Because the book already has a built in audience and will probably be seen more than once in the theater by bored housewives and undersexed chicks (see: Magic Mike), you already know 50 Shades of Grey is gonna make a killing despite the fact that it sucks. The only way this wouldn't make back its entire budget in the first two weeks is if they cast Jennifer Aniston. So, it's kinda weird that they would give the star of the movie, Charlie Hunnam, only $125K. THR reports:
According to another source, Hunnam, who was to be paid about $125,000 for the film, began butting heads with the creative team, including Taylor-Johnson. The conflict reached a fever pitch in early October, though everyone involved thought the issues had been resolved. But the discord spiked again Oct. 11. Hunnam's team at CAA and Brillstein Entertainment Partners strongly advised him to stay on the project for fear that his exit would embarrass Langley — new to the chairman job — and burn a bridge with one of the major studios. That same day, Universal hired writer Patrick Marber — no stranger to taboo sex themes with his Oscar-nominated screenplay Notes on a Scandal — to do a polish and bolster the characters. But by then, Hunnam, whose heart it seems never was in the project, had decided to decamp. The next morning, the studio announced his departure, and James tweeted, "I wish Charlie all the best." Universal and CAA declined comment.
You can say $125K is a lot of money if you want, and you'd be right, but its all relative. A studio spends more on stilts for a Tom Cruise movie than they were gonna pay this dude for a movie adaptation of a book that has sold over 70 million copies. I assume Hunnam dropped out because there's a reason why it's called "selling out". $125K isn't selling out money. That's money Samuel L. Jackson would get for voicing a cartoon possum who owns a barbershop.