Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner
 

Archived Thread

NFT: All The Money In the World Pay Disparity outrage: Warranted?

Britt in VA : 1/11/2018 8:34 am
So everybody is flipping out about Mark Wahlberg getting paid 1.5 million dollars vs. Michelle Williams getting paid $80/day per diem (she offered to do the reshoot for free), and pointing to this as an example of men being given preferential treatment over women when it comes to pay.

My wife brought this up to me last night, and she was not pleased with my response, so I thought I would bounce if off of some of you, here. My thoughts:

1. It was a 10 day reshoot. All of the headlines read "Mark Wahlberg made an outrageous 1000 times what Michelle Williams made on all the money in the world...". I don't think that's accurate without knowing what their original salaries, were. Let's say both got paid 10 million, and then Wahlberg got an additional 1.5 that he negotiated, so maybe he made 11.5 million total to her 10 million.

2. Michelle Williams and Ridley Scott offered to do the reshoot for free. Wahlberg did not, so he negotiated additional pay. Is that an outrageous thing to do? Couldn't Michelle Williams have tried to negotiate additional salary? Isn't that a personal preference? I mean, in negotiations, does everybody hold hands and share what they're getting paid to make sure it's fair? Isn't it up to Michelle Williams and her agents to do that?

3. The whole Hollywood witch hunt for gender equality and sexual harassment, etc.... Talk about the height of hypocrisy... Hollywood is the last place I'm looking for my moral compass. What a bunch of fake, hypocritical blowhards. NOW they care about sexual harassment? The same crowd that gave Roman Polanski an award and a standing ovation a couple years ago? The cult of celebrity and the hold it has on this country right now for influencing the masses is out of control.

4. I asked her "Do you feel oppressed? Do you feel that you are being treated unfairly at your work, or feel that you are not being compensated comparative to your male counterparts?" The answer was no, but that that didn't mean that she shouldn't care about women being paid disproportionately to their male counterparts. I then said, isn't the CEO of your company a woman? Yes. The Martin Agency here in Richmond, one of the most powerful ad agencies in the country, also just hired a female CEO. I pointed to Kathleen Kennedy who is now the head of Lucasfilm....

I am 1000 percent for women's rights, gender equalilty, LGBQT rights, civil rights, etc.... All that. I want the best for everybody....

But is this sort of stuff rubbing anybody else the wrong way, or am I in the wrong here? It's a daily barrage of outrage and unfairness, and I'm not sure it's always what the focus of the issue should be. Now if the story were about a male heart surgeon making a lot more than a female heart surgeon, then yeah, that's a BIG problem. And that probably DOES happen, but this is not helping the issue. I think it's diluting it. I'm not going to lose any sleep over Michelle Williams and her millions of dollars making 1.5 less than Mark Wahlberg.

Anyways, rant over.
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
RE: The same firm represents Wahlberg and Williams  
Chris in Philly : 1/11/2018 10:33 am : link
In comment 13782512 Bold Ruler said:
Quote:
They worked to get Wahlberg the $1.5 M and not get Williams anything. They also let Williams think that everyone was re shooting for free.

That's the core of the issue. And it isn't fair to her.


This is the major point that most people just talk around.
RE: RE: The same firm represents Wahlberg and Williams  
pjcas18 : 1/11/2018 10:38 am : link
In comment 13782773 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 13782512 Bold Ruler said:


Quote:


They worked to get Wahlberg the $1.5 M and not get Williams anything. They also let Williams think that everyone was re shooting for free.

That's the core of the issue. And it isn't fair to her.



This is the major point that most people just talk around.


I think this from UESBLUE is far more believable than Bold Ruler's post, so I don't think it's people talking around Bold rulers point, it's that it sounds sketchy and unverifiable, so instead of talking around it people just mostly don't believe it IMO.

