Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
738
Archived

Mark Wahlberg and Agency Give $2 Million to Time's Up Fund After Pay Discrepancy Outcry

429 comments
84% Upvoted
This thread is archived
New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast
352 points · 6 months ago

Ironic that WME is donating half a million even though the head of their motion picture department is the one that groped Terry Crews.

100 points · 6 months ago

Time's Up is funded by WME, CAA and other agencies along with Resse Witherspoon and Steven Spielberg. It's basically going to control the narrative of #metoo going forward to protect clients.

Reese's husband Jim Toth is the Head of Motion Picture Talent at CAA and Spielberg, well, I'll let you google that for yourself.

36 points · 6 months ago

Yep and the money is going right back into their pocket.

[deleted]
38 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

THANK YOU! It's a fucking scam.

Comment deleted6 months ago(7 children)

There’s not more. You’re right and it’s disturbing that he’s been shamed into doing this. He did nothing wrong.

Women make up a big part of his fanbase and are one of the reasons he makes so much money. He can't have a huge number of them mad at him. He thought being the only one paid for reshoots would slip below the radar and when it didn't, he went into damage control. I don't think Wahlberg's too bright, but his management is.

I wish this was upvoted more, personal contract negotiations do not equal pay gap.

4 more replies

Is this meant to be some sort of revelation?

I thought that the #MeToo thing was always a Hollywood-originated thing... so it's not surprising then that it involves people who currently work in the industry. What a shocker.

[deleted]
12 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

The revelation is that a "grassroots" movement is being funded by corporations.

It takes away from the spontaneity of it all - the movement is supposed to be natural, with "victims finally speaking out".

These are companies who represent individuals and unions...

[deleted]
3 points · 6 months ago

For professional work, actors have companied agents.

For "Times Up!" and "#MeToo", that falls on the actor and their publicist.

Again, "grassroots" movements are not supposed to be backed by corporations.

Would Occupy Wall Street have the same effect if it was funded by Citibank?

As in no effect and completely fizzled out?

1 more reply

9 points · 6 months ago

I'll let you google that for yourself.

Meh, I'll just take your word.

so basically it's controlled opposition from Hollywood.

I've googled Jim Toth and nothing overly dodgy pops up.

3 more replies

WME made this fuck up. If they were there to negotiate extra money for Wahlberg, they should've done the same for Williams. Their job is to do the best for their clients and if one of their clients got extra money, they should've pushed for other one to get the same, even if she initially decided that she doesn't need extra money.

WME isn't one person.

Williams and Wahlberg both have different agents. His fought for money, hers did not. Probably because he wanted to and she didn't. There's literally nothing out of sorts about any of this.

This deserves to be a top comment. This is all the debate boils down to. And also that Wahlberg just happens to THE highest paid actor in Hollywood right now.

this looks to be the case in a lot of this pay gap stuff, it happens to a larger extent in super high paid roles. by that point it just becomes more about guys generally having more ego and therefore more drive to 'win' or be the best in some way, they don't need the extra millions to survive, it's just dick measuring on a grand scale. women tend to seek self worth and validation in different ways, it's not all about getting the high score.

7 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

Especially in a case like this, most of the main cast could have easily negotiated for more pay and threatened to derail reshoots. Most of them simply chose not to.

Yes, this is such a stupid controversy. Wahlberg is undoubtedly the more commercially successful actor; he took an 80% pay cut just to star in the film originally. Then, when he was already working on another project, they asked him to come back. He negotiated for a extra $1.5 million. He had all the room in the world to negotiate and did. Williams volunteered to work for next to nothing. She didn't even attempt to negotiate.

How the fuck is this turning into an equal pay issue? This bullshit really makes legitimate cases of pay discrepancy have less impact. Like, did anyone look at the box office numbers for this shit? Oh, and she's doesn't have any moral standing; she worked with convicted child rapist Roman Polanski in the 2009 movie Greed.

10 points · 6 months ago

Also he's a big star and Williams is not.

Williams is a pretty big star, she just doesn't take the same kind of roles that Wahlberg usually does. This said, he's definitely more of a "product" than she is, which is why studios usually shell out more money for him than any of his costars, male or female.

13 points · 6 months ago

I like Williams but she's a B-list celebrity at best.

her biggest leading role box office to date is $35m my week with marilyn

14 more replies

Comment deleted6 months ago(1 child)

if wahlberg was black or gay ..

9 more replies

Except it was Mark who told them that he wouldn't return unless he got an extra million, Williams was willing to do it for free so she didn't push them to negotiate.

At the end of the day, they follow the actors will.

Michelle has grown up in opulence and wealth her whole life she would act for free all the time if she could, it's funny as shit that Mark Wahlberg would ever have to donate money on tat families behalf.

Agents should still do a better job and I think this is where this all came from. And that's why WME are stepping in with the donation.

