Nina Dobrev Says Studio Refused Her Equal Pay to Ian Somerhalder, Paul Wesley

Lead: In Samantha Highfill’s new oral history I Was Feeling Epic, actress Nina Dobrev says she was paid less than co-stars Ian Somerhalder and Paul Wesley during The Vampire Diaries’ early seasons despite doubling her on-screen workload by portraying both Elena Gilbert and Katherine Pierce beginning in the season one finale. Dobrev and fellow actresses Candice King and Kat Graham were among the lowest-paid regulars in seasons one and two, and studio resistance to matching her male co-leads’ pay persisted even when she returned for the series finale. The dispute affected story planning and required showrunners to negotiate with the network to secure Dobrev’s appearances. The account highlights how contract timing and studio policy shaped creative choices on a major CW series.

Key Takeaways

• Nina Dobrev played two primary roles (Elena and Katherine) starting in the season one finale, effectively doubling her scenes and lines compared with her original contract.
• For the first two seasons, Dobrev, Candice King and Kat Graham were the three lowest-paid series regulars on The Vampire Diaries, while Ian Somerhalder and Paul Wesley were paid more.
• Actors typically renegotiate after season three; until then, Dobrev earned less than her male co-leads despite increased workload.
• The studio reportedly refused to raise her pay “out of principle,” according to Dobrev’s account, a stance showrunners later contested on creative grounds.
• Writers were initially told not to use Katherine because of the cost implications, forcing showrunners to negotiate and conditionally secure limited episodes.
• Dobrev left after season six; when asked to return for the eighth-season finale, the studio’s initial offer was described as five times lower than her prior rate.
• Julie’s Plec intervention secured parity pay for a single finale episode after further negotiation with the studio.
• The episode that brought Dobrev back shares the book’s title, “I Was Feeling Epic,” linking the contractual fight to the series’ narrative closure.

Background

The Vampire Diaries premiered on the CW in 2009 and became one of the network’s defining franchise shows, centering on brothers Damon and Stefan Salvatore and their relationship with Elena Gilbert. As typical in television, early-season contracts often fix cast pay until renegotiation windows open, commonly around season three, which can create gaps between compensation and actual contributions when characters expand. Dobrev’s additional turn as Katherine beginning in the season one finale increased her on-set hours and line load without an immediate contract amendment, a pattern that has echoed in other ensemble productions when actors take on extra duties.

Studio budgeting and precedent about lead-billing sometimes favor actors perceived as primary draws, and shows with multiple stars can see uneven raises based on negotiation leverage and timing. On Vampire Diaries, Somerhalder and Wesley were positioned as the Salvatore brothers—central figures whose compensation rose over time. Showrunners and writers, who craft arcs around available cast, frequently confront network budget constraints that can limit creative options, as happened when writers were told using Katherine would have pay implications for Dobrev.

Main Event

In Highfill’s oral history, Dobrev recounts that her initial contract listed only Elena, yet she took on Katherine’s scenes, which required doubling rehearsal and filming time. She says this increased workload—memorizing and performing two distinct roles—was not matched by equitable pay in the show’s early seasons. Negotiation rights typically begin in season three, meaning Dobrev spent multiple seasons working at a lower rate than her male co-leads.

According to the book, Dobrev pressed the studio for compensation that reflected the extra work and parity with her co-stars, but was told the studio would not elevate her to the boys’ level “out of principle.” That response, Dobrev says, felt dismissive of her contribution during long, often eighteen-hour days. The studio’s stance also spilled into writers’ room decisions: producers were warned that recurring use of Katherine would trigger additional pay obligations.

Co-creator Julie Plec told the oral historians that tensions became acute when network and studio representatives balked at paying Dobrev more each time Katherine appeared. Plec and the writing staff lobbied to keep Katherine in stories and—by some accounts—had to offer concessions to win episodic permission. When Dobrev left after season six, the door was left open narratively; her eventual comeback for the series finale prompted a fresh pay dispute as Somerhalder and Wesley had received subsequent raises.

