Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:50 AM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 10,990
Explain the Wahberg/Williams pay gap controversy.

If you'v been living under a rock lately, here's the story:

- Ridley Scott decided he wanted to reshoot numerous scenes from the upcoming movie "All The Money In The World" in order to remove Kevin Spacey from it completely.

- Mark Wahlberg agreed to take part in the reshoot, in exchange for about $1.5M.

- Michelle Williams agreed to take part in the reshoot, basically volunteering her time for about $1000. In total. AIUI, she didn't ask for $1.5M and then get stonewalled: her opening offer was $80 per day, which was quickly accepted without any counteroffer.

- People are now citing this as an example of the "gender pay gap" in Hollywood and elsewhere.

-I don't claim Mark Wahlberg is any kind of saint, but he was specifically painted as some kind of bad guy over this pay gap, and was badgered into donating his entire $1.5 pay to the Time's Up charity.

So what gives? Is Wahlberg a jerk because he insisted on being paid for his time, instead of donating his time to the effort to erase Kevin Spacey from the movie? Was Williams shortchanged by the other people involved in this, or did she shortchange herself by asking for only $80/day in the first place? Was she shortchanged at all, given that she got exactly what she asked for? Is this truly a gender pay gap issue that paints Hollywood in a bad light, or is it just a case of two people placing vastly different values on their time, and/or viewing the reshoot through two different lenses (no pun intended) - that is, one (Williams) see it as a social cause worth volunteering her time for, and the other (Wahlberg) views it as a business venture from which he wishes to extract his due compensation?
  #2  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:59 AM
enalzi enalzi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,076
My understanding thought is that Scott was saying that everyone was doing it for basically free (outside of crew members). It came out later that that wasn't the case. I'm unclear if Williams was told that everyone was doing it for free and didn't know that Wahlberg has asked for 1.5 million.
  #3  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:03 AM
silenus silenus is offline
Isaiah 1:15 Screw the NRA.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 49,582
What nobody is mentioning in the whole flap is:

1. Wahlberg and Williams are repped by the same agency.
2. Wahlberg's contract has a "Reshoots = millions" clause.
3. William's contract says reshoots are at scale.
4. Wahlberg opens movies.
5. Williams doesn't.

There really isn't any there there. It isn't an example of unfair wages to females or anything like that. The story just broke at a time when people would get upset about it.
  #4  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:08 AM
ZipperJJ ZipperJJ is offline
Just Lovely and Delicious
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 24,488
My understanding is that all 3 parties (the two actors and the "film") had the same agency, albeit different agents. So someone knew or should have known that Michelle was only getting scale while Mark was getting $1.5mm. If there is an example of the gender pay gap here, it might lie with the agency and how they represent their talent.

I definitely feel that there is some mis-placed outrage here, if there should be any outrage at all.
  #5  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:24 AM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 25,855
What I read is that everyone had signed on for the reshoots for, essentially, nothing. Except for Wahlberg. So his agent was able to negotiate the $1.5 million because they had the studio up against a wall. Michelle Williams had assumed that everyone was on the same page of accepting the minimal payment. (I think the eighty bucks per day is scale.)

So yes, Wahlberg did nothing wrong, but it looked really bad at this time of the metoo movement. So for him to give up the money was a face-saving maneuver.
  #6  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:48 AM
StrTrkr777 StrTrkr777 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,597
What is ridiculous is it did not appear that the Kevin Spacey behavior was a secret, yet someone chose him anyway. Then when it comes out and Kevin becomes a toxic commodity, they want to re-shoot. They should not expect anyone to do it for basically free.

If they had to re-shoot because the actor died during filming and they could not "shoot around" it, that might be one thing, but to have used someone they knew had such a history and then they decide to "erase" him from the movie and still have it in theaters on the original release schedule, they should have compensated the others based on how much they personally had to re-shoot.

I get that Mark's agent asked for it in the original contract, but these were extenuating circumstances that the studio generated. They should have done the right thing and paid all the actors more for these re-shoots.
__________________
Jeffery T.