Quote:
As someone who HAS an agent (albeit a tv commercial agent not a Hollywood one) and also in that I WAS an agent for a few years, this is not belivable and there has to be more to this story. Both of their agents attend the same mtg etc - the head of the dept would never allow this. I guarantee there are extenuating circumstances. Likley Wahlberg was in demand for another project and the fee was negotiated in regard to his availability.
That makes sense.  
Beezer : 1/11/2018 10:41 am : link
.
again  
PaulBlakeTSU : 1/11/2018 10:42 am : link
it's also possible that Williams didn't want to engage in price gouging the project over a situation where they were getting rid of a sexual predator and re-shooting with only Plummer and a green screen would have yielded a worse quality picture, whereas Wahlberg saw it entirely as transactional.
Oh good - I was wondering what I should be outraged about today  
PatersonPlank : 1/11/2018 10:43 am : link
.
RE: RE: The same firm represents Wahlberg and Williams  
montanagiant : 1/11/2018 10:45 am : link
In comment 13782773 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 13782512 Bold Ruler said:


Quote:


They worked to get Wahlberg the $1.5 M and not get Williams anything. They also let Williams think that everyone was re shooting for free.

That's the core of the issue. And it isn't fair to her.



This is the major point that most people just talk around.

Ahh... I did not know this part of it that definitely changes things
it still doesn't change the fact  
UConn4523 : 1/11/2018 10:45 am : link
that Wahlberg had a demand and Williams apparently didn't. She should advise her representation to negotiate the pay that she wants.
This stuff on this level  
Dankbeerman : 1/11/2018 10:51 am : link
makes no sense. If you want to be paid the same dont agree to less.

Williams should be able to make any demand she wants too at this stage in her career. She didnt object to reshoots because if it didnt happen she would lose out on her oscar nomination. To her thats probably worth the 1.5. What did wallberg have to lose if the movie was never reshot or released.

This is an issue for the lower level actresses that are no namers. Thats were the abuse and neglect starts and needs to be addressed.
RE: RE: The same firm represents Wahlberg and Williams  
Britt in VA : 1/11/2018 10:54 am : link
In comment 13782773 Chris in Philly said:
Quote:
In comment 13782512 Bold Ruler said:


Quote:


They worked to get Wahlberg the $1.5 M and not get Williams anything. They also let Williams think that everyone was re shooting for free.

That's the core of the issue. And it isn't fair to her.



This is the major point that most people just talk around.


If they make a cut of what Williams makes, then aren't they leaving money on the table if that's the case? Doesn't seem like sound business in the name of oppression.
RE: Gender equality in terms of pay  
WideRight : 1/11/2018 10:54 am : link
In comment 13782744 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
IMO is a little bit of a red herring.

I don't think you should be able to pay people different because of their gender (or any trait for that matter).

however, I also don't think everyone should make the same amount necessarily just because they have the same job.

Merit based pay based on supply and demand is just common sense. If a woman performs better they should make more, if a man does he should make more, if that person is a minority of any type they should make more.

If Ghostbusters brings in $1B with Bill Murray as the lead, but only $200M with the woman lead whose name escapes me, why should they make the same amount for making the movie? (this is fictitious to make a point, but also probably close to real).


These are my thoughts as well, and I'll go one step further: If a female employee claims that she deserves equal pay because she has the same job - I will actively resist. Employees deserve the same pay for the same performance. That's the end of the story. Prior "wrongs" can't have any bearing on the future.

One can argue that perception of performance is subjective and perhaps unfair, and I'll say fine. That's where discrimination suits come in and women are extremely successful at that, so its priced in.

My general cranky feeling after all these years is that male breadwinners are much more consistent than female. While talented women are the best in the world and impact culture far more than men, a significant second group fall far short and exploit gender roles to their advantage, at considerable cost to others. And you can't always tell who's who at the start, so you sort have to hedge your bet. Which means offer low.......
RE: it still doesn't change the fact  
montanagiant : 1/11/2018 10:55 am : link
In comment 13782797 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
that Wahlberg had a demand and Williams apparently didn't. She should advise her representation to negotiate the pay that she wants.

That depends on if the agency misrepresented what the other actors were doing regarding the reshoots. You hire an agency to advise and negotiate for you.
On a side note  
montanagiant : 1/11/2018 11:01 am : link
Did Spacey still get paid for the work he put in prior to being fired off the set? I wonder if the studio has a personal issues clause in these contracts
RE: I sometimes think  
MetsAreBack : 1/11/2018 11:03 am : link
In comment 13782495 DC Gmen Fan said:
Quote:
the pay disparity is due to the fact that in general, men are tougher negotiators than women when it comes to salary.


