Michelle Williams got paid 1% of what Mark Wahlberg got paid for ‘ATMITW’ reshoots

michelle

It sounds like like Ridley Scott had All The Money In The World… but only for dudes. Last fall, Kevin Spacey imploded as dozens of accusers claimed that, oh right, Spacey has been a serial sexual harasser and assailant of men and boys for decades. Spacey had a small, extended cameo in Ridley Scott’s All the Money In the World, playing J. Paul Getty. Ridley decided to replace Spacey with Christopher Plummer, do several weeks of reshoots in Italy, and still keep the same release schedule (the film came out around Christmas). At the premiere, Michelle Williams was asked about how much she got paid for the reshoots, and she said that for her, the reshoots were basically unpaid and that “They didn’t pay me that much anyway, so whatever.” Well, people were wondering. Jessica Chastain was one of those people. Journalists started digging. And now we have confirmation:

Mark Wahlberg was paid $1.5 million for reshooting his scenes in All the Money in the World, three people familiar with the situation but not authorized to speak publicly about it tell USA TODAY, while Michelle Williams was paid an $80 per diem totaling less than $1,000. That works out to Williams being paid less than 1% of her male co-star.

Ridley Scott’s Getty kidnapping drama was hastily reshot the week of Thanksgiving after a cascade of sexual misconduct allegations were made public against Kevin Spacey, who previously starred in the drama as billionaire J. Paul Getty. Scott transfixed the film world by quickly assembling his actors over the holiday break in Europe, reshooting Spacey’s scenes with Christopher Plummer — and still making his Christmas release window.

The wave of publicity that followed made All the Money in the World, distributed by Sony and financed by Imperative Entertainment, roll into the Sunday’s Golden Globes as a relative triumph. But new information reveals ugly math behind the Hollywood victory. The reshoot cost $10 million (a fee put up by producing arm Imperative). In December, Scott told USA TODAY that the undertaking was aided by the fact that “everyone did it for nothing.”

The exchange went as follows:

RIDLEY SCOTT: “The whole reshoot was — in normal terms was expensive but not as expensive as you think. Because all of them, everyone did it for nothing.”

USA TODAY: “Really?”

SCOTT: “No, I wouldn’t get paid, I refused to get paid.”

USA TODAY: “You didn’t pay the actors more to do it?”

SCOTT: “No, they all came in free. Christopher had to get paid. But Michelle, no. Me, no. I wouldn’t do that to — ”

USA TODAY: “The crew, of course, did get paid?”

SCOTT: “Of course. ”

USA TODAY has since learned Wahlberg’s team actually negotiated a hefty fee, with the actor paid $1.5 million for his reshoots. Williams wasn’t told. Wahlberg and Williams are both represented by the William Morris Endeavor agency. Actors pay a team of agents, managers and lawyers an average of 10% of their salaries to advocate for them.

[From USA Today]

It would not surprise me at all if Mark Wahlberg got paid something like ten times Michelle for the initial role, even though her role is arguably the more “awards-baity” one, and her role is THE LEAD. But imagine that – Michelle and Mark, both represented by the same agency, and having to deal with the unprecedented situation of reshoots to edit out and replace an actor. Michelle thinks “I’ll do this for scale, for Ridley, because I respect him so much.” And Mark thinks “Oh they can’t do this without me, now is the time to play hardball and get a big payday.” This is what we’re talking about when we say sh-t like “the audacity of mediocre white men.” Start negotiating everything in your life like you too are a mediocre white man.

Los Angeles premiere of 'All The Money In The World'

Los Angeles premiere of 'All The Money In The World'

Photos courtesy of WENN, ‘All the Money in the World’.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

130 Responses to “Michelle Williams got paid 1% of what Mark Wahlberg got paid for ‘ATMITW’ reshoots”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. JosieH says:

    It was generous of Williams to agree to do the reshoots for basically nothing, but Wahlberg was under no obligation to do the same. The villain (if there has to be one) appears to be Scott, who told the press everyone worked for nothing when that doesn’t appear to be true.

    • JoJo says:

      I kind of agree. Not sure why we have to resort to calling Wahlberg a “mediocre white man” simply because he played hardball, which was his right. IMO, the real issue is Scott and also that Michelle, like many women, probably felt she couldn’t play hardball, and if she did, she would have been viewed negatively.

      • Mia4s says:

        “Not sure why we have to resort to calling Wahlberg a “mediocre white man””

        You’re so right @JoJo! We need to be accurate: Wahlberg, a racist who did prision time for a racial motivated assault on an innocent Vietnamese man, was more than happy to demand huge money in a situation in which cast and creatives were trying to save their film from being tainted by a man accused of multiple counts of sexual abuse and harassment of boys and young men.

        That’s much more accurate.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        But is it name-calling when it’s just stating the facts? He is, above all, mediocre.

