Are you for equal pay for actresses? - Page 6

Originally posted by: flipfl0p

Deepika, Katrina might not have the same star power as Khans. Nevertheless, their stardom also contributes to movies. (Or else, Khans could have taken a newbie everytime).

Salman Khans TZH with Katrina made 40 crores more than Dabang2 with Sonakshi, both films couple of months apart.

Originally posted by: himmo100

Short answer: since we can use the word BS. Above paragraphs are the biggest piece of BULL S in this topic. Try to right your replies in short format and more than that try to inject little bit of logic, common sense.

Long answer: See in red above lol

Originally posted by: himmo100

I request you to read my post again. It is not about what happened in the end

It is about what could have happened

A Ranbir movie has chance of getting 300 crore

Deepika movie does not have chance of getting 300 crore.

so dont mix things...all my merit related factors are before movie ...u cannot pick the result and say well see it flopped

point is he could have gotten ...u play gamble on a horse..not a mule. lol

Originally posted by: himmo100

Is it bias? Is it tradition? Is it history?

Originally posted by: Ogreatone

Dabangg 2 and TZH didnt come months apart

Try 5 years apart 😆

I would say Deepika/Alia deserve higher pay than most men other than some. But thats really it.

I support stars getting paid high. AN right now Alia/Deepika are stars and maybe thats it

Originally posted by: BhataktiJawani

BW is male dominated industry that's why Male stars are paid more🤢 Ranbir after giving back to back flops was paid 25 cr for Sanju🤢 It's all about connections.

Only Khans are the one who deserve the amount they are getting because they actually are the last SuperStars BW ever had!!!

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

The answer is YES. Bias, tradition, and history all have some role to play in not just the gender gap, but gaps in race, language, sexual orientation, and gender identity as well.

It is OK for women to gush over celebrities. They are encouraged to do so. They don't have anything else important to do.

But men are discouraged from gushing over celebrities. They have a responsibility to earn and become breadwinners for their family.

It is OK for Salman Khan to take off his shirt and romance young women who could be his daughter. A woman who attempts to do the same will be s**t shamed and have her integrity questioned.

It is OK for a man to ignore everything and dedicate everything to perfecting his craft (sports, music, acting whatever). A woman who attempts to do the same will be deemed selfish and rejected.

There is a lot of historical bias, social structure, gender conditioning that prevents women from being as successful. In the realm of movies it will take time and effort and some thoughtful planning for women to generate the same amount of success. But I think there are a lot of baby steps and small changes to go before women deliver 300K films.

In film, things are changing for marginalized groups.

Wonder Woman showed that a woman can carry an entire action film on her shoulders.

Love Simon proved that a gay love story can become a teenage romcom hit.

Black Panther showed that an all-black cast can deliver a commercially successful film.

Crazy Rich Asians hit box office gold despite being only the second film in history to be all Asian

50% of that responsibility is in making compelling good movies that everyone loves. 50% of it is in having audiences shift their perceptions of what makes a compelling good movie.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

yeh shuru ho gayeein toh rukna mushkil hai..lol

Edited to avoid tower quoting. Link to complete quoted post here: https://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=5021920&PID=148297081&#p148297081

I believe that I gave some very logical and sensible explanations as to why "merit" is difficult to quantify and compensate fairly for in merit-based systems. You seem to have rejected my explanations as illogical without offering some counter arguments to support your claim.

To address your other concerns:

1)

I did not mean to single out one example. My intent was to show the arbitrary nature of defining merit. I think the other examples of merit also fail to hold water in similar ways. But tell me what is specifically is merit to you. Tell me how specifically do you think actors should be compensated based on merit. Once I know how specifically you define merit, I can address if I agree or disagree with it. If you cannot distill your thoughts into an implementable merit-based reward system then my point is proven.

Well it depends upon industry...In football it could be goals scored..match won...attendance

In movie industry I think merit is what producers think of you and are willing to give you ... I gave thoughts on what could they be thinking ...most likely your track record..initial attendance...not final BO report ..input from cinema owners.. when they see actors are driving the results they pay them more. ...compared to a movie like raazi which maybe have done good overall and thru word of mouth but initial collections were low...just giving an example...

It is not my job to come up with an exact definition though.

2)

I think you misunderstood what I mean by "be in control of merit." I thought I explained it well enough. But I will attempt again.

By "control" I don't mean "power to write definition". By "control" I mean it should be humanly feasible to display the "definition of merit"

A person can study hard to get A's. The ability to get an A is in a person's "control". If the only way to get an A was being the teacher's pet, then "merit" is not under the person's "control". They cannot work hard or focus on something or display some prowess to earn an A. It is based on a completely subjective arbitrary opinion of the teacher.

Merit-based reward systems need merit-goals people can work to achieve. They should not be arbitrary results that are completely reliant on factors a person cannot do anything about.

merit goal here is showing to producers you can get them a 40 crore weekend on a sh.. movie like tubelight lol. which can be shown

if deepika can do that on regular basis then sure she will get more than actors.

3)

You defined merits as market driven. But when I said market goals are different and with the changing landscape market revenue is non-existent you said please.

If Netflix is making a movie or show that will have zero box office revenue - how should they compensate the actors?

What is the compensation model for films that are not looking for 300 crores but just break even or make a modest profit?

i am not sure how netflix is making money on these shows..are they looking for views? rating? awards? it should be based on those things...if not then they can always offer equal pay. i was talking about traditional BO here..

4)

Yes. No one wants 'bheek.' Everyone wants to fairly earn their share. But when marginalized people point out that their fair share has been unfairly snatched away and are given to others and they want what is fairly earned - you folks say - stop begging.

i did not say they should stop begging.. i said they dont want begging ..it is not a long term solution..no one likes extra favors..all the want is merit

even then i said for time being u can apply things like affirmative action.

5)

Sorry it was drilled in me to "show my work"

It might seem like I've written too much. But it's better to err on the side of caution and build the case rather than assume everyone will get it.

In my experience, people who want to have a serious discussion on the subject don't mind a well founded argument. Of course Bollywood forum is for fun and not a place for serious discussion. I'm an anomaly and I get that people will find me droll, annoying, and too Sirius.

Originally posted by: Justmoi

Now @Bold there, that is quite a steaming pile of BS. No two ways about it. We are talking pay here, in a professional environment not a gambling environment. Even the mighty Khans and Thalaiva have had to pay back distributors when their movies failed. No one is in a charity business here.

Ranbir was in the middle of a flop phase. It was after Roy and around BV one of the biggest bombs. It is beyond laughable Ranbir had the potential to earn 300 crores when ADHM and it's 100 crores was seen as a godsend/career saver after Tamasha bombed. Yet he was paid 35 crores (source is according to many websites, I cannot corroborate how much he was paid).

So the assumption which in IMO is an ASSumption is that a male star who is in the middle of a flop phase can get 300 crores and not a female star who was in the middle of a proven BO phase because why ? She is inferior ? Ranbir's male part gives him potential superior earning power ? BS. BS. BS. BS. Sorry no two ways about it. Sexism to boot. It is this attitude I have a problem with. Let him get money after BO. But saying a man will get x amount of BO and paying money upfront is BS. i cannot come with a better way t say nor will I. If he gets it, get the money else give back the money.