Mark Wahlberg donated $1.5 million to Time’s Up in Michelle Williams’ name

Embed from Getty Images

As we discussed all of last week, Mark Wahlberg somehow got paid $1.5 million for the reshoots of All the Money in the World, while Michelle Williams got paid less than $1000. The answer to “how?” is that Michelle did the reshoots because she believed in the movie, because she didn’t want to be a nuisance, and because she wanted to “fix” the film after Ridley Scott decided to edit Kevin Spacey out and Christopher Plummer in. She wanted all of that more than she wanted money. Mark Wahlberg used that difficult moment to hold the reshoots hostage before he okayed Plummer’s casting and until he (Wahlberg) got more money.

There’s a lot of contradictory information about just what went down and what kind of contract Mark had, etc. But the important thing to know – and the through-line between the different stories – is that Mark and his agent/managers negotiated the pay bump without emotion – he didn’t care if the movie was saved, he didn’t care about Plummer’s recasting or any of that. Wahlberg just knew they couldn’t do the reshoots without him, and that’s how they negotiated. Well, now that everyone knows that Wahlberg and the agency – which he shares with Michelle – screwed Michelle over, suddenly dude is very concerned with how he looks. Wahlberg has announced that he’ll be donating the $1.5 million to Time’s Up.

In addition to Wahlberg donating his reshoot salary, their shared agency, WME, is pledging $500,000 to Time’s Up. WME released a statement too, saying:

“The current conversation is a reminder that those of us in a position of influence have a responsibility to challenge inequities, including the gender wage gap. In recognition of the pay discrepancy on All The Money In The World reshoots, WME is donating an additional $500,000 to the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund in Michelle Williams’ name, following our $1 million pledge to the organization earlier this month. It’s crucial that this conversation continues within our community and we are committed to being part of the solution.”

[From Deadline]

All of this is just a massive ass-saving gesture and I bet it cost thousands of dollars for crisis managers to come up with this solution. Of course Mark Wahlberg doesn’t give a sh-t about pay equality. Of course the agency doesn’t care that they helped to screw over one of their actresses financially. If we learned anything from the Harvey Weinstein catastrophe, it’s that agents and managers across Hollywood have led their female clients like lambs to slaughter to predators, creeps and misogynists. We also learned that most actors don’t really give a sh-t about how actresses are treated or how much their paid. Now, all that being said… that’s $2 million that will go to good use, hopefully.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

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

141 Responses to “Mark Wahlberg donated $1.5 million to Time’s Up in Michelle Williams’ name”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Crowdhood says:

    I can’t put my finger on why but it seems worse that he is doing it in her name? Maybe because she’s not seeking recognition for this, just literally doing her job? Also, I hope she fires that agent/agency immediately. Mark Wahlberg is a dick but he and his agents have every right to negotiate for money, just a shame the same agency didn’t go to bat for their other client. Likely her low cost work is what helped offset his 1.5 million being approved.

    • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

      He may have had the “right to” go for a money grab but I’m sorry that’s just immoral greed. A film you and many others worked hard on faces a crisis that may lead to it not being seen and your first thought is “how can I take advantage of this situation and get more money”? I find that disgusting behavior and if Michelle Williams did the same, I would feel just as disgusted with her.

      He is not giving back the money because of our outrage, he is giving it back because it tells Hollywood and other actors that ‘this guy doesn’t care about his craft nor takes it seriously’. It will make his pals and future directors pass him over when wanting someone committed to their film.

      Michelle Williams redoing the shoots for the sake of the movie comes across as being for the art and helping save the movie and the studio. Watch this space for her goodwill winning her an academy awards in the next two years. I don’t see it as a case of a women not asking for more. It’s a professional versus a poser.

      • Crowdhood says:

        He does have a right. So does Michelle. I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t have but If they are represented by the same agency then they are not being represented equally. Also, I don’t believe anybody should have to work for free or for next to nothing to compensate for Kevin Spacey’s actions. 1.5 million seems like a lot, 1,000 dollars seems insufficient. I mean it was over the holidays etc.

      • Kali says:

        Yes to everything you said. He got caught out, it’s nothing but damage control now. The real tragedy is that it is now being reported worldwide that mark made a massive donation to times up.

      • Megan says:

        There is nothing immoral about being compensated for work. It is immoral for an agency to treat its male and female clients differently and it is immoral for Ridley Scott to lie to Michelle and the entire world about Wahlberg’s fee.

      • Liberty says:

        I am angry that her management negotiated a poor deal for her. I am not a Wahlberg fan, by the way. But this is business and the sort of risk assumed by any production. Women need better representation. But that doesn’t mean he should give up his payday, or she should give up her $80 daily nominal payment, unless they so choose. Did anyone else forgo payment during the reshoot?

