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.
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.
That's the core of the issue. And it isn't fair to her.
Furthermore, isn't name recognizability a factor?
Everyone knows Wahlberg; he's a star. I've never heard of Michelle Williams (though I admit I don't get to movies much lately). Wouldn't that give him more leverage to negotiate?
These people have entire teams, I don't think this statement or line of thinking is accurate. It's not like its a 1:1 negotation for a new employer.
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.
That's the core of the issue. And it isn't fair to her.
And old school Hollywood was apparently extremely sexist.
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?
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.
Much more information is needed. If Williams was intentionally misrepresented it's a crummy situation. If she was aware of the facts and decided to proceed in the spirit of dedication to the film, good for her.
I don't think anyone in Hollywood is mistaking Marky Mark and Michelle William's pedigree as artist's and quality of work, and what they are in it for.
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.
Would I like more money? Sure, and I do think my work is worth more than what I get, but I knew that going in. Everybody does. I made the choice.
Quote:
the pay disparity is due to the fact that in general, men are tougher negotiators than women when it comes to salary.
Don't agents negotiate the salary?
These people have entire teams, I don't think this statement or line of thinking is accurate. It's not like its a 1:1 negotation for a new employer.
In this case yes you are right. I'm talking in general. I've talked to many women (esp those quite close to me) about negotiating for salary, and many don't like the idea of it turning into a "confrontation".
That's the core of the issue. And it isn't fair to her.
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.
He blinded an Asian man.
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.
If the overall reaction to this story meets your threshold for outrage, it's a pretty low bar.
There must be inequalities in pay because of all the noise, but I have never seen them. And as many of you said, Hollywood is paid on box office draw.
Now if this actress (actor, I suppose is now the correct term) is represented by the same agency, her beef is with them especially if they didn't tell her Wahlberg was getting paid. Sounds to me that could be breach of contract on their part.....
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?
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.
I'm probably the least current on entertainment industry news and notes of anyone on this board I couldn't pick a Kardashian out of a lineup, but I believe the sexual harassment in Hollywood is real. and shining light on it - a big bright light, is a good thing, not a witch hunt.
gender pay equality is different and global/country-wide not unique to Hollywood even if simply demonstrable (or not) in Hollywood, but I'd keep those two separate and calling the sexual harassment issues being uncovered and reported in Hollywood a witch hunt might be a poor choice of words.
the "metoo" movement might be schadenfreude, but I don't think it changes history, especially for people like Mira Sorvino, Corey Feldman, Corey Haim, Rose McGowan, etc. or countless others whose mental states or careers or in some cases lives have been lost and/or ruined.
There must be inequalities in pay because of all the noise, but I have never seen them. And as many of you said, Hollywood is paid on box office draw.
Now if this actress (actor, I suppose is now the correct term) is represented by the same agency, her beef is with them especially if they didn't tell her Wahlberg was getting paid. Sounds to me that could be breach of contract on their part.....
Point of info ... why would they have breached her contract by not sharing details of someone else's deal(s)? Seems like the opposite might be true - if they'd have shared details of Wahlberg's deal, that seems more likely to cross lines, in not legal, then possible ethical.
I don't know ... I'm asking.
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?
My wife doesn't work for the Martin Agency. They are just located here where we live and I was using them as an additional example.
Yeah, it's only 20-somethings who are persuaded by headlines. How long have you lived here?
Quote:
...The whole Hollywood witch hunt for gender equality and sexual harassment, etc....
I'm probably the least current on entertainment industry news and notes of anyone on this board I couldn't pick a Kardashian out of a lineup, but I believe the sexual harassment in Hollywood is real. and shining light on it - a big bright light, is a good thing, not a witch hunt.
gender pay equality is different and global/country-wide not unique to Hollywood even if simply demonstrable (or not) in Hollywood, but I'd keep those two separate and calling the sexual harassment issues being uncovered and reported in Hollywood a witch hunt might be a poor choice of words.
the "metoo" movement might be schadenfreude, but I don't think it changes history, especially for people like Mira Sorvino, Corey Feldman, Corey Haim, Rose McGowan, etc. or countless others whose mental states or careers or in some cases lives have been lost and/or ruined.
I should not have lumped the two together, and it was a poor choice of words.
In regards to the sexual harassment thing, it was more about them being a bunch of hypocritical fakes than the actual issue itself that I take umbrage with.
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:
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.
