There’s plenty of rumors flying around as to why Charlie Hunnam has bounced from the infamous Fifty Shades of Grey film, but the latest rumor is the fact that the studio wasn’t shelling enough buck-a-roos for the star.image

The Hollywood Reporter explores some of the various factors that went into Hunnam’s departure from the project and notes almost in passing that he would have been paid $125,000 for the film. Now, granted, that’s more than many of us make in a year. But it’s also less than what Peter Dinklage makes for a single episode of Game of Thrones. It’s three times less than what Andrew Garfield made for his first Spider-Man film. It’s almost 1/20th less than what Robert Pattinson reportedly made for the first Twilight film, which is really insane given that Fifty Shades is a phenomenon based entirely off of Twilight’s success– meaning that Hunnam’s movie is even more of a sure thing to make money.” – cinemablend

We at Popcorn hope that this isn’t completely true, but it does suck altering your life ForeveER…FOREeeVER…FOREVeeER (you better get that reference damn it) and you don’t even get paid the appropriate amount.

Advertisements