        I see Wahlberg’s payment as a lesson for studios who have been hiring the creeps without caring what they do/have done/may do to others. I see it as a reveal for Michelle, who can now make informed decisions about her representation.

        Yes, it is an obvious ass save for MW. But in the end ,payment disparity got called out again, the Time fund is richer, some faces are redder, and women are wiser.

      • Liberty says:

        Just had a thought. What about tabs mags etc who are making money off this whole thing when we read about it via their reports? Do we see them as under any ethical requirement to supply ad space for free because of what happened to Michele, or to donate any or a percent of funds earned from this story? Or is that just business as usual?

      • Ytbtet says:

        I love this response

      • Bridget says:

        You guys. Everyone was paid for their work. Wahlberg wanted to be paid extra.

      • magnoliarose says:

        There is nothing wrong with hard negotiation, and it is what is required for actors or others who are the talent and those not in power to be treated fairly, but this was different.
        There are behind the scenes people involved who aren’t Marky Mark, but he didn’t care about them or his costar. A bigger person would have thought of the entire project not just themselves.

      • Tanguerita says:

        @Megan Apparently Scott didn’t find out about Wahlberg until recently

      • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

        They were already compensated for their work. Playing hardball is negotiating for an equal or greater deal upfront as a male co-star. That is not the situation here.

        This was after the film was made and a crisis hit that would impact not just the studio’s bottom line but all the main and minor actor’s (especially MW) careers. Their work risked getting shelved, protested against or being dumped in January. They wouldn’t be getting the awards notices they are getting now. Mark Wahlberg risked the work of his co-stars by holding out and asking for a randsom.

        It’s like if you lived in a neighborhood where a fire is spreading from house to house and you all volunteer to go and help the firemen stop the rapid spread of the fire. But Mark with an extra fire hose refuses to help unless the fire department pays him $1.5 Million. It’s an arsehole taking advantage during a crisis. There is nothing baller or respectable about the situation. Outside of women on this board blaming MW for not asking for more, Marky Mark is being called a grade A jerk and being made fun of. Since he has a big ego and cares what people think about him it’s eating him inside. MW looks like the hero who saved the film and Marky Mark as an opportunist.

      • FLORC says:

        That is the message many are either ignoring or defending. That mark had every right to negotiate for more, but with that action is the consequence of the act. Holding the film hostage. Is major contrast to Michelle who was supportive of why the reboot had to happen.
        End of the day it was all on how Mark wanted to be viewed. I’ll half clap to that while holding back an eye roll

      • noway says:

        I think a lot of people are missing the point. She didn’t attempt to negotiate, so I don’t think her agency in this instance had much to do with the reshoots. She was doing the decent thing not making money off of a pedophile and Mark well he was trying to make money off of it, and now he is trying to save face. Glad the organization got a lot of money though.

        Also, feel free to criticize the agents because even though I do understand they don’t negotiate as a group and share info, the reality is they have been a big part of throwing actresses to creepy producers and directors to be sexually assaulted and harassed, and helped negotiate terrible salaries for women in the first place. In this particular instance they may not have had anything to do with it, but I would love to know what Michelle’s salary was for this picture compared to Mark’s. I’m seriously shocked that this piece of info hasn’t come out yet. I bet it is bad!

      • Heather says:

        He’s a pretty reprehensible human being and he looks like a potato in a sock. That being said, I’m actually giving him a pass for this. When I worked in the hospital as a nurse, I was often called in for extra shifts or asked to work overtime. I’m sure others just said yes. I however negotiated my overtime rate (eg time and a half plus half). I still felt like I was a team player, I went in and worked my tush off. And no I didn’t feel guilty that I was getting paid more than my coworkers for that shift, nor did I feel the need to give them any of my extra pay. I negotiated, they didnt. The real issue has to do with the agents. You know he didn’t negotiate himself and her agents let her down.

    • Lela says:

      We women need to stop with the niceness and do what Marky Mark does, we clearly aren’t valued so it’s time we play hardball in order to get what we deserve. The only downside is that if MW had behaved in this manner she would have been crucified and labeled “difficult” and “manipulative” but I’ve gotten to the point in life where I don’t care. “B*tches get sh*t done” never rang truer to me.

      • Liberty says:


      • Ytbtet says:

        I think we this guy think was reprehensible he held the film hostage, since reshoots were part of the original contract but used the costar approval section to get more money

      • applepie says:

        And turn into what we hate, no thanks.

