‘FSOG’ producer won’t ‘cry’ about it if Jamie Dornan doesn’t get a raise


Here are some bad photos of Jamie Dornan with a bad haircut arriving at LAX on Tuesday. Ugh, are these just bad photos of him or is that haircut just THE WORST? Anyway, I’ve been sort of waiting for new pics of Jamie because there are some interesting developments about the Fifty Shades of Grey sequel and all of that stuff.

First, the DVD of FSOG is coming out on May 1. Which is a really, really fast turn-around. They’re hoping to squeeze millions of dollars more from an audience that seemed to mildly enjoy the film. Apparently, the DVD will include lots of extras, unrated scenes and an alternate ending.

Next: remember how Jamie and Dakota Johnson were banding together and asking for significant raises for the sequels? I theorized that they would probably get the raises, just because FSOG did so well and because the raise would be considered hazard pay for anyone having to work with EL James. Well, I guess I was being too generous because FSOG producer Dana Brunetti shut down the “raise” speculation last week:

Dana Brunetti said: “Look, when I was starting out and had to cut my teeth and build my résumé to get in, I had to basically work for free on a lot of things. I still take reductions in my fees for the opportunities to do certain things. We got slack on Captain Phillips about how much Barkhad [Abdi] and those guys got paid. Look at Jonah Hill in Wolf of Wall Street. It was great for his career. So I’m not going to cry for anybody who wants to be in this business just because a thing they were involved in did very well and they didn’t get paid [a lot]. That’s not the deal that you made. If it was, I’d have more than a couple Ferraris because all the money my films have made is f—ing insane. You’ve got to start somewhere.”

[From E! News]

Yeah, Mr. Brunetti… no one is asking you to “cry” for Dakota and Jamie. They just want a raise after they went out there and shilled and made FSOG into a worldwide hit. Is it just me or is this really, really rude? Maybe it’s just all part of negotiating, but it feels like this is the kind of position to take in private, in the meeting about Dakota and Jamie wanting raises.

Lastly, Jamie recently sat down for an interview with The Guardian. They were actually nice to him! You can read the full piece here – it’s not chock full of interview quotes or anything, but I liked this one, about FSOG: “You know, I’m not naive as to why people would think it was a bad [career] choice, or why there is a snobbery about it. But I’m also not stupid, and I knew with Sam and Seamus McGarvey, the film would be in safe hands. And, you know, it does no harm to be in a film that makes half a billion dollars.” I also learned that his daughter is named Dulcie, which I didn’t know.


Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

57 Responses to “‘FSOG’ producer won’t ‘cry’ about it if Jamie Dornan doesn’t get a raise”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Crocuta says:

    I don’t care for any of them, but this isn’t exactly setting a wonderful working environment for them when they’ll be making the next film. Nightmare.

  2. Dani2 says:

    Welp, she kind of has a point, yeah the film made a sh-t ton of money but it’s not exactly because of Jamie’s or Dakota’s star power or fan base so I don’t necessarily think they should expect a raise either. *shrugs* and she’s right that you have to start from somewhere.
    The filming of the next one sounds like it’s going to be a mess though.

    • cr says:

      Oh, the filming of the next one might be very entertaining indeed. And STJ is officially out as director:

      In an exclusive statement to Deadline, Taylor-Johnson said: “Directing Fifty Shades Of Grey has been an intense and incredible journey for which I am hugely grateful. I have Universal to thank for that. I forged close and lasting relationships with the cast, producers and crew and most especially, with Dakota and Jamie. While I will not be returning to direct the sequels, I wish nothing but success to whosoever takes on the exciting challenges of films two and three.”

      • Dani2 says:

        Lol so Sam isn’t returning? Well there goes any hope of the upcoming movies being any good whatsoever.

      • Maggie says:

        That’s precisely why they SHOULD get paid more. “Look”, it really comes down to the amount of risk these two are willing to take on for a complete shit show they’re about to jump into. I could understand if Sam was still directing but with EL still trying to pretend she’s relevant in the film industry, the leads are going to be signing up for six more years of pure torture. And do the producers feel like recasting at this point? If not, PAY YOUR LEAD ACTORS.