?? Actors/actresses use agents.
RE: RE: it still doesn't change the fact  
UConn4523 : 1/11/2018 11:24 am : link
In comment 13782832 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 13782797 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


that Wahlberg had a demand and Williams apparently didn't. She should advise her representation to negotiate the pay that she wants.


That depends on if the agency misrepresented what the other actors were doing regarding the reshoots. You hire an agency to advise and negotiate for you.


That is correct. But I don't necessarily think that's gender inequality.

In sports and entertainment, people who generate more revenue will and should make more money. This isn't an everyday job like being a police officer where a woman should make as much as a man, or a teacher, or a doctor, etc. The entertainment variable makes this an outlier, IMO. If Actor A generates 10x the revenue to Actress A you don't have to be sexist to pay Actor A more.
RE: RE: I'm just sick of being bombarded daily that I should be outraged....  
MetsAreBack : 1/11/2018 11:32 am : link
In comment 13782531 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 13782527 Britt in VA said:


Quote:


I'm not outraged, I'm pretty happy with what I have in life.

As most of you know, I'm also a teacher, and don't really feel that my salary is unfair. It's also the same as my female counterparts.


I'm not a teacher, but I always thought teachers were massively underpaid. Surprising to hear a teacher disagree with this notion.


Depends on the location. Much like the recent tax bill (which was more about where in the country you lived than about your income level), its unfortunate when people apply such a broad brush. NYC teachers i know barely make minimum wage -- massively underpaid. Go to Westchester, teachers in short order have tenure (ie almost impossible to fire for poor performance), make $125-140K a year, and have full pension and benefits by age 45.

That's obviously massively overpaid and a big reason why property taxes are so high in the state.
I actually just found out how much my mother-in-law  
UConn4523 : 1/11/2018 11:36 am : link
made as a elementary school gym teacher. Definitely not underpaid. Her retirement is a yearly payout of 75% of the average of her top 3 years for the rest of her life. She will have a very good retirement.

But that's also Fairfield County. Westchester is even more ridiculous. But I'd still wager 3/4 of the country's teachers are underpaid.
RE: RE: I sometimes think  
DC Gmen Fan : 1/11/2018 11:36 am : link
In comment 13782847 MetsAreBack said:
Quote:
In comment 13782495 DC Gmen Fan said:


Quote:


the pay disparity is due to the fact that in general, men are tougher negotiators than women when it comes to salary.



?? Actors/actresses use agents.




Read further. I corrected myself to say in general. Agents notwithstanding.
RE: RE: RE: it still doesn't change the fact  
montanagiant : 1/11/2018 11:38 am : link
In comment 13782904 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 13782832 montanagiant said:


Quote:


In comment 13782797 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


that Wahlberg had a demand and Williams apparently didn't. She should advise her representation to negotiate the pay that she wants.


That depends on if the agency misrepresented what the other actors were doing regarding the reshoots. You hire an agency to advise and negotiate for you.



That is correct. But I don't necessarily think that's gender inequality.

In sports and entertainment, people who generate more revenue will and should make more money. This isn't an everyday job like being a police officer where a woman should make as much as a man, or a teacher, or a doctor, etc. The entertainment variable makes this an outlier, IMO. If Actor A generates 10x the revenue to Actress A you don't have to be sexist to pay Actor A more.

I completely agree with the performance-based pay aspect. That is how I have made a living for the last 35 years and is IMO the fairest way to do pay
Increasingly, I just ignore modern culture altogether  
Del Shofner : 1/11/2018 11:47 am : link
and just live in my time capsule!
RE: The same firm represents Wahlberg and Williams  
Matt M. : 1/11/2018 12:20 pm : link
In comment 13782512 Bold Ruler said:
Quote:
They worked to get Wahlberg the $1.5 M and not get Williams anything. They also let Williams think that everyone was re shooting for free.