      • mary s. says:

        No. Michelle wasn’t being nice or weak. She was being kind. Mark wasn’t playing hardball. Are people not comprehending the story? Mark asked for that money knowing he was screwing everyone else over. How is that hardball? That’s fucked up white male entitlement bullsh@t.

        I respect the people who reshot without greed, but with respect and understanding of the point of the reshoots. I don’t respect crap people like Markey Mark. He’s ugly to me– both inside and out.

      • lsb says:

        lela, You called it perfectly correctly. Women don’t get paid/promoted/ new opportunities etc. because they don’t negotiate. End of. If the goal is to be “nice”, well, we shouldn’t complain when we don’t see equitable compensation, women execs, and opportunities – let’s be content that that the women were nice and take satisfaction in expressing that trait and let go of the compensation.

      • noway says:

        Normally I agree with you, but not in this case. I’d rather not be paid at all than make money off of someone who assaulted minors.

    • JEM says:

      It’s also bugging me that the donations were made in her name. It’s really condescending, especially since their agency didn’t negotiate the same paychecks for their clients. And it’s so clearly an ass-saving move, I almost wish they didn’t bring Michelle Williams into it. I don’t know. It just seems so gross.

    • ELX says:

      He’s a sh!t and not a team player, let all producers and directors take note. And glomming on to Michelle Williams name in this shameless way is really disgusting, but not surprising.

    • Amy says:

      It bothers me that he’s doing it in her name, but telling everyone about it. Like he wants all the recognition for donating but also somehow thinks doing it in her name is going to look like a public apology to her. What is the point of donating in someone else’s name if you’re going to get all the recognition? Do they send massive thank you gifts that will now go to Michelle?

  2. grabbyhands says:

    I can’t with all the people that were “Such a great gesture! How great of him!!”.


    The best response was from this guy-

    Rob Rosenberg
    I’m not commending Mark Wahlberg for donating the money he should have never asked for to #TimesUp in Michelle Williams’ name. He did it because he got caught. Instead, I’m going to continue to praise Michelle Williams for doing the right thing in the first place.


    • QueenB says:

      No, the best response was from this guy:
      Paul F. Tompkins
      Before you condemn Wahlberg for this, consider the level of acting talent he’s bringing to this project & then condemn him way more enthusiastically.

      • grabbyhands says:

        Tompkins is hilarious!

      • Liberty says:


      • Deering24 says:

        Seriously, Wahlberg is gruesomely miscast here. This role needed someone with Christian Bale-type complexity and shading.

      • Milla says:

        This made me lol. But let’s face it, in what world are they at similar acting level? Marky Mark is famous cos his brother was in a boy band. He is white man, you know man’s man.

        I was thinking about all this. And i think that we aren’t thinking big. Don’t boycott people, boycott companies behind movies. Actors do what they can, not what they want. Marky Mark did this to save face, but how did we get to this? Cos we are still living in a men’s world and if we have to stop going to movies to change that, I’m fine with that. I’m talking overall, sexual attacks, equal payment, women and ageism, all of that.

      • I Choose Me says:

        Oh, that tweet is perfection.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I mean its Marky Mark WITHOUT the Funky Bunch.

    • lucy2 says:

      He was the highest paid actor last year (barf). If he were “100%” with this movement, he would have donated on his own, but I don’t believe he has, unless he did it anonymously (you can view the donations at the go fund me site). He’s doing this because he got caught being a jerk, and because he didn’t like the negative attention.

      Very few male celebrities have donated, actually, and most of those that did, did so jointly with their wives.

  3. Louise says:

    I think its actually even worse than “just” Michelle. What about Spacey’s victims? Spacey was recast because of HIS behaviour. So, that becomes public. Then Wahlberg and his agents actually think lets capitalise on this and its another pay day for him. There was no bad taste for them, no “should we be doing this given the circumstances of the firing”. Nope. To me, that is just as important as Michelle being done over. Hope she changes agents.

    • Alyse says:

      I agree. People say Mark did nothing wrong. No, Ridley wanted to replace a sexual abuser from the movie, reshoots were in Mark’s contract but he sought to make money out of this situation by holding the movie to ransom knowing they couldn’t move forward without him. He doesn’t get any credit from me.

      • Megan says:

        We don’t know that he held the movie hostage. IF (and that is a big IF) the studio is telling the truth about his contract not having a re-shoot clause, they would have immediately begun negotiating because he was under no obligation to return to the set. I canceled Wahlberg years ago because because he is a racists POS, but this seems like standard Hollywood stuff. If Ridley Scott had not publicly lied about everyone taking scale, this would not be an issue.