Last edited by StrTrkr777; 01-15-2018 at 11:48 AM.
  #7  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:02 PM
Asimovian Asimovian is offline
The Zeroeth Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 11,433
Moderator Note

Thread relocated to Cafe Society.
  #8  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:03 PM
Ken001 Ken001 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZipperJJ View Post
My understanding is that all 3 parties (the two actors and the "film") had the same agency, albeit different agents. So someone knew or should have known that Michelle was only getting scale while Mark was getting $1.5mm.
But even if it was the same talent agency these are individual and confidential matters. Professional ethics and old fashioned business sense means the agents wouldn't be revealing each clients contract.

If you went to a lawyer or a doctor you would not expect your file to be open to the whole building. Or even your colleague next door. Confidentiality and privacy are important. If not then talent agencies would lose their clients.

Last edited by Ken001; 01-15-2018 at 12:04 PM.
  #9  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:06 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,187
Whether it's a gender pay gap or not, that big a difference is way too high, and should not have happened. This is the disparity between extras and main talent, not fellow stars, even if they may not shine as bright.

I agree that, given what we know, Wahlberg himself did nothing wrong. But that's true in most pay gap situations. I can't recall anyone getting mad at the guy receiving more money.
  #10  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:12 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken001 View Post
But even if it was the same talent agency these are individual and confidential matters. Professional ethics and old fashioned business sense means the agents wouldn't be revealing each clients contract.

If you went to a lawyer or a doctor you would not expect your file to be open to the whole building. Or even your colleague next door. Confidentiality and privacy are important. If not then talent agencies would lose their clients.
No, but lawyers and doctors are doing something with private information. I very well would expect their performance to be known. Not necessarily by the other employees, but the employer would know. How else can you judge if they're doing a good job?

Same here. Negotiating is their job, and how much they can get shows their performance. So I definitely expect someone in the company to know, even if they have to keep it quiet in general.
  #11  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:18 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,810
Wahlberg happens to be a scumbag but had nothing to do with the disparity in pay situation. And even if he did it doesn't matter because this isn't about two people doing the same work, or comparable work. These are actors, they don't have jobs, they all negotiate what they get paid on an independent basis. There are actual cases where women get paid less than men for doing the same work, this is not one of them. Those women aren't millionaires complaining because they didn't make as much money as some other millionaire.
  #12  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:37 PM
Son of a Rich Son of a Rich is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Barsoom
Posts: 4,021
OT I know, but I still can't wrap my head around Mark Wahlberg being a huge movie star. It's interesting how pure documented assholes can rise to prominence nowadays.
  #13  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:46 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of a Rich View Post
OT I know, but I still can't wrap my head around Mark Wahlberg being a huge movie star. It's interesting how pure documented assholes can rise to prominence nowadays.
That should be the only outrage here. Michelle Williams should tell that asswipe to take his money and give it to the people he assaulted and refuses to take responsibility for.
  #14  
Old 01-15-2018, 01:21 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of a Rich View Post
OT I know, but I still can't wrap my head around Mark Wahlberg being a huge movie star. It's interesting how pure documented assholes can rise to prominence nowadays.
I've accepted— with considerable difficulty— that he's a big movie star, but accepting that he's the highest paid actor in Hollywood is an insurmountable task.
  #15  
Old 01-15-2018, 01:24 PM
DigitalC DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 10,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrTrkr777 View Post
What is ridiculous is it did not appear that the Kevin Spacey behavior was a secret, yet someone chose him anyway.
It's never been the behavior that they have a problem with, only the backlash.
  #16  
Old 01-15-2018, 01:42 PM
Son of a Rich Son of a Rich is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Barsoom
Posts: 4,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
I've accepted— with considerable difficulty— that he's a big movie star, but accepting that he's the highest paid actor in Hollywood is an insurmountable task.
"Mark Walberg is my favorite actor ever", said somebody somewhere. These are the end times, indeed.
  #17  
Old 01-15-2018, 07:08 PM
Straight Dope Bruab Straight Dope Bruab is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 4
Wahlberg had co-star approval in his contract. He had to approve Plummer replacing Spacey, that’s why he had the leverage to get $1.5M for the re-shoot to happen.

