Mark Wahlberg was paid more than Michelle Williams because of a contractual issue

Embed from Getty Images

Do you enjoy the fact that Mark Wahlberg has been silent as the grave regarding the massive pay inequity between himself and Michelle Williams? Mark and Michelle were asked to return to Italy last November for a few weeks of reshoots on All the Money In the World, so that Kevin Spacey could be edited out and Christopher Plummer could replace him. Michelle took scale, meaning she got paid about $1000 or less for a few weeks of work, all while missing Thanksgiving with her family. Wahlberg, on the other hand, negotiated a $1.5 million deal for the reshoots.

As we’ve always known, Mark Wahlberg is the worst. He committed violent, racist hate crimes and never apologized to his victims. He claimed he would have totally stopped 9/11 if he had been on one of those planes. He pretends to be all moral and claims his biggest regret is doing nudity on Boogie Nights. He is the worst. It is known. But should Mark take “the hit” for this pay situation? What if it was just some weird contract situation?

Outrage was swift when USA Today reported that Mark Wahlberg had been paid over 1,000 times more than costar Michelle Williams for extensive reshoots on All the Money in World — and now there’s further insight into how this happened in the first place. According to a new report in TheWrap, the glaring pay disparity was due in part to their individual contracts.

Earlier this week, USA Today revealed Wahlberg made $1.5 million for extensive reshoots on the film, while Williams received only a per diem of $80 a day. According to an industry insider who spoke to TheWrap, Williams’ original contract required her to do any necessary reshoots, while Wahlberg’s did not. So when director Ridley Scott called for 10 days of reshoots after the movie’s original star, Kevin Spacey, was replaced by Christopher Plummer, Wahlberg had the opportunity to negotiate additional pay.

And while both Williams and Wahlberg immediately agreed to participate in the reshoots, the actor’s agent reportedly told the film financiers he “never” works for free, according to a source who spoke with TMZ. Wahlberg’s agent Ari Emanuel (the co-CEO of WME) set the price, to which film execs eventually agreed, per TheWrap. (Sony Pictures has not responded to PEOPLE’s request for comment.)

Wahlberg also had more extensive reshoots than Williams, as his character appears alongside Plummer’s J. Paul Getty in more scenes. Ahead of production, Wahlberg, who was named Forbes’ highest-paid actor in 2017, took a pay cut in order to star in the film, according to the New York Times.

[From People]

I’ll ask again: should Wahlberg take the hit? He’s already taking the hit, with critics calling him sleazy, opportunistic and more. Actual film critics point out that he gives a nothingburger supporting performance, and that Michelle is actually the star, and she should be paid more than Wahlberg, no matter what. I understand the arguments being made here, that this involved contracts and clauses and an actor’s established quote and all of that. But think about this: Mark’s agent knew Ridley Scott was in a bind and that Wahlberg would have to agree to the reshoots, and Ari exploited the sh-t out that. Mark got paid. Ari got paid. Why didn’t Michelle and her agent get paid? Also: ten bucks says that Michelle got paid less than Mark for just their standard contract to do the film. SHE’S THE LEAD.

Oh, and here’s another update: apparently, Wahlberg’s contract had costar approval (and yet no reshoot clause?!?), so he had to approve of Christopher Plummer. Wahlberg only approved of Plummer’s casting when Wahlberg got his $1.5 million. Sleazy.

Embed from Getty Images
Photos courtesy of Getty.

 

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

149 Responses to “Mark Wahlberg was paid more than Michelle Williams because of a contractual issue”

  1. Tanguerita says:

    the last part is the worst. This assh.le basically held them all hostage. He is an abomination. Not that he’s ever been “NOT” cancelled, but now I double-cancel him.

    • Becks says:

      See I find that sleazy but also just part of negotiating. He knew Ridley needed him, and he was using that as part of his payday. It’s sleazy, but I don’t think its like “omg this is the worst thing anyone in Hollywood has done.”

      Of course, we all know that if Michelle Williams had tried that, she would have been dragged for it as a diva, too big for her britches, etc.

      • Jeannie says:

        Yes. She definitely would’ve; this story would’ve been spun very differently, n there would be leaks from the set abt how Michelle Williams is so difficult to work with n she’s an absolute diva who thinks too much of herself n doesn’t realize she’s replaceable (she’s a great actress – not necessarily replaceable. Mw on the other hand…)

      • Cranberry says:

        “find that sleazy but also just part of negotiating”

        Yeah this situation really shows the underlying problem in HW is the way the money flows. Hollywood is a shark tank and that’s the way Wahlberg plays it. He may be a self serving sleaze, but that’s most of HW too when you look at how all the independent agencies operate with each other. The pay discrepancy goes to the agent companies and the independent actors agents/layers, ect.

        I’m ok with Walhberg getting paid for the reshoots, maybe not as much as he may have held out for. And I’m also ok with him being exposed for the greedy, hold out that he is. I read some post that said his re-shoot pay was to compensate him on $ that he was being docked from another movie he had to delay filming. Idk if that’s true or not especially since this was over the holidays, but maybe.

