comment #1

D.Z. says ...

I like Hanks, but he practically phoned his way through the Da Vinci Code. I'm not entirely clear if he was the reason it succeeded at the box office, either.

comment #2

Reedyb says ...

In the spirit of making the comment section on HE more like the talkbacks at AICN, I have one thing to say, "Tom Hanks gotta eat!"

comment #3

Jack South P.I. says ...

I believe the story but the reporting that Hanks will make as much as $50 is clearly off. I don't doubt he has been offered $35M; this is obviously a paycheck part for him and not a passion project. But the claim he will receive "a big piece of the back end too...as much as 25% of domestic ticket sales - another $15 million should the film do as well as 'Da Vinci'" is wrong on its face. Da Vinci made $217M domestic (according to the IMDb). 15% of that is roughly $54M, not a paltry $15M. If the percentage is correct (and I don't doubt it is), Hanks won't be making $50M but closer to something like $89M.

Though they may make him get a new haircut.

comment #4

thevisceral says ...

Wow. He'll be able to buy a ton of Propecia.

comment #5

jeffmcm says ...

How can a movie be profitable if they give $89m to one star? Ron Howard must be making an 8-figure salary as well, plus there's that little thing known as production costs...?

comment #6

nemo says ...

Wells is obviously joking about the IRA. But just to get all technical about the IRS rules, the contribution limit to an IRA is $4,000 a year, plus another $1,000 per year in catch-up if you're over 50 like Tom Hanks.

It would take $50 M / $5K per year = 10,000 years for Hanks to deposit $50 million bucks in his IRA. Of course, if his wife's over 50 and they deposit half of it in her IRA, he could do it all in a mere 5,000 years.

Even then he can't contribute past age 70.5 to a traditional IRA, and he's way over the AGI limit for contributing to a Roth IRA. Plus he would need to report earned income over $5K per year on a W-2 for all those 5,000 years as well -- you can't contribute investment income to an IRA. Hanks might want to quit working by the time he reaches age 2,000.

Maybe Congress will raise the IRA contribution limits in the next millenium or two. Somehow I think Tom Hanks doesn't worry much about IRAs and 401(k) plans.

comment #7

Joshua Mooney says ...

At a certain point, the sums of money just becomes nauseating and obscene.

comment #8

SHR says ...

Based on his track record since 1993 he deserves it.

comment #9

Dublin101 says ...

Tom Hanks is funding the Provo's? Ian Paisley is not going to be very happy with him.

Anyway, if I was offered that obscene amount of money I reckon I'd sell out. Hell I'd join the I.R.A. for that kind of dosh.

comment #10

Hopscotch says ...

Until this story splashes all over Hollywood Reporter and Variety, I'm going to hault final judgement.

but if it is all true...sigh. I like Hanks a lot, who doesn't (aside from Wells)? I can't wait for Charlie Wilson's War. but there are so many other things this guy could do a sequel to a terrible movie is not one of them.

comment #11

Josh Massey says ...

"At a certain point, the sums of money just becomes nauseating and obscene."

Why are they obscene? If the studio thinks his presence pulls in that kind of money for the studio, why shouldn't he earn that?

comment #12

Noah says ...

I mean, Hanks is a good actor and all (I especially love his earlier work in his comedies like Splash and Bachelor Party, which is one of the more underrated Animal House rip-offs) but I think he's made enough money at this point. I mean, the dude's gotta be worth several hundred million already. Unless he's going to donate his fifty million bucks to charity, this is a sellout move all the way. He should be basking in his fortune and making films that matter since he now has the luxury of doing so. But the rich always want to get richer.

comment #13

Hopscotch says ...

To his credit, Hanks is a very affable fellow and bit more pragmatic than say another famous actor named Tom. The fact that we, including I, are disappointed in taking on this role is only more proof of his popularity.

"Someone wants to pay me $35Mill for 8 months of work and research and a media tour?"

and when we hear the figures Harrison Ford will get for Indy IV. TRUST ME, no one will give a rats ass about Hanks.

but still, I wish he'd do something more interesting.

comment #14

Hallick says ...

"Da Vinci made $217M domestic (according to the IMDb). 15% of that is roughly $54M, not a paltry $15M."

15% of $217M is roughly 32-33 million. Your number is closer to 30%.

comment #15

adaml says ...

"and when we hear the figures Harrison Ford will get for Indy IV. TRUST ME, no one will give a rats ass about Hanks."

I find that hard to believe. I'll be amazed if Ford earns more than Hank.

Think of it like this. The studio had to beg Hanks to star in this. Ford has been desperate for Indy IV to get the go-ahead for years. He needs a hit. The studio don't need to pay obscene amounts of money to get him on board - he's been on board before a script was written.

comment #16

Hal says ...

"Though they may make him get a new haircut."

From your typing fingers to God's ear.

comment #17

Jack South P.I. says ...

Jack South to Hallick:

My bad. If you look at the quote I pulled, the percentage was 25%, not 15% as I wrote. My calculation of $54M was based on that.