      • The Original G says:

        As long as women think that negotiating to be paid is “holding a movie to ransom” they won’t get paid what they deserve. It’s business.

    • msd says:

      It’s notable that in Michelle’s response she name checked Anthony Rapp for coming forward. He in turn said he was very moved by her kind words.

      It wasn’t just about saving the movie or being nice, she felt strongly about the issue itself, about WHY Spacey was being replaced. If the re shoots had been for a different reason then she probably would have negotiated a fee but she didn’t feel it was appropriate. She seems to have been the only one who grasped the significance. Everyone else was thinking about money; saving money in Scott’s case, making money in the case of Wahlberg and his agent.

      • noway says:

        In fairness to the crew and other cast members, my understanding is a lot of other actors and crew agreed to be paid the minimum or nothing including Scott. This wasn’t just a lead actor thing. Now Plummer was paid his salary, but he was never paid before. Also, Scott was unaware that Wahlberg was paid for awhile. That is why he was touting that people were working for scale. The other thing I find perplexing is Scott wanted Plummer in the role originally, but was forced to put Spacey in it by the studio. Why are studios insisting named actors be in some of these roles. Spacey seemed like an odd choice, but then so does Wahlberg. I don’t really think their celebrity added that much to the movie, even if Spacey wasn’t found to be a sexual abuser.

  4. Neelyo says:

    Not quite as tacky as Harvey Weinstein pledging to fight the NRA but more obvious. And he’s still garbage.

  5. Tanguerita says:

    Don’t remember the last time I’ve felt so much glee. The asshole must be fuming with rage.

  6. Lolo86lf says:

    Some of the $2 million donated to Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund should have been given to Michelle Williams to make her whole. She was the actual victim. She should have gotten the $500,000.

    • Esmom says:

      I don’t know about that. Something tells me she’s ok with the money being donated. And anyway, now they both got essentially nothing for the reshoots so technically they’re even.

    • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

      I doubt she feels broken! She did the right thing to save her film. I’m pretty sure she looks at herself in the mirror and is proud to have saved her movie. Marky Mark on the other hand will probably go into hiding after being outed as an unprofessional greedy weasel.

  7. Neelyo says:

    And somewhere Matt Damon is breathing a sigh of relief.

  8. Nicole says:

    Please if mark cared he wouldn’t have held the film hostage. If that agency cared they wouldn’t have allowed the man that assault Terry Crews back to work after a month.
    Spare me.

    • SilverUnicorn says:

      Pfft I agree, he never cared. But oops he got caught and I am happy the money went to a good cause. Couldn’t, and can’t, stand him anyway.

    • Elaine says:

      @Nicole, I know right! That bothers me sooo much.


    • littlemissnaughty says:

      Absolutely. But you KNOW they care about money. Marky Mark did NOT like how this played out. He looked like an ass, everyone pointed out that he’s actually a mediocre actor and Michelle is the artist, and now he doesn’t even get to keep the money! He must be chewing his carpet. I love it. Michelle, on the other hand, looks great.

  9. Maya says:

    1 by 1 they are all getter by their just desserts.

    Now CAA is going down, Neste Conde blocking famous photographers, politicians forced to resign – 2018 might become the year of justice for women.

    Now if we can get Terry Richardson and his enablers next – that will be awesome.

  10. SilverUnicorn says:

    Wahlberg was under no obligation to do that so I am happy that to shut his critics up he decided to donate that money (money he didn’t need anyway) to a good cause.
    I can’t stand him but in this case he made a good choice, even if forced.
    I hope that money, as CB said, will be put to good use.

    • Danielle says:

      I agree with you. I think Michelle’s agents are the ones to put on blast about this. And Ridley Scott some too, for lying about it.

    • Wooley says:

      I agree! There’s obviously a larger conversation about men and women pay equality, but also Wahlberg’s movies make a lot of $ and Williams tends to do a lot of Indies. Sometimes it has to do with box office profits.

      • noway says:

        I wonder about this though. Yes Mark’s big blockbusters like Transformers and TED- that stupid comedy make more money, but if you put those kind of actors in other more dramatic pieces like this does that make that movie make more money. I kind of doubt that. I wonder if it is just perception. Like the Today show would flunk without Matt Lauer, not so much. Keep in mind Forbes did list Mark as the most overpaid actor too for 2017.

  11. STRIPE says:

    This story is so weird for me. When I negotiate salary/raises, I don’t ask what my peers are getting paid and make sure we’re all paid the same. Does anyone do this? Genuinely asking.

    Because if we don’t, why do we expect someone with an agent (whose job it is to negotiate salary) to do so?

    Seems to me that this pay discrepancy is the fault of the movie producers and Michelle’s agent.