        The real problem is that the agencies that represent women in HW don’t do the work they should be doing to make the system more fair. They don’t fight for better contracts or clauses that would protect and pay actresses for fairly. They let things go along customarily under the excuse of “star power” pay. That needs to stop being the excuse of why oscar winning actresses like WIlliams are given sh*tty contracts.
        It’s fine that his contract stipulated he be paid for reshoots, but her’s should have been too. What’s up with that? It’s great that he took a pay cut to be in a Ridley Scott film, but why was he given co-star approval? Why aren’t these agencies that represent all these people, Williams, Scott, doing their job! ? Why did Scott’s reps approve Wahlberg’s contract with creative clauses that should have only been up to Scott?

      • imqrious2 says:

        Just in from CNN: This POS has felt the pressure and is now donating the $1.5M to Time’s Up in Michelle Williams’ name:

        http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/13/entertainment/wahlberg-williams-timesup/index.html

    • Anne says:

      Even worse, this whole statement has such a “blame the woman” tone to it that it makes me sick. When I read the headline I thought his contract stated he HAD to be paid a certain rate for any reshoots, instead it’s just that he didn’t have contractual obligations to not be a d!ck. They might as well as said that this whole situation is Michelle’s fault because she should have negotiated a better contract so she could be free to be as much of a d!ck as he is.

      As for all you people saying that he had a right to profit from this because you shouldn’t do work for free – I think you’re totally missing the point. And the point is that this whole reshoot only needed to happen because Spacey was and is a sexual predator and abuser. Wahlberg’s 1.5 mil is not him being paid for work, it’s him profiting from sexual abuse. We certainly don’t think it’s okay for someone to profit from human trafficking or child pornography, so why is it okay for Wahlberg to profit from all those young men who were sexually abused?

      • Pamela says:

        “They might as well as said that this whole situation is Michelle’s fault because she should have negotiated a better contract so she could be free to be as much of a d!ck as he is.”

        Exactly! To an an extent, it IS true that Walburg has a more aggressive and better at negotiating agent than Williams. If the studio didn’t make sure to contract for reshoots (which are pretty common under even normal circumstances– I thought?), well then it isn’t surprising that an aggressive agent used that to Walburg’s benefit. It was particularly shitty given the REASON for the reshoots. And come one, 1.5 mil for a WEEK?

        But the thing is…no , people can’t say that William’s should have made sure to have a better contract, because the truth of the matter is in general WOMEN can NOT get as fat a contract to begin with. Maybe she could have contracted for more than $80 per day per diem. But no, she would have been laughed oput of the room, or had the part given to someone else, if she tried to get a great contract at the beginning. That is the ENTIRE problem here. Inequality. This movie just happens to be a bad example because in this case, the studio didn’t want to pay ANYONE that 1.5 mil for reshoots…regardless of their gender. This WAS just a matter of different contracts. But in general, and not just in Hollywood, Women have shittier contracts/pay/benefits than men in most cases.

      • PPP says:

        Right on!

        This: “Wahlberg’s 1.5 mil is not him being paid for work, it’s him profiting from sexual abuse” is the best way to put what bothers me about Wahlbergs typically bothersome behavior.

      • Plantpal says:

        Here’s the kicker…..it is my understanding they are both repped by THE SAME COMPANY…..their AGENTs….KNOWINGLY agreed to substantial pay differentials for their two stars. DAMN THEM!!!!

    • Patty says:

      He didn’t do anything wrong! He cannot see the future – he didn’t know what was going to happen with Kevin Spacey but he was smart or his agent was; so reshoots were not included in his original contract. That’s fucking smart. All this shows to me is that Michelle Williams needs better people on her team.

  2. Becks says:

    Interesting. So like several of us said when this story first broke, it sounds like the fault isn’t with Wahlberg himself (despite his myriad of other faults.) Sure, holding out until he got his money for the reshoots is sleazy, but its also a good negotiating tactic.

    It sounds like the discrepancy is with their original contracts. How normal is it to have to do all reshoots as part of your contract, and how normal is it to get paid for any reshoots? Even if Michelle’s contract covered all reshoots, considering how unique this situation was, it seems to me that her agent could have negotiated for additional pay.

    • Des says:

      I know your comment is based on what’s given above, so I’ll just jump in to note that this is actually an earlier report and the latest reports are that the reshoots were in fact a part of Wahlberg’s original contract. As in, he was paid for them and he was expected to carry them out as needed. I’ll also say that this makes more sense to me because reshoots happen all the time and I don’t know how a studio would negotiate a contract that didn’t oblige the main actors to commit to reshoots.

      But he (or Ari, who is also the head of the same agency that reps Michelle btw) used the clause where he gets to approve his costars to threaten to block Plummer unless he got paid.