To play devil's advocate a bit here. An agent represents their client, if you told your agent you'll do something for free and then later you find out that they were tough to deal with in negotiating more than you asked for, misrepresenting you and your interests, you're probably going to get a different agent.

Imagine if you told your lawyer you wanted to settle out of court for something and he took it to trial to get more money. Even if they win, you've had someone who's getting paid to represent act outside of your interests.

1 more reply

They donated the whole thing. No way Wahlberg gave up a cent.

Mark Wahlberg net worth $225m

Evil Studio Shill
1 point · 6 months ago

He is no longer the head of their motion picture department.

848 points · 6 months ago

I think it's quite distasteful to twist this into a story about 'the gender pay gap'. Michelle Williams' gender has nothing to do with this. She did it for (basically) free, Mark Wahlberg did not. You can argue over whether or not Mark should have waived his fee, but making statements like "Michelle Williams was paid 1% of what her male co-star made on her latest film" is just stupid.

They could’ve used any actor for the example because they were all paid the same thing except Wahlberg but the media actively chose to make it about the wage gap.

As far as I’m aware Williams hasn’t said anything about this. Somehow Reddit has turned this whole situation and Wahlberg being a douche on her, can’t say I’m surprised

She’s probably pretty embarrassed, and Scott is probably pretty pissed since he bragged about the main actors coming back for free. I’ve seen several women complain about how much it sucks to bring the pay disparity stuff to the press because you get so much shit for it.

Well she's the other lead of the movie. I think it's fair to compare what the two leads were paid.

lol exactly, he shouldn't have to do shit, too bad he buckled under the face of bad publicity.

welcome to the f#ckin show
224 points · 6 months ago

Here's how it works out:

Everyone else on the crew: We don't think Spacey should be in the movie anymore, and we feel so strongly that we'll work for free for another week to fix this morality issue.

Wahlberg: I don't really care, so I want $1.5m to reshoot it.

It's not about whether or not he could do it, it's the optics of whether or not he should've.

Wahlberg took an 80% pay cut to film the movie in the first place and was already working on his next project. Why the fuck should he feel guilty for requesting more money, considering he is the most famous person in the film? Essentially, this seems like a bullshit example of gender disparity, when in reality Wahlberg is the more commercially successful actor with more going on and deserving of a higher paycheck. I mean, Williams didn't negotiate.

Notice people aren't saying he shouldn't have been payed; they're saying that is wrong he got payed and Williams didn't. Plummer got payed; the crew got payed. Why shouldn't the actors get payed?

Kevin Spacey was replaced because he sexually abused someone

Michelle Willaims worked with Polanski then she wore black to the GG awards

they need deflection for Michelle so they regurgitate this gender BS

Haha that makes this even more ridiculous. Why does everyone get a free pass when it comes to Polanski?

Because Polanski is an artist! /s

My god. It would be funny if so many in Hollywood didn't believe it. I am the furthest thing in the world from a "Fox and Friends" viewer. But the hypocrisy of the supposedly enlightened Hollywood set is fucking ridiculous.

THIS. I know it's a joke, but I firmly believe a disturbing amount of people in H-town believe this.

3 more replies

That doesn't make it a gender pay gap issue. It makes it a Mark Wahlberg is selfish issue, which isn't really an issue at all.

The number of people twisting it into a gender issue is astonishing, including Jessica Chastain.

As far as I know, she's a bit of nut job. She hurts her own cause. Not as much as Lena Dundam, but she still does.

She was the one of six white woman on the cover of a magazine that somewhat celebrated woman in the business. And she complained that she was sad that there was no woman from racial minority. WTF. Why did you participate then? This person tries to have a cake and eat it, too.

Another instance of this is when she went to Cannes movie festival. She was sitting on the same table as Will Smith and she blurted out that the small amount of female directors' work being featured was disturbing. I am pretty sure she knew this before the fact. She participates in something then criticize them for being sexist.

There was a rumor that she demanded to be paid equally to Matt Damon for movie, The Martian. Which is beyond crazy. Matt Damon comes out 80%+ of scenes. She's in only about 15 minutes at best. She basically says that "we are doing the same job so we must be paid equally." But it seems she is purposely ignoring the part that outputs, the amount of work being done, could be different even if the jobs are the same. Due to her being a loud mouth and a tendency to jump into conclusions without proper information, I believe this rumor to be true.

There is a pervasive victim mentality that many people enjoy, which, as you said, hurts the cause. I don't doubt that there are gender issues in the world, but when people routinely mischaracterize something as sexist (or racist, homophobic, etc...) when it's not, makes people like me become apathetic.

1 more reply

The big issue here is Sony and Ridley Scott falsely issuing press releases saying all the big names were doing the re-shots for free. And then we find out that was a lie. And I'm going to go further here and say Sony knew damn well they were lying at the time and were doing it purposely.

