I’m about at the point where Judd Apatow can be thrown down a well anytime .
| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Mark Wahlberg https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=110340 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Franky T [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Mark Wahlberg |
I ain't working for free biatches! Why this is a story I don't know. Michelle Williams should have said the same thing. Mark Wahlberg had producers of "All the Money in the World" "over a barrel" when he demanded $1.5 million to reshoot scenes from the movie last month, and director Ridley Scott is furious he was left in the dark and "hung out to dry" ... this according to multiple sources connected to the production. Our sources tell us the reshoot -- triggered by the ousting of Kevin Spacey -- went down this way ... Michelle Williams was the first actor approached by a producer -- not Ridley Scott -- and she jumped at the task, saying she'd move mountains to complete the movie. She eventually agreed to do it for pennies ... she got $80 per diem and that's it. At around the same time, we're told Ridley flew to London to see Mark and convince him to do the reshoot. Mark, we're told, agreed, but there was no discussion of money. We're told after Wahlberg was on board, producers approached Christopher Plummer and signed him up. Our sources say after Wahlberg committed, his reps and the 2 main financiers for the movie had discussions, and his reps said Mark "never" works for free and demanded the money, and made it clear he would not reshoot the scenes unless he got what he was after. We're told the financing guys had no choice and agreed to pay. We're told when Ridley went public and said everyone was working for free, that was based on information he was given. We're told he feels betrayed and angry. The complicating factor ... Wahlberg and Williams are both repped by William Morris Endeavor. We reached out to the agency for comment -- whether the agency should have given Michelle a heads-up that their other client was making a bundle while she was working for free. We got a "no comment." |
|
| Author: | Jaw Breaker [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Perfect example of the myth of unequal pay. You get what you negotiate...there is no reason to believe this had anything to do with gender discrimination. |
|
| Author: | badrogue17 [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Yeah and of course Hollywood feminists are outraged over it. Longer piece on it here. Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams starred in a feature film together this year, “All the Money in the World,” which is based on the true story of a 1973 kidnapping and directed by Ridley Scott. The film earned Williams a Golden Globe nomination. There was only one problem. The film also starred Kevin Spacey, an award-winning actor but also an accused molester. In his attempts to get the film out with a clear conscience in the age of #metoo and in the face of credible accusations against Spacey, Scott purged Spacey from the film, and replaced him with Christopher Plummer. Scott was lauded for the move but had to do reshoots as a result. Enter Scandal No. 2. Williams and Wahlberg both agreed to do more work on the film, but not for the same terms. The two stars had reportedly already been paid below their normal rate for the movie, and Wahlberg was not content to come back for union minimum. Williams, on the other hand, was under the impression everyone was doing their part for minimal pay to make the project work, so she accepted a per diem of $80 for an extra 10 days of work — a total of about $1000 — whereas Wahlberg got $1.5 million. Hollywood is outraged. Chastain is right. She is worth more than that, but she agreed to work for a pittance. And that’s part of the problem. I’m sympathetic to Williams’ urges, here. She’s in a film she believes in. She wants to help it succeed despite the misdeeds of her male coworker, and therefore decides to take a hit for the “cause.” Unfortunately, the “cause” is not just art, as Sonny Bunch points out, but a bunch of rich guys attempting to recoup their cash because they cast a pretty well-known predator in a role and had the misfortune of that coming to light during late stages of filmmaking. Oops. Here’s what Williams said about flying overseas over Thanksgiving week to work for free for 10 days away from her daughter: “I said I’d be wherever they needed me, whenever they needed me. And they could have my salary, they could have my holiday, whatever they wanted. Because I appreciated so much that they were making this massive effort.” As an employee, you have two choices. Do you make your employers pay for the mistake they made casting Spacey, which is no fault of your own, or do you consent to be a team player (possibly a sucker) and give your work away for nearly free? They need you to finish the film, after all, and you’ve done nothing wrong. In fact, you’ve already been a team player by taking less than your market value for a project you like. Walhberg made the former decision. Williams made the latter. Now, it’s certainly a big issue, because she’s a successful actress getting paid far less than her successful male counterpart. But she’s also a symbol of what causes some of the pay gap, to the extent it does exist (and it’s far more nuanced than the simple 77-cents talking point). If