      Apparently Ridley didn’t know about this and therefore included Walhberg as part of his “we are a collective unit who did this” narrative and only found out the same as Michelle and the rest of us and is apparently hopping mad. I don’t know how that works since he’s the director and should know what his actors are getting paid?

      • holly hobby says:

        The producers or the money people who financed this movie would know about this tidbit. Ridley wouldn’t necessarily be in the know about this.

      • Cranberry says:

        @holly hobby

        Yup. It’s a producers and agents game behind the scenes and deciding who gets the big bucks and who has to take the left overs. And of course it’s always easy to stick the women with the left overs and tell them the biggest star gets the high pay. Except this time the “game” worked against Ridley Scott, making him look like a rookie instead of the master he is to have some HW action star have creative approval over his movie, as if this was a ‘Mark Wahlberg movie’.

  3. Eiré says:

    via USAToday:

    …”What he said was, ‘I will not approve Christopher Plummer unless you pay me.’ And that’s how he (expletive) them,” says one person…

    …Another Hollywood insider says Wahlberg’s lawyer formally vetoed the Oscar winner in a letter to financiers until his demand for additional payment was met…

    Scum. Where are those Marky Mark defenders at, now?

    ETA: also, this: …a person familiar with the situation but not authorized to speak publicly about it tells USA TODAY… Both actors had reshoots in their contracts and both actors were in Europe filming for approximately the same number of days…

  4. smcollins says:

    Ugh, what a greedy and opportunistic asshole. Just goes to show that he’s in it for the money and feeding his ego, while Michelle does it for the love of the acting and making art. Boogie Nights & The Fighter aside, because he was supported by top-tier talent, I’ve never understood his appeal.

  5. Tania says:

    I don’t understand why people keep hiring him. He has no discernable talent. A total piece of garbage human being.

  6. LizLemonGotMarried says:

    I said something similar to this before when we talked about this. Whether or not you consider MARK the villain, which many do, there is a villainous system in place that a) allows for men, and those representing them, to negotiate meatier, meaner contracts without them or their client being considered a b*tch or the c-word; b) there is a system in place that allows agents like Ari to support pay disparity and not give an F; and c) there is a culture in place that teaches women to be team players, to partner, to smooth the waters (in this case, not bucking an aspect of the contract that might require additional work), while men are taught to negotiate every aspect of their lives to their advantage.

    I am a pushy B and have probably been called a C many times because I negotiate my salary repeatedly, but I have a boss that I work really well with, and he, as a 50 year old white male, has USED HIS PRIVILEGE and backed me. That’s what it takes-people using their male privilege, and their white privilege, and BOTH if they have it, to get shit done.

    • LizLemonGotMarried says:

      Also-I am a boss, and I have white privilege. I have used it whenever possible to give WOC and POC a voice and an opportunity to grow, to negotiate salaries, etc. based on experience and talent-NOT on characteristics over which they have no control. God knows I’m learning every day, but even “woke” white women with power or influence are often ignorant of how the status quo benefits them-and some are too lazy to try to tackle it.

      There are still racist, malicious white women out there voting for the likes of Trump and Roy Moore. THAT’S another set of issue all together.

    • S says:

      I would comment but LizLemonGotMarried already said it all, and better than I could.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I applaud you, Liz.
      I am the same. I am thick skinned when it comes to negotiating, and you can call me 100 names but that is something I learned from my mother.
      The system is broken, and Michelle was poorly served by her agent. I guess that Ari made sure to get this deal for himself and there is no way an agent under him was going to try the same thing against his own boss. There couldn’t be two holdouts and if there had been Michelle would have been the scapegoat, and her agent would have been forced to throw her under the bus even if they didn’t want to. There were talks and then Michelle was most likely taken advantage of or promised something to go along with it.
      That is how men like Ari roll.
      Do not like Marky Mark at all.

  7. Monsy says:

    He had to be paid 1.5 million to approve C. Plummer’s casting? The oscar winner C. Plummer?! He? Marky Mark? Seriously?

  8. Nicole says:

    This is why I was so mad. The news that he basically held the film hostage was already circulating when the news broke. Glad we got confirmation.
    But it IS sleazy. The film is up for awards so you held it hostage, lied to your director and did it for some money you don’t even need. It says he needed to get paid. We all know he could’ve requested a symbolic $1 for the reshoot a la Swift when she got damages during her case. THAT is what you do when you care about the project more than the money.
    He could’ve sabatoged the entire thing because reshoots typically have very little budget. He’s an a-hole and his agency sucks (because this and Crews).

  9. Millennial says:

    I definitely think Mark comes off as an a-hole here. On one hand I understand not wanting to work for free, but holding them hostage is a jerk move. I’m more mad about the overall disparity between Mark and Michelle’s contracts. She may not be in blockbusters (and she’s explained she doesn’t want to be away from Matilda that long) but she’s a very well-regarded actress and everything she does gets awards attention. They shouldn’t have such disparate contracts.