Actually pretty sure they're represented by the same agency...so it's more (in my mind) about how that company was like "sure Mark we'll get you paid", "sure Michelle we'll set you up to do it for free". I don't really have a problem with the whole situation besides that company being a bit shitty and not being transparent among their clients

[deleted]
88 points · 6 months ago

She said she wanted to do it for free.

17 points · 6 months ago

She apparently had to do reshoots anyway. So did Wahlberg, he just also had the right to approve new cast-members.

23 points · 6 months ago

Yeah, some reports stated that. He had approval rights and used them to leverage his pay.

As he should have. Nobody would complain if she did and he didn't.

5 more replies

2 more replies

She got a $1000 a day, according to the article. Compared to $1.5m, that's chicken feed. Compared to the earnings of the people who are going to pay for tickets to see this movie, she got loads of money.

And he asked for more money, she didn't. So she only got 1k/day.

[deleted]
6 points · 6 months ago

And he asked for more money, she didn't. So she only got 1k/day.

He specifically negotiated, she wanted to do it for free. So she was payed "scale" wages regardless.

Not a conspiracy.

Heard a radio news report that Williams personally told Scott she would reshoot for free before her agent got a chance to be an intermediary. So it put the agency in a tough spot when it came to negotiations. What I'm more interested to see is if any labor board or labor law entity will make a big deal that she got paid less than minimum wage for her reshoots.

4 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

No labor entity has a leg to stand on. Most actor contracts have what is called “free post days.” This is a predetermined number of days thy an artist agrees to work not for “free,” but rather as part of their original deal. Michelle had free days in her contact. She DID NOT work for free. She agreed to free days in her original deal. What the media refuses to report is that she did not work for free! She was simply fulfilling her original deal.

Mark negotiated away free days. It’s typical for an actor of Mark’s stature to negotiate away free days. An actor of Michelle’s stature would also typically be able to negotiate away free days, but some talent is perfectly cool giving free days as a goodwill gesture, typically they will give 3-5 free days for a major movie. But that’s also not to say that Mark is an “asshole” for not giving free days. He’s not. I don’t blame artists and their agents for wanting to maximize their income. We all want that.

Also, Mark and Michelle are repped by the same agency, not the same agent. When one agency reps two clients on one project, we will sometimes take steps to separate ourselves from the negotiation of each to eliminate conflicts. Sometimes this means that an agent will entirely remove himself from the process and let the lawyer or manager do the entire deal. Although other times, yes, we may negotiate them in unison and try for what we call “most favored nations” terms.

Source: I’m a talent agent at a major talent agency (not WME) and negotiate these deals on a daily basis.

1 more reply

Jesus they have no obligation to be transparent between clients. Infact they shouldn’t be

WTF? Why would the company have to be transparent between it's clients?

We have no idea what happened behind the scenes right? The agent easily could've told her that Mark was getting a big pay day, why would that change Michelle's view on the situation? "Well I was going to do it for cheap but now that I know someone else was selfish, I'm going to be selfish too!". I don't see that happening.

27 points · 6 months ago

According to a report by USA TODAY, both Wahlberg & Willaims were contractually obligated to do re-shoots based on their original contracts. The reason Wahlberg was able to hold up the production for more money is that his contract had a co-star approval clause — he was therefore exercising his contractual right to deny approving Plummer as a co-star (unless he was paid additional money). Exercising this right was a dick move by Wahlberg but since he had the clause in his contract it makes sense from a logical self-interest perspective. He didn't care about being helpful, he was focused on #1.

Williams saying she would do the re-shoots for free was irrelevant — she was obligated to do them based on her original contract and did not have a co-star approval clause. However based on her statement, I think had she been in the same position as Wahlberg she would have approved Plummer without demanding an additional fee.

Therefore the underlying problem isn't so much the gender pay gap but rather (1) some people are selfish and some people are not and (2) some people have enough clout & sense of entitlement to demand special treatment (e.g. co-star approval, higher salary) and some people do not.

With that said, I would posit that males in our society are more likely to exhibit selfishness, a sense of entitlement, and (by proxy) clout. So if we are serious about addressing the gender pay gap, we really need to address the power pay gap.

In California, it just became illegal for employers to ask you for your salary history. They have to lead negotiations by making an offer relative to market conditions, not your personal market conditions. A step in the right direction, perhaps.

So Wahlberg is "selfish" because he didn't work for free? What are you, a producer? Why should he have worked for free? If your boss asked you to work for free you'd rightfully consider it exploitive.

I didn’t mean it with judgment. “Self-interested” would have been a better word choice.

That said, Wahlberg already agreed to do reshoots for free. Using his co-star approval clause to demand additional payment displays aggressive self-interest. Especially given the circumstances.