    • ORLY says:

      Dana is a he, not a she. 😊

  3. Sarah says:

    Americans seem to think everything is rude

    • Josefa says:

      Yeah, they are awfully sensitive, aren’t they? She’s not saying anything untrue. The film was a hit because the books were a hit. All Jaime and Dakota did was endure EL James and do a horrible press tour that, if anything, just made the uninterested people even more uninterested. Did any of us even know who these 2 were before this crap fest came out?

      • debs says:

        lol, right? Sorry he was honest and dared to point out that they benefitted immensely from this film already, so they’ve hardly been mistreated.

  4. Mzizkrizten says:

    I see her point and I also see why dakota and Jamie asked for raises. Because it can’t hurt to try right. My kids ask for raises In allowance LOL.

  5. Lucy2 says:

    I think the point is right for the first film- if you are just starting out and a relative unknown, you will not be paid a lot. But when the first part of a trilogy does really well, the actors usually get a raise for the next one. I have to think any decent agent would have worked out a deal to allow for some negotiation.
    To say all this publicly is odd and rude.

    • TX says:

      +1. Isn’t that just the way it goes with any job? More experience = more money. This producer seems slightly bitter about what she had to go through to make it. Newsflash- if these people are in FSOG, they HAVE made it. Pay up.

      • Heathering says:

        Most jobs have a probationary period. The movie did its box office pre-sales trick largely for reasons unrelated to DJ or JD as a draw. So, going by critic & audience response, DJ & JD (significantly moreso) failed their probationary period assessments. No employer rushes to give a raise based on that. Especially when the jobs are set to get harder to make profitable next project.

        An automatic raise isn’t an incentive BUT % on back end may be. Whatever, it’s not going to be easy.

    • Size Does Matter says:

      Totally agree. The bargaining positions are completely different after the first successful installment of a series. Of course they asked for a raise.

  6. Linn says:

    “Yeah, Mr. Brunetti… no one is asking you to “cry” for Dakota and Jamie. They just want a raise after they went out there and shilled and made FSOG into a worldwide hit.”

    I wouldn’t say that Dakota and/or Jamie made the movie into a worldwide hit. People were crazy about the books and the movies long before those two were cast. If anything, this movie brought attention to Dakota and Jamie.
    People seemed to be just as hyped about the movie when Charlie Hunnam was in for the role of Christian or when Ian Somerhalder was rumored to play the part.
    Nearly every actor could have brought the same success and many famous actors could probably done even better.

    Still, I don’t think that this needed to be discussed so publicly, but I guess there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

    • Dani2 says:

      You’re totally right, the film was going to be a success regardless of who was cast in it, a lot of people I know still don’t really care who Dakota or Jamie are or want to follow their careers.

      • Maggie says:

        “The film was going to be a success”

        Um, no. In fact, it’s like every blogger is trying to rewrite history. EVERYone, except for a few particular outlets who were part of the marketing plan from the beginning (news programs, Vogue, etc) all concluded that nobody would show up except for Midwestern housewife book club enthusiasts, that it was going to be a disaster, all bloggers completely shredding it to bits. Why are we now saying that the actors didn’t have anything to do with it’s success?

        Dakota did an incredible job at charming audiences and this is really easy to research since it’s still being discussed. She definitely deserves a raise. Him? Eh, but they’re a package now, I guess, so sure — give them both a raise.

      • debs says:

        That is not true at all. There was a bidding war over this property. They promoted it heavily for a year. Every single industry trade has been pushing it since 2012. Every single magazine publisher has kissed butt and promoted these actors . This was NOT Twilight, which was passed over by major studios and hadn’t even released the final book by the time the first film was already in the can. FSOG was a known property and EVERYONE expected it to be huge. They wouldn’t have sunk the money into it they did if they hadn’t.

        Dakota had nothing to do with why this made money. I agree she should (and obviously will) make more on the sequel. But pretending she sold this film is ridiculous.

    • mom2two says:

      I think you are totally right. Neither Dakota or Jamie helped matters with their flop of a press tour. I can see why the producers might be like, “LOL” about a raise.