Last edited by Straight Dope Bruab; 01-15-2018 at 07:08 PM.
  #18  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:21 PM
Cartooniverse Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 12,316
Cite?
__________________
If you want to kiss the sky you'd better learn how to kneel.
  #19  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:26 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 25,855
From USA Today, "Mark Wahlberg refused to approve Christopher Plummer as a replacement for Kevin Spacey in All the Money in the World unless he was paid over a million dollars for the reshoot, USA TODAY has learned.

Wahlberg had co-star approval in his contract, two people familiar with the situation but not authorized to speak publicly about it tell USA TODAY."
  #20  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:32 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net Tim@T-Bonham.net is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
So yes, Wahlberg did nothing wrong, but it looked really bad at this time of the metoo movement. So for him to give up the money was a face-saving maneuver.
Also, a heck of a tax-saving maneuver.

Since that is a charity, he gets to deduct the entire donation amount against his other earnings for the 2017 tax year.
  #21  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:48 PM
Joey P Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 27,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net View Post
Also, a heck of a tax-saving maneuver.

Since that is a charity, he gets to deduct the entire donation amount against his other earnings for the 2017 tax year.
Isn't that kinda moot? I'm not a tax expert, but ISTM you're not saving money [on taxes] by donating money since you don't have the money anymore. That is to say, yes, he won't pay the taxes on the 1.5m, but he also won't have the 1.5m. From a financial POV, he'd better off keeping the money, paying the taxes and still having a million, or whatever is leftover after. In this case, he has nothing.

It's like when you mention that the lottery is up to 10 million dollars. Someone will always say 'yeah, but after taxes it's only like 7 million' and all I can think is 'what an odd thing to say, if you can't have 10 million dollars you'd rather have 0 than 7 million?'.
  #22  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:46 PM
caligulathegod caligulathegod is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 585
I'm pretty sure the $80 was not scale but per diem.
  #23  
Old 01-16-2018, 06:22 AM
Nava Nava is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 38,528
Per diem literally means per day. It's usually used to refer, not to salary, but to an extra given to cover expenses. If someone's expenses are covered, it can be either as direct reimbursement for a pile of tickets or as a fixed amount per day.

If the scale pay is $80/day, that's USD80 per diem literally.

If you think the $80/day was not meant to be salary but to cover expenses, I'd like some reason for it other than your left elbow, as I see no reason to believe it over mine.
__________________
Life ain't peaches and cream, but sometimes it's laughing your ass off when you have no ass. - WhyNot
  #24  
Old 01-16-2018, 07:02 AM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 25,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by caligulathegod View Post
I'm pretty sure the $80 was not scale but per diem.
From The New York Times, "The film’s female star, Michelle Williams, was paid a per diem of $80, a bit above the union minimum, for 10 days of added work."

I believe she also gave up her Thanksgiving holiday with her daughter for the reshoots. (It's a minor thing, but it demonstrates what she was willing to give up for the movie.)

And a big reason that there was such time pressure is that an FX series scheduled to air in March is about the same kidnapping story. (Plus I assume they wanted to release the movie before the end of the year so it was eligible for the Academy Awards.)
  #25  
Old 01-16-2018, 07:36 AM
Athena Athena is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: da UP, eh
Posts: 13,191
I think the controversy makes sense and is relevant when placed in the larger picture. Nobody is debating that there is a pay gap in Hollywood - plenty of examples exist where actors/actresses are roughly equal in role, talent, etc and the woman is paid much lower than the man.

For Wahlberg/Williams particularly, the relevant points for me are:

- That's a pretty big gap. It would be one thing if Williams got $1 million for the reshoot and Wahlberg got $1.5 million. Essentially nothing to $1.5 million is significant. A star as big as Williams being paid what the extras are being paid is absolutely significant.

- why did Williams' agent NOT negotiate a reshot fee and/or co-star approval in her contract? As others have pointed out, they share an agency. What's going on that Wahlberg's agent thought to add this to the contract and Williams' didn't?