Based on her statements, I doubt Williams would have been such a mercenary. Her fault, maybe ... but if a person isn’t naturally inclined to aggressive self-interest, should we penalize them for for it? Shouldn’t every worker get fair pay regardless of his or her power to demand it?

Well which is it though? Was Wahlberg being mercenary or was Williams exploited? It can be one, the other, or neither, but it can't be both.

Not sure I agree those choices are mutually exclusive. Regardless, I’m saying Wahlberg was a mercenary, not that Williams was exploited.

I am also saying perhaps mercenary behavior shouldn’t be required to get equitable treatment.

if a person isn’t naturally inclined to aggressive self-interest, should we penalize them for for it?

Perhaps we could consider aggressive self-interest as another form of work? Our society, financially anyway, trends to reward aggressive self-interest. I wouldn't call a lack of a reward a penalty.

1 more reply

Don't put it in the contract. Contracts go both ways and if it was the other way around the agency wouldn't think twice about getting one over on him. All he did was use his contract as intended to get more.

Another point too is that she just simply doesn't have the same box office muscle Wahlberg has. She's a great actress and was really good in it but Wahlberg can put people in seats.

Does he though? Patriots Day made 5 mill over it's budget, Deepwater made 30 mill below it's production budget.

According to the guys who got signed off that contract, seeing the results of that now though

1 more reply

5 more replies

thanks for the relevant info

2 points · 6 months ago

NP. Relevant username for the thread BTW!

Question might be though how much time in reshoots were they obliged to do versus what they did.

I highly doubt that the movie had unlimited days of reshoots, and I’d doubt that the movie stayed under those caps(or even tried to if Wahlberg was the only one wanting extra cash

2 points · 6 months ago

That’s a good point. I don’t know. But if Wahlberg was the only one demanding additional pay, that would suggest to me they were under the cap.

5 more replies

2 more replies

It's his choice & he happened to negotiate what he could get. Those people wanted to do it for free or nothing & fuck themselves & don't see value in their time? More money for someone else willing to ask.

8 points · 6 months ago

Those people wanted to do it for free or nothing & fuck themselves & don't see value in their time?

They didn't do it for nothing. Their contracts -like many film contracts- allow for the company to call for reshoots. So they were already paid with the idea in mind that reshoots could happen.

Wahlberg got double-paid simply because he had to approve his costars, which meant, once Spacey pulled out, he could hold them for ransom by refusing to approve Plummer.

If Spacey had stayed in the film and they had to do reshoots he simply would have had to do the reshoots at the price he was already paid.

Seems like there would have to be limits on reshoots. Here they’re not fixing a problem found in editing, or a weakness in the script, or something else that’s related to the film making process. Writing out an actor because he’s inconvenient for marketing seems like a different situation. But it depends on the contract...if it was broad and said something like “up to 14 days for reshoots” without any qualifiers then maybe it makes sense what happened. Otherwise would a zealous Agent be able to argue that this is additional work not required to complete the film?

I wonder how they manage reshoots at all. Actors have lots of commitments, contracts, and events on their schedule so how would conflicts between projects get sorted out?

Usually there are limits to the number of days in the original contract. Since it appears that no one demanded more money for their time it appears that they stayed within that.

1 more reply

1 more reply

3 more replies

13 more replies

This was basically a shakedown.

3 more replies

Pretty much.

Also, pretty hilarious to watch this be the thing that causes people to turn on Wahlberg, you know, a guy who blinded an innocent man while yelling racist slurs at him and later claimed 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he'd been a passenger on the plane.

You haven't been browsing this sub since long, have you? Every single Whalberg reddit thread is filled with mentions of the shit he did in the past; whether it's relevant or not.

He also didn't blind anyone.

1 more reply

18 points · 6 months ago

Trinh was interviewed in December 2014 by the Daily Mail; he revealed that he had already lost that eye during the Vietnam War, and did not know the identity of his assailant prior to being contacted by the media.

"Forgiveness: Johnny Trinh was assaulted by actor Mark Wahlberg in 1988. He said that he believed the actor should be allowed a fresh start - and that until MailOnline told him had no idea he was attacked by a celebrity" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2868589/Mark-Wahlberg-s-blinding-race-attack-victim-Johnny-Trinh-backs-bid-pardon-saying-course-forgive-didn-t-blind-Communist-Vietnamese-did-that.html

Wahlberg approached a middle-aged Vietnamese man named Thanh Lam on the street, and using a large wooden stick, bashed him over the head until he was knocked unconscious while calling him a "Vietnam fucking shit". That same day, Wahlberg also attacked a second Vietnamese man named Hoa "Johnny" Trinh, sucker punching him in the eye. According to court documents regarding these crimes, when Wahlberg was arrested later that night and returned to the scene of the first assault, he stated to police officers: "You don't have to let him identify me, I'll tell you now that's the mother-fucker whose head I split open."Investigators also noted that Wahlberg "made numerous unsolicited racial statements about 'gooks' and 'slant-eyed gooks'.