    • lightpurple says:

      “Seems to me that this pay discrepancy is the fault of the movie producers and Michelle’s agent.”

      Exactly. This wasn’t a case of a bunch of kids trying to put on a show. This was a major studio production, with INSURANCE. The cast and crew did their jobs and should have been treated like professionals. Any problems that later arose were the responsibility of the studio to handle. That means they should not have put it on Michelle or anyone else to save it for free. And wage disparity is ALWAYS the fault of the employer, not the employee.

      What has bothered me from the start of this was she said she was paid very little for the ENTIRE film. She’s co-lead. What was her original salary in comparison to Wahlberg’s and Spacey’s? And again, any disparity is the fault of the EMPLOYER.

    • TheBees says:

      I agree. I read that he negotiated and she said sure I’ll do it in good spirit because I like what your trying to get done here. That speaks of two different mind sets business v. Movement. The didn’t ask o be paid Moe than her and she asked for nothing which is essentially what she received. Now if she had asked for the same as Mark and been stonewalled I’d me pissed.

    • Esmom says:

      Not sure if you’re being disingenuous or are truly ignorant. You really have no problem with, say, a woman doing the exact same job as a man and getting paid less? If that’s true then you are part of the problem.

      • lightpurple says:

        I have a huge problem with it but it is the fault of the employer. The employer knows how much it is paying to each person. When we handle discrimination lawsuits for wage inequities, it is the employer who gets sued, not the co-workers.

      • STRIPE says:

        ESMOM-I absolutely have a *huge* problem with it. Where in my comment did you get the impression that I didn’t? Honestly asking, because right now it looks like you are calling me ignorant while using a straw man argument.

        I was making the point that this is not Marks fault. Not that I thought it was all ok.

      • Annabelle Bronstein says:

        @lightpurple when the co-workers contribute to and take advantage of the unequal bargaining power, they should also be called out (even if they couldn’t be sued).

        Mark Wahlberg was also making an executive decision by vetoing Plummer’s casting. Therefore, he was more than just a co-worker.

        Who is “at fault” here?
        A) Hollywood for perpetuating pay disparities that vastly favor men;
        B) the studio for paying Michelle Williams unequally;
        C) Mark Wahlberg for taking advantage of sexual abuse allegations and using his unequal bargaining power to “extort” more money for himself;
        D) the agent for failing to advocate vigorously on behalf of her client; or
        E) All of the above.

        From where I’m sitting the answer is E. And we can’t just throw some money at the problem, though I do give Mark credit for his donation. I just don’t think it would’ve happened without the bad press.

      • Esmom says:

        Stripe, Maybe I misread your tone or intent, I’m sorry if I did. But it seemed to me that you were ok with people getting paid differently for the same job. I guess I was feeling defensive because when I was a supervisor, that’s exactly what I tried to ensure with the people on my team. And I was lucky to have a (female) boss who advocated on my behalf to make sure my pay was in line with the others, all men, at my level. Yes it’s the agent’s fault but I gotta believe Marky was aware that his co-workers were doing the reshoots for free while he demanded a bi paycheck.

      • lightpurple says:

        Sure, Annabelle, I’ll use that argument in my next wage disparity case. Pretty sure it won’t get too far with the judge and my clients won’t be too happy, and I might be looking at some follow up from the board of bar overseers, but sure.

      • Annabelle Bronstein says:

        @lightpurple which argument? I was talking about this specific case, where I explicitly said Mark couldn’t be sued but he still deserves the bad press and he still holds blame. At least refute what I actually said.

        It is especially strange that many are so quick to defend Mark, because it is undisputed that Mark formally vetoed Plummer as a replacement, only assenting when he secured more money for himself. Mark actively sought to make it harder for the director to do the right thing in replacing a sexual abuser from a high profile film. Then he pocketed additional money from a contract-sanctioned extortion, even as he likely knew that others were working for scale. What’s to defend?

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        We don’t have to have a legal argument, here on CB, that would win in court. I’m upset about the morality of the situation. Totally agree with Annabelle Bronstein, then again I’m not a lawyer.

        I just think that what he and his agent did was crappy because it took advantage of the fact that Kevin Spacey was outed as a longtime abuser. 🤷🏽‍♀️

      • Purplehazeforever says:

        @ Annabelle … This is all what very good agents and/or lawyers put in your contracts. Wahlberg has a great agent because he’s a crappy actor..he gets more money for reshoots and has veto power over who gets casts in a film. He has a great agent. We can scream all we want it’s immoral but that’s his contract…Ridley Scott is to blame here for lying…WME is to blame here for the pay disparity and Michelle Williams needs a new agent.