  7. Tig says:

    I get where the producer is coming from, but with all the other issues involved in moving forward, assuming they do, seems like the prudent move is to keep Jamie and Dakota at least placated with a raise. Having lost the screenwriter and STJ, really doubt another one comes out in time to capture what is sure to be declining interest. The DVD tho sounds interesting- hope there is a director’s commentary- she can talk about the scenes they fought over! LOL

    • Maggie says:

      OMG directors comments would be amazeballs if she is allowed to be totally frank! I would actually pay for that and I didn’t really think the film was all that great.

  8. Alessio says:

    Jamie and Dakota deserve to get a raise. and it’s just common sense? kristen stewart, jennifer lawrence & co. all got raises because their movies were so succesful, and they’re the one selling the tickets. i dont care for the producers, but if i go see the movie and i happen to enjoy the actors (and not the movie), if the actors give me even enough good vibes i might even consider going back for the sequel. this is exactly what happened when i watched shailene woodley in divergent. so yeah, people obviously went for the material this time around, but a sequel usually grosses more money because you know the actors and you’re interested in going back (if you’re a casual viewer, at least).

    he sounds very rude which im sure works in his favors when he has to sit down with el james, but give dakota and jamie what they earned by doing this mess of a movie

  9. Bea says:

    So she’s basically saying they are replaceable nobodies with no star power to leverage for a bigger paycheck. Charming.

    • Josefa says:

      Yeah, and she’s absolutely right, isn’t she? This wasn’t a film with profound characters that needed layered and well-thought performances. Let’s not lie to ourselves. They ARE completely replaceable.

    • Bea says:

      Totally didn’t realise he was a he. Oops.

  10. Heathering says:

    Brunetti is known as a hard-ball player in Hollywood. Horrid guy but knows his job. He also knows the bottom line numbers on FSoG aren’t as peachy as the $500m figure makes out. For the ‘popularity’ of the books they forgot to factor in the number that went part read and donated to charity shops. So, when the movie was promoted (a year long cost much higher than they accounted for originally) their fan market was way smaller than they had reckoned on. Plus a lot of fans hated the casting. So lots of A&P money and favours went into getting pre-sales. When the movie hit – response was really bad.

    Brunetti knows the same pre-sale push on a 2nd one will take even more money and effort for majorly, likely, diminishing returns.

    Dornan was especially weak. His performance didn’t future-sell a sequel and his attitude promoting the 1st one put people off.

    Brunetti has to deal with STJ bowing out and ELJ’s “I wanna write (lordy, she ought to be banned from keyboards and paper & pen FOREVER)” too.

    The leads failed (especially JD) to engage audience & critics and because of that the cost to get an audience back in for a 2nd one will really push budget commitment. Add a 2 yr time lag and they’d be lucky to get $ for the current pay scales.

    The fact Universal have yet to green lit (which, in any other circs on a $500m box office) tells it all. Again, as with all things FSoG, there’s a lot of smoke & mirrors trying to disguise a franchise hot mess.

    If JD & DJ do get raises I blanche to think of the compromises they’ll make to get them. JD had better be thinking what value he places on his dignity. STJ tried the non-p**n route – but that’s where this is heading under ELJ’s ego. Imagine being locked into a contract being determined by how far her fantasies will make you go for $s.

    • Kali says:

      I honestly wonder if they would have the balls to go for an X rating. It’s clearly what James had in mind when she was writing the d@mn thing.

      • Heathering says:

        That’s another hot mess problem. The original book fans main demo was 35+ but that dropped off with delays to movie form, casting issues, and the big “bought it, read a bit, binned it as cr*p” real terms negative for simply using book sales as a predictor.

        So they tried to shift audience demo downward age-wise, JD’s main vocal fanbase is teen so that helped. But, on the whole they’re vocal but not huge in number. But, whatever, they are a rating issue for material which was always going to be a ratings nightmare anyway. Brunetti had to also REALLY earn his Producer credit to get passed the censors what they did with the 1st one as is. And still many markets worldwide failed to certify for release.

