I'm contemplating my next career and in doing so have opted to aim for the most lucrative job.
So do you think A-list movie stars make more money than A-list musicians?
All web links welcome
Thanks
omoatayo
2007-03-04 04:22:38 · 19 answers · asked by omoatayo 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
Thanks for all your answers.
For saying that I have a "big head" for thinking I could become an A-list, why not!!!
On topic, both musicians and movie stars I understand also make money from royalities be they CD or movie sales.
Paul McCartney or Tom Cruise for example who would make most?
Level with me! Am I aim too low and should I aim to both an A-list musician and movie star?
2007-03-05 07:48:45 · update #1
What on earth mkes you think you're good enough to be A list in either profession you big head?!
2007-03-04 04:26:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
depends on the quality of work done. A band like the doors still sells 1 million copies of their albums per year, over 30 years after they stopped making them. This will probably keep happening for decades to come. How many movies can the highest paid actor make in a year? I would say, barring some perverse contracts, the musician could easily make more.
2007-03-04 04:32:50 · answer #2 · answered by Hans B 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You do both. Although I think Cher really was the only one to get respect doing both.
Although Whitney Houston, Jennifer Lopez and Madonna have done it too.
Musicians don't earn a fraction of what they used to. An A-List movie star can ask just about anything these days.
2007-03-04 04:36:21 · answer #3 · answered by Bapboy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably Movie Star. A muscian only makes money if they are playing or singing the popular music. If you sing pop stuff then you will probably make more money than a heavy metaller. Saying that though people like The Beatles were hell of a rich and they were musicians.
2007-03-04 06:47:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the level of fame, but mostly, movies stars make more money at once. However, with royalties, in the long run, it might be better to be a musician.
2007-03-04 05:28:11 · answer #5 · answered by Sandy Lou 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, and that i imagine it'e rather humorous! i recognize Keanu Reeves!! If he confirmed up on my doorstep day after today (hey, i visit dream, suitable?) i could be his. My husband would not take this heavily, he says i'm stupid. yet for some reason, he's confident that I particularly have a issue for Antonio Banderas. He teases me about Antonio each and each of the time, and ignores my denials. Now I particularly have no longer something hostile to Antonio Banderas, he's sweet-looking, yet he's not any Keanu Reeves. besides the undeniable fact that it truly is gotten to the point the position, even as i wanted to flow see the perfect Zorro movie he did not truly favor to flow because of Antonio Banderas! LOL
2016-12-05 05:42:58 · answer #6 · answered by winkles 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do you think you are good enough to be A-list in either? If you are...movie star is more fun probably. You shouldn't be choosing a career move for money, do it for what you enjoy.
2007-03-04 04:32:20 · answer #7 · answered by gymnastics~is~life 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What type of musician? One plays in concerts and stuff? If so then a movie star! If you mean an artist or band then im not sure
2007-03-04 04:26:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
An actor can make more than a musician - somebody heavily overpriced, like Julia Roberts, if she did several movies a year would beat any rockers.
2007-03-04 04:27:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think if it was just on making films and music, the biggest movie stars would beat the biggest music stars, though both pay packets would do nicely!!!!
2007-03-04 04:32:51 · answer #10 · answered by Emilee 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Defo movie star
2007-03-04 04:32:10 · answer #11 · answered by pixie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