- If all this was a one-off and the pay gap didn't exist, I'd just be writing it off as Williams is a shitty negotiator. Putting it in the larger perspective, I see it as more evidence that women's work is not valued as high as men's.

So yeah, overall I see it as newsworthy and relevant.
  #26  
Old 01-16-2018, 07:54 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athena View Post
I think the controversy makes sense and is relevant when placed in the larger picture. Nobody is debating that there is a pay gap in Hollywood - plenty of examples exist where actors/actresses are roughly equal in role, talent, etc and the woman is paid much lower than the man.
I think your main point is correct about a value gap but no actor is paid based on role or talent. The main factor in their pay is their perceived box office value, followed by how well they are represented. Why Mark Wahlberg is worth even a nickel is beyond me, but this incident is simply cherry picking two actors, one who happens to be a man and the other a woman. You can find this same pay disparity between two men or two women all over Hollywood.
  #27  
Old 01-16-2018, 08:04 AM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 19,543
There seem to be two ways to make big money in Hollywood, either be able to draw a large audience or be a good self-promoter.

Nicole Kidman, for example, I don't know that she ever made any movie that people wanted to see because she was in it. And yet, somehow, she is a name that people know and has had steady work in the industry for 20+ years. And, I suspect, she earned herself some decent salaries by simple process of being a ruthless negotiator at every step in the process. I assume that she has an agent, but most likely the agent just fields phonecalls and idiots. The real heart of the engine is Kidman herself.

Amy Adams, people want to go watch her films. They trust that she'll have picked a decent script that, even if serious or dark, still does it in a classy way.

Michelle Williams, I've never heard of. It doesn't sound like she's put up much of a fight to see to it that she's getting well-paid.

Wahlberg didn't get a payout because his agents care about him more than they cared about others, it's probably just because Wahlberg is a dick, didn't care about Kevin Spacey one way or the other, and knew that he had the studio over the barrel. He knew that he could get the extra money, so he got the extra money. That's just how his mind works.

An agent isn't going to be able to make a decision like that. What if they decide to play tough and ruin Wahlberg's reputation, get him written out of the script, or otherwise screw him over by trying to play hardball with the studios? That won't fly for a business. It has to be Wahlberg himself making the decisions.

So, really, this is a matter that Wahlberg cared more about his finances than he cared about what Kevin Spacey did. That's not admirable, but it tells us more about Mark Wahlberg than it does about the studios or the agency.
  #28  
Old 01-16-2018, 08:10 AM
Athena Athena is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: da UP, eh
Posts: 13,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I think your main point is correct about a value gap but no actor is paid based on role or talent. The main factor in their pay is their perceived box office value, followed by how well they are represented. Why Mark Wahlberg is worth even a nickel is beyond me, but this incident is simply cherry picking two actors, one who happens to be a man and the other a woman. You can find this same pay disparity between two men or two women all over Hollywood.
So you're saying you don't find the well-documented and rampant gender pay gap in Hollywood as anything more than box-office value and representation?
  #29  
Old 01-16-2018, 08:12 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athena View Post
So you're saying you don't find the well-documented and rampant gender pay gap in Hollywood as anything more than box-office value and representation?
No, I'm saying that's not the case with Wahlberg and Williams and the reshoot pay. If you look at the regular pay they receive for their parts you're likely to see some evidence of that.
  #30  
Old 01-16-2018, 08:41 AM
DrCube DrCube is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 6,932
I've never heard of Michelle Williams until today. Marky Mark has been a huge star for going on 30 years now. Whether he's an asshole or not (and he totally is) doesn't seem to be relevant. He sells a lot of tickets. In addition, both actors got what they asked for. I'm not seeing the issue here.

Lesson learned for Williams, I guess. Big budget motion pictures aren't charities. I'm a nobody and even I wouldn't "donate" my time to a movie, so why would a professional actor? That's what really confuses me.
  #31  
Old 01-16-2018, 08:58 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
I've never heard of Michelle Williams until today. Marky Mark has been a huge star for going on 30 years now. Whether he's an asshole or not (and he totally is) doesn't seem to be relevant. He sells a lot of tickets. In addition, both actors got what they asked for. I'm not seeing the issue here.

Lesson learned for Williams, I guess. Big budget motion pictures aren't charities. I'm a nobody and even I wouldn't "donate" my time to a movie, so why would a professional actor? That's what really confuses me.
She was poorly represented. It's reasonable for actors to do post-production work at a low rate or for free, some might say it's part of what they've been paid for already, although most don't see it that way anymore because this is not the first case where someone used contractual leverage to get a better deal. Williams' agents are at fault here, but it's a case of poor representation, not gender discrimination.

If you dig down deeper, you'll find that Hollywood is based on an old boys system, women in general are denied opportunities, especially the opportunity to become top paid stars, to produce and direct, and to create the same kind of value for themselves that men can more readily.

But in general I think it is a poor example to compare the paychecks of millionaires. This problem is far far worse at the lowest level, for the lowest paid people in all industries.
  #32  
Old 01-16-2018, 10:08 AM
kenobi 65 kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 11,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
I've never heard of Michelle Williams until today.
She's not a household name to the casual movie fan (and she undoubtedly doesn't have the box office power that Wahlberg does), but she's by no means a nobody in Hollywood.

Williams has been nominated for four Oscars, including "Manchester by the Sea" last year, and "Brokeback Mountain." She won a Golden Globe for "My Week With Marilyn" in 2011. When she was younger, she was one of the leads in the TV series "Dawson's Creek."

That said, she might have been most visible to the public as Heath Ledger's girlfriend (and mother of his daughter), particularly just after his sudden death.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 01-16-2018 at 10:10 AM.
  #33  
Old 01-16-2018, 10:12 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 77,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Wahlberg didn't get a payout because his agents care about him more than they cared about others, it's probably just because Wahlberg is a dick, didn't care about Kevin Spacey one way or the other, and knew that he had the studio over the barrel. He knew that he could get the extra money, so he got the extra money. That's just how his mind works.

An agent isn't going to be able to make a decision like that. What if they decide to play tough and ruin Wahlberg's reputation, get him written out of the script, or otherwise screw him over by trying to play hardball with the studios? That won't fly for a business. It has to be Wahlberg himself making the decisions.

So, really, this is a matter that Wahlberg cared more about his finances than he cared about what Kevin Spacey did. That's not admirable, but it tells us more about Mark Wahlberg than it does about the studios or the agency.
I think Wahlberg screwed up on this. Yes, he was able to get his $1,500,000. But he did it by effectively holding a production hostage. The studio paid him rather than waste all the money that had already been spent on the movie.

But I'm sure studios remember things like this. They're going to think about this the next time they're starting a production and casting the lead. Do they want to risk Wahlberg doing something like this to them again? So Tom Cruise or Matt Damon or Will Smith gets the lead instead.
  #34  
Old 01-16-2018, 10:20 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 77,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
If you dig down deeper, you'll find that Hollywood is based on an old boys system, women in general are denied opportunities, especially the opportunity to become top paid stars, to produce and direct, and to create the same kind of value for themselves that men can more readily.
Exactly. There are people that are trying to deny any institutional sexism exists. "It's just an actor taking advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. An actress would do the same thing."

Yes, that's true. But the fact that opportunities are available to actors that aren't available to actresses is pretty much the definition of institutional sexism.
  #35  
Old 01-16-2018, 12:18 PM
DrCube DrCube is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 6,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Do they want to risk Wahlberg doing something like this to them again?
Risk what? Paying actors for their time, recognition and skills? This is literally what every studio does every time they film a movie.

I'm not an actor, but if a project I worked on and thought was finished comes back up later and needs more work done through no fault of mine, I expect my employer to pay me for it. I don't work for free just because somebody else screwed up. I doubt it is any different in Hollywood. I really don't know what Miss Williams was thinking here.
  #36  
Old 01-16-2018, 12:57 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 77,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Risk what? Paying actors for their time, recognition and skills? This is literally what every studio does every time they film a movie.