That's the core of the issue. And it isn't fair to her.
The smae firm, but not the same agent. One may have not known what the other was doing. The only wronjgdoing here is if the claim that they let her think it was being done for free is true. Otherwise, she offered to work for free, yet still got paid a per diem.
RE: There are a lot..  
Matt M. : 1/11/2018 12:22 pm : link
In comment 13782494 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
of things Hollywood has gotten wrong with blacklisting of people and the sexual harassment issues.

This isn't one of them. As you pointed out, Williams offered to reshoot for free and Wahlberg didn't. Instead of telling him to pound sand or do it for free, they paid him (and they probably would've paid Williams too).

But that's the atmosphere we are in these days. Social movements use faux and sweeping outrage because people read headlines and go nuts without delving deeper into the issues.

Worse, the people who can delve deeper (the news outlets) don't really seem to care to and instead sensationalize whatever they can to fan the flames.
I think this is well stated. I will add, part of the problem is the news outlets are no longer interested in reporting the news or in true journalism. Even the best of the outlets are becoming more and more interested in being first. The nature of social media makes click bait more important than being right; being first is more important than digging deeper or fact checking.
RE: .......  
Matt M. : 1/11/2018 12:23 pm : link
In comment 13782529 CoughlinHandsonHips said:
Quote:
I think sometimes Hollywood forgets that actors and actresses are paid based on their box office draw rather than their talent acting talent.

Wahlberg is paid like he is because his name alone is a draw to a lot of movie goers. Can the same be said for Michelle Williams?
is his name really that big a draw? I can't think of too many people who are going to a movie because he is in it. If anything, the opposite may be true.
RE: Wahlberg didn't really care about removing a sex  
Matt M. : 1/11/2018 12:26 pm : link
In comment 13782550 GentleGiant said:
Quote:
offender from the movie and if they were hell bent on doing it, he was going to get paid. Michelle Williams was very happy to reshoot the movie because she thought it was a decent gesture by the movie studio to remove a sex offender from the final cut. That's the story. Wahlberg was a thug before he got into show business and he obviously made a calculated decision that this would in no way harm his career, and he's probably right. The kind of people that go to his movies could care less that he beat up black kids when he was a teenager in Boston.
Wasn't he convicted for beating up those kids? I thought it was Vietnamese kids, but I could be wrong. Either way, more recently he tried to have his record expunged. I hope he was not successful. With all the outrage about gender and racial inequality, how come his convicted behavior is not being made an issue?
RE: there are a few things at play  
Matt M. : 1/11/2018 12:29 pm : link
In comment 13782588 PaulBlakeTSU said:
Quote:
1. Once the film agreed to pay Wahlberg $1.5 million for the reshoot, do they owe it to Wiliams (and Scott) to inform them of this (or of a general handsome payday), since Williams and Scott offered to do it for free given the unforeseeable news about Spacey that broke right before the movie was to come out?

2. If the same agency represents Wahlberg and Williams, how do they not let Williams know that after she agreed to reshoot the scenes for free (because she wanted to see the movie succeed, presumably), that they also negotiated a $1.5 million payday for Wahlberg?

3. Perhaps the biggest issue of all-- instead of the payday, Mark Wahlberg get criticism for the effective price gouging he engaged in once the Spacey news broke and would have killed the movie's financial viability?

He had the studio over a barrel because he was needed for those scenes. But he agreed to a salary to film the movie and then scenes needed to be re-shot in order for the movie to have any chance of success. And instead of caring about seeing his project and collaboration succeed, it was "fuck you, pay me." I'm not saying he had to do it for free, but boy did his rate go up for those 9 or 10 days of re-shooting.

Williams and Scott cared about seeing the movie succeed. Wahlberg cared about getting paid.

I'd say it changes my opinion of Wahlberg, but this is a guy who engaged in race-based violence, almost killing a guy for being Asian, instead leaving him permanently blind.
#3 is excellently put.
I have yet to see a comment from Williams  
Matt M. : 1/11/2018 12:30 pm : link
Isn't it possible she was made aware of his payday and still insisted on not taking on additional salary for the re-shoot?
RE: .......  
old man : 1/11/2018 12:39 pm : link
In comment 13782529 CoughlinHandsonHips said:
Quote:
I think sometimes Hollywood forgets that actors and actresses are paid based on their box office draw rather than their talent acting talent.

