The budget has fallen from just over £1000000 to £600k per episode http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_it_cost_to_make_an_episode_of_Dr_Who#slide2Vigormortis said:Except that the X-Factor's ratings continue to plummet while Who's continue to sky-rocket. Doctor Who and the X-Factor draw similar ratings, with Who handily beating X-Factor during the Who specials.albino boo said:Its not that popular, Strictly come dancing and the X factor both beat the show in the viewing figures and both have been exported worldwide.
Mmm...not sure where you saw that. From what I've read the budget per episode was roughly £1,000,000. And, that was back during Eccleston's run. Since then the budget has increased.The budget per episode of DR Who is £687,000,
So she was paid more for playing a role in a feature film than you presume she would be from a single episode of Doctor Who? Not seeing how this is even remotely a fair comparison.Helen Mirren got more than for playing the Queen in the west end and picked up a bafta for it.
I take it you missed the part where I said a number of those bad and/or low budget films came after his Oscar wins.Michael Caine spent most of the 70s drunk and took what films he could get and Caine is also known for a having a thing about money. He came from real poverty in the East End and intends to stay as far away from it as possible.
And even if his sole purpose for taking such low-paying roles is simply to make money, than that still refutes your point that having an Oscar means you must receive exuberant amounts of money to play a role.
Yet another point you missed. I had showed that Smith made roughly £200,000 per season for the show, and that that was significantly less than Tennant had made per season. And, considering the budget for the series has only gone up, meeting the salary demands of someone like Mirren[footnote]Of whom we're still, apparently, assuming would demand such ridiculously high salaries.[/footnote] wouldn't be too difficult.Helen Mirren didn't buy a 6,699 square foot mansion in Beverly Hills on £200k a year.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
All this aside, I'm left wondering:
I never said they should have nabbed these actresses for the role. Not specifically. In fact, I made of point of saying actresses like them.
Even so, my original post was a flight of fantasy. Wishful thinking. I wasn't looking at it in a realistic sense. Not in terms of reasons they didn't select them.
So the question is, why did you feel compelled to step in a shit all over my discussion with another poster?
[edit]
On second thought, don't answer that. This discussion is just drawing the topic farther and farther away from the original discussion.
As much as I dislike this vernacular, let's just agree to disagree.
I was referring to the stage show that Helen Mirren did in the theater not the film. She did an 18 week run in the west end playing the Queen again. Helen Mirren has repeatedly earned more playing the Queen in year than the Queen gets. If you want a private conversation use PM's don't post in public space if you don't want other people commenting on what you say.