MAN III.

Neither of them had charisma. That filmed was carried by the supporting cast.

Toby is out right homely

Whatever happened to Tobey? Does he still act or did his weirdness add to the dry up in roles. I thought weirdness in Hollywood is a natural trait.

Tobey is very wealthy and acts here and there when he wants to.

Ughh, she can't act and she's morphing into a too early-aging version of Barbara Billingsley in the '80s "Still The Beaver" reunion movie and TV series. Duh!

If the pay was so bad, she could have not taken the role. But it put her into a surefire BO hit and that was also worth something in future contract negotiations. She got lucky and now doesn't know how to keep her mouth shut.

Is R3 just one of those contrarian "I have to be right and being right means taking a stand that exaggerates any rational basis for it" twats.

It appears so.

Is it a psychological condition, faux-female-victimizing crap, or more of a social disorder?

I did like Dunst in the role, until she started to seem like she had her own issues getting in the way. Since the series even moved away from Maguire before he felt ready to relinquish it, perspective about one's value (or the value of one's opinions) always is useful to avoid shooting one's own foot.

Didn't Brando get paid more than Reeves who played the title character in Superman 1?

^ Yes. Jack Nicholson also got paid more than Michael Keaton (and got first-billing) in Batman. For obvious reasons, of course.

It twas her bitter beer face and personality.

R17 How do you know all that?

If you were an insider, tell us more!

R62, he's an idiot. If there was anyone with issues on the Spider-Man 3 set, it was Tobey Maguire.

After it opened Sam Raimi and Sony couldn't agree on how to go forward and at what pace, so he bounced. The studio cancelled anymore sequels, scrapped the cast, and reboot the entire franchise. Most everyone rejoiced (the third movie wasn't well received by critics or audiences).

The next film came out five years later with a new director, Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker, Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben, and Sally Field as Aunt May. They decided to swap MJ out for Gwen Stacy, who was played by Emma Stone. If they went with MJ, she would have been played by different actress.

Kirsten Dunce had a glorified cameo in Spiderman. Probably not even ten days work. Yes. She surely deserved top billing.

R62 it's not a secret that Kiki had substance abuse issues.

[quote] Wow the audacity on this bitch. She’s lucky to be in Hollywood at all; complaining about not being paid as much as an A-list leading man is a poor choice.

Every bitch in Hollywood is complaining about the same thing, hoping that making a case for sexual discrimination will make them rich even if they haven't done anything to deserve it. We live in the age of entitlement for entitlement's sake.

I like Kirsten Dunst. She looks medicated in OP’s picture.