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        Purplehaze, from what’s been said Ridley didn’t lie, he didn’t know about Mark’s 1.5 mil.

      • Bridget says:

        @purplehaze: reportedly Michelle had similar items in her contract. At issue is the fact that Marky Mark held the production hostage to wring more money out of them. That’s not business acumen.

      • Annabelle Bronstein says:

        @Sophia good points. I don’t think it takes a law degree to see what Mark did was shady and at the very least unhelpful to the #metoo movement, not to mention the issue of pay inequality.

        @lightpurple I understand the point of the costar approval clause (although I’d like to see the receipts on the numbers of men versus women whose contracts contain such a clause). But Mark didn’t just use the clause, he abused it when he had his lawyers send the financial backers a letter vetoing the casting of Plummer to replace Spacey. Mark only agreed once his (frankly outrageous) demands were met. He deserves all the bad press he’s getting. 🤷🏼‍♀️ And I think it’s a good thing for us to examine the different layers of inequality that were at play here.

      • LadyT says:

        Why is everyone acting like the studio took the did the right thing/chose the moral high ground by bumping Spacey? They wanted him out so people would see their movie. It was the right thing to do but it was motivated by money.

      • Annabelle Bronstein says:

        @LadyT I don’t think anyone is assuming that the studio was acting out of benevolence; rather it appears that Ridley Scott scrambled to save the movie and the studio agreed as long as he kept the reshoots under $10 Million.

    • HH says:

      I get what people above are saying in that some fault–or at least lack of certain morals–lies with Wahlberg because he took advantage of this controversy to negotiate for more money. His contract stipulated that he has to approve his costars, so Christopher Plummer couldn’t be cast until Wahlberg gave the go ahead.

      However, I’m not going to lay this controversy at his feet. When it comes to contracts, if you have the ability to shape yours, do the best you can and shape the contract to fall in your favor as much as possible. When it comes to money, if you have the ability to negotiate for more, do the best you can and get as much as possible.

      I’m more stunned that the agency didn’t negotiate for Williams as their other client. On the other hand, if Williams would have negotiated like Wahlberg, she could have been branded the c-word, b-word, a diva, difficult to work with, etc. Women often can’t take a hardline and still be respected.

    • JenE says:

      Seems to me you’re being purposefully obtuse in not acknowledging that what he originally did was unseemly and that the issue isn’t about the amount of money but instead that he chose to be an impediment to the process of removing an abuser from the film.

      • STRIPE says:

        Refusing to work for free is unseemly? How is that? Especially when films are insured and clearly they did have the money to pay him.

        He asked for extra money for extra work. He got it. How does that make him the villain here?

      • lightpurple says:

        And yet the studio and producers somehow found a way to give him the money so he wasn’t an impediment at all. It is called business. And the people in the wrong here were the studio, producers, and the talent agency. The actors were under no obligation to “save” that movie. Should we fault Michael Shannon and Benedict Cumberbatch and Nicholas Hoult for not saving The Current War somehow? No, of course not. It was the studio and producers who asked Michelle to work for so little. Their fault.

      • Annabelle Bronstein says:

        @STRIPE you’re misrepresenting the facts. Wahlberg formally vetoed Plummer as a cast mate, thus sending the film to the trash heap and costing the studio even more money. Only after he got paid $1.5 million did Wahlberg agree to Plummer replacing Spacey. It was shady af, and way beyond “asking for extra money.”

      • Bridget says:

        @stripe: not extra work. Work that was reportedly in his contract in the first place.

      • magnoliarose says:

        The problem is he double dipped and used a clause to get more money pretending to veto Plummer, holding the film hostage JUST for more money. He had no real problem with Plummer, and that is dishonest negotiating.
        If he felt he was owed more money he could have simply said I am not doing it unless I am paid more for my time.
        No problems there. Talent should get what they are worth. His worth in this case wasn’t enough on its own, so he went further, guaranteeing the movie would not get made under pretenses that he did not really mean.
        That goes from hardball to slimy money grab.

        I don’t blame him for Spacey or even Michelle Williams being undercut by her agency. Those are separate issues. I don’t blame him for wage disparity. I don’t blame him for being selfish even, but I do blame him for holding the project hostage only for money and mining his contract for a reason to do so. Not out of good faith or fairness but because he is greedy.

      • mee says:

        I agree – the real problem is that he was just a greedy b#stard trying to grab as much as he could, not for his worth or anything other than that he could. And it’s distasteful.

        I think it’s outrageous that men can get away with this crap but on the other, I don’t know whether I’m advocating for women to have the right to sink to similar asshole levels. If a woman tried to pull the same shit and held a movie hostage for $1.5m, I’d still think, ugh she kind of sucks.