        If they are to keep the teens on board, which is now their main may get back for a 2nd audience, they’re on a sticky wicket. The early DVD push for FSoG is social media targeted to teens with a “get an adult to buy so you can see the unrated”. Dodgy and dangerous.

        Add to which more of the abuse elements are set to be difficult to script and their now younger demo is more of a hot mess.

        Of course, one of the most disturbing aspects (and I hope JD considers this) is it’s his young teen base supporting the ELJ position of “show MORE” loudest. That’s a bigger wide ranging hot mess on the back of the hyping of this franchise.

    • carrie says:

      Yes, to most of this.

      I actually think the raises for the sequels are a done deal. Negotiating power for sequels is written into franchise contracts. Brunetti is simply talking about the money made for the first film here, imo.

      But other than that, this is spot-on. FSOG opened in the US with $85 million, but will finish over $20 million behind the first Twilight. Which opened with $69 million. That shows some pretty horrible legs, but even worse, could be a harbinger for sequels. Twilight grew from the first to the second. Fifty likely won’t.

      Its worldwide numbers are better than the first Twilight, but that’s also because they sold it so hard there, which as you point out, cost them money.

      FSOG really didn’t have the organic growth that Hunger Games or Twilight did. They paid a LOT to get those opening weekend numbers. And critic/audience responses were not great. I think they’re prepared for diminishing returns, so while everyone will get raises for the sequels, I have my doubts they’ll be making JLaw type money.

      It’ll also be interesting to see if Dornan/Johnson negotiate together. If I were Johnson, I wouldn’t. She has a LOT more power here. Hitching her contract to Dornan’s would almost be an act of charity.

      • noway says:

        Not sure I go with the horrible legs comment, mainly because it was rated R and Twilight was not. That fact alone could cause that, along with the fact that the Twilight books sold over 20 million more copies than Fifty Shades of Grey. It had a larger audience to begin with.

        I also think that this movie might do well with its May 1 behind the scenes dvd, as there was still a lot of people who won’t go to the movies, but would see it in their home. Furthermore, if you are comparing the enormous success of Hunger Games and Twilight to Fifty Shades of Grey there are a lot of success and profit to be made at a not Twilight- Hunger Games level. Most movies cost a lot more and don’t even come close to making that kind of money, and are still considered a success.

        The reality is it was profitable for all, and the actors will probably get a raise, probably not as large as publicized. I am sure the raise range was negotiated in the original contract. Trust me as a person who has worked in advertising and marketing for many years they created a pretty good campaign, but not nearly expensive enough to negate the profit level of the movie. I think this is just all posturing, a bit odd, but maybe with the departure of Sam they are a bit on the offensive.

      • Andrea says:

        I don’t think anyone’s denying it made everyone money, just pointing out that it’s not as clear cut as on first glance. It’s NOT at a THG level, and it seems possible it may actually go down with the sequels now that the curiosity factor has been fed. So Johnson and Dornan may not have the same kind of power JLaw had and shouldn’t be making that kind of money. It’s even debateable if they should make Pattinson/Stewart money since those two had a level of personal media attention that these two don’t, and Twilight was still showing signs of growth through the next two sequels.

      • mom2two says:

        @noway, the movie definitely made money. The film couldn’t have been that expensive (no CGI first of all, no huge actors fees, I am sure STJ did not come with a hefty fee) and it made enough and then some to cover filming and promotion.
        The legs comment that carrie said is about how the film held up over time at the box office. In the US, the opening weekend was great but then it sank like a stone after that. Consider that Kingsmen came out the same weekend and 5 weeks (?) later, it’s still in the top 5 of movies. I think 50 Shades got it’s audience out but it didn’t draw in new fans all that much. With the sequel probably not going to be out until 2017 at the earliest (now they have to find a director and figure out how to settle things with EL James)…it is very likely the sequel will not gross as much as the first one.

