Johnny Depp's $150M cushion exists because he started from a higher earnings baseline and maintained A-list pricing longer. Even with his catastrophic spending habits ($2M/month on wine, Chateau de Malle vineyard purchases, art collections), the sheer volume of Pirates franchise backend deals and franchise residuals kept him afloat. His peak earning years (2009-2015) generated massive upfront payments before lifestyle inflation fully kicked in. Nicolas Cage, by contrast, made most of his $150M in the 1990s-2000s when action star salaries were front-loaded but backend participation was less lucrative—and he earned it faster, which meant he spent it faster.

The spending patterns reveal different pathologies. Depp's $2M/month wine habit is passive wealth destruction—it's ongoing burn with zero asset appreciation. Cage's pyramid tomb and dinosaur skull are at least eccentric asset acquisitions (even if illiquid and depreciating). However, Cage made an additional critical error: he didn't diversify income. Once his acting fees dried up, there was no franchise tether or backend revenue stream. Depp's Pirates deals kept generating checks even during his wilderness years. Cage had a few business ventures but nothing approaching Depp's structural income safety net.

The real story isn't that Depp is richer—it's that he had better deal architecture and longer earning runway. Cage spent $150M in ~15 years; Depp earned $650M over ~25 years. Raw speed of spending matters less than the slope of earnings. Depp could absorb his excess because he was still making $20-30M annually while bleeding $24M yearly. Cage hit a cliff. Both mismanaged catastrophically, but Depp's mistake was choosing an expensive lifestyle; Cage's mistake was not having negotiated points on his films when he had the leverage.