I'm not an actor, but if a project I worked on and thought was finished comes back up later and needs more work done through no fault of mine, I expect my employer to pay me for it. I don't work for free just because somebody else screwed up. I doubt it is any different in Hollywood. I really don't know what Miss Williams was thinking here.
Okay, you've established you're going to take all the money you can get and if an opportunity comes up for you to get more money, you'll take it.

Now, I'm the employer. I can hire you or I can hire somebody else who'll agree to one flat fee for the entire project, even if unforeseen circumstances come up.

It's in your best self-interest to take any additional money from your employer if you have an opportunity to do it. It's in my best self-interest not to hire a person who will be looking for opportunities to take additional money from me.

The studios are going to treat Wahlberg with the same attitude he's treated them.
  #37  
Old 01-16-2018, 01:20 PM
Orwell Orwell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Keystone State
Posts: 1,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Per diem literally means per day. It's usually used to refer, not to salary, but to an extra given to cover expenses. If someone's expenses are covered, it can be either as direct reimbursement for a pile of tickets or as a fixed amount per day.

If the scale pay is $80/day, that's USD80 per diem literally.

If you think the $80/day was not meant to be salary but to cover expenses, I'd like some reason for it other than your left elbow, as I see no reason to believe it over mine.
I'm not in the industry, but my first thought when I read the above is "I thought the union/scale minimum was HUNDREDS of dollars a day, not TENS of dollars". A quick web search shows that the SAG minimum is $933 per day or $3,239 per week. So, if Williams did agree to "help out", perhaps she waived her pay and only accepted some sort of per diem expense amount. Seems foolish to me, but everyone has their own motivations, as well as negotiation skills.
  #38  
Old 01-16-2018, 01:49 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 19,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think Wahlberg screwed up on this. Yes, he was able to get his $1,500,000. But he did it by effectively holding a production hostage. The studio paid him rather than waste all the money that had already been spent on the movie.

But I'm sure studios remember things like this. They're going to think about this the next time they're starting a production and casting the lead. Do they want to risk Wahlberg doing something like this to them again? So Tom Cruise or Matt Damon or Will Smith gets the lead instead.
Given that half of Hollywood is in or needs to be in rehab, I suspect that having to deal with someone that actually has an eye on the business is not at the top of their annoyance list. Nor is a businessman likely to look down all that hard on someone else for acting like a businessman. All Wahlberg has to say is that he has other commitments. He could be reshooting film for no money, all because the studio did some dumbass thing wrong, or he could be out making $100k an hour doing commercials for sports cars in Japan. Why would he commit to reshoots at some unknown date, for some unknown duration, when he doesn't know what all else might be available for him to be doing - and raking it in - at the same time? And now that he does know when the reshoots are going to happen, why wouldn't the studio have to be competitively priced with the other things that he could be doing that week?

That's not being a problem child. That's just the math of someone who understands that time is money.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 01-16-2018 at 01:50 PM.
  #39  
Old 01-16-2018, 02:14 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 77,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Given that half of Hollywood is in or needs to be in rehab, I suspect that having to deal with someone that actually has an eye on the business is not at the top of their annoyance list. Nor is a businessman likely to look down all that hard on someone else for acting like a businessman. All Wahlberg has to say is that he has other commitments. He could be reshooting film for no money, all because the studio did some dumbass thing wrong, or he could be out making $100k an hour doing commercials for sports cars in Japan. Why would he commit to reshoots at some unknown date, for some unknown duration, when he doesn't know what all else might be available for him to be doing - and raking it in - at the same time? And now that he does know when the reshoots are going to happen, why wouldn't the studio have to be competitively priced with the other things that he could be doing that week?

That's not being a problem child. That's just the math of someone who understands that time is money.
Because like you say, these guys are businessmen. They'll hire people with drug problems or with histories of child molesting or hate crimes as long as they can sell tickets. Your past gets exposed and people stay away from your movies? You're fired and we reshoot your scenes.

It's always a money issue. If you get one guy who will work for $100,000 and another guy who will work for $1,000,000 you hire the cheaper guy. It doesn't matter if both of them are worth a million and the first guy just has low self-esteem. You exploit his lack of awareness over his true worth. You might respect the second guy more for knowing how business works but you hire the cheap guy who doesn't. That's how business; you do what's best for your business, not what's best for other people's businesses.
  #40  
Old 01-16-2018, 02:19 PM
DrCube DrCube is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 6,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Okay, you've established you're going to take all the money you can get and if an opportunity comes up for you to get more money, you'll take it.
I don't understand how asking to be paid for your time is the same as "taking all the money you can" or taking advantage of anyone in any way. But I'm not very familiar with how Hollywood works. Maybe big name actors are donating their time left and right and Wahlberg is being an unusually huge dick about it.

What am I missing here? Are the producers donating all the film's profits to sexual assault victims or something? Why is there an expectation that anyone work for free on this particular project?
  #41  
Old 01-16-2018, 02:37 PM
muldoonthief muldoonthief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 10,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Because like you say, these guys are businessmen. They'll hire people with drug problems or with histories of child molesting or hate crimes as long as they can sell tickets. Your past gets exposed and people stay away from your movies? You're fired and we reshoot your scenes.

It's always a money issue. If you get one guy who will work for $100,000 and another guy who will work for $1,000,000 you hire the cheaper guy. It doesn't matter if both of them are worth a million and the first guy just has low self-esteem. You exploit his lack of awareness over his true worth. You might respect the second guy more for knowing how business works but you hire the cheap guy who doesn't. That's how business; you do what's best for your business, not what's best for other people's businesses.
But what if the first guy will get you $10,000,000 in business and the second guy will get you $100,000,000 ? Then your business acumen just cost your company $89,100,000.
Wahlberg is the top box office draw in Hollywood. Walking away from him because he milked a production company for $1.5M just isn't happening as long as that's true.
  #42  
Old 01-16-2018, 02:44 PM
kenobi 65 kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 11,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief View Post
Wahlberg is the top box office draw in Hollywood.
He's up there (higher than I expected), but he's not the top draw.

2017 Rankings:
#1 Samuel L. Jackson
#2 Dwayne Johnston
#3 Mark Wahlberg

In 2016, that site ranked him at #13, and at #5 for 2015.
  #43  
Old 01-16-2018, 03:20 PM
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 5,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
He's up there (higher than I expected), but he's not the top draw.

2017 Rankings:
#1 Samuel L. Jackson
#2 Dwayne Johnston
#3 Mark Wahlberg

In 2016, that site ranked him at #13, and at #5 for 2015.
Mark Walhberg is the 3 biggest draw in Hollywood and Michelle Williams was the 111th biggest draw. In 2016 she was the 430th biggest draw.
  #44  
Old 01-17-2018, 12:57 PM
theR theR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Mark Walhberg is the 3 biggest draw in Hollywood and Michelle Williams was the 111th biggest draw. In 2016 she was the 430th biggest draw.
Yet she is much better at acting than he is. Make of that what you will, but part of the box office draw has to do with sexism in the industry and sexism in consumers of what the industry produces. There is only one woman in the top 10 and five in the top 20 by my count. If you can explain that without institutional sexism being a factor, be my guest.

It's certainly not skill-based, and box-office draw has a lot to do with promotion and other factors dictated by the studios rather than just acting skill, strength of a movie, and other quality-based factors. I would say that at least three of the top five box office draws (Johnson, Wahlberg, and Hart) are legitimately bad actors, though they're certainly all easy on the eyes and presented as personable on film.
  #45  
Old 01-17-2018, 01:20 PM
Eonwe Eonwe is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by theR View Post
Yet she is much better at acting than he is. Make of that what you will, but part of the box office draw has to do with sexism in the industry and sexism in consumers of what the industry produces. There is only one woman in the top 10 and five in the top 20 by my count. If you can explain that without institutional sexism being a factor, be my guest.

It's certainly not skill-based, and box-office draw has a lot to do with promotion and other factors dictated by the studios rather than just acting skill, strength of a movie, and other quality-based factors. I would say that at least three of the top five box office draws (Johnson, Wahlberg, and Hart) are legitimately bad actors, though they're certainly all easy on the eyes and presented as personable on film.
Sure. But without taking a strong position on the issue at hand, I don't know that I'd say Wahlberg (or his agents, or the studio) were in the wrong about his high salary due to his draw based on institutional sexism. The arts industry is centered around giving the people what they want, and the people vote most strongly with their dollars. If what they want is based on institutional sexism, I don't know that it's fair to hold the arts industry accountable for responding.

IOW; it sucks, but as long as money in is expected to relate to money out of this system, the consumers are going to have to speak with their wallets before they can expect a change.

Last edited by Eonwe; 01-17-2018 at 01:22 PM.
  #46  
Old 01-17-2018, 02:27 PM
caligulathegod caligulathegod is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Per diem literally means per day. It's usually used to refer, not to salary, but to an extra given to cover expenses. If someone's expenses are covered, it can be either as direct reimbursement for a pile of tickets or as a fixed amount per day.

If the scale pay is $80/day, that's USD80 per diem literally.

If you think the $80/day was not meant to be salary but to cover expenses, I'd like some reason for it other than your left elbow, as I see no reason to believe it over mine.
Yep, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it was noted in the NYT article, "The film’s female star, Michelle Williams, was paid a per diem of $80, a bit above the union minimum, for 10 days of added work. Her male counterpart, Mark Wahlberg, received the same per diem — plus $1.5 million." That's what per diem IS, it's not salary.
  #47  
Old 01-17-2018, 03:01 PM
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 5,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by theR View Post
Yet she is much better at acting than he is. Make of that what you will, but part of the box office draw has to do with sexism in the industry and sexism in consumers of what the industry produces. There is only one woman in the top 10 and five in the top 20 by my count. If you can explain that without institutional sexism being a factor, be my guest.

It's certainly not skill-based, and box-office draw has a lot to do with promotion and other factors dictated by the studios rather than just acting skill, strength of a movie, and other quality-based factors. I would say that at least three of the top five box office draws (Johnson, Wahlberg, and Hart) are legitimately bad actors, though they're certainly all easy on the eyes and presented as personable on film.
The Oscars is the acting competition. Getting paid is about selling tickets.

Most of the big money makers are action films. Men are more believable in action films because women are smaller, weaker, and more frail. Being big and strong makes men more attractive and women less attractive and attractive people are more likely to sell tickets.
  #48  
Old 01-17-2018, 05:56 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Exactly. There are people that are trying to deny any institutional sexism exists. "It's just an actor taking advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. An actress would do the same thing."

Yes, that's true. But the fact that opportunities are available to actors that aren't available to actresses is pretty much the definition of institutional sexism.
Williams was not the only person reshooting for $80 a day. Other actors did also - some of them men.
Institutional sexism does exist - this isn't an example of it. There are plenty of real examples.
  #49  
Old 01-17-2018, 06:49 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net Tim@T-Bonham.net is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Williams was not the only person reshooting for $80 a day. Other actors did also - some of them men.
Institutional sexism does exist - this isn't an example of it. There are plenty of real examples.
No, this is an example of:
1) one agent negotiating a better contract for his actor client than another,* and
2) that actor taking advantage of the contract clause to get more pay.

* Apparently, both of them have the same agency representing them in negotiating contracts (though not the same individual agent). Ms. Williams ought to be raising hell with that agency about how they are negotiating weaker contracts for her than for Mr. Wahlberg. Maybe that indicates some sexism within the agency, if they didn't negotiate as hard for her contract.
  #50  
Old 01-17-2018, 07:54 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
No, but lawyers and doctors are doing something with private information. I very well would expect their performance to be known. Not necessarily by the other employees, but the employer would know. How else can you judge if they're doing a good job?

Same here. Negotiating is their job, and how much they can get shows their performance. So I definitely expect someone in the company to know, even if they have to keep it quiet in general.
The agency in question is very big. I don't know what their organizational structure is, but it is not at all clear that many people would have access to both contracts. Nor care, since this situation does not come up very often.

Also, the client of one agent might be competing with the client of another for a job. No reason to share too much information. I'm sure the agents get rated on how much money they bring in, so no reason to share info with competitors, even if working for the same agency.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017