Wahlberg is paid like he is because his name alone is a draw to a lot of movie goers. Can the same be said for Michelle Williams?

+1.
I Know -0- about her, and she might be a great actress, or become one. But my take is:
She, or her agent, got and signed a contract at that amount, and the deal is the deal. Based on the amount it was her entry level opportunity. Her ability in the role may have far exceeded the deal.Minimum wage widget makers may make far less than the commission salespeople get to sell the widgets; you do your job and the rest is whatever it is. If it was entry level you can likely add Zeros to that amount on her next contract.
She needs a new agent, regardless.
If the disparity is +/- universal even for M-star vs F-star/drawing card pay, Hollywood needs to look in the mirror before it reveals how hypocritical it is in its protests on behalf of the same causes itself violates.
......  
CoughlinHandsonHips : 1/11/2018 12:40 pm : link
Quote:
RE: .......
Matt M. : 12:23 pm : link : reply
In comment 13782529 CoughlinHandsonHips said:
Quote:
I think sometimes Hollywood forgets that actors and actresses are paid based on their box office draw rather than their talent acting talent.

Wahlberg is paid like he is because his name alone is a draw to a lot of movie goers. Can the same be said for Michelle Williams?
is his name really that big a draw? I can't think of too many people who are going to a movie because he is in it. If anything, the opposite may be true.


I'm not a big fan of his either, but his resume is chocked full of financially successful movies where he was top, or close to top billing.

The Italian Job, The Other Guys, Ted, Lone Survivor, Transformers, that Daddy movie, to name a few, were all successful at the box office. This drives his price up.
RE: RE: .......  
Matt M. : 1/11/2018 1:14 pm : link
In comment 13783033 old man said:
Quote:
In comment 13782529 CoughlinHandsonHips said:


Quote:


I think sometimes Hollywood forgets that actors and actresses are paid based on their box office draw rather than their talent acting talent.

Wahlberg is paid like he is because his name alone is a draw to a lot of movie goers. Can the same be said for Michelle Williams?



+1.
I Know -0- about her, and she might be a great actress, or become one. But my take is:
She, or her agent, got and signed a contract at that amount, and the deal is the deal. Based on the amount it was her entry level opportunity. Her ability in the role may have far exceeded the deal.Minimum wage widget makers may make far less than the commission salespeople get to sell the widgets; you do your job and the rest is whatever it is. If it was entry level you can likely add Zeros to that amount on her next contract.
She needs a new agent, regardless.
If the disparity is +/- universal even for M-star vs F-star/drawing card pay, Hollywood needs to look in the mirror before it reveals how hypocritical it is in its protests on behalf of the same causes itself violates.
She is hardly an entry level actress. She's been nominated for 4 Oscars, dating back to 2006.
Do not try to apply logic to ANYTHING that goes on  
Stan in LA : 1/11/2018 1:29 pm : link
Here is Hollywood. Take it from one who knows.
To me, the whole debate begins and ends with one fact  
BlackLight : 1/11/2018 1:42 pm : link
That Michelle Williams offered to do the reshoots for free, and Wahlberg negotiated a reshoot fee.

This isn't anything like a pay equity issue. If anything, it's a "Mark Wahlberg acted like a dildo" issue.
Sexual harassment in Hollywood  
Vanzetti : 1/11/2018 1:51 pm : link
Was predicated on men holding a huge power differential over young aspiring women.

Now electronc technologies and the success of harassment litigation have shifted power to women who are no longer A liisters and thus donít have much to lose.

Itís really that simple

RE: Do not try to apply logic to ANYTHING that goes on  
Brown Recluse : 1/11/2018 1:51 pm : link
In comment 13783113 Stan in LA said:
Quote:
Here is Hollywood. Take it from one who knows.


This explains a lot about Stans football posts.
Re: Wahlberg  
Vanzetti : 1/11/2018 1:54 pm : link
You canít base a gender equality argument on one case.

