Sign up and stay connected to your favorite communities.

sign uplog in

Mark Wahlberg Donates $1.5M In Michelle Williams’ Name to #TimesUp

84% Upvoted
What are your thoughts? Log in or Sign uplog insign up

Apparently her contract included reshoots and his didn't. This is a wise PR move in this climate, probably worth more than the money, but it won't appease the rabble if there are any accusations down the line.

Apparently her contract included reshoots and his didn't.

There was an update that came out that indicated that they both had reshoots in their contracts, but Wahlberg also had a clause giving him approval over co-stars. So because they were specifically reshooting with a new actor, Wahlberg had room to renegotiate.

11 more replies

He blinded a man, how much worse can it get?

I thought that too, but apparently the man was already blind in that eye.

He still beat the shit out of him.

He did a lot more hateful things as well

On June 15, 1986 Mark and three other teenagers approached 12-year-old Jesse Coleman and his older brother and sister as they were walking home. The group chased the group of black school children on their bikes; one of the assailants told the children, "We don't like black ni--ers in the area so get the f--k away from the area!"

The group continued to chase the children on their mopeds, yelling, "Kill the ni--ers! Kill the ni--ers!" Each one of Mark's little gang threw rocks at their victims. By the time the children reached Burger King, Mark and the rest of the bullies turned and left; I'm assuming they didn't want their actions witnessed in a business area where they'd easily be spotted.

The next day, while Jesse Coleman was on a field trip to the beach with his class, Mark and his gang followed the group to the beach. As the group was returning from the field trip, Mark's group began yelling racial slurs at the children; Mark and his friends summoned more to join him and they threw rocks at the children, one hitting a black girl and another hitting a white girl. The teacher was able to get an ambulance there and the attackers ran away.

Nearly two years later, on April 8, 1988, Mark decided to turn his hatred towards Asians. Thanh Lam, while carrying two cases of beer from his car to his home, was struck by a large wooden stick wielded by Mark Wahlberg; Mark, at this time, called Thanh a "Vietnam fu--ing sh-t!" The blow knocked the man out.

Mark and two others left the scene. Mark then ran into another Vietnamese man named Hoa Trinh; at first asking the man for help in hiding from the police, when police came along, Wahlberg punched the man in the eye, knocking him to the ground; Trinh ended up losing that eye.

While in police custody, Mark continued to refer to "Slant-eyed g--ks" and other such slurs.

The prosecutor for his past crime even advocated for him to not be pardoned(Mark wanted a pardon so he could get a concessionaire's license for his restaurants)

Mentioned things like how they tried to push his crime as a one off thing, when in actuality it was a series of crimes with racial animus at its core. Prosecutor mentions how he never even acknowledged the racial aspect of his crimes too.

Did not expect such a dark origin story for The Funky Bunch.

60 points · 5 months ago · edited 5 months ago

These incidents were 30 years ago, when he was a teenager. I don't really care about Mark Wahlberg, but drudging up something that old is ridiculous. The vast majority of individuals mature and regret many of the things they did or should have done differently in their youth.

I dunno, I was a racist shithead as a teenager but yelling racial slurs & threats & physically assaulting minorities seems pretty far beyond saying off-color things about Hispanic classmates to other kids.

55 points · 5 months ago · edited 5 months ago

This isn't just a singular 'ridiculous' youthful mistake.

He committed a series of brutal violent hate crimes. The first incidence he got caught for, he got off lucky with a civil rights injunction. Then he went on to violate the injunction with an even more violent crime by braining a Vietnamese man with a 5x2 that broke in half from the force of the hit; and then immediately go and KO another Vietnamese man. He was then charged with attempted murder at the age of 17. Again, got lucky and plead guilty to assault and only served 45 days.

Imo this is a pretty apt quote about this situation:

As a firm supporter of restorative justice, I believe that Mark Wahlberg should be granted an opportunity to make amends for his crimes. But, I believe that given the racial nature of those assaults, those amends must include some form of address and redress for the impact of hate-motivated violence against marginalized peoples.