    Also I’m not letting Ridley Scott off the hook. Ridley cast Mark. It’s not some huge left field surprise that Wahlberg is an a-hole. So, he gets no pass from me either.

    • paranormalgirl says:

      But he wasn’t going to work for free. He was paid for the reshoots already since it was in his contract. He wanted MORE money. And can we stop giving actors approval over costars? No one’s employment should be based on the approval of another actor in the same film.

      • Jeannie says:

        @paranormalgirl re: letting actors approve their costars, That’s such a good point! In any other industry, that would be at best frowned upon and at worst illegal.

      • magnoliarose says:

        That is a double-edged sword.
        Being able to ok costars has led to POC, and unusual but brilliant casting choices when the person choosing loves the project.
        Often actors are better at recognizing who should play a part than the studios who only think of money.
        Marky Mark is just a worthless POS.

      • Oliviajoy1995 says:

        I’m confused about the “approving of costars” in his contract. So, Mark had to approve Kevin Spacey when he first signed on to the movie? Although Kevin’s career is down the tubes now, Kevin would have been the star of the movie when they all first signed on, and Kevin was a far better actor. It would be weird that the entire casting of the movie was left up to Mark Wahlberg and who he did or didn’t want to work with. I don’t think it makes any sense.

      • magnoliarose says:

        It could be part of a renegotiation or an original contract with a clause that states in case of X happening Marky Mark has veto power.
        Contracts can be an exercise in ego and bragging rights to say who can get the best for their client and give their star the most leverage. It is a sign of a good agent. They have to keep their star happy, or they can be poached by someone else who will. These types of hardball tactics work to ensure a measure of loyalty.
        It sounds rough because it is and also because there are careers and large amounts of money at stake.
        My issue is that in this circumstance a little solidarity would have gone a long way and not tainted the project with this story.
        I am curious to know who started the process to reveal this because whoever it is, is no friend of Ari or Marky Mark.

        Admission though. I prefer hardballers in my corner, and I want them to go hard but not if it becomes myopic and nonsensical like this.

    • holly hobby says:

      Nope re Ridley. Yes he hired him but this was before the Spacey debacle blew up. I doubt he was stupid enough to hire him thinking yeah on an off chance I’m going to have to pay him for reshoots. A lot of people hired Marky before this pay scam. I doubt they will do it now but no it’s not the director’s fault.

  10. Lucy says:

    Welp, he’s already getting sh*t for not backing her, and deservedly so.

  11. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    Are we talking about the Constitution here? Hell our frakker-in-chief routinely breaks that. Marital contract? We all know what Hollywood thinks of those contracts. What about criminal behavior? Does that break something? The cojones of these imbiciles.

  12. Jussie says:

    I don’t see what he did wrong. He got paid for his work. Why shouldn’t he get paid for his work?

    I don’t see that there was any moral imperative to help Ridley and the producers save this film. They cast Spacey, not Wahlberg, and the film is just a mediocre biopic. Not an ‘important’ film, not a masterpiece that had to be saved, not a little indie someone put everything they had into. Just a paint by numbers biopic Ridley could have made in his sleep. If it had been shelved the only loss would have been financial. That’s what the producers were thinking about, the money. So what’s so wrong with Wahlberg thinking the same way?

    If Williams agents had negotiated the same deal for her no one would have a problem with them both getting paid. I get that the insane differential was deeply unfair, but there’s nothing sleazy or opportunistic about not offering to donate your time to a 50 million dollar film backed by a deep pocketed studio.

    • Maria F. says:

      in normal circumstances you could argue like that. But it was just after the huge HW scandal broke and Kevin Spacey followed and everybody was up in arms about what was going in Hollywood. Not the best time to insist on getting what is yours, because the rest is somebody else’s problem.
      In the entertainment world a lot is about preception. He might be 1.5 mio richer, but his image sure has taken a hit. Him and his manager should have foreseen that.

    • lightpurple says:

      And the film was insured. All studio films are insured.

    • paranormalgirl says:

      and if reshoots were already in his contract, technically, he had already been paid for them.

    • Ozogirl says:

      I don’t understand it either. I don’t like Mark, but I don’t see what he did wrong here. It’s the studio that’s to blame.

    • Jeannie says:

      @jussie, I think the issue here is that if Michelle had tried to do the same thing she would be treated very differently.

    • Bridget says:

      He WAS paid for his work. This was in his contract to come back and do re-shoots, and it was only for 9 days.

      BUT, Wahlberg knew that the movie was in a bind, so he put a fee on his casting approval of Christopher Plummer. That is not getting paid for your work, that extorting profit from a crisis with the movie

      AND he and Michelle are represented by the same agency, and didn’t even give her a heads up or negotiate anything additional for her.

    • Scal says:

      The problem wasn’t that he asked for $ to do reshoots. As others have said that was part of his contract.