    • Snowflake says:

      I agree, it’s her agent’s fault. Did a bad job of negotiating for her.

    • Mia4s says:

      I don’t know a lot about the laws effecting agents but supposedly I have heard that agents have a duty of confidentiality and are not supposed to discuss contracts amongst themselves. That seems possible. If so though they’d be able to discuss the numbers with an agent’s co-star if their client gave them permission. Hollywood is 99% of the time not a team sport.

      The biggest problem here all along though is not that they didn’t consult but that Wahlberg and his team saw this opportunity of trying to distance from a man accused of mass sex abuse and harassment as a money making opportunity. Legally what he did was fine. Morally and from a PR standpoint? Reprehensible and idiotic.

  12. I wonder if the Vietnamese-American he blinded received that much…

  13. Lilith says:

    Mark is seriously a dog.

    And why isn’t Michelle getting some of that sweet cash?

  14. glb says:


    Did I read that right?

    The agency that refused to fire Terry Crew’s abuser Adam Venit?

    No wonder they are trying to save face,they don’t want another blow after Terry Crews went public about one of their top agents.

    Ari Emanuel must be frothing right now,I hope he and anyone who is trying to cover their tracks gets brought down in a spectacular fashion.

  15. sb says:

    This guy he’s such an opportunistic fuckhead!
    He doesn’t care about this movement or equal wages.

    I find it hard to believe someone who starts a show like Entourage cares about anything but themselves…

    This whole donation thing is a joke and just a cheap pr save for a situation he and his agent created because he held the thing hostage in the first place. He’s not obligated to do work for free, fair enough…but him and his agents negotiated so he could get a huge amount of money. He doesn’t really care about the fact that kevin spacey is a pedo, if he did he wouldn’t have used the situation like that for his own gain and is only saving face now that he’s been caught out.

    Mark also never donated to times up before this shit happenned so…

    I want to know what michelle was paid originally?

  16. Talie says:

    They had no choice — even though Michelle is not a big box office star, she is A-list and having her publicly fire WME would’ve been a disaster for them. I’m sure Mark’s agents told him that could get it back for him with a random commercial in Japan or something. He learned nothing.

  17. Christina S. says:

    I’m not going to bash him here. He didn’t have to do anything, but he did. Good for him.

  18. Miss M says:

    I have always liked Michelle. I think she is a very good actress. Recently, she showed not only a high level of professionalism but also she understood at a personal level the importance of the reshoots.
    Poser or not, I am glad he donated the money. I don’t think he deserved that amount of money for reshoots based on his screen time and acting skills…

  19. WaterisLife says:

    I find it interesting that the excessive money is being donated in Michelle’s name. Ironic? Hell yes. Did they get her consent or did THEY decide what would be best? Did she have a say in where the money would go? Did she want it to go to that particular fund? If she didn’t consent, then this is even more ironic, just men deciding what was best for a woman, again.

    • Neelyo says:

      Agreed. I want him to keep her name out of this. This isn’t about her, this isn’t even about pay disparity, this is about a greedy man taking advantage of a bad situation.

      Leave MW alone.

    • lightpurple says:

      Here is her statement: “Today isn’t about me,” she said in a statement sent to USA TODAY Saturday evening by her rep, Mara Buxbaum. “My fellow actresses stood by me and stood up for me, my activist friends taught me to use my voice, and the most powerful men in charge, they listened and they acted. If we truly envision an equal world, it takes equal effort and sacrifice.” She also referenced Anthony Rapp, one of Spacey’s victims. Rapp then responded that he was very moved by her kind words.

      • Purplehazeforever says:

        Thank you for responding with facts. It’s much appreciated.

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        That’s a really great statement. She’s a true class act.

      • lightpurple says:

        Yes, she is and always has been a class act and I like facts. I have to deal with facts and get people to put aside emotions in my job and that’s what I’m seeing here, lots of emotions.

  20. Eleonor says:

    I have mixed feeling about this.
    They share the same agency, but the agents had two different approaches in negotiations, at least from what I understood. In the end he got paid wayyyy more than her.
    At the same time: when a woman asks for more she comes out as a diva demanding too much, so I can understand why Michelle Williams probably didn’t push for an equal pay.
    Remember we live in a world where Gillian Anderson had to put a fight to be paid the same as her male costar, and FFS X-Files without Dana freaking Scully doesn’t exist, but still the production…at least those money went to something positive.
    On another note: I saw the movie, and I think Plummer was a better choice for the character, but what is crazy for me, is that Kevin Spacey was labelled as a predator and deleted from all his work, while, for example, Johnny Deep, the woman abuser still gets paid.
    I don’t get it.