you want to be paid for your job, you need to insist on being paid for your job. People will take every opportunity to pay you nothing if you’re willing to do your work for free, be you man or woman. Women give people that opportunity more often than men do. I’m no one, and you couldn’t get me to work for 10 days overseas over a holiday for $1,000. Not happening. As a fan from way back in the “Dawson’s Creek” days, I’m somewhat mystified Williams was on board for it. Sallie Krawcheck, one of Wall Street’s few women CEOs, has pointed out the self-inflicted wounds women get by accepting the idea there’s no money in the pot for them: “What I’ve found over time is that when it would come to bonus time or raise time, I would hear from the gentlemen, “I want to make X.” I don’t think I ever heard from a woman who worked for me, “I want to make X.” Ever. And research shows, men ask and women don’t. … Say we’ve got two employees, Joe and Joanne. They’re both set to make $5 in bonus. Joe comes into my office and says, “Hey, Sallie, I’ve had a great year. I’d like to make $10 this year.” After Joe leaves, I call the head of HR, and we sort of say, “Can you believe this? Joe wants to make $10, he’s in for $5, ha ha ha.” But we don’t want to lose him. So we put him in for $7. And that means Joanne isn’t going to get the $5 we had planned. She’s going to get $3. Because the bonus pool doesn’t go up. She sees her bonus actually reduced.” This isn’t just anecdotal. Women are about four times less likely to ask for raises than men, according to research that prompted Carnegie Mellon economist Linda Babcock to write two books on the subject and study tactics for getting women to take a harder line, such as putting on negotiating classes for young women. “I tell my graduate students that by not negotiating their job at the beginning of their career, they’re leaving anywhere between $1 million and $1.5 million on the table in lost earnings over their lifetime,” Babcock told NPR in 2011. When everyone but Wahlberg agreed to come back for chicken scratch to the ironically titled “All the Money in the World,” his representation rightly pressed his advantage. The filmmakers had everyone they needed, for little to no money, except him. Back up that Brinks truck. Williams could have done the same. Would she get labeled “hard to work with?” Maybe, though simply asking to get paid more than a per diem for your very valuable skills isn’t exactly out of line. I certainly think being tough in negotiations is harder for women in an industry as demonstrably sexist as Hollywood, but why make it so easy for them? It’s worth pointing out Wahlberg’s not getting a reputation boost for his ask, either. He played hardball and he’s deemed all kinds of problematic for it, but he’s got $1.5 million to console himself with. The two actors are represented by the same agency and it seems Williams may have been ill-served by her agent, or lied to about what everyone else had agreed to. Do I think her agents and the guys making the movie are great people? No, but it’s hard to argue that when an A-list actress agrees to work for nothing, you shouldn’t take her up on it. I have a hard time believing they wouldn’t have taken Wahlberg up on it, too. Too often, women are also sold a bill of goods about how to solve this problem. Congress will fix it, activists say. Lily Ledbetter fixed it but not before the 1963 Equal Pay Act fixed it. And yet, here we are. There are injustices in the world. Life isn’t fair. And when you can remedy a small part of that by being a little more of a hard-ass, you should. It’s a lot quicker and more effective than an act of Congress and it normalizes being an assertive woman in the workplace. Ask for more, get a negotiating coach. Don’t work for nothing. Don’t assume everyone else is. What’s the word for that? Empowerment. Hollywood has very real problems with sexism, but a powerful actress agreeing to not get paid isn’t at the top of the list, though it’s a good lesson. Neither Wahlberg nor Williams was the predator, and neither should have paid the price for Spacey’s misconduct. Williams agreed to. Wahlberg didn’t. His was the right call. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Not all inequality is wrong. If a movie stars Wahlberg it is likely to make much more money than it is if it stars Michelle Williams. All the complaining about things like this does is distract from actual issues in Hollywood. |
|
| Author: | JORR [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: If a movie stars Wahlberg it is likely to make much more money than it is if it stars Michelle Williams. And likely to be a dumber movie. interesting how that works. |
|
| Author: | Ogie Oglethorpe [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
She should have held out for more money, especially for a reshoot. She deserves a DBotW for that |
|
| Author: | Terry's Peeps [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Yeah the piece Rogue posted lays it out nicely. It's on her if she agreed to work for less than her worth. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: If a movie stars Wahlberg it is likely to make much more money than it is if it stars Michelle Williams. And likely to be a dumber movie. interesting how that works. |
|
| Author: | badrogue17 [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
I’m about at the point where Judd Apatow can be thrown down a well anytime .