      • Lizzie says:

        well he is like the definition of a mediocre white man. he’s a terrible actor and a terrible person and the fact that he got paid 1.5 million to do anything is astounding. notice how he hasn’t been mentioned one time during awards season? this movie and the other actors are getting nominated all over and he hasn’t been around, nor has he been mentioned. the fact that he’s the weakest actor who was paid the most is exactly why it is a perfect example of how a mediocre white man is entitled to ask for that kind of money and actually get it but an actress who has a bigger role and is nominated for awards in literally every movie can’t. don’t think for a second that if michelle’s agents asked for more money that she wouldn’t get blow back. that part isn’t specifically mark’s fault but it is a perfect example of how the whole system is set up to pay the “mark wahlberg’s” of the world despite not doing shit to earn it.

      • minx says:

        Maybe because he is a mediocre white man? To be specific, a short, beady-eyed douchebag racist with bad skin.

      • Megan says:

        Michelle needs a new agent, STAT.

      • Littlestar says:

        Don’t forget he also threw rocks and hurled racial slurs at African American school children in addition to his racially motivated attack on the Vietnamese man. “Mediocre” is certainly a nicer word than I’d use for this man. Now he gets to be rich and famous.

      • Kelly says:

        I tend to feel Wahlberg is mediocre on a great day, and less so on the usual. And that’s leaving out his troubled history. I don’t “get” him.

        There’s a black female character on SMILF who made a comment many women may feel: “I would love to spend a day with the confidence of a mediocre white guy”.

      • Milla says:

        Marky Mark is an awful person. We knew that. And yes, he could’ve done something. Like when David aka Ross asked for all six friends to get equal of one million per episode.

      • velourazure says:

        So Kevin Spacey rapes teenage boys and Marky Mark gets a 1.5m windfall.

        Sounds about right.

      • SM says:

        I kind of love it that Michelle did reshoots saving the film. I am sure there were more people on set who had to adjust and change their plans so that the film is reshot and Spacey is out of the film. Working on good cause is important. Marky Mark however once again proved he is a sexist, racist, uneducated piece of mediocre scum. Good for his kids that he at least can prove for them, because they will have to learn about life from someone else.

    • LadyMTL says:

      While I’m no fan of Wahlberg’s, I have to agree as well. IMHO the “villain” here is the agency…they negotiated a hefty fee for him but couldn’t be bothered to try to do the same for Williams, even though they represent both of them ? Is it because she didn’t ask for more, so they didn’t even try to get her something more along the lines of what he got? What’s their excuse?

      • Lightpurple says:

        The agency and the producers. Both actors had every right to expect to be paid.

      • LizLem says:

        Also not a fan of Wahlberg’s at all but agree with you @LadyMTL and @JosieH. If Michelle did this for next to nothing based on personal beliefs/morals but was under no obligation to do this for free and could have negotiated, good for her. If Wahlberg decided to negotiate, then that’s his right as well. Now, if Scott and/or production co. is behind this and were misrepresenting the situation so she was led to believe this SHOULD be done for minimum pay, then there’s a huge issue and it’s on them.

    • LizLemonGotMarried says:

      I see everyone’s point, but this is actually the larger issue. Women are taught from a young age to be a team player, to go along, to make everything smooth and easy. Men are taught to use every situation to their advantage. While it may not be MARK’s fault, it’s the fault of a system of oppression that creates a culture where women who play hardball are b*tches, c-u-next-Tuesdays, and considered unwelcome. Ridley most likely told Michelle he wasn’t getting paid, so she, as a team player, said she would do it for scale. The real villain is in how we teach men and women to approach situations.

      -signed-pushy b. who plays salary hardball and has paid for it a time or two.

      • Esmom says:

        Yes. Although I still think Marky Mark is at fault, at least partially. The deal his team negotiated didn’t happen in a vacuum.

      • Annabelle Bronstein says:

        Thank you Liz Lemon!

        It starts YOUNG too. I read a study about third graders who were given gifts that the researchers knew they would hate. Almost every girl played along, smiling and saying thank you for the gift. The boys were honest, threw the toy away and said they hated it.

        I’m guilty of this as well and have paid the price for being too nice and a pushover. We can’t win.

      • Plantpal says:

        Yesterday I was loudly called a c-nt by a male driver (whose young son was sitting in the passenger seat) when I jumped up and waved my arms in the air and yelled a very loud “OI” because he was about to drive into me and my dogs whilst we were crossing an intersection….he was in the wrong in every conceivable interpretation, but I WAS A C-NT FOR PROTECTING MYSELF AND MY DOGS!! I’m still mad, angry and frustrated. Oh and when he yelled I was wearing dark clothing … I had lighted lanyards around my neck; a white light in front, and a bright green glow stick at back, and an LED flashlight I was waving in front of his face….he didn’t see me. Instead of apologizing though CLEARLY in the wrong, I was a c-nt. I’m still angry. WE CANNOT WIN….BUT WE HAVE TO KEEP TRYING!

      • Annabelle Bronstein says:

        @plantpal I totally feel you. But I now choose to view it as liberating. Once you realize that these misogynists will NEVER approve of how you behave (if you hadn’t been waiving your arms and aware, he would’ve hit you and then blamed you for it), you can completely reject their opinions.

      • jwoolman says:

        Annabelle – girls are typically two years ahead of boys. The fact that the girls were polite about the unwanted gifts and the boys were rude just indicates that the girls were more mature and more aware that it’s the thought that counts and that it’s rather mean to disregard the feelings of the giver. The boys hadn’t reached that point of development yet and were only thinking of themselves. Points to the girls, demerits to the boys.