  11. Kali says:

    The article that the Dana Brunetti quotes are from is really really interesting. I do wonder how he really feels about being E.L James’ “consigliere”…


  12. Chrissy says:

    I think it’s really bad form for the producer to publicly comment on this. Surely the issue of salaries of the two stars pales in comparison to the carte blanche contract with the delusional nutjob, E.L. James. They now have lost the director and screenwriter who made the film palatable because of her interference in their realms. Jamie and Dakota deserve huge raises because it was a massively profitable film but also having to deal with James and her ego on a daily basis. Especially if they let her adapt and director the next film. She is no filmmaker. Hell, she’s not even a good writer. Surely they have lawyers to deal with salary negotiations. Brunetti has greater problems on his plate this time around because of the author, not the actors.

    • carrie says:

      Publicly commenting on it is actually smart business. He devalues their importance to the franchise in the media and it means they have less to bargain with. It’s not nice business, but it’s smart.

      ELJ is a different situation…her money is set and he CAN’T cut her out. (He wouldn’t cut J/D out either, but he needs to make it seem like it COULD happen). So with her, the smart play is to placate and make her feel okay with surrendering power so he can run the show. If he acts belligerent towards the author, she can just refuse to sign off on anything and the film never gets made. Ultimately, everything he’s saying is with the goal of getting cameras running with the least amount of fuss possible.

      • noway says:

        Also, the cheapest possible. My guess is that there was a pay raise scale in the initial contract for Jamie and Dakota, and both the actors and producers are posturing for negotiation tactics. I wouldn’t call it rude just Hollywood business.

    • Heathering says:

      My guess is Brunetti put the seed out there with his comments to see if DJ or JD could command enough fan interest to leverage huge raises. It hit nearly a week ago and from DJ & JD’s pov the outcry has been distinctly underwhelming – non existent.

      No internet/social media campaign in support – as would be the case if anyone had indispensable “star power”.

      They signed on, and they’ve had a year of expensive personal PR on the back of FSoG that any actor’s own money can’t buy. If their performances had been the stand-outs (DJ is in a better position on that), bad material notwithstanding, then maybe. As is, the movie, in all ways which determine scope for sequels, tanked.

      They can’t play 5 he “Curious” card on a 2nd as curiosity made them initial $ this time but those curious weren’t satisfied. A lot of still fans are agitating more for a total reboot – new casting especially.

      JD & DJ knew what they were getting into so fairness isn’t a factor – not in that industry. ELJ negotiated her control years back. That’s contracts.

      Guessing, again, I’d say they come out with minimal pay raise but a % back end. Then they really need to commit and shill to make it a success. Right now, their first outing failed leaving them little leverage. Brunetti, Focus, and Universal aren’t charities. Brunetti was setting the marker, he’s not known for subtle.

      • carrie says:

        “they’ve had a year of expensive personal PR on the back of FSoG that any actor’s own money can’t buy”

        Good point. Those Vogue/Elle/Glamour/Details covers don’t come to people before their first mainstream film is out without a LOT of favors being called in. Hell, those covers didn’t even come to Pattinson, Stewart, Lawrence until their franchises were already established and they’d proven themselves. Universal went to the mats for these two.

      • mom2two says:

        I totally agree with you carrie and Heathering. Just look at the recent Cinderella promotion-Richard Madden and Lily James sold the heck out of the movie and their on and off screen chemistry. And the only cover they got was the Saks Fifth Avenue Magalog for Spring. I am pretty sure if I were the producers behind 50 Shades, I’d be making Jamie and Dakota watch how Madden and James handled their promotion (especially in their interaction with each other) and try to emulate that for the next go around.

      • Heathering says:

        Carrie and Mom2Two yes! Those mag covers don’t just happen for two unknowns and yet, although creating a lot of (also paid for) follow onto other sites noise, even they didn’t seem to raise their overall buzz much in an organic fan multiplier way. Say the names Jamie Dornan or Dakota Johnson and you still usually have to add the words Fifty Shades of Grey before most people click. In fact JD still seems to have most impact in articles using his old modelling shots as a hook – CK (10+yrs past) in particular.

        And the press tour was a disaster. Mom2Two, your Cinderella analogy is well on point as a stark relief comparison.

        Now their protector in STJ is gone, I wonder how they fair if ELJ is in real control. Again, especially JD as he has broken her “love story Christian as tortured but reforming hero” line a lot, publicly. I can’t imagine she’s too chuffed at him terming Grey as a “psychopathic B****rd” in the same breath as Spector (The Fall).

    • Josefa says:

      Yeah, while I think he’s completely and absolutely right and I personally wouldn’t raise their salaries, I do think it’s a bad move to talk about it like this. The production for these films has already been a huge mess. Don’t make it worse, Dana.

  13. carrie says:

    He’s just playing it close to the vest to limit their negotiating power. Once contracts are signed for the sequels, my guess is he’ll suddenly be much more willing to acknowledge their contribution.

    Although, he’s not wrong in basically saying he doesn’t feel bad that they made peanuts on the first film since he could’ve put in any two moderately attractive actors and made bank. Possibly even more considering what a mess these two were on the press trail.

    I hope he plays hardball with them at the negotiating table since I wouldn’t mind if they recast Dornan. He was so stiff and awkward in the role, he sucked out any potential sexiness. Johnson was slightly better. It’d be interesting to see what she could do with an actor she had chemistry with.


    This reminds me of one of my moms – every time she thought I was overspending for my wedding she made a huge point of telling the story of HER wedding – $50 off the rack dress that her dad picked out, church hall, no decorations, & THAT WAS PERFECTLY FINE!! It was a passive aggressive attempt to voice her jealousy at my budget & higher income & also a way to “prove” how much better a person she is & how spoiled & selfish everyone else is. YOU KIDS THESE DAYS HAVE IT SO EASY! If I ever hear those words again, I swear.

    • Josefa says:

      Oh, moms and their passive agressive, mean spirited shades. I swear to God. If we weren’t talking about the woman who gave brith to me, I’d slap her face until I broke her cheekbones. I sure know that feeling.

  15. Josefa says:

    I just think Jaime and Dakota did nothing to make the film more succesful than it was expected to be. Jaime’s performance was destroyed by critics, while Dakota’s was just mildly praised. So no impressive demonstration of talent that could elevate the movie. The press tour was incredibly awkward, and it just made more evident that the production was a mess. Jaime in particular couldn’t look more regretful about doing this. And both of them were unknown actors when casted, not big stars. So why pay them more for the film’s success if they didn’t contribute to it? If anything, they made the film less succesful than it could’ve been.

    • suziekew says:

      This…. I totally agree!!! Jamie was a disaster and the producers should seriously consider recasting his role or not make any sequels which would be the best option.

  16. NeoCleo says:

    Brunetti is a condescending a-hole, clearly.

  17. Bread and Circuses says:

    I loathe that sort of logic. “Well, *I* went through horrible things, therefore everyone should quietly accept me perpetuating the cycle of abuse.”

    I mean, seriously, people use that logic to justify beating their children, or being a bad teacher, or harassing their coworkers, etc.

    Maybe that’s not a sound argument if it only gets used to excuse atrocious things, you know?

  18. Tig says:

    It’s odd that so much posturing is going on re Jamie and Dakota. Good grief, the 900 lb guerrilla in the room is James- the producer ought to figuring out how to talk her out of writing and/or directing. Talk about a clash of egos!

    • debs says:

      I’m sure he IS working on talking her down from writing the script. Different strategies for different people. James can shut it all down if she’s not happy. Dornan and Johnson can be replaced.

  19. Micki says:

    I for one can’t feel sorry for anyone connected with this mess.

  20. lila fowler says:

    Dana Brunetti is a whiny little douche who looks like he has an incredibly small penis.

  21. holly2905 says:

    I’d have a whole lot more sympathy if for once JD would own up to his abysmal performance. Instead his camp seems intent on blaming everyone else for his failures.

  22. Ferdinand says:

    Both, Jamie and Dakota should get raises. Not out of proportion raises but a nice one nine the less. They were the ones who stuck after all the mess of production this movie was and they put themselves out there during promotion and other things. Simply out of respect and somewhat of appreciation is why they should get more money for the sequels.

    I mean, all of their firsts choices for Anastasia and Christian walked out of them, now the director and the screenwriter. Do they really want more bad publicity?