|
|
| Author: | Terry's Peeps [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
badrogue17 wrote: I’m about at the point where Judd Apatow can be thrown down a well anytime . Gotta protect women from themselves. And timid men who are afraid to speak up. |
|
| Author: | pittmike [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: Not all inequality is wrong. If a movie stars Wahlberg it is likely to make much more money than it is if it stars Michelle Williams. All the complaining about things like this does is distract from actual issues in Hollywood. You apparently did not get the memo. |
|
| Author: | ToxicMasculinity [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
badrogue17 wrote: I’m about at the point where Judd Apatow can be thrown down a well anytime . Just like that self righteous asshole Dan Harmon, it will turn out Apatow is a creep and clown. |
|
| Author: | Beardown [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
She agreed to do it for pennies. He didn't. What's the big deal? Had she asked for more money, the studio would have paid her the same because she had all the leverage. But she didn't. |
|
| Author: | Ugueth Will Shiv You [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Never, ever, ever, ever, ever do work for free. Ever. |
|
| Author: | Psycory [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
The agency angle is the most idiotic, I'm pretty sure that there is some level of confidentiality when it comes to talking about people that are being represented. And just because it is the same agency doesn't mean it is the same agent. |
|
| Author: | Douchebag [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Psycory wrote: The agency angle is the most idiotic Wrong. What better time would there be to collude with two of your clients to extract the most money? This was a movie that was strongly considered for oscars and other award nominations. With Spacey in the movie, the studio would have been completely fucked. Any agent involved with an actor that was asking for a re-shoot should have been able to bend this studio over and extract a large windfall. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Douchebag wrote: Psycory wrote: The agency angle is the most idiotic Wrong. What better time would there be to collude with two of your clients to extract the most money? This was a movie that was strongly considered for oscars and other award nominations. With Spacey in the movie, the studio would have been completely fucked. Any agent involved with an actor that was asking for a re-shoot should have been able to bend this studio over and extract a large windfall. |
|
| Author: | W_Z [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
|
|
| Author: | Big Chicagoan [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Per TMZ: Michelle Williams was not betrayed by anyone when she agreed to do reshoots for free when her male counterpart raked in $1.5 million ... so claim sources familiar with the situation. As we reported, when producers asked Michelle to do reshoots for "All the Money in the World," she quickly agreed to work for nothing. Mark Wahlberg, on the other hand, demanded $1.5 mil and, as one source put it, "He had producers over a barrel," and he got what he was after. Mark and Michelle are represented by the same agency -- William Morris Endeavor -- and there's been criticism that WME should have given Michelle a heads-up that Mark was getting paid, and paid a lot. Sources familiar with the contracts tell TMZ, Michelle's contract required her to do reshoots as part of her overall salary, whereas Mark's deal did not include reshoots. One source put it this way ... Mark's agents at WME did not communicate with Michelle's agent to let him know what Mark was getting paid, adding, that type of communication doesn't really happen between agents. Our sources say the agents advocate for their individual clients and have a duty of confidentiality not to disclose to one actor what another is getting paid. |
|
| Author: | Big Chicagoan [ Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