        Do we really want to encourage the behavior shown by the boys? Do we have to adopt all the bad qualities of men in our culture to get what we want? Men are encouraged to act in ways that I don’t want to be, and it’s not for lack of confidence in my abilities. I’m not a doormat, but I’m not going to steamroller people in typical male fashion either. You can be a tough negotiator for pay without that. You do need to be willing to walk away from the job if they don’t meet your requirements. I do this frequently in negotiating fees with my translation clients. If I have decided the job requires more work than they are willing to pay for, I just don’t accept the job. But I don’t rant and rave about it, I just wish them luck finding someone within their budget.

        Another study of ten year old boys and girls reached completely wrong conclusions by not taking into account the maturity difference. The kids were told that a man needed medicine for his wife’s serious illness but didn’t have the money to pay for it. Would it be ok for him to steal it from the pharmacist? The boys all accepted the yes/no scenario: either the man stole the medicine or his wife wouldn’t get the medicine he needed. The girls all started coming up with alternative things to try, such as asking the pharmacist if he could do some work to pay for it or for an outright gift of the medicine. They refused to accept the two options presented by the researchers because neither was a great solution, in particular since the girls also thought about how the pharmacist would feel about being robbed…. The dumb researchers decided the girls didn’t understand the question and were deficient in logic, while actually the girls were way ahead of the boys in dealing with real problem-solving.

      • Annabelle Bronstein says:

        @jwoolman that is an interesting take. But are you assuming that “maturity” is all nature without taking into account the nurture elements that influence one’s “maturity”? *assuming that there’s even a standard definition of maturity* That is, how much of our expectations of how girls should act (sweet, pretty, people pleasers, obedient) influence how girls develop and mature. Another flaw in your assumptions is that many men (maybe even a majority) are still emotionally immature and are likely to still behave less graciously than women when receiving an unwanted gift, or would still choose to either steal the medicine or not instead of problem solving. There is ample evidence that some men will never reach the emotional maturity that a third grade girl in that study, or the ten year old girl in your study, possesses. Its sad.

        Your middle paragraph is a bit of a strawman: I never said that male behavior is the better behavior; society did. Many, many women much smarter than me have long lamented that they had to behave more masculine in order to be successful. Look at how many here are excusing Mark’s selfish behavior while expecting Michelle to be a team player. I personally believe strongly that the world needs more ‘feminine’ characteristics (love, compassion, empathy, givers, grace). I just hate the fact that females are the only ones expected to possess these characteristics.

      • HeyThere! says:

        Thank you lizlemongotmarried, for saying what I couldn’t figure out how to type. This is the exact problem.

    • PPP says:

      Yeah, this is definitely not a pay disparity issue. However, it does say something about Whalberg’s character that he would use this situation in particular to negotiate for money. Something that doesn’t surprise me because fuck that racist POS.

    • jwoolman says:

      His pay was a separate issue. He would obviously have to be paid whatever he would have gotten if given the role originally. For him, it wasn’t a reshoot.

      What the other actors agreed to get paid or not paid for the reshoot of scenes with him is a different thing. They already were paid for their work on the film. The crew of course had to be paid because it was another workday for them. But the actors get paid salaries, and it’s normal to have to do many retakes of scenes. This was just an unusual version of a retake. It already added considerably to the cost of the film, so I can understand why they decided to essentially do it for free. They want the film to succeed.

      • Katie says:

        Totally incorrect. Mark Wahlberg was reshooting his scenes, as was Michelle Williams. Spacey was replaced by Plummer. Wahlberg was not new to the set. Your statement attempts to discredit the point of this entire article and Jessica Chastain’s investigations.

      • jwoolman says:

        I had thought he was replacing Spacey, I need more sleep….

        Then the problem was with the director accepting his price for reshoots. That sounds like a bad precedent. Should have taken the opportunity to replace Mark…. might as well, for that price.

        But to really evaluate it, we need to know how much he got for the film in the beginning. Was he paid a lot more than that?

        Obviously the contracts need to be better written. Don’t they usually include possible reshoots of scenes or voice re-recording during post-processing? I know that’s commonly done, they wouldn’t be able to do that if it increased the cost of the movie that much.

      • Katie says:

        Agreed that we really need to know what William’s vs Wahlberg’s pay was for original shooting to evaluate if there are any pay inequities. What I took out of this was not pay inequity, it was Wahlberg is an a**hole who negotiated as much as he could out of a situation where it was in everybody’s best interest to reshoot. Maybe the contract allows for negotiation to a certain limit for reshoots and Williams was being a standup lady agreeing to shoot for next to nothing because of the cause it was for (#metoo). It sounds like the project didn’t have a lot of budget to spare at that point. I applaud the director for recasting Spacey, so I don’t want to blame him… He may not have had a choice in accepting Wahlberg’s terms.

    • Krakken says:

      Mediocre is a gross overstatement. Wahlberg is a garbage human.

  2. Becks says:

    I don’t necessarily fault Mark Wahlberg here – or his team. they negotiated and they got what they wanted.