Quote:
in a union, I never saw inequity in pay (sometimes I saw people who didn't deserve what they were getting). I know my wife gets paid more than the same levels where she works because the GM and managers want to keep her.
There must be inequalities in pay because of all the noise, but I have never seen them. And as many of you said, Hollywood is paid on box office draw.
Now if this actress (actor, I suppose is now the correct term) is represented by the same agency, her beef is with them especially if they didn't tell her Wahlberg was getting paid. Sounds to me that could be breach of contract on their part.....
Point of info ... why would they have breached her contract by not sharing details of someone else's deal(s)? Seems like the opposite might be true - if they'd have shared details of Wahlberg's deal, that seems more likely to cross lines, in not legal, then possible ethical.
I don't know ... I'm asking.
Didn't need to say how much Wahlberg was getting, but it is their job to represent and advise her for getting employed and paid. They are getting 3% of her salary (I presume 3%) to represent her. They obviously knew Wahlberg was getting paid. Wouldn't they tell her, hey we just negotiated a reshoot deal for Wahlberg, do you want us to do the same for you?
I know nothing either, I'm just speculating that it seems like a poor job by the Agency in representing a client. Of course, we don't know the original terms of her contract which may have included an all in salary - reshoots included, whereas Wahlberg being a major player, may have it stipulated in his contract that anything outside the original shoot is subject to negotiation and further compensation.
Quote:
is not what I'd call a witch hunt:
Quote:
...The whole Hollywood witch hunt for gender equality and sexual harassment, etc....
I'm probably the least current on entertainment industry news and notes of anyone on this board I couldn't pick a Kardashian out of a lineup, but I believe the sexual harassment in Hollywood is real. and shining light on it - a big bright light, is a good thing, not a witch hunt.
gender pay equality is different and global/country-wide not unique to Hollywood even if simply demonstrable (or not) in Hollywood, but I'd keep those two separate and calling the sexual harassment issues being uncovered and reported in Hollywood a witch hunt might be a poor choice of words.
the "metoo" movement might be schadenfreude, but I don't think it changes history, especially for people like Mira Sorvino, Corey Feldman, Corey Haim, Rose McGowan, etc. or countless others whose mental states or careers or in some cases lives have been lost and/or ruined.
I should not have lumped the two together, and it was a poor choice of words.
In regards to the sexual harassment thing, it was more about them being a bunch of hypocritical fakes than the actual issue itself that I take umbrage with.
I agree with that
Again, in order to be outraged, I'd need to see something less subjective.
For instance, what two doctors that do the same thing in the same practice make. Two lawyers, etc.... Something that's more comparable and less subjective.
The Box Office draw thing is significant. Mark Wahlberg headline's Chris in Philly's favorite franchise "Transformers", making billions worldwide, vs. Williams doing a bunch of indie movies that are bringing in pennies on the dollar compared to that. Are they really comparable?
When it comes to net worth, I see that Emma Stone is worth 28 million, and Williams is worth 16 million. Williams has been around a lot longer, been in a lot more, and has won more awards and had the more prestigious career. Why does Emma Stone make so much more than her? Is it discrimination?
Hollywood is about making money and he sells more tickets than she does (as painful as that is to type since he sucks and she's actually a good actress).
Why would someone who doesn't generate the same market share be getting paid as much as one who is a top producer in their profession? Wahlbergs' name alone will draw more viewers to the film, the same can't be said of Williams. Its the same reason OBJ will command a much higher contract when the time comes than Tavarres King ever will. Both play on the same team, both play the same position, but one clearly produces and performs at a different level than the other, and is valued according to what they bring in comparison to all of their peers. This can be said to be true in any profession, and there really isn't any more to it than that. This is a non issue.
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.
Again, if those are "outrageous" headlines to you, I don't know what to tell you.
I bet this isn't a story in 2 weeks. What do you think? I bet it's a blip and a virtual non-memory by the end of the month.
It's possible that Williams figured that doing the reshoots for min money will pay dividends down the road. That this enhances her image within that industry as someone that is easy to work with and who puts the art first.
Maybe Wahlberg has a better agent.
Maybe he had more lines in those reshot scenes.
This was a unique situation that required everyone to fix very quickly and it could be that Michelle Williams contract called for a certain number of reshoots
Each actor is their own business, their own company so to say. That means that each actor does the movie for what they had negotiated for regardless of what the other actors got. That could be money, amenities, timeframe, etc... Why this one aspect is being scrutinized while all the other aspects ignored is just silly.
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).
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.
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:
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
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.