ROTTEN TOMATOES: Is Tom Hanks the $50 Million Man?

Is Tom Hanks the $50 Million Man?

by Scott Weinberg | April 27, 2007

"Angels and Demons," the follow-up to the amazingly profitable "The Da Vinci Code," is shaping up to be one seriously expensive project -- thanks in large part to the (alleged) $50 million that Tom Hanks might be bringing home on the gig.

According to one source, the former "Bosom Buddies" star is due to get about $35 million up front, and possibly another $15 million based on the film's eventual profit. That same source indicates that model Gisele Bundchen wants about $13 million for her participation in the film, which is kinda ridiculous if you ask me when you consider her only other movie was "Taxi." (Oh, she also had a few scenes in the model-centric "The Devil Wears Prada." What range.)

Between the leads, the director and the expensive screenwriter, "Angels and Demons" is shaping up to be one pricey production.

Source: Dark Horizons

Related Items

Celeb:	Tom Hanks
	Gisele Bundchen
Movie:	The Devil Wears Prada
	The Da Vinci Code

(1-20 of 21 posts) | Reply

E Dee it writes:
on Apr 27 2007 11:04 AM

How much for Forrest Gump Two??

(Reply to this)

fatmc writes:
on Apr 27 2007 11:47 AM

[b]ridiculous[/b]

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Apr 27 2007 12:09 PM

Wow, that's a lot of money. $50million? haha, couldn't you just sign someone else? It's not like Tom Hanks MAKES the movie. Sure, he's a big part, but whatever. If I were the studio, I'd bet $50million that most of the audience doesn't even associate him with Angels & Demons and wouldn't even know it was the same character.

(Reply to this)

SplendidIsolation writes:
on Apr 27 2007 12:43 PM

$50 million does not buy you a good acting. Sure, it will buy you a big name to stick on your poster but otherwise Tom Hanks` acting in Da Vinci Code was barely above average. I suppose if he wanted to he could phone this one in also, thanks to that nice fat cheque and because he`s frickin` Tom Hanks.

(Reply to this)

eastern2western writes:
on Apr 27 2007 02:04 PM

that would leave 2 dollars and twenty cents for production and computer effects

(Reply to this)

dalonoman writes:
on Apr 27 2007 02:14 PM

Hey listen, obviously this movie is going to turn a major profit due to how well The Da Vinci Code did in the box office. Where would you people rather have the money go to? Some big fat corporate exec? Or the talent? Answer seems obvious to me.

(Reply to this)

alsanali writes:
on Apr 27 2007 02:38 PM

In reply to this comment (#863047)
Yeah, ummm, Hanks is cool and all but what's he going to do with another $50 mil? I mean at this point letting the studio execs have it would be like giving it to the poor.

(Reply to this)

dc00777 writes:
on Apr 27 2007 06:55 PM

This is sickening. No actor is worth 50 million dollars for one film. And Gisele has to be joking. Any exec who even considers paying her 13 million dollars should be fired.

(Reply to this)

gratefuldawg writes:
on Apr 27 2007 07:36 PM

And the public thought John Edwards haircut was expensive !

(Reply to this)

bmg615 writes:
on Apr 27 2007 07:40 PM

[b]60% off sale![/b]
Wanna save $30 million? Hire George Clooney (like you should have done in the first place!) -- he'll do it for only $20 million!! Bargain basement prices here!

(Reply to this)

jacketman writes:
on Apr 27 2007 07:46 PM

Hey. If I were Hanks I wouldn't have a problem with this. If anyone deserves huge paydays it would be Hanks. He has had critical, fan and financial success in his films like no other.
STOP WITH THE HAIRCUT THING!!!!!!! He wasn't bad in Davinci. The movie was just VERY average. And his performance had nothing to do with growing waste on his head.

(Reply to this)

mojodaddy writes:
on Apr 27 2007 07:47 PM

I make that in a week.

(Reply to this)

FireflyFan4evr writes:
on Apr 27 2007 11:03 PM

I have one big question, how are they gonna film a movie about the Vatican in the Vatican? The Vatican has already explicitly said they will not allow it to be filmed there. Are they gonna pull a Phantom Menace and build half sets and CGI the rest?

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Apr 28 2007 10:59 AM

In reply to this comment (#863054)
Actually I don't think that will be a problem. Half the places they filmed the Da Vinci Code in weren't the places they claimed. Temple Church was actually Lincoln Cathedral. Europe is full of places the Pope has no control over that with little work could be made to have that Vaticanesque feel. God Bless Anglicans, somewhere Henry the VIII is laughing his ass off.

(Reply to this)

renodc writes:
on Apr 28 2007 11:40 AM

And people wonder why ticket prices go up every 6 months.

(Reply to this)

ralfmelville writes:
on Apr 28 2007 02:23 PM

Tom Hanks deserves $50 million for any movie roll. He's made more money in pictures he's done in the past. I'm more disgusted in Gisele Bundchen. I'm one of the five people on the planet who saw "Taxi". The producers were better off getting a C-list reality star to play her role.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Apr 28 2007 03:32 PM

In reply to this comment (#863057)
I could picture her in the role. But it doesn't change the fact that she's a horrible, horrible actress.

(Reply to this)

GreenBastard writes:
on Apr 28 2007 10:55 PM

Sounds fair! let every other extra work for peanuts and give him $50,000,000 for growing a mullet! NO actor should be paid more than $5,000,000, it's discusting!
Comon there are plenty of other talented people out there. Hire an unknown.
It was fucking boring anyway!

(Reply to this)

LimpytheTurtle writes:
on Apr 29 2007 01:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#863050)
haha! Zing!

(Reply to this)

killermonkey8822 writes:
on Apr 29 2007 08:49 PM

In reply to this comment (#863050)
ha ha good one

(Reply to this)