      The problem is he blackmailed them for more $ when a major part was recast (esp considering the circumstances). Not I won’t work for free-but I won’t let you recast this role unless you give me this ransom. It’s gross esp when you consider why Spacey was kicked off the movie.

    • Sherry says:

      I’m with you. It’s business. It’s not Mark’s problem that his agent negotiated a better contract than Michelle’s agent. It was not up to the studio to say, “You know, Mark’s agent negotiated a better deal for him, so you might want to get your agent to do the same.”

      Men never seem to have a problem asking for (demanding) what they want when it comes to business and asking for what they think their time and talent is worth. I’m not going to blame Mark because he wanted compensation for extra work.

      • Jeannie says:

        Well, first of all i think mark wahlbergs a d-ck. That’s abt the nicest thing i could say abt him.

        They’re represented by the same agency – everybody benefits. If the agent had given his superior a heads-up abt the negotiating process n what they were looking at, they could have gotten Michelle more money. More money for her, more money for the agent, more money n prestige for the agency. In the vein of Michael Scott (office reference!), win-win-win.

        The thing w that, tho, is that Mark Wahlberg n his agent would have to put in a collaborative, collective bargaining effort w the production n i just don’t think he’s willing to do that. Yes, get all the money you can from a studio that has the money to pay you, because why not? But this just strikes me as incredibly petty n greedy n an egregious use of human capital.

      • Jeannie says:

        Also, yes, @sherry, you shouldn’t expect the studio to tip you off abt that. But you should expect the agency that represents you, the agent whom you employ solely for that reason, n his colleagues who are employed by the same institution to do that. THATS bad business. N continuing in this vein is not going to change the nature of hollywood.

    • holly hobby says:

      He profited off the backs of the victims (not Spacey). Sorry he took advantage of that. This is not a regular I want money tactic.

  13. Bobbymilly says:

    So Mark Marky has a great team working for him.

    • Anne says:

      Does he really? Do you think this is good publicity for him? There’s a Chinese proverb for this kind of people, “those who don’t go after the big money but are relentless about the small money.” Wahlberg’s career will take a hit for this. So is that hit worth the 1.5 mil he extorted out of the studio for this?

  14. Margo S. says:

    Kaiser, I read on USA today that a source stated that the statement that wahlberg didnt have a reshoots clause in his contract is false. That both him and Michelle did in fact have a reshoots clause.

  15. Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

    Regardless of clauses in contract he’s an asshat that used the situation to get more money from the studio – its greed, pure and simple. He is def the type to pull stunts like this to get what he wants – he’s a prime example of toxic masculinity.

    I have never been able to take him seriously after his drunk antics on that infamous episode of Graham Norton.

  16. wood dragon says:

    I hope this issue focuses further attention on how agents negotiate for the female talent in films. It’s past time for that sort of inequality to be changed.

  17. Astrid says:

    Aren’t both Mark and Michelle represented by the same agent? That agent should held to some accountability having negotiated both contracts.

    • thaisajs says:

      Actually, I think they’re represented by the same firm. My beef with this is on her agent. Wahlberg and his agent take care of themselves. Michelle and her agent should have taken care of her. If I were her, I’d be looking for a new agent and firm.

      • Jeannie says:

        I think film sets are still hostile to women in that way. If it’s not sexual harassment, it’ll be something else.

        As they said with Hillary and her emails, if it wasn’t that, it would be something else. Her detractors would find something to hang her on.

        https://hbr.org/2017/10/a-study-used-sensors-to-show-that-men-and-women-are-treated-differently-at-work This is an interesting but depressing study. The good news is, if we have discernible data on things like this, and the right people are listening, we can have step forwards that correct such behavior. I’ve worked in a lot of industries and often felt discriminated against. The most insidious kind is when anyone denies it’s happening, which I think is happening here in regards to Michelle. Her agent probably didn’t feel comfortable asking for or negotiating anywhere near that number or holding up production that way or making that list of demands, and he/she knew the backlash it would have on her career.

      • holly hobby says:

        Well Michelle automatically agreed to do it for free (she took a per diem but that is besides the point). She did that as a team player so I doubt she went and told her agent about it. However, since that agent works in the same firm, what are the chances that person knew and didn’t tell Michelle?

      • paranormalgirl says:

        Michelle did the reshoots as per her contract. Wahlberg used a different clause in his contract to get more money. Not illegal, but still a shitty thing to do.

  18. lightpurple says:

    Kaiser, a slight correction. When he was seeking a pardon (which neither governors Deval Patrick or Charlie Baker would give him) the Boston Globe interviewed both of his victims who said that Wahlberg had reached out to both of them. One did agree to meet with him and he did apologize. The other refused to meet with him, which is understandable.

    On the issue of the equal pay, as a labor attorney, I could never blame anyone for not working for free. People should be paid for their work. The production had insurance. The producers are the people who chose not to pay Michelle. They are to blame. I also wondered in an earlier thread what their original rates of pay were. She said she wasn’t paid much at all so the producers were in the wrong from the start.