News broke a few days ago that Michelle Williams was reportedly paid less than $1,000 (an accumulation of a modest per diem fee) for her work on the reshoots of All the Money in the World, while her co-star Mark Wahlberg was allegedly paid $1.5 million. The plot thickened yesterday when it was announced that SAG-AFTRA, the actors union, had opened an investigation into that gargantuan pay disparity. Now, insider sources are telling USA Today that Wahlberg leveraged a co-star approval clause in his contract to get that $1.5 million fee, saying he refused to sign off on the replacement casting of Christopher Plummer until his additional payday was in place. Neither Wahlberg’s camp nor his agency, William Morris Endeavor — which also represents Williams — provided comment on the new reporting. The new USA Today story also contradicts previous reporting on a situation where the truth is muddy. It’s been alternately written that neither Williams nor Wahlberg had reshoot clauses in their contracts, and also that Williams’s contract contained that clause while Wahlberg’s didn’t — which would free Wahlberg up to negotiate for more money, while Williams wouldn’t have such leeway. Now, however, sources tells USA Today that both actors had preexisting language in their contracts concerning reshoots, with one person explaining to the paper, “What he said was, ‘I will not approve Christopher Plummer unless you pay me.’ And that’s how he (expletive) them.” It’s also rumored that director Ridley Scott is upset by the news about Wahlberg’s big payday, since he and Williams both completed the film for very little additional compensation. Both actors had to work over the Thanksgiving holiday to finish the film with Plummer, and Williams told USA Today at the time, “I said I’d be wherever they needed me, whenever they needed me. And they could have my salary, they could have my holiday, whatever they wanted. Because I appreciated so much that they were making this massive effort.” |
|
| Author: | badrogue17 [ Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
I don’t know why Wahlberg just doesn’t come out and apologize for being smarter than Michelle Williams . |
|
| Author: | Psycory [ Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Big Chicagoan wrote: One source put it this way ... Mark's agents at WME did not communicate with Michelle's agent to let him know what Mark was getting paid, adding, that type of communication doesn't really happen between agents. Our sources say the agents advocate for their individual clients and have a duty of confidentiality not to disclose to one actor what another is getting paid. [/i] As I said, the agent angle was idiotic. |
|
| Author: | Douchebag [ Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
badrogue17 wrote: I don’t know why Wahlberg just doesn’t come out and apologize for being smarter than Michelle Williams . Well he is Jewish (or has a Jewish sounding name). |
|
| Author: | Big Chicagoan [ Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
badrogue17 wrote: I don’t know why Wahlberg just doesn’t come out and apologize for being smarter than Michelle Williams . Williams is an artist who makes art. Wahlberg gets paid to be in movies. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
If Williams didn't care about getting paid extra for a reshoot because she loved the movie so much then why does she care now? |
|
| Author: | badrogue17 [ Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: If Williams didn't care about getting paid extra for a reshoot because she loved the movie so much then why does she care now? I don’t think she’s making much of a fuss about it . It’s the Greek chorus that’s outraged . |
|
| Author: | Jaw Breaker [ Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: If Williams didn't care about getting paid extra for a reshoot because she loved the movie so much then why does she care now? Yep, it's like the parable of The Workers in the Vineyard. |
|
| Author: | Ogie Oglethorpe [ Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
I never heard of her until this week. I knew who Mark Wahlberg was though. That's why he got paid more |
|
| Author: | Big Chicagoan [ Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote: I never heard of her until this week. I knew who Mark Wahlberg was though. That's why he got paid more She drove Heath Ledger to kill himself. |
|
| Author: | Regular Reader [ Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mark Wahlberg |
Big Chicagoan wrote: badrogue17 wrote: I don’t know why Wahlberg just doesn’t come out and apologize for being smarter than Michelle Williams . Williams is an artist who makes art. Wahlberg gets paid to be in movies. Nicely put! Which also explains why before this, I had no idea who she is. Or cared to know. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|