Yes, I believe in forgiveness and repentance; but in this case, it seems Mark Wahlberg is still just looking after Mark Wahlberg(like c'mon, asking for a pardon so he could get a fucking liquor licence for Wahlburger?). While he may have regretted and apologized for his past actions; but it seems that he never even acknowledged the race aspects of crimes:

First, Wahlberg has never acknowledged the racial nature of his crimes. Even his pardon petition describes his serial pattern of racist violence as a “single episode” that took place while he was “under the influence of alcohol and narcotics.” For a community that continues to confront racism and hate crime, we need acknowledgment and leadership, not denial.

Also doesn't help that he reneged on doing a anti-racism/homophobia PSA for CAAAV and GLAAD.

I mean that's pretty standard for a southie kid.

Not Southie, he’s from Dot. (But yeah, “standard” 80s thug racism stuff there.)

4 more replies

The "vast majority of individuals" never committed a violent crime much less a hate crime.

1 more reply

Please link to anytime this older and mature Mark felt regret

Temporal crosslinking is not permitted for any era before 2.5×106, emotive linking without consent is a criminal act throughout controlled spacetime.

Moreover, reddit does not support HDTML or the requisite teraqubyte encryption.

2 points · 5 months ago

Moreover, reddit does not support HDTML or the requisite teraqubyte encryption.

Hey, that's not fair, reddit isn't a literal hivemind. Well, at least not until 2891.

What the fuck

What kind of teenagers did you grow up with that acted this way? His actions were horrendous and someone with that ideology as a teenager will never go away with true hate. Behind closed doors he's just the same as he was 30 years ago deep down.

3 more replies

3 more replies

Rumor has it the man already had the shit beat out of him.

yeah mark was just trying to beat the shit back into him

10 more replies

Or... maybe Wahlberg just paid him $! million dollars to say that.

WTF did you get that?

1 more reply

His contract did include reshoots, but it also included Co-star approval. It took $1.5 million for him to get on board with Christopher Plummer.

Do I hate on him for exploiting this loophole? I'm not sure, even knowing its an asshole move.

If your contract says one thing, you follow the contract. Its not a loophole at all.

If you waive your rights one time, they will start going away in future contracts. Contracts dont have to be fair or "nice", but they are legal and give you rights.

even knowing its an asshole move.

It's not an asshole move. It's business. He had an opportunity to make more money and took it, nothing at all wrong with that.

15 more replies

I thought that's what managers were for...maximize your earnings while all you have to do is show up and perform.

I would like to think he didn't know the details, only what he was told, "Hey they are willing to pay you $1.5 million to reshoot"

Who is going to say no to that?

I highly doubt there is. This is more than wearing a pin.

2 more replies

so anything happening to that wme guy that groped terry crews?

He was briefly suspended, but now is back at work. Also, he's one of the key partners at WME.

business as usual at hollywood

That's right. Another man not taken seriously..

Men never get taken seriously.

business as usual at WME / IMG

He's powerful, so no.

3 more replies

I'm really not sure what to think here. His contract had a clause for reshoots, hers didn't.

Why is everyone blasting Wahlberg and not her agency who let her work with such a terrible contract? Seems Mark was well represented and did his job.

Yet the agent who screwed Michelle Williams over is being protected. William Morris Endeavor represents both of them.

Why are people just looking past this?

Why do we assume anyone is "to blame", or that Williams was screwed over in any way. The two actors had different contract of them is the highest paid actor in the world, one is not.

This is anti-intellectual outrage in the name of "that thing that's currently in the news.

How is it his fault that Wahlberg is a much bigger star and therefore has more negotiating power?

6 more replies

She's a nobody compared to him. Obviously he's getting paid way more and has better clauses in contract. He's far more import to the picture. Am I Gunna want to see a movie with him in it? I'll definitely check it out. Throw her name out there and am I going to want to watch it? Who? Never heard of her.

1 more reply

2 more replies

75 points · 5 months ago

This is a pretty decent albeit expected result.

This is a business investment. Damage control to prevent future repercussions.

