Jim Carrey

A decade ago, Jim Carrey broke Hollywood's bank when a producer -- over-eager like a pimple-faced 18-year-old virgin on prom night -- forked over a then-staggering $20 million US for the Canadian comedian to star in The Cable Guy, directed by a then-little-known actor named Ben Stiller.

Despite the less-than-stellar results -- the movie was the first in Carrey's then-red-hot repertoire to falter -- $20-million paycheques became the norm for Hollywood's elite. A few actors have even surpassed that astronomical salary mark and enjoy sweetheart double-dipping back-end deals in which they get a chunk of the box office.

But after 10 years of platinum-plated paydays, studio executives are now balking at superstar salary demands -- even if it means killing a project altogether.

The first victims of this -- in a twist that could've been penned by a Hollywood hack -- were Carrey and Stiller who were signed to star as pleasure clones in the futuristic comedy Used Guys from Jay Roach (Austin Powers, Meet The Parents).

But as the budget crept well north of $100 million, 20th Century Fox, who was making the film, abruptly nuked it -- a stunning move considering it was viewed as a 2007 tentpole for the studio. At issue, according to reports, were the paydays Carrey, Stiller and Roach would be receiving.

Fox estimated the movie -- an expensive one already due to the special effects required -- would have to gross around $300 million in North America before the studio turned a profit.

Suddenly what seemed a surefire bet seemed high-risk. If Used Guys was anything less than one of the biggest comedies in history, it would be considered a dud. And that was only the beginning of the bad news for Carrey.

Just a few weeks later, Paramount put the brakes on Believe It Or Not, a big-budget fantasy to be directed by Tim Burton (not to be confused with a biopic about the guy who sang the theme to Greatest American Hero) with Carrey starring as the world-famous explorer Ripley.

Suddenly Carrey, once the $20 million man, was now unemployed.

Says John Burman, international general manager of the Hollywood Reporter, "There is definitely a sea change in Hollywood. Not just in L.A., but in the world."

Jeffrey Wells, columnist with the L.A.-based website hollywood-elsewhere.com agrees.

"Is it definitely a bend in the river? Is it analogous to the 1989 revolution in Eastern Europe? I don't know, but I love that idea. The costs are astronomical all across the board. It's not just movie star salaries, but marketing has gone up tremendously."

And Carrey isn't the only actor feeling the squeeze. As anyone who hasn't been on a lunar vacation knows, Tom Cruise, arguably the world's biggest movie star, was sent packing by Paramount, his long-time home.

Cruise's Mission Impossible: III was a middling summertime success -- it grossed about $140 million in North America, well short of its predecessors -- but Cruise, as producer and action hero, still made away with an estimated $80 million.

So while Paramount chieftain Sumner Redstone may have publicly scolded Cruise for his off-screen behaviour -- promoting Scientology, ranting against psychiatrists -- the true deal-breaker was not Cruise's antics, but his production deal, the fattest in Hollywood.

With his ability to lure audiences in question, Paramount wasn't about to rubber-stamp another years-long contract with the Top Gun star. (Don't cry for Cruise, though -- he also took home $100 million for last year's less-than-spectacular War of the Worlds).

"He made out big time," says Wells. "Paramount barely eked out a little profit (on MI: III). I'm not even sure it was a modest profit. For Paramount, it was enough for them to say, 'Enough of this, we're not in the business of making Tom Cruise happy.' "

Says Burman, "Tom Cruise is now serving as the poster child for this (trend).

"What you can't say is, 'Definitely no one is ever again going to make $20 million for a movie.' But this is the point where the deck can be reshuffled."

Burman says it's not just rising costs but the changing face of entertainment media overall that has studio executives anxious.

"Even the DVD market is flattening out. People don't necessarily buy five special editions of the same movie anymore. But then you have new technologies opening up. It's a classic case that we live in interesting times. There are opportunities opening up with things like iTunes and the on-demand market maturing to where people can take advantage of it."

What that means for the traditional A-list actor has yet to be determined. "Stars have had a pretty good ride," says Wells, who believes celebrities -- like the studios themselves -- should share in the risk, and profit, that goes hand-in-hand with making movies.

"Stars have to be gamblers and willing to get into the spirit of this town."

As for Cruise and Carrey, both have at least partially rebounded. Cruise recently inked a deal with a gaggle of gazillionaires to distribute his movies, while Carrey has signed on for a number of projects -- although none on the grandiose scale of Used Guys and Believe It Or Not.

As for whether this cost-cutting revolt will last, that too remains a question mark.

After all, it was just reported this week that Paramount wants to offer Brad Pitt $40 million to take over the Mission: Impossible franchise from Cruise. Paramount has denied the story -- which originated in the ever-dubious London media -- but says it will do whatever it wants with the action franchise.

How long will Hollywood brass play hardball with the stars?

Until someone decides, as someone did a decade ago, that Carrey (or Pitt or Smith) are worth it.

ARE THEY WORTH IT?

Who's overpaid in Hollywood and who's worth every penny they rake in? While the list of entertainers who earn their keep is an ever-shifting one (two or three bombs at the box office and their clout comes under question), here's a rundown of some stars who prove their mettle and a few others who should take a paycut:

CAMERON DIAZ: "She was paid big, big money (a reported $15 million) for In Her Shoes last year and that didn't go any where. It didn't even open," says hollywood-elsewhere.com columnist Jeffrey Wells.

JULIA ROBERTS: Long considered Hollywood's golden girl, her last starring role in Mona Lisa Smile drew a mixed reaction from critics and audiences, leaving some to wonder if her $20-million pricetag is a tad steep.

BRAD PITT: "He's worth his paycheque ($20 million) because he sells overseas. Troy didn't do spectacularly here but overseas, it did very nicely," Wells explains.

WILL SMITH: Another sure bet, Smith can even make a hit out of trash like Hitch. Wells believes Smith's star power is so unwavering, in fact, that the former rapper's a good bet for an Oscar for this fall's Pursuit of Happyness even though no one's seen it.