You're right, sounds like a good guy.

If I was on that plane with my kids, it wouldn't have went down like it did," and "There would have been a lot of blood in that first-class cabin and then me saying, 'OK, we're going to land somewhere safely, don't worry'"

Though the 9/11 stuff is my personal favorite. 5'6 Mark Wahlberg thinks he would have stopped 9/11 because he's been in some action movies and does bicep curls.

You're right, sounds like a good guy.

He certainly was a racist cunt when he was 16.

5 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

As a ghetto kid with no father. People (middle class white reddit) are very forgiving of a lot of black artists, but are under the impression that only black people can be from shit upbringings. This is because they’re so far from that world that they see black people as inherently from poverty and crime, so to be successful and black that had to be the case. Or if you lived in poverty then you must be black.

2 more replies

1 more reply

I mean, it's still stupid but it sounds more like he's saying, "I would've fought tooth and fucking nail to protect my kids," instead of, "Yo mothafuckas I'm such a stone-cold badass Imma whoop all yo jihadi asses."

But there were people on some of the hi-jacked flights did actually fight back, and they weren't able to get the plane safely back on the ground. So he sounds like a macho tough-guy douche just saying stuff like that.

He has a colorful history of being a racist and a douchebag and he's tried to rectify it numerous times. This is another of those attempts. Maybe eventually he'll live it down.

If I were

As a grammar nerd, I love the idea of this bot. But it should probably learn to distinguish between quotes and new statements...

I kind of want to fuck with the bot by writing something like "while we were being taught the definition of the word if I was very bored".

1 more reply

did mark work with Polanski then wear black to the GG awards ?

7 more replies

Didnt Polanskis victim say the same shit later on? Why is this any different

didnt they have the same agent though? if thats the case i feel the agent shouldve gotten them a similar deal

1 more reply

As long as people keep bending over backwards, they're going to keep making a big deal out of it. Just like a child who throws a temper tantrum to get their way. If you give them what they want they'll just continue to do it.

Yep and this kind of "fake news" about non complicated issues is why we're in the mess we are with the media.

[deleted]
-1 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

And to be completely honest, not many people are seeing a film for Michelle Williams. That's not a knock on her acting but they could put a talented unknown in her role and it would have probably zero impact on how much money the film makes.

EDIT: Yes, pay for films is based on how much money an actor in the film will generate, directly or indirectly. There is no doubt a gender pay gap but this is not a great example of it. The pay gap is almost certainly based on how much monetary value the actors' presences bring to the film.

Michelle Williams is an excellent actress who's done well at awards shows. Her getting a nomination absolutely elevates the film's profile.

[deleted]
11 points · 6 months ago

Again, no criticism on her work but "profile"? That's not dollars. I support paying better actors more money regardless. My point is that the pay differential is almost certainly based on how much the financial ROI is on having that actor in the film and not gender.

Yes, profile. All The Money In The World is an awards/prestige movie. Awards will absolutely mean something for it. No one is going to see a historical biopic because Mark Wahlberg is in it.

7 more replies

3 more replies

1 more reply

Of course it's stupid. It's stupid and illogical and so are many people in the world.

i consider mark and michelle both amazing actors but mark gives hollywood something they can sell

33 more replies

11 points · 6 months ago

I don't get the pay gap debate at all. Especially with 'higher class' (I don't know what to call them). Don't you people discuss salaries during interview? You agreed to getting paid something if you were unhappy about it you shouldn't have worked. Simple, right? What am I not getting here? (serious)

We live in the world (America) where yes means no. Remember the James Franco accusations?

2 more replies

This is why Wahlberg was Most Overpaid Actor of 2017. It's cause he hustles and knows how to play the game. Nothing to do with gender or talent. Just business.

Hustles?

You mean production companies find him profitable and his agent drives a good deal?

I mean there are plenty of examples of actors taking pay cuts for one reason or another. He just chooses not to and I don't blame him.

Mark literally didn't do anything wrong ...

Maybe I'm missing something here, but from the moment I saw the "pay gap" narrative I called bullshit. Mark Wahlberg/Michelle Williams are not on the same level in terms of drawing power, not even close. If we were talking about an actress like Jennifer Lawrence, then maybe this pay gap narrative would have its day in court.

Mark Wahlberg did nothing wrong here. He asked to be paid for a job and should not have been expected to volunteer whether Michelle Williams did or not. At the end of the day it's a job, and people are entitled to get paid for their work if that's what's stipulated in their contract.

Sad that Wahlberg had to do this to save face, fuck the press.

Shall we get the guillotine for Marky's head?

End of the line Mahk.