-34 points · 5 months ago(8 children)

Michelle Williams is famous. 4x academy award nominee. She’s not getting her “First Big break”

Michelle Williams is famous. 4x academy award nominee. She’s not getting her “First Big break”

Yet i've never heard of her but know Mark, almost like one is a bigger pull to the general masses and one more for a very specific crowd. The one who is the bigger crowd puller tends to get more cash.

3 more replies

I’m talking about PR. This week, his name’s been mud. Blowback for an actor will impact future movie deals if he’s deemed controversial. Look at Johnny Depp now with being cast in the JK Rawlings movie. Do you think he would’ve done this if the story didn’t break?

Comment deleted5 months ago(0 children)

you must not have twitter.

3 more replies

Doesn't he get paid more because he's a bigger star?

5 more replies

Maybe I'm missing something or just overly cynical, but wasn't the real intent behind the reshoots probably more for the sake of the movie's success since Kevin Spacey's name being on it would've likely hurt it? I mean, I'm sure that by recasting him it prevents him from making royalties and stuff, but I doubt the studio was willing to fork over all that money on reshoots just because they felt it was the moral thing to do. And if the studio was really just trying to cover its own butt then it seems silly for anyone on the cast or crew to feel shamed into taking less money for the reshoots.

1 more reply

Well I can name a dozen+ movies Wahlbergs been involved in, whereas I had to google Michelle Williams, so as far as I'm concerned that explains the pay discrepancy.

Wahlberg is the box office draw while Williams is the Oscar bait. She is an awards show favorite and generally loved by critics, if not as well-known. I'd imagine more women might remember her from Dawson's Creek. Anyway the pay discrepancy is no doubt super-complicated. It appears to indicate what each actor brings to the production. Wahlburg at the box office is probably a surer bet than whatever box office/dvd revenue is possible from award show press.

Exactly. I don't fucking understand why this is such a huge deal. We could look at any movie and find that the star is making multiples of the no namers, and that's not wrong in any way

26 points · 5 months ago

This was my exact thought when I read the headline. Who is Michelle Williams? And then not recognizing her when I saw a picture. This isn't like they are both cashiers at burger king and he gets paid 12 while she gets 8.25. His contract was better because he is a more important actor. End of story.

4 points · 5 months ago · edited 5 months ago

This, if Michelle Williams walked in my living room I wouldn’t know who she was.

This is about Michelle Williams needing to fire her agent, it has nothing to do with gender or Mark Wahlberg. This is about gender if it’s Jennifer Lawrence or Margot Robbie getting paid pennies on Wahlberg’s dollar.

It’s apples to oranges. If Charley Day and Meryl Streep are in the same movie, Charlie Day should not expect to be paid similarly.

Wahlberg is a bigger star but Williams is the superior actor.

Wahlberg is a bigger star but Williams is the superior actor.

Being the bigger star is what matters.

You could be the best actor in the world, but if people don't pay to come see you your talent is worthless.

6 more replies

-4 points · 5 months ago

I mean no matter how large the star power discrepancy (and with multiple Oscar nominations, she's no slouch), nothing justifies a pay discrepancy of 1.5 million to 1,000. She basically got nothing at all.

Williams' talent agency threw her under the bus while they very aggressively negotiated a fairly sleazy bit of contractual hostage taking on Wahlbergs' behalf. Make of that what you will, but there's not nothing behind this even if the outrage is a bit ridiculous.

This is the part I don't understand. Why would the same talent agency not even attempt to negotiate some marginally higher fee for Michelle? Is it because they're represented by two different agents within the same organization, and they were not communicating? It couldn't have been malicious, could it?

1 more reply

-7 points · 5 months ago(5 children)

5 more replies

So he was shamed into giving up money her fairly earned and negotiated, that seems like a great message to send.

I doubt Wahlberg is capable of feeling shame

No one forced him to donate

Are you really that naive?

So Michelle Williams still isnt getting paid?

Someone is. Probably Oprah.

She chose not to as did Ridley IIRC.

Can she claim the $1.5m as a tax deduction since it will be donated in her name?

1 more reply

This has all the smell of Wahlberg just being extorted for $1.5 million dollars.

It absolutely his extortion. Everyone is just looking for a bad guy - and they made one up.

No he just saw the somewhat negative press of him,getting money for the reshoots it's really not a big deal. Dudes still rich as fuck

That sounds like extortion with more steps.

Eek Barba durkle.

2 more replies

Comment deleted5 months ago(More than 101 children)

There’s nothing disputed in what happened here. Not even from Wahlberg

It was not Wahlberg’s fault, and he should not suffer negative press because of it.

That's not the worst part imho, the worst part is that i'm seeing articles in my news feeds from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, etc... All with titles and narratives that this whole issue is a gender pay gap issue.

Honestly, outside of Al Jazeera I can't really think of a news source I trust to be even a little credible and not tabloid anymore. That's pathetic. I hope all those media outlets die, because effectively they post the same shit you could get off a facebook news feed. It's not even real news or journalism.

al jazeera is not credible as it serves the government of qatar's interests

Fair enough, I really only look at articles as it pertains primarily to the US/Europe and at a high level they are still far and away better than most of the major media in the US.

I could certainly see reliability being skewed geographically based on the interests of the owners.

1 point · 5 months ago · edited 5 months ago

The articles about the US and Europe from Al Jazeera are skewed tho, you just don’t notice it.

The company is literally the propaganda arm of the Qatari dictatorship in a country where slavery is legal.

I wouldn’t recommend reading about them grandstanding about the west because at the end of the day they are trying to put down the west and prop up Qatar. In my mind they are the same as RT (Russia today) but on the left. While RT pushes conservatism craziness to Americans to destabilize, Al Jazeera pushes the other side.

You should see what Al Jazeera ‘s Arab branches think about the Jews. It’s frankly disgusting from such a large publication.

All MSM has become narrative driven. Meaning the stories we are being given have pre determined implications. Basically we are only being fed stories if they fit the narrative being pushed rather than being given the news and allowed to draw our own opinions.

Its a form of propaganda, even though the stories are still factually correct. How many pieces do you see written these days that dont continue to reinforce the same conclusions over and over again?

That's not the worst part imho, the worst part is that i'm seeing articles in my news feeds from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, etc... All with titles and narratives that this whole issue is a gender pay gap issue.

Anything to get people riled-up and distracted from the real problems in society. Same as it ever was.

So you basically just don't ever belive anything whatsoever

6 more replies

19 points · 5 months ago(0 children)

He didn't do anything wrong. Also the value time argument is a bit disingenuous; that's not how the Hollywood pay scale works.

-19 points · 5 months ago(0 children)

Hasn't really done anything special?

She's had four Oscar nominations since then. What are you talking about?

-6 points · 5 months ago(0 children)

I never argued anything about how much she should have been paid.

I merely pointed out that it's ridiculous to say someone with four Oscar nominations hasn't done anything special.

2 more replies

27 more replies

It's ridiculous. Can you imagine this in any other competitive system? Michael Jordan, you and random #23 get paid the same because you're sharing the court. Kobe? Yup, you're on the same team so you get the same. it's completely ignoring every variable such as revenue increase, fan-base, acting ability, renown, portfolio. It makes no sense, Emma Watson should get paid more then a model with no film experience whatsoever if they're both starring in the same movie, Emma Watson shouldn't be forced to get a paycut in that scenario.

You just undermined your own "value of time" argument. Now you're arguing that Mark has more experience under his belt, which is measurable and something I would agree with.

She's a four time Oscar nominee. That's indicative of some experience.

Did those nominations bring in more revenue?

In case you didn't realize it, Hollywood is about the highest-grossing movies, not the best movies.

1 more reply

2 points · 5 months ago(0 children)

You undermined it by making a much more cogent argument based on hard evidence like experience than something that's extremely hard to measure - value of ones own time.

5 points · 5 months ago(0 children)

How do you know he wanted $1.5M? Maybe he wanted $10M and settled. Maybe he wanted $500K and got surprised with the first offer and took it.

Your shitty microecon 101 theory of wages and production is a nice model for the undergrad classroom but isn't great for real life.

By your logic, the time of slaves was worth $0 because if they wanted more, then they wouldn't have worked. Better yet, before the Equal Pay Act of 1963, women's time really was worth less than men's. If it was equal before 1963, they wouldn't have settled for unfair pay.

Your theory of wages doesn't take real life cultural problems into account.

They use the same agency to negotiate their contracts. Yet he was paid his fair share and she was not.

This isn't even a case where someone can claim "women just need to be more assertive!" They had the same people negotiating their salary and she still got low balled.

Not just low balled, she wasn't paid at all. She was given a per diem. Her agents seriously fucked up, if I were her I'd be moving to a different agency over something like this.

6 more replies

He obviously needs to apologize for the fact that he is a much much bigger actor and in turn gets paid more.

7 more replies

8 more replies

There is no due process in the court of public opinion. That's how it's always been and always will be.

2 more replies

-7 points · 5 months ago(0 children)
Comment deleted5 months ago(0 children)
5 points · 5 months ago · edited 5 months ago

Due process is a legal term for for a (criminal) court of law. You’re trying to use Chuck E cheese tokens at an ATM.

Should someone make an allegation against him he always has the option of civil litigation.

You do not have the “right of due process” except in criminal matters.

Comment deleted5 months ago(0 children)

7 more replies

3 more replies

Good move on Wahlberg's part I think, he definitely didn't have to do this but it's a pretty incredible show of solidarity with his cast mate and other women in his business. On the flip side, Michelle Williams need to drop that agency ASAP, the fact that they would renegotiate his contract and not even tell her that others are getting paid so she could at least consider doing the same is an unforgivable oversight in a competitive business like that. I hope she finds another agency that will actually advocate for her.

Okay, Hollywood, we get it, he has a huge dick.

Joking aside. That's a lot of money to give up for a noble cause.

SNL diss'ed him because it took over a week to donate the money, but that is bogus because no one knows what the other person is making while on the job, so how is he supposed to know? After it came out he did the right thing.

sounds like Mark has a better agent than Michelle does....haters gonna he donates the money to charity, and she still wont get paid, priceless

They have the same agency.

agent or agency?

Same Agency

People make a big deal out of nothing here


He was the highest paid actor last year, is it so strange he has strong representation and more negotiating power?

2018: The Year of the Complainers

wtf is #timeisup ?

13 points · 5 months ago(7 children)
7 points · 5 months ago

1.5 million dollars Vs 1000. Do you think he's worth that much more?

1000 per day of the reshoot vs 1.5 million for doing the reshoots.

It's not entirely that he's worth that much more. She is the main character of the movie, and the top billed actor for the movie. Being the main character, reshoots were part of her contract and included as part of her whole pay package. The main actor almost always has to do some reshoots anyway.

Wahlberg is not the main character. His reshoot deal was probably much better than hers for a couple reasons. One is that he is a busier actor. Reshoots are much more of a scheduling conflict for him than for her, and the pay has to reflect that. Maybe the studio didn't think they would need to bring him back in.

4 points · 5 months ago · edited 5 months ago

1000 per day

it was 80 per day. 1000 total. reshoots were in neither of their contracts. Walhberg (ab)used a part of his contract that was intended to make him a part of the choice of co star by refusing to agree to any new co star at all unless they paid him huge sums of money, which allowed him to circumvent the reshoots portion.

the real issue comes from the talent agency. Williams was under the impression that everybody was working for free, and therefore didn't try to use whatever leverage she may have had (and she almost certainly had some) to get anything. But the agency knew that wasn't true. They fought tooth and nail to wring extra money out for Wahlberg and let her work for free.

13 points · 5 months ago

She agreed to 1000, how is it his fault that she agreed that? Its not a case of wage gap, its a case of shit contracts..

3 more replies

Well, to be accurate, Mark Wahlberg donated 1.5 mil in HIS name, but used a woman actor's name to get extra cred.

Every time Mark Wahlberg does something nice, remember he is a violent racist sack of shit who once beat a man so badly that he is blind to this day, just for being an Asian man in Boston. An instance he has never apologized for and feels no regret over.

Looks like I know where to find all the Wahlberg fans.

Wahlberg did nothing wrong to begin with and this has nothing to do with the Metoo witch Hunt.

-4 points · 5 months ago

Not sure why this happened to begin with, but it's nice that Wahlberg at least tried to make it right. Hollywood's reckoning was long overdue. Even if I might be a bit tired of hearing about it, I'm still glad that women in the business are being treated better than they were before.

I know a lot of things sorta feel a bit over the top, but this has been an age-old problem for women in a lot of industries, especially Hollywood.

Why should everyone get paid the exact same? That's like saying Michael Jordan and a mid-tier NBA player on the same team should get paid the same because they were on the same court playing together. DiCaprio is a better actor and brings much more revenue than some random pick-up.

13 points · 5 months ago

There is no place in my comment where I said that everyone should be paid the same. This particular instance, Wahlberg got over a million and his co-star got a thousand? Come on. You know that is absurdly unbalanced.

It seems incredibly petty to pay the absolute minimum to Michelle Williams. She is an experienced actress who has been working in the industry since Baywatch.

She is a lead in the film and that should have been recognized when distributing pay for extra work on it.

"The story of the kidnapping of 16-year-old John Paul Getty III and the desperate attempt by his devoted mother to convince his billionaire grandfather Jean Paul Getty to pay the ransom."

There are a lot of things wrong with how Hollywood has conducted business in past years. This is just one thing that should be addressed more fairly. If Wahlberg is the main card? Fine pay him a bit more, but don't make the pay so disparate that it becomes an insult and a joke.

Comment deleted5 months ago(10 children)

I think the biggest issue here is that they were represented by the same agency. The agency negotiated well for the male star and not the female star. That’s where the inherent sexism comes in.

Unfortunately Mark Wahlberg got caught in the crossfire.

SO what? Agencies work on a percentage. They didn't negotiate a lower contract to be discriminatory. They asked for the most they thought they could get.

Comment deleted5 months ago(0 children)

Yeah cause Mark Wahlberg is a way bigger deal. Do you think the agency didn't want to negotiate more money just cause shes a girl lmao? Agency's job is to negotiate as much money as possible. They aren't going to take a pay-cut just to be sexist.

3 points · 5 months ago · edited 5 months ago

I understand what you are saying and agree. The other question would be: why is he a bigger deal? She’s been nominated for twice as many Oscars and also has twice as many other awards and twice as many nominations. She is clearly a better actor.

Is it sexist that a female who is twice a better actor than a male needs to fight much harder to be a “big deal”?

I understand what you are saying and agree. The other question would be: why is he a bigger deal? She’s been nominated for twice as many Oscars and also has twice as many other awards and twice as many nominations. She is clearly a better actor.

Is it sexist that a female who is twice a better actor than a male needs to fight much harder to be a “big deal”

As if Oscar noms are a good measurement of star power. Emily Blunt has no noms either, but nobody thinks she wouldn't command more. Angelina Jolie has half has many, she would command way more.

Critical acclaim /=/ star power.

why is he a bigger deal?

Because people like you and me recognise his name and pay to see his movies, but don't know her from a bar of soap and wont pay to see a movie just because she is in it.

Is it sexist that a female who is twice a better actor than a male needs to fight much harder to be a “big deal”?

That's not what is happening. Maybe you haven't being paying attention but "quality" has nothing to do with popularity and sales. Branding does. Whalberg has the branding, Willams doesn't. Her name isn't worth shit to normal people like you and me so that's what she gets paid.

If you want to blame someone blame all the people with no taste who only support shit stuff because it gets waved in front of their faces more.

None of that matters. What matters is how famous the actor is. Mark is wayyyy more famous and will attract way more press. You're confusing talent with popularity. If talent was all that mattered, then Taylor Swift wouldn't be the number one selling artist. Not that she's not talented, but she's not the most talented in the music industry by a stretch; her songs are pretty generic.

They use the same agency. But sure, keep going with this "she should have demanded more" bullshit.

Bro, apples to oranges with those two. Sex has nothing to do with it.

There is no place in my comment where I said that everyone should be paid the same. This particular instance, Wahlberg got over a million and his co-star got a thousand? Come on. You know that is absurdly unbalanced.

Business is business.

3 more replies

It happened because they are not equal. Mark Wahlberg is considerably more famous and brings in considerably more money. Williams appeals to critics and artsy people while Wahberg brings in three quarters of the population.

She decided to work for almost free during reshooting?

So he gives up his paycheck because she hired terrible representation. Sounds about right in this retarded world.

Still a piece of shit

Well that's a waste of money.....

Net or gross?

Mark Wahlberg donates $1.5m in Michelle William's name. That's confusing. Does it mean Michelle Williams donated $1.5mil?

Fuckin annoyed with this story. There's a pay gap between Williams and Wahlberg because his contract did not include resorts and hers did and Wahlberg is a massive celebrity recognized by practically everyone whereas few people could tell you who Williams is and what she's done. In show business your name and face is literally worth millions. Wahlberg's face and name is worth more.

This had nothing to do with gender.

Sounds like she needs better people negotiating her contracts.

I've heard of him, I haven't heard of her. I believe in equal pay but in a field based off of name recognition and pure talent it's hard to say what's really fair.

So stupid. Everyone makes their own deal. So Mark Wahlberg should have negotiated his contract to include that everyone else gets the same amount? Or they should have insisted that she already accepted $1000, so he has to or it's not fair? WTF

This is 2018 so if you make more than a woman then you are clearly out to get her.

It's blatant sexism that male performers in the adult film industry make less than their female counterparts. Demand equal pay now!

So, do they want all actors/actresses to be paid the exact same? Should Leonardo get paid the same as a random from a Scifi flick? That's what it seems like they want. Damn your popularity, acting ability, portfolio and screen-time, everyone gets the same.

-10 points · 5 months ago(4 children)
10 points · 5 months ago · edited 5 months ago

like that time he attacked two Vietnamese guys and blinded one of them

8 points · 5 months ago

He also stole beer and punched the cashier. He didn't blind that one guy though. That guy was already blind in one eye, but still he beat a blind man with a 2 by 4 for being Vietnamese. Doesn't change him being shit garbage.

Don't forget he genuinely believes had he been on one of the planes, he could have prevented 9/11. It takes a real special someone to talk shit on the people who did try to fight the hijackers.

Yeah, little things like that!

Malk Walbergs movies make more than hers. If this was a reversed situation, with a more famous actress getting a higher salary than Wahlberg, this wouldnt be an issue. Pay gap is real. This is a poor example of it.

Jennifer Lawrence earned more the Chris Pratt for Passengers. I don't recall hearing about how it was unfair that Chris Pratt wasn't treated equally and paid the same.

good for him but this is stupid that this even became an issue to begin with. This wasn't an issue of wage disparity. One's top billed talent with significant name recognition and a better negotiated contract and the other isn't.

How do you donate money to a hashtag?

Well he cleaned that up fast. But then again, I'm not sure I can ever forgive him for this

Forgive him for what? What in your eyes did he do wrong?

I clicked the link and thought "This better not be 'Good Vibrations'".

2 more replies

So, Mark Wahlberg gets heat for being a better negotiator?

But he worked for that money.

Give the crying baby her bottle.

50 more replies

Community Details





/r/news is: real news articles, primarily but not exclusively, news relating to the United States. /r/news isn't: editorials, commercials, political minutiae, shouting, justin bieber updates, kitty pictures. For a subreddit for all news-related content (editorials, satire, etc.) visit /r/inthenews.

Create Post

r/news Rules

Not news
Opinion/analysis or advocacy piece
Title not from article/editorialized title
Paywall or is blogspam/steals content
Covers an already-submitted story
Racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude
Unnecessarily rude or provocative
Cheap or distracting joke or meme
Breaks sitewide rules, witchhunting
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.