For the final season, Dobrev reportedly conditioned her return on parity with Somerhalder and Wesley. Producers initially intended a more extensive comeback, but the studio’s limits on compensation resulted in an agreement that effectively purchased a single episode at Dobrev’s requested rate after Plec’s intervention. Dobrev described the studio’s first offer for a return as five times smaller than what she had been paid previously, a gap she said she could not accept on principle.

Analysis & Implications

The episode underscores how contract timing and institutional practices can produce pay disparities even among co-leads on the same series. When a performer’s responsibilities expand after an initial contract is signed, the lack of a timely renegotiation window creates leverage asymmetries favoring the party controlling the purse strings. In this case, the studio’s unwillingness to automatically adjust compensation for an added role forced showrunners to make creative compromises and writers to temporarily shelve a popular character.

Practically, the dispute illustrates the interplay between creative direction and budgetary policy. Writers were told not to use Katherine because each appearance would increase payroll costs tied to Dobrev’s contract terms. That kind of restriction alters storylines, pacing and fan satisfaction—tangible artistic costs that may outweigh the short-term savings for a studio. Producers who advocate for fairer pay can sometimes secure exceptions, but often at the expense of narrative plans.

Industry-wide, the episode fits into broader conversations about pay equity on-screen and behind the scenes. High-profile parity fights in recent years have increased scrutiny on how studios set and adjust compensation, particularly for female leads who take on expanded creative roles. While Dobrev eventually gained higher pay and returned for the finale, her account suggests parity was not automatic and required public advocacy and showrunner intervention.

Looking ahead, such cases may encourage performers and their representatives to negotiate clauses that anticipate multiple roles or to include earlier renegotiation triggers. For networks, the trade-off between short-term budget control and long-term goodwill with cast and viewers is increasingly visible; studios that resist parity measures risk reputational fallout and creative disruption.

Comparison & Data

The table summarizes the timeline of Dobrev’s contractual position relative to show milestones. Exact salary figures are not reported in the cited sources beyond the relative descriptor “five times less” for the studio’s initial finale offer; that ratio is reflected as a descriptive datapoint rather than a precise arithmetic claim. The practical effect was constrained storytelling and a negotiated one-episode parity outcome rather than full-season compensation alignment.

Reactions & Quotes

Showrunner and co-creator Julie Plec framed the studio’s decision as wrongheaded and detailed the give-and-take required to bring Katherine back to the script. Her advocacy was central to securing at least one episode at Dobrev’s requested rate after initial refusals.

“She should’ve been making what those boys made all along, and nobody should’ve blinked at that request.”

Julie Plec, co-creator

Dobrev described how the studio’s stance felt personally hurtful given the long hours and emotional investment she put into the series. She emphasized that her stance on returning for the finale was grounded in principle as much as in compensation.

“Out of principle, the studio wouldn’t bump me up to being equal to the boys.”

Nina Dobrev, actress

Co-creator Kevin Williamson reflected on intended story arcs and acknowledged that Dobrev’s full return would have altered the series’ romantic resolution if parity had been secured for more than a single episode.

“I really wanted Elena and Stefan to end up together… but we didn’t have Elena to bring that relationship back around.”

Kevin Williamson, co-creator

Unconfirmed

• Exact salary figures for Dobrev, Somerhalder and Wesley during each season have not been disclosed publicly in the cited book/excerpt and remain unverified.
• The studio’s internal rationale for declining parity beyond the phrasing reported as “out of principle” has not been documented in a released memo or statement.
• Whether comparable parity requests were made by other cast members under similar circumstances on the series is not confirmed in the available public accounts.

Bottom Line

Nina Dobrev’s account in I Was Feeling Epic illuminates how contract timing and studio policy can produce tangible pay disparities that shape both careers and creative choices. Despite carrying doubled responsibilities early on, she reports being paid less than her male co-leads and had to press for parity when returning for the finale.

The episode is a concrete example of broader industry dynamics: successful shows can still harbor inequities, and remediation often requires advocacy from the talent and showrunners. Viewers and industry observers should watch how future contracts address multi-role work and whether studios adopt clearer policies to prevent similar disputes.

Sources

• The Hollywood Reporter (entertainment news report summarizing the oral history)
• Entertainment Weekly (publisher/entertainment outlet; Samantha Highfill is an EW editor and author of the oral history)