    • Ninks says:

      There was no mention of him working for free, he could have received the same per diem as Michelle Williams agreed to, and or whatever they had agreed to in his original contract. He got the $1.5m because he had co-star approval and refused to approve Christopher Plummer until they agreed to pay him that huge amount of money. He essentially blackmailed his colleagues. He wasn’t looking to be paid for reshooting the scenes, he was looking to be paid for agreeing to allow them to reshoot the scenes with Christopher Plummer.

    • Nic919 says:

      One article mentioned that he took an 80% cut of his normal $15million asking price to be in the movie since it would be a prestige film. So he was already making cash on this one. And now it appears as though he also had reshoots included in his contract, but used the co-star approval clause to leverage more money. The problem is that legally right and morally right aren’t always the same thing. He was putting the producers in a position that keeping Kevin Spacey in the film would have killed any potential box office and the film would have had to be shelved. Yes he was within his legal rights to do this, but he is forgetting about future films and business relationships that he has now damaged. His contract information got leaked here because someone else thought he was being a douche.

      Also Christopher frakin Plummer is a national treasure and one of the greatest living actors out there (I saw him live as Propsero a few years back and his charisma on stage is amazing) so pretending he wouldn’t approve of him is offensive as well.

      • Jussie says:

        Plummer is extremely sexist and racist. His own autobiography is packed to the brim with stories of his hideous behaviour and awful opinions.

        He’s a step up from a paedophile rapist, but that’s about the best you can say for him.

      • Nic919 says:

        Those are pretty slanderous comments. Problematic opinions are one thing, but calling him a step above a paedophile racist is massive hyperbole. It also undercuts your argument anyway because Wahlberg is a convicted violent racist so if they are so similar there should be even less reason to reject the recasting decision.

    • Bridget says:

      He was paid. Re-shoots were technically in his contract. He got paid extra.

  19. Who ARE these people? says:

    If I were starting my career over again, I would hire a labor lawyer to review every major move and contract.

  20. Tan says:

    How could he manage to negotiate such a massively entitled contract annd michelle couldn’t even negotiate equal pay in the original one, despite being a more established box office draw and having the same agent?

    Dump your agent publicly michelle.

    I never thought hollywood was as bad as bw but it seems they are similar sht holes.

  21. Ally says:

    He sounds crazy and difficult to worth with.

    Seriously, any other big directors and future expensive movies want this generic tool holding your project hostage? (Topical, considering the plot of this film.)

  22. Really says:

    I don’t understand how mark has so much power because he can’t act, is an awful person and not a team player at all.
    Also e deserves be dragged just because if he thought that was the right thing and moral ground to stand he should hold his position, but now that the situation is exposed he and his PR team are trying to twist about their amazing negotiation skills.
    Also TMZ like always has something to say.

  23. Rosey says:

    The more information that comes out about this deal for Mark, the worse he looks.

  24. Clare says:

    So a racist, homophobic and MEDIOCRE man (arsehole) is the highest paid actor in Hollywood?

    Even with the hideous climate we live in, how this possible? He is a terrible actor! Gag.

  25. Jeannie says:

    I was gonna say, why were the contracts negotiated like that in the first place – not that it’s necessarily her agents fault – it seems like that environment would’ve been hostile, or at least not particularly hospitable, to Michelle asking for a certain number n any creative control (i.e., choosing your costar).

    I actually like the attitude of “I won’t work for free,” tho. I understand it’s art n michelle doesn’t need the money n it’s not necessarily why someone at that level of acting does it, but isn’t that a Heath ledger quote from the “the dark knight”: if you’re good at something, never do it for free.

    That being said, Mark Wahlbergs still a sh-tbag. 💩 (the poo emojis too cute for him.)

  26. M.A.F. says:

    At the end of the day Wahlberg had the better agent and contract and Williams did not. And that last part about him getting to approve his costar, I find that odd. Shouldn’t the be up to the casting director and director?

    • Bridget says:

      Agent, yes. Which is part of what people are commenting on, because Michelle didn’t even know that he was holding out for more money, but she was more concerned about the work getting done and actually honoring her original contract. Mark didn’t have a super special contract – the reshoots were in the contract. But he chose to leverage the one clause he had, and one that in any other normal circumstance shouldn’t have been applicable (you don’t cast a movie that has already been shot).

    • Jay says:

      If an actor is big enough or an actor is a producer, then yes, sometimes they get approval in their contracts. Like if a director or producers want a big enough star, then they might give that actor approval over certain other roles. Its not always or even often the case, but sometimes it happens.

      Michelle and Mark have the same agency, so their agents could have easily known what the other was getting.

  27. Ann says:

    Well, we all know men are moody and difficult, we should hire less of them.

  28. fes says:

    I feel like the real issue is with representation. Why aren’t agents gunning for their female clients the way the do for their male clients? They get 10%, don’t they want to make money??

  29. KBeth says:

    I can’t be objective about this because Walberg is a mediocre talent jackass.
    But…..sounds like he had a better lawyer/agent. Glad he’s getting bad press.

  30. Jay says:

    Michelle should have stuck with Hylda. Also just to point out, Per Diem is not scale pay. Per Diem is what all cast and crew who are not locals receive for meals etc when they are on location. You don’t get taxed on per diem and its not pay. For example, I get paid per episode, but then I receive per diem for every day that I am on location out of the city where I live. So Michelle was not “paid” if all she received was per diem. Mark would have also received per diem on top of his pay same as Michelle since they shot on location.

    Actors actually often are pretty unaware of their contracts compared to others. There are constantly situations where there is huge disparity in contracts and the actors are very much unaware.

  31. Nene says:

    If the reshoots weren’t in his original contract, why should he get flack for negotiating a beneficial deal for himself, just because she couldn’t?

    • Sophia's Side eye says:

      Reshoots were in his original contract, that’s standard. He used the fact that he had costar approval to hold out for more money. They were recasting because of the revelations about Kevin spacey, Mark refused to approve of Christopher Plummer unless he got 1.5 million.

  32. 5678 says:

    Anyone else find it ironic that a movie about kidnapping and ransom was basically held hostage for$$$$$?

  33. Svea says:

    Wahlberg has always been a total sleeze. All the way back to when he was a teenager and beat on Asians. I never understood his success till Trump revealed more clearly a certain population in the US. They are his people.

  34. HeyThere! says:

    So, the take away is that men get the better contracts even if they are represented by the same place?!?!

  35. Andrea says:

    You may not like Mark but he has every right to negotiate. He saw an opportunity and seized it. He has a good Manager and Lawyer and that’s what their paid to do. The lesson here is that Michelle needs better representation. Why should any Actor work for free. My husband works in a industry where he gets paid flat rate fee. When he used to work for someone else, they always expected him to do extra work with no compensation and called it a favor, but favors are easily forgotten and usually cause a headache. Eventually he refused and used argue his point and they always eventually paid, but it was always a battle. The way he saw it is i work my ass off, i have a skill they need and i should be paid. They never fired him but they labeled him difficult and at Christmas parties always used to make comments, meant as jokes, to me about how greedy and difficult he is. My husband was proud of the label he didn’t care. He always pushed me to know my value and not to care about being labeled difficult or whatever. As long as you can back it with good work. Someone will always take advantage of you if you let them.

  36. JG says:

    It is ironic that this movie, which Ridley Scott attempted to salvage by recasting a pedophile, will probably now be trashed bc of pay inequality. The producers/studio behind it are idiotic – for all the $$ they’ve already put into this, they should have already said, mea culpa, Michelle will be paid same as Mark for the re-shoots. And put an end to all the controversy surrounding this probably mediocre film.

  37. LearningtheSystem says:

    Notwithstanding the questionable ethics of holding the project hostage for the extra fees, what is blatant to me is that, given the REASON for the reshoots and the COURAGE of people coming forward to speak their horrors at the time, it demonstrates with great big capital letters what side both Walhberg and his agent come down on in terms of the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements. THEY STAND ON THE SIDE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT THAT CREATES AND ENRICHES THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE THOSE WHO ABUSE AND MISUSE MEN AND WOMEN IN THAT INDUSTRY THRIVE.
    Let the record reflect they showed who they are.

  38. kitty orchid says:

    In my opinion, the only way that Mark Wahlberg could redeem himself is if he used that 1.5 million to set up a trust fund for the Asian man that he blinded.

  39. Merritt says:

    I truly don’t understand why people continue to pay to see Mark Wahlberg movies. He cannot act.

  40. lisa says:

    i dont even know why anyone would hire him with those conditions. he is not talented or attractive. AFAIK he cannot open a movie.

  41. The dormouse says:

    Plus he gets away with a Budget Eye Lift by raising his eyebrows in every picture.

    A woman’s work-related expenses are always higher.

  42. my3cents says:

    They should rename the movie:
    All the money in the world- and they made us give it to this asshole.

  43. elle says:

    I hope it’s the last 1.5 million (or less) this bag of d*cks ever makes.

  44. SJF says:

    No one is mentioning the single basic point – both Wahlberg and Williams are repped by the same agency – William Morris Endeavor. Maybe not the same agent but the same AGENCY. One of the majors.

    They didn’t negotiate a favored nations clause for the stars of the same movie?

    That’s not merely sexist, it’s stupid. What agent would screw their own client that way? (Sadly, many…)

    • Jeannie says:

      It’s stupid, n sexist. Not to mention (just my opinion here), Mark Wahlberg is a horrible human being. He’s racist, he blinded a man w/o seemingly any remorse, bullies his wife abt anxiety n depression (this is hearsay, so take it w a grain of salt), n thinks going to church n repenting for starring in a sexy movie (that had a bigger message!) absolves him of all his sins.

