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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
- one agent negotiating a better contract for his actor client than another,* and
- 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.
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.
I’m not sure you people realize how big WME is.
WME | IMG
Size: 4,000+ clients; nearly 5,000 employees (200 agents) in 25+ countries This isn’t five schmucks and a secretary.
I suspect every contract in Hollywood is going to have a reshoot clause guaranteeing parity with the highest reshoot fee for the project. But I bet her last 10 contracts had the same language, and it didn’t matter up to now.
If Mark Wahlberg thinks he’s irreplaceable he’s kidding himself. There are twenty or thirty other actors, just as well known as he is, who can carry the lead in an action thriller.
If Wahlberg was so confident he was worth an extra million and a half, he would have asked for it when he was negotiating his original salary. Notice he didn’t. He must have figured the studio would have said no if he had raised his initial price. He waited until he had the production over a barrel before demanding more money.
We don’t really have any evidence that this is true. Movies are a group effort with both women and men in starring roles and it’s hard to separate the value of their contributions. To wit, people believed for a long time that Matt Lauer was the star of the Today Show and that Ann Curry didn’t attract an audience. Matt Lauer seems to have orchestrated her departure. Matt Lauer became the highest paid person in network news broadcasting. The Today show’s ratings dropped. Then Matt Lauer was fired and the Today show’s ratings increased. Did Matt Lauer contribute to ratings commensurate with his salary? I refused to watch the show while he was on it, so he certainly didn’t attract my eyeballs.
I think poor representation contributed to this particular disparity.
Yes, one issue with institutional sexism is that men get many more opportunities to make mistakes and be forgiven than women.
This is true. What it tells me is that he had no commitment to helping the production save its commercial viability or make a statement about opposing sexist behavior unless he was paid $1.5 million. Michelle Williams apparently thought she should help accomplish those things for free.
Agreed.
I can tell you I saw Manchester by the Sea only because she was in it and she was the best part of the movie.
Agreed on the first part but the irony is that men are respected for negotiating hard. Only women are punished for it.
Women are rarely given action roles but it seems from time to time, they excel in them. Mad Max: Fury Road and Wonder Woman were two of the only big blockbuster action movies I saw in the last couple of years. Both were very good. Mad Max was excellent.
I generally avoid films he is in because he is terrible and he picks lousy projects. His grosses are inflated by the Transformers movies which did just fine before him and would do just fine if he stopped being in them. When I’ve liked his movies, it’s despite him, not because of him. I actually liked him in The Perfect Storm but more often, my view of his films are like the the Fighter, where he played an irritating lunkhead credibly enough that others in the film had a chance to shine.
He did not put them over a barrel. The entire situation involving Kevin Spacey put them over a barrel.
Ridley Scott made a smart decision and everyone else was on board.
As far as the whole idea of working for per diem, allow me to throw in my two cents.
I work in the film industry as a cinematographer. Throughout my career I’ve been asked to work on projects for zero pay. I was always assured that everybody else on the crew was also working for zero pay. It was usually a public service announcement for one good cause or another, and if I decided that cause was worth my time that I went in with a clear conscience and a happy heart.
Only once did I show up to discover that other people were being paid and I was not. My conscience was still clear. My heart was NOT happy…
The idea of working for per diem is essentially working for free. The per diem money is worked into a basic Union agreement and must be paid regardless of any other compensation. It cover such things as meals, incidentals, and so on.
I absolutely do not see this as a case of sexism in Hollywood. It is poor negotiation on her agent’s part and smart negotiation on his agent’s part and nothing more.
If the gender roles were reversed the situation would be the same. One agent negotiated in a different way than another agent.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Little Nemo did not say that Wahlberg put them over a barrel, but that he had them over a barrel. Which he did.
IF someone deliberately mislead Williams into believing everyone else was doing the reshoots per diem, that’s the only malfeasance in this story, and that’s on whoever mislead her, whoever that was.
It’s not up to other people to make sure everybody gets paid the same. That’s on the individual.
Not getting income isn’t the same as making it, giving it to charity and getting a huge tax break. t-bonham is saying that he gets to save face and also gets to lower his taxable income by 1.5m after giving it away.
Don’t win the lottery and you end up with nothing. Win the lottery, give it away and deduct that amount from your taxable income and you end up with something. If you made a lot of money that year (like Wahlberg), that something is a lot.
Or rather, on that person’s agent.
You are mistaken. When you donate to charity, you deduct that amount from your gross income. It’s the same as not making it at all. There is no difference, wealth- or tax-wise. To be fair to you, a lot of people seem to have this misconception.
Let’s say Wahlberg made $10M in 2017. If he had gotten paid for this extra work, he would have made $11.5M, so, yeah he makes more money. But if he donates the $1.5M to charity, his gross income is back to $10M. He is not gaining any fiscal benefit. Perhaps he thinks he is gaining some sort of goodwill or image benefit, but that’s a different story.
How is it the same as not making it at all? Why bother to deduct it from gross income if there is no benefit?
Right. That’s where the money saving comes in - his gross is lowered therefore his taxable income is lowered.
See the following example:
In the above, if the person had not made that $100, he would be $100 poorer.*
If he made the $100 and donated it to a qualifying charity, in the 35% tax bracket he will have $35 more dollars than he would have had he not made it at all.
*In the rare case where that extra $100 in income puts one in a higher tax bracket, there will be a different outcome, but surely Wahlberg is already in the highest tax bracket.