Oh hi Mahk.

Immediately lops head off

1 more reply

This isn't a surprising end result but it's a serious shame that he was completely guilt tripped into this simply because people think he should do work for free.

Had a lengthy back and forth with a friend discussing the misreporting of this being a wage gender gap issue. I won't get into it because the whole thing was discussed to death in Reddit comments.

But my issue was always my disappointment in Whalberg... Where Williams was all star, realized she was taking part in history, ready to work for free... Whalberg (or his agents) said, "Where's my check?" Regardless, with the outcry, I said the best thing to do would be donate the entirety. Lo and behold, here we are.

Now look, I totally agree with the sentiment that there is no controversy here. Marky Mark is not required to give away his fee. He was asked to work, and he (or his agents) insisted on being compensated for that work. Nothing wrong with that. But on a personal level I was taking into consideration need v want, etc. I was disappointed he didn't see his film was in jeopardy, and be willing to dive in whole heartily to do his part, without being compensated first.

Again, I get it. It's not required. This is America. That's fine. Simply a personal bias.

I always think back to Sean Connery's cameo in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. He was paid $250,000 (almost $450,000 in today's money off some random inflation calculator I found) for what was probably a half day's work. He donated the entirety to charity.

No one should work for free unless it's for a charitable cause. This is not a charitable cause. This is a movie, i.e., a product that is meant to make money. Why should anyone do something for free so that others can make money on their back?

26 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

No one should work for free unless it's for a charitable cause

He wasn't working for free. He was already paid and his contract included reshoots. What was unforeseen was that he had to give approval to costars.

So he essentially refused approval for Plummer to squeeze more cash out of the situation. If Spacey had still been around and they needed to reshoot Spacey's films he'd have had to do the reshoots either way. It's a weird, unique loophole that popped up.

The price of reshoots was already factored into his original contract, he was not being asked to work for free. He just asked to be paid twice.

It's a bit like saying that extended warranties are the company giving you shit for free. Nope, it's factored into the price of the product.

I actually saw an article the other day state that for whatever reason , his contract actually didn't include reshoots, so his agent was able to negotiate a higher fee

0 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

What you read was false. Reshoot clauses are standard. But wahlberg also had a co star clause and he leveraged that to get the cash. He could have done that whether he was needed for the reshoots or not. And in either case it would have been fucked up.

The price of reshoots was already factored into his original contract

Was this unique to his contract? If not, did she break her contract by going behind asking Scott personally to not pay her for the "factored in"?

2 more replies

3 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

People always seem to forget that this is all a job to entertainers. Happens a lot with sports too when fans insist players should just be playing for the love of the game.

Williams is close with the director and had a company needs before her own mentality. She decided to work for free and that’s fine since it’s her time she’s deciding to donate. Wahlberg did not have that mentality and had his agent fight for more money and that’s also fine since it’s a job and most people want to be compensated for overtime work. It’s pretty crazy this was spun into a gender issue and that he was hounded into donating the money.

2 more replies

Marky Mark is not required to give away his fee.

No we'll just bullying and shame him into "volunteering" to give up his pay.

[deleted]
2 points · 6 months ago

Where Williams was all star, realized she was taking part in history

Oh give over. She played the PR route and Wahlberg was all business. He shouldn't have to give a dime back.

Where Williams was all star, realized she was taking part in history, ready to work for free

: /

Mark had already taken a massive pay cut from his normal rate to get the movie made. In terms of folks who financially sacrificed to get this thing made, he is the top.

Thank you. These comments trying to shift the focus to him having the right to do this are so dumb. Of course he has the right, but that's not the controversy. The controversy is that he was being a dick. The general mentality on this sub is to blast production companies that pull shady moves to earn an extra buck, but I guess they don't hold movie stars to that same standard.

What other opportunities did he have to give up to do the reshoots? For all you know he had to put other business opportunities to the side which could have netted him more cash.

If you left a job and weeks later your old boss asked you to come in and work for a week because the team still needs your expertise, would you not expect to be compensated for your time?

Using the "he's rich narrative" is ridiculous. He still has bills to pay, he has various business holdings and passion projects that money can help him fund, and most importantly has family and friends that he has to spend time away from to work.

The reshoot wasn't some noble cause either. The studio and Ridley Scott didn't remove Spacey to support the Me Too movement, but because the movie would have been boycotted and shunned at awards had Spacey not been removed. Ridley Scott's motivation from reshoots is praise and financial (% of box office), Michelle Williams motivation for this movie to succeed is relevancy in Hollywood (how many big projects has she been a part of?), and Mark's motivation was mostly financial.

1 more reply

6 more replies

This is dragging on a bit.

Wahlberg did nothing wrong

He may as well keep it at this point. He did nothing wrong and paid the pr hit

3 more replies

10 points · 6 months ago

Well I think the real reason she wasn't paid nearly as much is because of the vastly different box office draw of the two.

