Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

Demands For 'Sex' - That Figures

November 21st 2007 17:24
It seems everyone’s been making demands on the set of Sex and the City: The Movie. We all know Kim Cattrall’s caper – she’s been very open about why she initially refused to be part of the production, and why she changed her mind several years on. She wanted more: more perks, and definitely more dosh. “It’s nice to step into Samantha’s skin again, but I’m only doing the film for the money,” the 51-year-old actress said.

Kim Cattrall
Kim Catttrall needed the money - Image courtesy of eonline.com


And now we know just how much money it took – a reported $6 million. Presumably, that’s how much it takes to make her work with Sarah Jessica Parker again. While the pair tried to keep their animosity under wraps during the series, they are making no secret of it now, with Cattrall walking out of a SATC celebration at Butter, and rumours of spats on set.

While Cattrall’s Sex payout is $4 million less than Parker will earn for reprising the central role of Carrie Bradshaw – that’s $10 million for Parker, plus another $5 million for her position as a producer – it is also $4 million more than the other two principle cast members will receive. Kristin Davis and Cynthia Nixon, who play Charlotte and Miranda respectively, will get a measly $2 million for their work on the film. Considering the comparable importance of the roles that Cattrall, Davis and Nixon each play, it seems that figure isn’t quite enough.


Sex and the City
Are some of the SATC stars getting a raw deal? Image courtesy of britfilms.tv

With the men of SATC, however, it appears that the figures are a little too much. Sex and the City producers are making some demands of their own, telling several of the male cast members to lose weight. David Eigenberg, who plays Miranda’s husband Steve Brady, has admitted he was one of those told to shape up.

Michaelie Clark

Link – Cattrall’s Money Demands

Link – SATC Wages

Link – Male Stars to Shape Up
114
Vote
Add To: del.icio.us Digg Furl Spurl.net StumbleUpon Yahoo


   
Subscribe to this blog 


Just this blog This blog and DailyOrble (recommended)

   

   

   


Comments
16 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by katyzzz

November 21st 2007 20:31
I need the money, look good in black, someone will 'make me up', any chance of a role?

Comment by Michaelie

November 21st 2007 20:59
Hmmm, you should probably know that Kim Cattrall (as Samantha) also does comic and not-so-comic sex scenes, swears a lot, and does full frontal nudity...

Still interested in that $6 million? Lol.



Michaelie

Comment by JoH

November 21st 2007 21:51
I'm still interested Michaelie - whats a bit of full frontal nudity between friends? Yup for $6 million I would definitely take my kit off......then I would spend some of that money getting a total body re-construction so no one could recognise me!

Comment by Michaelie

November 22nd 2007 02:28
Yep, Jo, I hear you. But that's when you start to ask yourself... what about $3 mil? $1 mil? A hundred grand? Fifty bucks? I once ate 25 Freddo Frogs in one go for $5, so I'd probably cave at a handful of shrapnel.

Lol.

But then, she's in her fifties. In the ageist world of Hollywood I'm sure a yummy mummy like you could wrangle more than a few million to parade about in your birthday suit!

Michaelie

Comment by Techno

November 22nd 2007 07:29
Geez, all this nudity and sex talk sounds pretty good to me.

Demands SEX, sounds cool. It's the hormones, ya know, mine, don't care about theirs.

Comment by Ahmed

November 22nd 2007 13:00
They should have got other people to do the same parts, tat 50 year old woman looks like a doll.

...maybe animatronics would have sufficed?

Comment by Simon Marks

November 22nd 2007 15:41
Regardless of whether Samantha reveals her private parts - which I'm sure we've all seen before - or not, there is not a chance in hell she's worth $6M. Nonetheless, you have got to take your hat off to her. For a woman in her fifties she is frankly sublime.

I saw her in an interview with Jonathon Ross last year. She is just as sexually promiscuous in reality as she is on the set of Sex and the City.

Comment by Simon Marks

November 22nd 2007 16:01
Well...I guess if she delivers a full-frontal in the up-coming episode, then I imagine there won't be much left to the imagination!


Comment by Ahmed

November 22nd 2007 16:04
I can't imagine it being much different to a barbie doll. She sure shares her complexion with the figurine.

Comment by Michaelie

November 22nd 2007 19:02
Haha Techno. You'll have to stick around then.



Michaelie

Comment by Michaelie

November 22nd 2007 19:08
Ahmed,

That may not be the best pic of her - she's actually still quite beautiful and natural-looking considering she's a 51-year-old Hollywood actress.

She is the one to go topless most often in the series, and she did fullfrontal nudity too, wearing a red merkin... Hilarious episode.

Michaelie

Comment by Michaelie

November 22nd 2007 19:16
Simon,

She held out and she ended up with the big bucks! I don't think she should get $6 million either. Although all four of them are perfectly suited to their characters and do really well under the direction of Michael Patrick King and co, she would have to be the worst actress of them generally.

That said, I think it's less fair that the other two only got $2 million for the movie. Those three should have all been paid the same, maybe $3-4 million.

Maybe they are also paying her more because she's more open to nudity? SJP has a very strict no-nudity clause in her contract, and has never gone topless. The other two have, but Kristen Davis refused to be filmed topless straight-on since Season Five.

Thanks!

Michaelie

Comment by JoH

November 27th 2007 10:51
Michaelie - you make me *blush*! If you could only see what childbirth has done to my body!

Comment by Hazel Castillo

November 28th 2007 23:12
6M?? I agree she's probably the worst of all the actors in the series. I Like "Miranda" and "Charlotte" much more. 2M is pretty far from 6M... I would've just cut her from the film if i were the producer and tell everyone the real reason...

I'm sure fans of the series would've agreed (maybe not the guys since they get most of what they "want" from Samantha's character.

Comment by Michaelie

November 29th 2007 00:49
Haha Hazel, you've probably got a point there - maybe that's why the producers were willing to shell out for Sam... she brings in the blokes!

I like the characters of Miranda and Charlotte more too, though Samantha has her moments. Cynthia Nixon is definitely the better actress.

Great to see you Hazel!

Michaelie

Add A Comment

To create a fully formatted comment please click here.


CLICK HERE TO LOGIN | CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Name or Orble Tag
Home Page (optional)
Comments
Bold Italic Underline Strikethrough Separator Left Center Right Separator Quote Insert Link Insert Email
Notify me of replies
Notify extra people about this comment
Is this a private comment?
List the Email Addresses or Orble Tags of the people you would like to be notified about this comment


One per line max of 30

List the Email Addresses or Orble Tags of the people you would like to be notified about this private comment thread. Only the people in this list will be able to see or reply to your comment.


One per line max of 30

Your Name
(for the email going out to the above list, it can be different to your Orble Tag)
Your Email Address
(optional)
(required for reply notification)
Submit
More Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
107 Posts dating from August 2007
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
0
Moderated by Michaelie
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]