      It’s the same way i feel abt donald – if the man didn’t have any power, i wouldn’t care. But the phrase with power comes great responsibility exists for a reason. N Mark Wahlberg spectacularly flamed our at that.

    • Jeannie says:

      Well, i would care (im blowin up all over this thread, clearly this issue got to me). But you’re right, it’s both stupid, from a business point of view, AND sexist. It’s totally wrong.

      Also, it’s been a very long time since I’ve heard the phrase favored nations clause, that brought me back.

  45. Michelle says:

    Even though I am not a fan of either actors, Wahlberg is not at fault for negotiating to get more money. That’s why its called Show ‘Business’. It’s a business and he is getting paid. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. This has been going on for years, it’s just with all of the scandals finally coming to light, stuff like this is being noticed too. Maybe this will get more actresses to demand more money instead of just taking what is handed to them and playing shut-mouth.

  46. magnoliarose says:

    He is so unattractive. Really. Just Yuck.

  47. TheOtherSam says:

    He’s done this type of contractual hostage-taking before, and effed up with it: back in 2010 he was cast to play Pat in Silver Linings Playbook, reuniting him with his buddy David O Russell. He had this same type of exorbitant co-star approval clause in that contract; when the original choice for Tiffany dropped (allegedly Anne Hathaway) he demanded his $900k payment.

    DOR balked and rather than pay him dropped him from the film, going with Cooper instead who ran away with the part and got an Oscar nom. Marky Mark doesn’t seem to learn his lessons.

  48. Jayna says:

    People really should read the Daily Beast article about this from yesterday. They call him out all over the place.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/mark-wahlberg-is-sleazy-and-opportunistic-should-we-be-surprised

  49. Jag says:

    Aren’t they represented by the same firm? That should be the story. Why an agency treats women differently than they do men. She should have had exactly what he had in his contract, if not better because she’s the lead!

  50. Patty says:

    It’s called contract negotiations. His team represented him well, and that’s what they are paid to do. Let’s apply this to a real world scenario – I certainly wouldn’t leave possible money in the table because my co-worker did; no thank you.

    When I get my annual raise and bonus and I’m not asking around to see what my coworkers are getting. I’m making sure I’m gettig what I think I’m worth – what my time is worth. If I have a peer who is willing to work for less or who doesn’t understand that they should be asking for more – that’s not my problem.

    • Harryg says:

      It would not be a problem to you if your colleague got a million times more what you get, then? Since you don’t “ask around?” Might be good to ask around…
      And, Walhberg is actually a reason I will not go see a movie. Even before this incident.

    • Jeannie says:

      I understand what you’re saying, patty (and i definitely should just to bed right now…it’s super late), but i think the issue is that her agency, her agent, personally failed her; n the studio system as a whole fails women as a whole Bc it seriously disenfranchises them whenever they have needs … like, say getting paid or showing up or having any kind of request that some might seem as an inconvenience. I get what michelle was doing, n her hearts in the right place, n thank God she doesn’t need the money. BUT Mark Wahlberg is a mediocre (n this is generous) racist sob that exploited the sh-t out of this situation that hurt serious victims n some people are still like, yay mark! Get that dough!

      It’s wrong. Let’s look at the bigger picture.

    • Jeannie says:

      It might be unique to the entertainment industry Bc it’s so based on likability, etc.

  51. Anare says:

    That is what you pay your agent to do. The real crime here is that Michelle Williams was represented by the same agency but didn’t have the same powerful contract. I’m no Marky Mark fan but I can’t drag him for having a shrewd agent.

  52. Dissa says:

    Never liked this walking shit-stain.

  53. Hannah says:

    I find all these actor contracts sleazy across both TV and film. It’s ridiculous money. But the money is there and it would only go in to some Weinstein types pocket. So if he can negotiate, he should negotiate.

    Shame he doesn’t offer it in to some kind of inequality fund but there you go. I’m not going to dictate what someone does with their own money.

    I’m baffled as to why Michelle did several weeks work like that for €1000. I’m not a Hollywood starlet and I wouldn’t do that in my field.

  54. TheVoice says:

    I get that you can negotiate and you can have people negotiate for you. Sure, everyone can play that game. Add clauses, avoid clauses on your contract, hire the best lawyers, find ways to get more and more. Where does it end? If everyone had that mentality it would just be about trying to extract the most money and leverage for yourself.

    Most things in the world balance out because some people grab it all (“I’m entitled to it!”) and others are willing to work for the greater good. You can’t make people behave one way or the other but you can have the system they’re in reward one behavior over another. And we as the people who ultimately keep these guys employed, can vote with our dollars.

  55. Patty says:

    Now he’s donating his extra salary to Times Up in Michelle’s name….so everybody wins now.

Commenting Guidelines

Celebitchy aims to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy

Use the "Report this comment as spam or abuse" link to ask the moderators to delete a comment if it's offensive. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please e-mail cbcomments at gmail.com to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment