The first bad thing I’ve heard about it was a review of the Golden Globes where the writer clearly wanted a different movie to have won a bunch of the awards. Looking forward to seeing it.
Wahlberg issued this statement: “Over the last few days my reshoot fee for All The Money in the World has become an important topic of conversation. I 100% support the fight for fair pay and I’m donating the $1.5 million to the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund in Michelle Williams’ name.
Said WME in a statement: “The current conversation is a reminder that those of us in a poition of influence have a responsibility to challenge inequities, including the gender wage gap. In recognition of the pay discrepancy on All The Money In The World reshoots, WME is donating an additional $500,000 to the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund in Michelle Williams’ name, following our $1 million pledge to the organization earlier this month. It’s crucial that this conversation continues within our community and we are committed to being part of the solution.”
Well, that’s a very cool move.
That’s damage control mode, because of the USA today article.
IMO, Michelle Williams herself does not end up with one dollar in her pocket; so, fucked again. This time, I blame her agent. And everybody else has screwed the pooch on this as well. This is how to create a “cursed movie”!
From everything I’ve read she didn’t want any money though.
I don’t blame Wahlberg for wanting to be payed. But you would have though him or his people would see what a PR mess this would be if people found out about it.
With 20/20 hindsight, maybe the classiest move would have been to give what part of that $1.5M he got to Michelle to make the salaries equal, then both of them fire their agents. That might have worked. But, the deeds are done. We can but wonder.
Seems a bit damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.
That was his paycheck. His publicist gets paid a 10th of that and could easily have made people forget this even happened in a few months time. As a teenager he was a racist ex-con, I doubt this would have killed his career. He really didn’t have to do that at all.
I think it makes far more sense to give it to the charity. The issue was about unfairness, not that Michelle Williams is hard up, she’s more than likely very comfortably wealthy. A handout to her would look weird to me.
Yeah, tying it to the gender pay disparity is also a bit dishonest on the part of the reporters. Essentially, Wahlberg was paid so much more because he’s in the top 10 of movie stars in the world today whereas many people can’t tell Michelle Williams apart from Carey Mulligan. She’s a very good actress, but she hasn’t carried a couple of hundred million dollar movies.
However, I think she should have been paid significantly more for the reshoots than she was. I honestly don’t see why anyone would work for free since the people putting the movie out certainly expect to make money off of it. That just seems like they were being taken advantage of in this case.
Honestly, I agree with people here who suggest that Wahlberg may not have even known that he got paid for the reshoots. That all could have been handled completely by his representation, and he didn’t have to donate it, but it was good that he did.
What I wonder is how much was Kevin Spacey paid for his role in the movie before it was reshot?
I do hope that the home video release comes with an alternative Kevin Spacey cut. It will never happen in a million years of course, but it would be cool for comparison’s sake.
He’s perceived as such but… has he carried any films?
‘Transformers’ movies make billions, but is that him? Was that Shia before him?
Charming guy, likes to keep busy, turned his life around. All good stuff.
But neither ‘Deepwater Horizon’ or ‘Patriot’s Day’, both serious films about important, real life stories, were successes, and neither was ‘The Gambler’, a mainstream thriller.
‘Ted’ did well, but was that him or his costar?
To stop this wandering off topic, I am making a point; male actors are more likely to be seen as worth more money because they attract an audience, even if the evidence isn’t there.
That’s a good point, but there is a reality to that perception. However, it is more from the point of view of people who pay for movies to be made. Wahlberg’s name gets movies made AND, very important to a filmmaker like Ridley Scott, casting an actor like Wahlberg gets him more money to spend on the movie. He could have cast someone like Jake Gyllenhaal, Ryan Gosling or Christian Bale, I’m sure, who are better actors, but not made the movie he wanted.
That’s pretty much why he cast Spacey over his first choice Plummer originally. And at least Wahlberg has the ability to do things like lead a TRANSFORMERS movie as well as fit into prestige, realistic dramas like ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD.
Now, I believe the trend is that stars and filmmakers are becoming less important to the financing than the properties involved. However, when it comes to financing independent films, I think actors who’ve starred prominently in big movies will certainly be more valuable to the production than those who’ve mostly lead in low budget features. There is no evidence that those stars actually attract more people to the movie - and there is no way to tell if what business a film does is due to the stars in it - but certainly investors feel more confident if there is a star in the film.
They always have.
It’s a shell game, but because it’s not based on actual facts it can and should be challenged.
But what are you going to challenge it with? There are no facts to support changing the system either. If the people putting up the movie don’t think an actress or actor is worth it, how would you convince them?
I think it is going to be increasingly difficult to convince investors they should pay more for stars as it is, and the people putting together the budgets are going to be as lean as possible. Is an actress like Jennifer Lawrence expected to turn down a role if she is not paid the same as her male co-star? Or the same as a Vin Diesel (a truly overpaid actor) or Mark Wahlberg gets in another movie? It’s hard to think the production team won’t just take the offer to Daisy Ridley or some other actress if that happens.
Can’t they just drop Vin Diesel and replace him with Daisy Ridley?
At that level, I think it’s primarily market forces in the sense that we are seeing the name actors as assets bringing value to the investors, and not much can be done until there are significant cultural and economic changes. Personally, since the trend seems to be minimizing the power and value stars have anyway, I think every actor is going to have a fight to get anything like the amount of money they made in the past. And they will be fighting each other.
Vin Deisel will only be a valuable asset in a Fast and the Furious movie, for example, but otherwise, he’s just an actor in anything else - even movies similar to the F&F franchise. And if he doesn’t take those roles for less, there will be someone else who is ready to.
What I think can be challenged is the disparity way down the line with supporting cast members and crew. Honestly, why should an unknown actress who has as many lines and is just as important a supporting character make less than an actor in a similar role in the same movie. Same for set crew, VFX and so on. If they are really doing the same work, why pay them differently. I don’t really see how the “market” influences that as much, but it might.
Nevertheless, I think that is far more likely where sexism influences representation, SAG and others who are supposed to be looking out for their clients and members.
There most certainly are facts, you can look at the performance of the films featuring any “star” and see how their presence doesn’t create a consistent return. Some of their films do well, others don’t. It’s the combination of material and actor that (probably) makes a difference, and even then it’s subject to other factors like the timing of the film’s release.
The idea of a star as insurance is an example of conformation bias. People believe it because they want to. Because films cost a lot of money and no-one is sure what will be a hit and what won’t?
So they gravitate to the idea of the ‘the star’. They can see the fame, and the image the star projects in popular culture and they concentrate on the good reviews and the big successes that the star has been in.
And they don’t really want to know if there’s any real consistency to that? If that person is really the reason for the hits? Or the reason for the flops? Or most worrying of all, not really the deciding factor in either outcome.
They want to believe.
What is interesting is it may never have been true.
I was listening a while back to the “You Must Remember This…” podcast which looks into the behind the scenes story of golden age Hollywood from the 30s to 60s mainly. It’s surprising how often under the star/studio system of the time the narrator says lines like “Clark Gable’s next 3 films failed at the box office” or “It would be 4 years before Rita Hayworth had another hit movie” etc etc.