It would be like arguing that block women have equal economic opportunity because look at how much money Oprah makes
C'mon..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/11/2018 1:54 pm : link
Oprah's lost some weight in recent years.
RE: If you're to look onto the average 20 something year-old's  
Modus Operandi : 1/11/2018 4:01 pm : link
In comment 13782578 Eli2020 said:
Quote:
Social media channels, you'd become aghast as to how pussified this country has become. And not just pussified, but how easily persuaded they are by hyperbolic headlines.

Sidenote, The Martin Agency is a fantastic place to work. I love all the Geico ads they've done recently. Britt, what does your wife do there?


Quite honestly, I'm aghast at how easily persuaded many middle aged people are.
...  
christian : 1/11/2018 4:40 pm : link
Sounds like Williams was fully aware and graciously re-shot for the good of the project. Wahlberg opted to use his considerable leverage to extract a big pay day.

No one but Williams knows if there was an underlying motive for not seeking out more money. Maybe she felt it would be bad for her reputation to be seen as a bottleneck. Wahlberg certainly didn't. Good on him if that's how he wants to play it.

The only person who seems outrage is the director - who has every right to be.
Purely anecdotal here...  
Knineteen : 1/11/2018 4:54 pm : link
men care more about money. Women don't.

That's not to say women aren't intelligent enough or talented enough to care about or garner higher wages, but from my experience...most women just don't care that much about money or have the overall desire to demand a higher wage. I'm not debating the origins or causes of it, but IMO there is definitely a gender disparity when it comes to demanding high wages.

Then again, maybe I just hang around too many passive females.
RE: To me, the whole debate begins and ends with one fact  
Knineteen : 1/11/2018 5:04 pm : link
In comment 13783147 BlackLight said:
Quote:
This isn't anything like a pay equity issue. If anything, it's a "Mark Wahlberg acted like a dildo" issue.

Because he demanded extra money when he was requested to do extra work? Extra pay that was essentially negotiated in his contract:

Quote:
According to an industry insider who spoke to TheWrap, Williamsí original contract required her to do any necessary reshoots, while Wahlbergís did not. So when director Ridley Scott called for 10 days of reshoots after the movieís original star, Kevin Spacey, was replaced by Christopher Plummer, Wahlberg had the opportunity to negotiate additional pay.


In addition:

Quote:
Ahead of production, Wahlberg, who was named Forbesí highest-paid actor in 2017, took a pay cut in order to star in the film, according to the New York Times.

How does this make him a "dildo" again?
Link - ( New Window )
RE: Purely anecdotal here...  
SomeFan : 1/11/2018 5:52 pm : link
In comment 13783548 Knineteen said:
Quote:
men care more about money. Women don't.

That's not to say women aren't intelligent enough or talented enough to care about or garner higher wages, but from my experience...most women just don't care that much about money or have the overall desire to demand a higher wage. I'm not debating the origins or causes of it, but IMO there is definitely a gender disparity when it comes to demanding high wages.

Then again, maybe I just hang around too many passive females.


That is not my experience though I probably hang around a lot of aggressive women.
The way I understand it is  
compton : 1/11/2018 6:04 pm : link
that Michelle Williams had a re-shoot clause in her original contract that provision for her getting paid what she received if there was a re-shoot. Mark Wahlberg contract did not have a re-shoot clause so when the movie needed extensive re-shooting he had them over a barrel. He simply told them he will do the re-shoot for 1.5 million. They had no choice but to pay him what he was asking for if they wanted the movie to come out by the release date. Williams wasn't in such a fortunate position as her contract called for re-shoots at a standard rate. Both Williams and Walberg have the same management company but different agents negotiated their contracts. I don't know why Walberg's agent was able to negotiate a contract that didn't have a re-shoot clause and Williams agent was not able to get a similar contract. Strange.
....  
yankees78 : 1/11/2018 7:54 pm : link
Quote:
Mark Wahlberg refused to approve Christopher Plummer as a replacement for Kevin Spacey in All the Money in the World unless he was paid over a million dollars for the reshoot, USA TODAY has learned.

Wahlberg had co-star approval in his contract, two people familiar with the situation but not authorized to speak publicly about it tell USA TODAY.


"What he said was, 'I will not approve Christopher Plummer unless you pay me.' And that's how he (expletive) them," says one person.

Another Hollywood insider says Wahlberg's lawyer formally vetoed the Oscar winner in a letter to financiers until his demand for additional payment was met.


Link - ( New Window )
RE: RE: To me, the whole debate begins and ends with one fact  
BlackLight : 1/11/2018 9:21 pm : link
In comment 13783571 Knineteen said:
Quote:


Because he demanded extra money when he was requested to do extra work? Extra pay that was essentially negotiated in his contract:


How does this make him a "dildo" again?


Having the legal right to do something doesn't, ipso facto, give you the moral right to do that something.

I wouldn't say he was morally obligated to make the same deal Michelle Williams did. But it's pretty clear Wahlberg knew he had the production over a barrel and he took advantage of it. His contract may have allowed him this opportunity, but he doesn't really deserve a pat on the back for it.
I find it disturbing that so many, including people on this thread  
Cam in MO : 1/11/2018 9:59 pm : link
accept that women in general make less money than men for the same work.

You always hear the saying "equal work for equal pay", as if that's not happening.

If you look past the general numbers that are always thrown about and dig into the data you will find that yes, in general women earn less than men. Of course that is across all occupations. It doesn't take into account the types of jobs or the amount of hours worked.

If you want to do anything about the problem, you need to focus on the reasons women work less hours than men (this is not an insult and not implying that women are lazy compared to men) and gravitate (for the most part) towards occupations that in general pay less than men. Neither of these two things are an insult or imply anything- they're just the current facts.

Men and women are different. They are different biologically. This inevitably leads to different life choices in general.

I am of the firm belief that women can do any job a man does, and do it just as well as a man if they so chose. There are countless examples of this just about everywhere you look.

Unfortunately, because in general women value things differently than men and face different obstacles in their adult life (different, not more or less difficult) in general, they tend to make less money overall even through they are earning equal pay for equal work across similar occupations and similar hours worked.

To me, the saddest part of this whole situation is that instead of just accepting the differences and being okay with choices both women and men make, many folks think we need to take action rather than just let men and women do what they want with their lives based on this horrible idea that there should be equality in results rather than simply equality when it comes to choice and opurtunity.

RE: The way I understand it is  
christian : 1/11/2018 10:35 pm : link
In comment 13783687 compton said:
Quote:
that Michelle Williams had a re-shoot clause in her original contract that provision for her getting paid what she received if there was a re-shoot. Mark Wahlberg contract did not have a re-shoot clause so when the movie needed extensive re-shooting he had them over a barrel. He simply told them he will do the re-shoot for 1.5 million. They had no choice but to pay him what he was asking for if they wanted the movie to come out by the release date. Williams wasn't in such a fortunate position as her contract called for re-shoots at a standard rate. Both Williams and Walberg have the same management company but different agents negotiated their contracts. I don't know why Walberg's agent was able to negotiate a contract that didn't have a re-shoot clause and Williams agent was not able to get a similar contract. Strange.


Likely because he's not as skilled an actor and frequently requires reshoots.
RE: RE: RE: To me, the whole debate begins and ends with one fact  
Knineteen : 1/11/2018 10:40 pm : link
In comment 13784026 BlackLight said:
Quote:
I wouldn't say he was morally obligated to make the same deal Michelle Williams did. But it's pretty clear Wahlberg knew he had the production over a barrel and he took advantage of it. His contract may have allowed him this opportunity, but he doesn't really deserve a pat on the back for it.

Huh? The news story only has legs because of pay disparity between a man and a woman. Had the two been paid the same, there wouldn't be a story.
This doesn't have to do with what's morally right or wrong.

Lets not pretend the recasting of Spacey was because studios care about sexual assault. The move was made so the film wouldn't be a financial flop! It's not on Wahlberg's shoulders to make it right, nor should it be.
RE: RE: Purely anecdotal here...  
Knineteen : 1/11/2018 10:44 pm : link
In comment 13783664 SomeFan said:
Quote:
That is not my experience though I probably hang around a lot of aggressive women.

Teachers don't do it for the money, yet the overwhelming number of teachers are women.