Michelle Williams has been in 29(roughly) movies of which she was only a supporting actress for the majority of them all of which have a combined total box office of $802,616,893.00

Marky Mark however has been in 41(roughly) movies of which he was the leading star in a majority of them with a combined total box office of $2,898,540,422.00

She averages $27,676,444.60 per film

He averages $70,696,107.85 per film

Overall I wasn't even aware of who she was while I know immediately who Mark Wahlberg is. It's not really unusual for her to be paid less especially when she's the one who's in need of work.

Nah, she wasn't paid because when called for reshoots she said she'll do it for free. Wahlberg said, "how much will you pay me?"
She 100% could have gotten paid to return for reshoots. She would have been paid less the Wahlberg but that's just respective to their salaries as actors.

I'm curious why this fact wasn't made public. Who made the complaint about the wage gap in this case? This seems like a case of uninformed judgement

It's been pretty clear in the reporting she offered to do it for free and he did not but it's a more "on narrative" story to turn it into a gender pay gap issue.
Otherwise it's a story that maybe makes Wahlberg look greedy? Or smart? Or Williams look a bit stupid? Or not a story at all.

This was an issue no one needed to get involved with. If Michelle said she would do it for free, that's her prerogative. We all know Marky mark is greedy.

Is it even greedy though? He's just highly paid like all big movie stars.

The damn press.

I'm curious why this fact wasn't made public.

Because it goes against the narrative they're trying to build.

DING DING DING we have a winner!

Pretty scary times to be a man. He did nothing wrong, he decided he wanted to be paid for his time, other people on the film didn't. It has nothing to do with Gender. Scott also took a pay cut for the reshoots, but we aren't talking about that because the media wants to make it about gender because that is the narrative right now

And soon, it will be scarier for women because more people will prefer to work with men.

50 more replies

5 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

What does this fund do exactly?

EDIT:

It seems to be a legal defense fund

Here is a link.

https://www.timesupnow.com/#donate-anchor

gives talent agencies that sent actresses to known sexual predator weinstein good PR.

He shouldn't have to do anything he did nothing wrong.

Original Poster8 points · 6 months ago

They are making the donation in the name of Michelle Williams. Wahlberg is donating $1.5M and WME is donating $500K.

Explanation, for the 'All The Money In The World' reshoots :

In the wake of a USA Today report that while Wahlberg received an additional $1.5 million beyond his original salary, his costar Williams was given nothing but a per diem of about $1000. The dramatic difference in how the two stars were compensated triggered an outcry.

Mark Wahlberg shouldn't have needed to do that. He asked for money because he felt he deserved it. How is it his fault that everyone else chose to say "I don't need the money".

A bit unnecessary, really. Wahlberg just had to lay low a bit; out of all the PR hits we've seen in the past few months this was definitely the easiest to survive. But I mean, it's for a good cause.

I would have respected him a lot more if he had kept the money and told Michelle Williams to look for a better agent.

4 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

Ive lost respect for Michelle Williams. She kept quiet even though she knew they had different kinds of contracts. She didn't want to stop the outrage by SJWs even though she knew it was based on a lie.

Look at her recent statement, she's still not being honest about it: https://twitter.com/AmyKinLA/status/952356629919416320/photo/1

[deleted]
3 points · 6 months ago

So Wahlberg is only doing this because ppl got upset and likely he wouldn't have given two shits if no one else complained? Is that a rough summary of what happened?

I don't blame him for charging more tbh. He is the highest paid right now. But donating because of backlash doesn't feel genuine.

Ah, its a tax right off from him

I feel like its even weirder when you remember that Mark Whalburg is a truly horrible human being who has done TERRIBLE things that everyone in holywood likes to forget.

Transformers 4 wasn't that bad.

Unfortunate that he felt pressure given that he didn't do anything wrong, but cool that he is philanthropic.

3 more replies

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwrestling and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from an individual or institution, through coercion.

2 more replies

if you dont ask for something you dont get it.

That's what I've been hearing from this....Hollywood elites are fucking stupid

there was no pay discrepancy, and the outcry was bullshit.

now the discrepancy is that marky mark gave $2 million and michelle gave nothing.

Comment deleted6 months ago(22 children)

I can see why you're here, the Redditors in your imaginary world sound terrible.

1 more reply

I really don't feel like reddit is sexist towards women. I see a shit ton of feminist comments everywhere I go.

1 more reply

10 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

The difference is timing, mark negotiated a better deal, good for him, no one stopped the others from doing the same, Jennifer Lawrence complained that Jeremy Renner* got more money than her and that is just petty, she was looking for someone to blame other than herself for a non problem, not every actor should even be earning the same, some are better or simply more valuable than others.

Do you consider derivative logic mental gymnastics?

But Jennifer Lawrence was paid 20 mil for Passangers and 30% of the back end, while Pratt recieved a straight 12 mil. At least according to Forbes when I googled it.

So I don't get the argument involved here. Maybe Op was referring to a different film, like American Hustle.

I believe Jennifer Lawrence's quote, in that regard, was made about American Hustle.

Fixed, although passengers was entirely stupid as well, she got more than Chris Pratt BECAUSE she complained about American hustle, Chris Pratt was the lead in passengers and he got only 60% compared to her.

Comment deleted6 months ago(0 children)

1 more reply

7 more replies

5 more replies

Don’t ever say that complaining about it now doesn’t fix things. Running articles about these kinds of incidents and talking about them is one of the best ways to pressure Hollywood. They can out lawyer you but they can’t fix bad public opinion as easily. Glad Wahlberg is helping set things right here.

Inb4 “but he didn’t do anything wrong”

Olivia Munn's comment did some damage wew

1 point · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

So Wahlberg decided to take advantage of being asked to do more work, and presumably asked his agency to get him paid a large amount for it. The studio agreed and paid.

Meanwhile, Michelle Williams for some reason, using the same agency got paid less, which the studio then paid.

In short, the fault is either Michelle Williams' or the agency's. Perhaps both.

After this mess, Wahlberg and the agency are bullied into donating to a charity that doesn't have a great record of getting much done. So the charity, Times Up, is being supported because of something that likely wasn't an issue it claims to tackle. Further, the issue that was the catalyst of all this, Kevin Spacey's actions, is not something Times Up are involved with.

Mark Wahlberg net worth $225m

Sgt Dignam had the lace curtain fuckin pussy studio in a corner so he cuntin milked it

So he came out of the reshoots negative .5 million?

People need to read the details. From what I’ve gathered, it wasn’t in Wahlberg’s contract to do any reshoots. It was in Williams’. So technically she’d already been paid.

Part of me feels like Wahlberg should have understood the situation and been a team player and not held the shoot to ransom. But at the same time, why should he? If that’s what the film was willing to pay for 10 days work, then that’s what he’s worth. I mean, 1.5mil for 10 days work is ridiculous, but it is what it is.

And don’t be fooled by WME’s “donation.” They represent Wahlberg AND Williams. They are just donating what they probably could have gotten for Williams in the first place. This is just a face saving exercise.

I'm honestly so sick of reading about Hollywood in general. I don't like any of these people. All of this just ensures i'm not going to watch their movie.

Nothing wrong with Wahlberg wanting to get paid tons of $$ for a reshoot. Every smart actor would try to get paid a lot.

He shouldn't take less because his co-worker got less unless they made a pact to get the same deal.

Thats disgusting. Its his money he shouldnt be forced to do anything. 10 days of work is still work and if he wants to get paid then he should get paid. If michelle wanted to do it for free then let her.

Thats some bulshit we men are becoming soft wtf

Bad move, it just makes it easier for the Times up crowd to badger people.

1 more reply

-14 points · 6 months ago(9 children)
8 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

I mean you can't decide if he's box office poison. You can choose to not see his films but that doesn't make him box office poison. If an actor is box office poison, then the overall market decided it over a period of time.

1 more reply

The financiers are the ones who stand to make a bunch of money off of a Spacey-less movie. Why shouldn't he be compensated for them wanting to change the agreed terms?

6 more replies

50 more replies

Community Details

17.9m

Subscribers

16.0k

Online

News & Discussion about Major Motion Pictures

Create Post
Upcoming Official Discussions

The Equalizer 2

July 19, 201819:00

Unfriended: Dark Web

July 19, 201819:00

Teen Titans Go! To The Movies

July 26, 201819:00

Mission: Impossible - Fallout

July 26, 201819:00

Searching

August 2, 201819:00
AMA Calendar
Helpful subreddits
r/discussionarchive

1,070 subscribers

r/TrueFilm

147,645 subscribers

r/flicks

44,824 subscribers

r/MovieDetails

717,673 subscribers

r/NetflixBestOf

657,299 subscribers

r/Filmmakers

360,620 subscribers

r/Moviesinthemaking

158,994 subscribers

r/MoviePosterPorn

101,462 subscribers

r/comicbookmovies

41,938 subscribers

r/boxoffice

36,248 subscribers

r/movies Rules
1.
Violation of Reddit self-promotion rules
2.
Hatespeech
3.
Ambiguous titles/Clickbait
4.
Spam - Promotion of a website/link over and over
5.
Flame war - Crosses the line of civility
6.
Possible subreddit brigading
7.
TV ad/TV spot masquerading as a "clip"/"trailer"
8.
Extraneous Comic Book Movie submission
9.
Repost
10.
Avoid destructive behaviour
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.