    But I’m pretty blown away that they refused to do the same for Michelle. And I know Hollywood is not a charity or a nice place a lot of times, but wouldn’t you think the movie studio would have said, “we’re paying Mark a million, let’s make it even and pay you the same for the reshoots” rather than just relying on the fact that women are “nice” and are willing to be “team players” and all that other crap? It’s mindboggling to me that in this current culture, they did not think this would get out and/or that people would have a problem with it.

    • Louise177 says:

      Agree. Mark negotiated and Michelle didn’t. I don’t think anybody should be attacked. Maybe Michelle’s team for not trying but maybe she told them not to. Not a fan of Mark but I would do the same.

    • Jellybean says:

      If the agency refused to negotiate for Michelle then that would be awful. But, if she offered to do it for scale and Mark didn’t then that was her choice. It doesn’t reflect well on Mark, but Scott admitted the move was first and foremost a financial decision, since they would not have been able to release the film without the change. Mark is a major producer himself and he would have know that.

    • noway says:

      Not really a sexist pay gap problem with the reshoots like they are presenting it as it appears Michelle knowingly did it for free. I think you can heap a load of criticism on Mark though. From a PR standpoint it doesn’t really put him in a good light. If the others did do it for basically free, he looks like he is trying to make money off of a bad situation. He deserves the criticism he is getting. At the very least he should donate a pretty hefty sum to some woman’s charity. He probably didn’t think people would know. Plus they have been touting this as all the actors worked for free for a while now. What kind of person just takes credit for a good deed you didn’t do. Keep heaping the criticism. Mark deserves it.

  3. Renee2 says:

    While I shouldn’t be surprised, at the same time I am really bothered by this. She is an OSCAR NOMINATED ACTRESS. He was in transformers and made a movie with a foul-mouthed toy bear??? Plus, he is a trash heap of a person. Her agents did her dirty. If she can’t catch a break what hope is there for the rest of us?

    • Ruth says:

      Yes and both movies made a lot of money

    • JosieH says:

      But Wahlberg is an Oscar-nominated actor (The Departed). He’s also an Oscar-nominated producer (The Fighter).

      • Renee2 says:

        @Josieh,

        I stand corrected. I guess I just dismissed him in my mind because I think he is such a garbage person and I try to not pay attention to him. Overall, it seems as though she has the more respected filmography but you are right that he has also been acknowledged by the academy.

    • Esmom says:

      There isn’t much hope, imo. This is a perfect example of what happens every day in workplaces everywhere. I was a victim myself. It took an amazing (female) boss who became privy to the disparity in pay and VP title between me and a male co-worker to semi-correct my situation. The vast majority of people are not so lucky — men have been getting away with this for eons and will continue to do so unless they are continually called out.

    • lightpurple says:

      He also has an Oscar nomination but this is on the studio and the producer and the agents.

      • noway says:

        No it’s not just on them. I’ve seen the interviews with Michelle she was so proud they were reshooting it she did it for free. I feel like she could have asked for money, and they would have probably paid her. Sure it would have been less, but not that much less (probably closer to the 50-70% women normally get). No the producers and studio tout how everyone did the reshoots for free, and Mark or his people at least hear this and it’s not true but they don’t correct it instead they kind of bask in the good PR he doesn’t deserve. That’s more than just a bit crappy, especially since I’m probably sure the producer told them people were doing it for free because of the situation. Way to take advantage of a bad situation.

  4. Liberty says:

    The first or second thing I learned in business school from a male (Swiss) professor was to negotiate like a guy. He said women are prone to be nice, help, do it for free and they lose out; men prone to demanding they get all the things. Negotiate like a guy, he said. Get all the things, even if people tell you that you are such a bitch. Get the things.

    This said, she may have points, or she didn’t want all the things, or she needs to kick her agent to the street.

    • Erinn says:

      The issue with that is that men get away with it. Women get called a bitch, they lose out on jobs in a way men won’t because people expect it of men. It’s easy enough in theory – but when men are already at an advantage, what do they have to lose.

      I do agree in some ways though. Women need to worry less about just being nice and easy-going. If it’s something that matters to you, you need to speak up. But I do understand why so many don’t.

    • Clare says:

      @Liberty I teach an MBA class, and the first thing I tell ALL students is that they should be as open about their salaries as legally possible. If employees don’t know how much their colleagues are making, it puts them on the back foot in any negotiation. Politeness and ‘manners’ be damned – this whole ‘never discuss money’ thing is just another way for corporations to exploit labour – particularly women, who as you say are taught/expected to be more concerned with politeness and manners than money. It’s bullshit.

      Women AND men should be more open about their salaries, if we are going to pretend we want to start addressing the pay gap.

    • Veronica says:

      Women are more likely to be viewed as aggressive, pushy, or overly ambitious if they negotiate the way men traditionally do. The problem is that men are just inherently more valued than women. Trust me, taking a women studies minor with my degree was a real eye opener. You start to realize that much of the “subversive” behaviors women are excused of are necessary survival mechanisms in a culture where patriarchy makes everything a lose/lose approach for women.