Nurses, social workers, therapists, etc. All female-dominated jobs with honorable intentions but not jobs you do for the money. It's hard to say the same for males.
RE: This should be true..  
LauderdaleMatty : 1/11/2018 10:55 pm : link
In comment 13782609 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
be unfortunately it isn't always:



Quote:


...
christian : 9:18 am : link : reply
It's also pretty lazy to conflate outrage with discussion.

The public, media and industry are outraged Weinstein extorted and raped women for sex.

The public, media and industry are discussing William's pay for the film.



Discussion is one thing. The way it is being reported is another.

Here's a snippet of some headlines right now:


Quote:


Hollywood Bias Continues! Michelle Williams Didn't Deserve Equal Pay to Mark Wahlberg. She Deserved More





Quote:


Exclusive: What are they Thinking? Wahlberg got $1.5M for 'All the Money' reshoot, Williams paid less than $1,000





Quote:


Hollywood Parity? Wahlberg paid 1500 times Michelle Williams!



Add to this that the story was reported as "Breaking News" on both NBC and CNN and you can easily see how the Media elevates something from a simple reporting of facts to fan the flames of outrage.


So NBC is reporting this as outrageous. Didn't that's Today show guy work there? Wasn't he a sexual predator along w getting paid much more than his female counterparts?

Yeah. We need to have a discussion all right. Would also love to know how
Many women in black dresses gave Plolanski a standing O a few years ago. Meanwhile the poor women who were actually assaulted and had their careers affected were shunned. Yes. Whole industry who have silently condoned rampant rape, assault and even pedophelia now are mad about this. Poor Michelle Williams.

Yeah. Let's talk about all this
RE: RE: RE: Purely anecdotal here...  
Cam in MO : 1/11/2018 11:22 pm : link
In comment 13784103 Knineteen said:
Quote:
In comment 13783664 SomeFan said:


Quote:


That is not my experience though I probably hang around a lot of aggressive women.


Teachers don't do it for the money, yet the overwhelming number of teachers are women.

Nurses, social workers, therapists, etc. All female-dominated jobs with honorable intentions but not jobs you do for the money. It's hard to say the same for males.


+1000

Although I'd say there's not necessarily anything wrong with men chasing the money. Men and women value things differently. When you get down to it, everybody knows this and there is nothing wrong with it. We are just different. It would really suck if we weren't.

RE: RE: RE: RE: Purely anecdotal here...  
BMac : 1/12/2018 6:10 am : link
In comment 13784123 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
In comment 13784103 Knineteen said:


Quote:


In comment 13783664 SomeFan said:


Quote:


That is not my experience though I probably hang around a lot of aggressive women.


Teachers don't do it for the money, yet the overwhelming number of teachers are women.

Nurses, social workers, therapists, etc. All female-dominated jobs with honorable intentions but not jobs you do for the money. It's hard to say the same for males.



+1000

Although I'd say there's not necessarily anything wrong with men chasing the money. Men and women value things differently. When you get down to it, everybody knows this and there is nothing wrong with it. We are just different. It would really suck if we weren't.


Yeah, it'd be pretty shitty all around.
RE: RE: The way I understand it is  
UConn4523 : 1/12/2018 6:55 am : link
In comment 13784093 christian said:
Quote:
In comment 13783687 compton said:


Quote:


that Michelle Williams had a re-shoot clause in her original contract that provision for her getting paid what she received if there was a re-shoot. Mark Wahlberg contract did not have a re-shoot clause so when the movie needed extensive re-shooting he had them over a barrel. He simply told them he will do the re-shoot for 1.5 million. They had no choice but to pay him what he was asking for if they wanted the movie to come out by the release date. Williams wasn't in such a fortunate position as her contract called for re-shoots at a standard rate. Both Williams and Walberg have the same management company but different agents negotiated their contracts. I don't know why Walberg's agent was able to negotiate a contract that didn't have a re-shoot clause and Williams agent was not able to get a similar contract. Strange.



Likely because he's not as skilled an actor and frequently requires reshoots.


Not sure if that was sarcasm but you have it backwards. Wahlberg sucks and likely HAS to do reshoots and wants to get paid more for them. Williams is a really good actress and wouldnít need to do reshoots.

In any case, reshoots happen when there are majors changes to a film, not because an actor sucks (thatís what takes are for).
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner