You know when you read a sentence so ridiculous, unfathomable and blood-boilingly stupid you have to lean closer to your laptop screen to reread it in case your eyes were deceiving you?
Well, that's what happened to the ELLE UK team this morning when we read that Gal Gadot - a.k.a the badass Israeli actress whose film Wonder Woman lassoed over £100 million in its first weekend - reportedly earned just £236,000 for her role as the DC Universe character.
'Only £236,000!,' you cry as you begin to imagine how you'd use her pay packet to rent a yacht in the Bahamas for two weeks, buy boxes of Moët champagne, and an endless supply of Jacquemus and Vetements clothing for your wardrobe.
Well, yes to you and I, that is a lot of money, but in blockbuster movie terms, that is literally pocket money.
British actor Henry Cavill - who is best known for his leading role as Superman - earned a whopping £11 million for Man of Steel.
Yes, that's right. Henry Cavill earned 46 times as much as Gadot did for a significantly worse superhero film.
Now do you see the problem?
While this staggering difference between Cavill and Gadot's earnings for their respective superhero films certainly seems to conjure up the distinct, familiar odour of the gender pay gap, it must be noted that it's not entirely uncommon for a lesser unknown actor or actress to earn less for their first time superhero film than other more renowned stars in show business.
According to Variety, Gadot signed a contract in 2014 that stated she would receive around £236,000 for each DC movie she films, irrespective of the bonuses she'll earn now the film has passed such unprecedented box office milestones.
And, we mustn't forget that actor Chris Evans made the same amount as Gadot for his first solo film Captain America, despite the fact his Avengers co-star Robert Downey Jr. made as much as £39 million.
However, it's absurd that Cavill (who last year revealed to Variety ,'I'm not just doing this for the art'), could earn such a staggering amount of money for his somewhat dire role in Batman v Superman, in comparison to Gadot's runaway success following the release of Wonder Woman.
After all, Batman v Superman received a 27 per cent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, was deemed one of the worst films of 2013 by Forbes, grossed around £228 million domestically and cost about £177 million to produce.
And other than playing Superman, what acting credentials and skills merit Cavill to earn, we'll say it again, 46 times as much as Gadot? We doubt his minor role as the Duke of Suffolk in the BBC's The Tudors had much sway in Hollywood.
Meanwhile, Wonder Woman has received international critical acclaim, a 92 per cent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, is grossing £216 million (and counting), despite it's significantly lower production budget of £118 million.
Oh, and that's not to mention the fact Gadot was pregnant with her second child during filming for Wonder Woman, despite the gruelling training regime that saw the star learning how to sword fight, shoot and bow and arrow and ride horses.
Of course, every profession – be it in the arts, finance or marketing, for example – has different pay brackets for employees pertaining to experience, talent and work, but such a significant pay gap between Gadot and Cavill emphasises just how far society has go to level the playing field when it comes to equal pay and recognition.
We for one can't wait for Wonder Woman 2 – something makes us think Gadot is in line to earn a hell of a lot more than £236,000.
Watch your back Superman - Wonder Woman is hot on your cape.