    • km says:

      It’s something that’s embedded in girls/women at such young age. I never thought I could negotiate my salary when I was younger. When I was interviewing for my current job, the woman interviewing/hiring me was shocked into silence when I countered the proposed offer I received. Even my boss, who was bringing me on board and held out accepting his offer as a leveraging tool until I was settled, mentioned he didn’t think I could negotiate more money in my position. I did get more money and I will never forget the satisfaction I felt when the HR woman told me. The look on her face was priceless!

  5. Clare says:

    Ugh the worst part, for me, is that Wahlberg is an undeserving arsehole and a mediocre actor, whereas Michelle is by all accounts quite lovely AND a wonderful actor. So basically even the shittiest and averagely talented man is valued more than an incredibly talented, award winning and NICE woman.

  6. Chaine says:

    Time for her to get a new agent.

    • Lucy2 says:

      Right? I think if I were her I would demand an explanation as to why the agency fought for him but not for her. And then I would take my talents elsewhere, as they clearly have shown to not have her best interest at heart.

      This may not be Marky Mark’s fault, but I loath him so that fact that it was him makes this even worse.

    • Veronica says:

      That was my thought, too. If it’s the same agency, they had to know what was going on behind the scenes.

    • megs283 says:

      Yup. I hope she’s receiving bids and sweet offers from agencies across the country today.

    • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

      I kind of need more information as to if it was her choice to not push for more money or her agent being lazy. I have huge respect for her because you can tell she’s in it for the art and not the money. She strikes me as a professional who would still be in the business if she were simply paid minimum wage. And she like Meryl Streep gets fantastic roles. What if her philosophy is that keeping her asking price down allows her to be needed more and to get more juicy roles? I remember reading an interview about Meryl Streep doing that for a good portion of her career.

      P.S. they shouldn’t have paid Wahlberg jack sh—t and cut him out. The nerve, $1.5 million for a few weeks?!!

  7. Erinn says:

    It’s Marky freaking Mark. He’s not even a good actor – what the literal hell.

  8. Nicole says:

    First of all she should fire her agency. They are representing two people and didn’t negotiate the same deal? Is this also the same agency that has the Crew’s assaulter too?
    On the other hand she probably requested to do it for free to save the movie that she is an awards contention. Sounds like Mark is the only a$$hat that didn’t. So he looks pretty terrible.
    Also Mark Wahlberg does not have enough acting chops or collateral to even warrant this type of pay. He sucks.
    This is what feminism is about.

    • Eiré says:

      Not only the same agency, but Wahlberg is repped by him (Venit).

    • noway says:

      Yes on the pay gap for all women, but this case is a bit different, and not really a problem with her agent as I am sure she directed them on this. We need to celebrate Michelle Williams. She said when she was told of the reshoot they could take keep her salary. She did not want to make money off of a pedophile, which whether you like it or not is what Mark Wahlberg did. Now she was also probably told everyone was doing it for free too, or maybe not, but I don’t think that would have changed her mind either. If I had the resources and ability to do what she did, I think I would feel very guilty for taking money from something like this. Do we really want to encourage people to make money off of something so horrible. She did the right thing in this instance.

      Yes we need pay equity, by socially changing how women think and negotiate salaries, and changing the way men think women should be paid, which honestly I think is the bigger part. Still in this case She is right and we should applaud her, and anyone else on the set that took a big pay cut to make this movie.

  9. Eiré says:

    They are both repped my WME–him by the recently reinstated and off scott free Venit. Everyone else worked for scale, Ridley included. It’s on the producers, and him (Scott) as well, but the fact remains that everyone else was being gracious in the face of the Spacey situation, and Wahlberg took advantage of it. And he’s a piece of dirt.

  10. msd says:

    Notorious racist, homophobic dick Wahlberg got paid 1500 times what Michelle did, which is a hell of a lot less than 1% for those reshoots. And they didn’t tell her. Then Ridley Scott gave press interviews blathering about how the cast all “worked for nothing” because the film meant so much to them. What a touching story. Of course he knew that wasn’t true. He is a producer on the film. He’s a money guy.

    Wahlberg is a dick. Scott is also a dick. Sony and WME are crap. They all did this at the height of #metoo hoping no one would notice. Nothing has changed behind the scenes at all.

    And I don’t want to hear any of that stuff about “women should ask for more” because women are simply not allowed to be dicks. They’re allowed to be grateful for work.

    I’m not on board with any of the “Wahlberg makes money” bs arguments either. He’s in Forbes’ Top 10 Most Overpaid actor lists for a reason. All the Money In The World was a 40 million “prestige” pic not a blockbuster or an action movie or a studio comedy. Williams has high awards/prestige/critics value (as did Spacey pre-Weinstein) not Wahlberg. That why she was cast and why she got a GG nomination. And he hasn’t brought in big box office for the movie – supposedly his job. Why would he? The older skewing audience the movie actually got don’t care about him. Neither do critics.

    Sony and the agency need to give her the money. Now. There’s no excuse. Then she can donate it if she wants to.

  11. Jussie says:

    I’m very much not a fan of Mark, but I don’t think he did anything at all wrong here. This film wasn’t a charity case. They would have found the money to pay everyone properly if they had to, because the only other options where shelving it forever or releasing it to certain failure. There’s no reason anyone should have done it for free or taken a gigantic pay cut, except perhaps Ridley, as a gesture, since he made a lot of the choices here.

    Mark and Michelle’s agency on the other hand completely screwed her by not telling her that Mark got a fair deal for himself and offering to negotiate the same for her.

    • Eiré says:

      That’s not actually how it works. They didn’t have an endless supply of money. Wahlberg took advantage when everyone else said they would work for scale. Williams had already told them she wouldn’t promote the film if it wasn’t edited. He’s a dick.

      • Lightpurple says:

        Took advantage of whom? The producers? For expecting to be paid? When you hire people, you should pay them. This was not a charity project. The crew was paid its full rate for the extra time; the actors should have been too. One was, the other wasn’t. The producers are the ones who took advantage of Michelle Williams, not Mark Wahlberg and nobody took advantage of the producers.

    • msd says:

      Apparently he complained and complained and complained. So after the fact he and his agent got him big money to keep him happy. Not telling Williams of course.

      He knew other cast were working for free. He knew why they were replacing Spacey. He knew the budget was blown out. He also, presumably, knew his agent was accused around the same time. (No wonder the guy still has a job). He got $1.5 million on $10 million reshoot. And the film hasn’t made money anyway.

    • wendy says:

      In no way, shape or form should “the agency” be divulging the salaries or deals to other players.

      While I agree the disparity is gross, we don’t have a lot of details. If Williams had been asked or decided for whatever reason to not pursue compensation, her agency is under no obligation to step in and say hey, we got this dude this amount (which is a breach of privacy).

      I don’t fault Wahlberg for negotiating a deal based on the commodity he has at hand, while he isn’t well liked on this forum, he does have a large body of work that has made substantial cash at the box office. He is banking his brand while it lasts.

      • noway says:

        Normally I would agree with you about negotiating a better deal, but this is a special case and now that it is known how much he got paid his banking the brand was very short sighted. Like it or not, he made money off of pedophilia, and he knew he was doing it. Then to make matters worse, he never corrected the reports that said he was working for free, and he tried to make himself look better. No one has to work for free, but even a lot of the crew was working for scale and they make a lot less than 1.5 million dollars. It was the right thing to do under the circumstances. Unfortunately, he has to own this now. You know more people would be at least smarter and more generous if the world knew their salaries and the situation. If Mark even knew what blow back he is probably going to get for this, he might have done something different. Pay would be more equal if people knew what others were paid.

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        The agency could have gone to bat for Williams without disclosing anything about Wahlberg, that’s their job. Ffs

  12. Ruth says:

    So the bigger star got paid more?

  13. Talie says:

    Hopefully all this publicity leads her to getting an Oscar nom…she deserves it. The movie is fantastic and she really carries it well.

    As for the money, I would say it’s more on the agency than anyone else. Mark is essentially a non-factor in the movie, so I can see why he pushed for more money. He knew he wasn’t getting nominated.

  14. lightpurple says:

    This is the fault of the producers, the studio and the agents. Not the fault of either of the actors. One requested his salary for the work he was being asked to perform. He had every right to do that and the producers/studio agreed to pay it. The producers/studios/agents need to explain why they didn’t offer/negotiate the same deal for her.

  15. Kiki says:

    As bad ad the a woman paid less than a man situation a.has come to light. This is the added injury to insult. You mean to tell me, I have a worked months and months of Ridley Scott’s antics with his films of reshoot that to me are unnecessary at times to fit in for one man to replace another actor (which is understandable to some extent) and I am not being paid…. That is F*#$@ B*#$@S*#@$.

    Are you sure Hollywood that your Black Dress protest is working?

  16. secret says:

    Quick question. Wouldn’t the Agency benifit from a percentage of the negotiated salary for reshoots? Wouldn’t it have been in the Agency’s best interests to negotiate both of the stars a salary for the reshoot to gain more money for the agents/agency?

    Or is it Oscar Baity for the Agency to think, “Let Michelle say she did it for nothing- better Oscar chances?”

  17. Shannon says:

    What bullshit. After 20 years in the working world, while I can’t really make myself male, I do use subtle things like talking in a slightly deeper tone, wearing heels for height because at 5’2″ most men I deal with are a lot taller than me and having to look up at them like a kid puts me in a weak position, and so on and so forth. But it’s fkn annoying.

  18. littlemissnaughty says:

    You need to ASK. Ask what everyone else is being paid before working for free. I have no problem helping out colleagues but f*ck me, if the work needs to be done and I put in overtime, I’m getting paid. Someone once asked me if I would do it and not tell anyone because she was afraid it would look like she couldn’t manage her time. I said no. And I would never expect someone else to do that for me. I don’t work for free.

    Same goes for the numbers. If someone asks you to do something for a pittance because, what, art? You tell your agent to find out what’s happening. And if you drop the ball and find out THIS was what was happening? You fire their behind.

    • jwoolman says:

      She’s on salary, not wages. She got paid for the entire film, which included reshoots. I’m sure that’s why she wasn’t concerned about getting paid again for this reshoot. She wanted Spacey to be replaced and that required reshooting her scenes with his replacement. She already put in the work of developing her approach to the scenes, so she wasn’t starting from scratch.

      They couldn’t have done it if they had to pay all the actors the same as they had done for their previous work, treating it as two different movies.

      Mark’s situation was different – he was starting from scratch and negotiating for the entire film, just as he would have done if cast in the role originally rather than replacing someone. His pay has to be evaluated on that basis. Is it actually an unusual amount for him to get on a film? How does it compare to what Spacey got? Whether you think he is mediocre or not is irrelevant. He was cast, so they must have thought he could do the job properly.

      I’ve been on salary as a college teacher, and the concept of overtime pay never applies even though college professors typically work 60-80 hour weeks. We are paid to do the job, however long it takes. The same is true for movie actors. They have to do as many retakes of scenes as needed and don’t get paid for each one individually.

      • jwoolman says:

        Oops, should have read more carefully. Mark was just reshooting his own scenes, so yeah, he’s not nice. But the fault is with the people who accepted his demand.

        The entire cast should have negotiated together, so if they all decided to work for scale because of the unusual situation – that would be the end of it. Letting them individually negotiate was a big mistake. Transparency is definitely needed with salary information. And peer pressure would have prevented his maneuver.

  19. Ally says:

    Bottom line: she didn’t want to profit off sexual abuse but Marky Mark was fine with it.

  20. Myhairisfullofsecrets says:

    Michelle may have volunteered to do the reshoots for a very minimal fee and that’s her right to do so. I will say though, I’ve been an extra on several movie sets and I made more than $80 a day and double that on Sunday shoots. I was always told by casting directors that extras are a dime a dozen (pretty worthless). So, I think Michelle deserves more than $80 a day.

  21. Bliss 51 says:

    Mark Wahlberg, as an actor on his best day, is, searching for the right word, um, earnest. He has his millions to make up for the lack, lucky him.

  22. Originaltessa says:

    I’m not mad at Wahlberg for getting paid. His time is valuable and he garners large sums and he negotiated a paycheck. Why Michelle didn’t or couldn’t do the same? Well, I doubt her asking price is anywhere near his in the first place. He’s one of the few actors out there that consistently opens movies on his name alone. But more likely she was being a team player, and he wasn’t having any of that. He just wanted to get paid for his time, and she was more invested in the art. I think that fits both of their reps and says a lot about their character. He’s only doing any of this for the money.

  23. Anastasia says:

    What utter bullshit. Williams should have been paid a LOT more.

  24. gobo says:

    The biggest issue I see here was the Whalberg got the benefit both ways. He held the movie to ransom AND didn’t get called out for it. Until now. He should have been called out from the start rather than included in the “We all worked for free” comments.

    • jetlagged says:

      Exactly. I wonder who decided to keep that little fact from the director? There are tons and tons of interviews where Ridley Scott is proudly quoted as saying “everyone came back for free”, it was a major talking point during the junket interviews and Wahlberg looks like a freakin’ hero. Now it looks like Ridley either a) lied to cover for Mark or b) looks inept because he wasn’t told one of his stars got a seven-figure payday for one week of work.

      I won’t be watching all the interviews Mark did promoting the film, but how much do you want to bet that at least once the jerk either took credit for working for free, or didn’t correct a reporter who assumed he did?

  25. Tw says:

    THIS makes me so f’ing angry. He has a minor role that could have been played by anyone. She is the LEAD.

  26. Margo S. says:

    Kaiser “start negotiating everything in your life like you too are a mediocre white man.”

    I am living by that from now on!!! Kaiser, preach!!!

  27. Don't kill me I am French says:

    Michelle didn’t negotiate.She clearly said she asked nothing for the reshoots.If it was her,I would talk with my agent because her agent knew that Walhberg would be paid.
    Honestly her agent did defend Michelle’s interest at best

  28. Cee says:

    If I were her, I would blaze my agency and actually start looking for another one. This wasn’t a case of “different agencies” but it was the same one.

    This is also the way women are programmed to think – we are always SO GRATEFUL for an opportunity even if we’re being shafted, even if we’re being paid so much less than our male equals, even if we’re better than them.

  29. hey-ya says:

    …I dont necessarily approve of Wahlberg as a person ( although he hasnt been accused of shooting dead an endangered species) but I have seen about 5 of his movies & he works constantly…Ive only seen 1 of Michelles movies…

  30. JA says:

    Williams need to get new reps to advocate bigger pay. Beyond shitty the agency fought for Mark but literally did nothing for Michelle. It’s upsetting to hear but Mark did nothing wrong except again hold out for more which was within his right. We need to start having the confidence of a mediocre white man when negotiating pay. The agency didn’t do their job so she should drop them and select an agency that will go for bat for her. I wonder if she could potentially seek legal action against them

  31. LooseSeal says:

    We keep saying that in business transactions we all need to learn to act more like a man, but sometimes I think men need to act more like women. What’s wrong with being a “team player?” Especially when your job is art? IMO Wahlberg treated tragic events like a great way to further line his pockets, whereas Williams stepped up and did what she had to do to do right by her project. Sometimes getting the bigger paycheck isn’t the win in the long run. We’re not going to beat the system if we continue to follow the system’s playbook. Wahlberg should donate that $1.5 mil to Times Up and evaluate his priorities.

    • jwoolman says:

      Looseseal- exactly. She had said she wouldn’t promote the film if Spacey was still in it, that’s being a tough negotiator. She was fine with scale because she knew it would allow her to get what she really wanted.

      Sometimes what you want has nothing to do with money.

      And teamwork is essential today. The American Physical Society (for physicists) did a study years ago to see if there were differences between female and male physicists. The report said that we all are pretty much like. The guys do tend to be a bit more aggressive with their ideas, but the women tend to be more effective team players. Since in modern science, aggressive behavior is often counterproductive (pushing out alternative ideas) but teamwork is how it’s done – the women were acknowledged to have the edge.

      Someone also did a study years ago of men and women generally considered to be very creative by their colleagues. I think it may have focused on scientists, not sure. The author interviewed the colleagues extensively. She was surprised to find out that although to her, an outsider, both the men and the women seemed very much alike, certain characteristics (such as use of intuition) were considered feminine in the males while others (like tenacity in pursuing ideas) were considered masculine in the females. But the creative people really all had the same characteristics.

  32. Bridget1224 says:

    WME represents both Michelle and Mark, why they would make a better deal for one client and not the other is confusing, considering they are working in the same project. Then again, WME is the same agency that decided to keep Adam Venit after his assault on Terry Crews. Maybe it’s time for Michelle to drop them as well.

  33. Eve V says:

    @Looseseal
    I completely agree. Yes, it was Mark’s right to ask for more money. But, and I say this as someone who has actually always liked him/his movies, it makes him a garbage person, IMO. He profited from sexual abuse/harassment. He didn’t need the money and should’ve done it for the same as everybody else- cost of their meals. Ugh, Mark, I will never look at you the same way or go out of my way to see one of your movies now.

  34. The Original Mia says:

    I think I experienced a rage blackout. Her agent, his agent…they conspired against her. Why wouldn’t her agent fight to get her as much as Wahlberg, in spite of her desires. So unfair. I’d fire that prick with a quickness.

  35. Tallia says:

    Calling him a “mediocre white man”, is an insult to mediocre white men everywhere.

  36. Mina says:

    Ridley Scott doesn’t pay the actors. The studio does. This is incredibly shameful, but the worst blame should fall on WME, the agency talent that represents both Michelle and Wahlberg and didn’t bother to put an effort to negotiate for her, probably because she was happy to do it for free in name of the cause. Still, if they were doing it for Wahlberg, they should have asked her. Maybe they did and she declined? I doubt it, but I’ve yet to hear from anyone involved.

  37. Rachel says:

    I don’t know why all the buzz for this movie.. it’s so boring I nearly left the movie theater.

  38. Littlestar says:

    I won’t watch anything with Wahlberg, don’t feel like contributing to the wealth and fame of a racist.

  39. angie0717 says:

    The fk y’all??!!! Isn’t the bullshit agency to blame? Work for one (male!) client but not the other (oops, happens to be female)! I’M FURIOUS

  40. Harryg says:

    I can’t stand Wahlberg and I will never understand why he’s a star! Why????

  41. Nikki says:

    In government agencies, schools, and hospitals, there’s a pay scale per job and men and woman have to be paid the same amount. But in business and in Hollywood, things are negotiated, and women are being MAJORLY screwed. Part of it is we don’t demand enough, but most of it is we are being screwed by a sexist system. I applaud Chastain for publicizing this, I hope the agency is sued for discriminatory practice, and I hope Hollywood can be brought to more salary equality. UGH!!!

  42. Really says:

    What I really don’t understand is why Hollywood keep giving so much money to bad actors, because Mark is not recognized by his acting skills come on.
    Also while reading the comments I learned that he a piece of racist trash too, coool.

  43. Serena says:

    Wow, I feel so disgusted by Ridley Scott, Mark W. and above all their agency. They’re represented by the same agency but the different treatment is so striking and disturbing.. wth, I hope they’ll pay Michelle as much as that Mark W. douchebag. Also I hope they’ll force a statement out of him, he needs to publicly respond to this.

  44. HeyThere! says:

    The facts are that MW(Michelle-they have the same initials)is a great person and didn’t want to benifit from KS abusing young men, end of. She wanted to do it out of morals and principle. THAT is why she is the best. Mark should be ashamed of himself. I hope people ask him about this in a very public manor. Also, WTF to the agency that they share?!?! Does anyone know how much they were paid for the movie before reshoots?

  45. Ellis says:

    Boycott this movie, don’t ever spend money on a Marky Mark film again, take all of your girlfriends to the next movie Michelle is in. That doesn’t have a sexual harasser, a racist, or a narcissist in the cast. Good luck with that last part.

  46. holly hobby says:

    Don’t blame Ridley Scott. He did not know about the financial set up: https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/ridley-scott-reportedly-furious-over-mark-wahlberg-michelle-williams-pay-discrepancy/ar-AAuz3ov?li=BBnb4R7&ocid=mailsignout

    Apparently he only appealed to the actors to reshoot parts of the film. Michelle agreed to do it for free (without prompting). He went to see Wahlberg and he agreed but there was no mention of money. Wahlberg then sicced his managers on the producers. So Scott was in the dark about the whole thing and now he’s pissed.