    • The dormouse says:

      Lost in this is Christopher Plummer’s own history as a creep.

      He and Woody Allen get passes because they’re from a different generation?

    • Boxy Lady says:

      Eleonor, regarding Kevin Spacey, I would bet that, in part, Ridley Scott made the effort to delete and replace him because Spacey was never Scott’s first choice. He originally wanted Plummer but the studio wanted “a big name” and made him take Spacey.

      • The dormouse says:

        That’s makes much more sense than the official line that Plummer was brought in because he was ‘morally acceptable’ while Spacey wasn’t.

  21. KatieBo says:

    I find the dialogue surrounding this a bit frustrating and problematic and it’s something I’ve been noticing a lot lately. I’m by no means a Wahlberg fan but…
    If we don’t allow people to see why their actions are wrong and make efforts to change accordingly then the collective movement is ONLY looking for like-minded supporters and the cause goes nowhere. Nobody said that Mark Wahlberg is the patron saint of the “Time’s Up” movement. Maybe he is doing it because he was caught. Maybe getting caught made him stop and think about why his actions were wrong. This is commonly what makes people change. Coming to the realization that they are part of a problem.
    Shaming people for attempting change doesn’t benefit anyone. If we just start screaming “Liar ” and “opportunistic asshole” at every person attempting change we will get nowhere.

    • Wen says:

      Well said. There seems to be a lot of nit-picking going on here.

    • magnoliarose says:

      This part I do agree with in most cases but this is a pattern, and he has not addressed it other than this donation. With his history, I side eye it. I even wonder if it is his money.
      I can’t suspend my doubt in this case because of his long history of assy behavior.
      He can change and grow. I am here for it.
      But this is just throwing money at a PR disaster and not acknowledging what the heart of the problem with this was in the first place.
      It is an excellent opportunity to open a conversation and talk about this, but he shut it down with money and wants to move on.
      He only seems to fix a problem when it looks bad but not because it is terrible.

  22. Davis says:

    I am not a huge fan of Mark’s, but when Michelle Williams can lead a movie she can demand as much in salary. His agents negotiated the best deal they could for him and her agents did the best they could for her. She has nowhere near the name recognition of his. I’m sure that ScarJo or Jennifer Lawrence or other top name actresses would have had the same clause in their contract as Mark. This is a bs non-issue and he shouldn’t have given up the money.

    • Sophia's Side eye says:

      This is a new one. You’re actually putting her down now in favor of Marky Mark? lol… Those other actresses would not have the same clause, that’s the problem!

    • magnoliarose says:

      No, they didn’t.
      When Marky Mark sans the Funky Bunch’s agent is the creator and head of the agency, and hers is an underling then already the negotiations aren’t equal. Her agent couldn’t, even if they wanted to go against their boss. This is the overlooked fact that makes the whole thing more unsavory.
      What did her agent know ahead of time or where they blindsided by this?
      I think it is telling that Marky Mark/Vincent Chase and Ari/Ari are still together after Entourage even though the show was a comedic peek into their relationship. They are ride or die, so it seems, where does that leave her agent in this?
      She needs new representation. Anyone who works with Marky Mark and is represented by WME should be wary especially women.

  23. Trashaddict says:

    I think that Michelle should change agents, women should bargain harder for their time, the industry needs to mentor more women producers, and the film should have distributed the hardship pay for reshoots more equally. Practically speaking, I’m not great with what Marky Mark did either – hope to god they even asked her before they donated in her name; but if it results in $1 mil more towards the work of Time’s up that’s a good bottom line. I’ll want to see the evidence he actually did it.
    I kinda hope his wife gave him hell, too.

  24. tracking says:

    I read that Wahlberg’s donation is only the SECOND one from a man not listed with a female partner. Of course, as we know, he got cornered with bad PR and paid up. No sincerity there. What about all those men who wore Time’s Up pins on the red carpet? Where are their donations? Riiight.

  25. Ozogirl says:

    It was the best thing to do to make the story go away for him, but I feel that it is condescending how he put it in her name. As if he doesn’t really support the cause and doesn’t want his name on it.

  26. Dr. Mrs. The Monarch says:

    The larger issue here is the sexist stereotype of the “difficult woman”. How many of Weinstein’s victims were blacklisted with the label of “difficult/b—–/c—“?

    Michelle was a dream to work with. Low cost. No drama.

    Mahky Mahk held the reshoots hostage with his casting and cash demands. Why isn’t he labelled a difficult b—-? Why is everyone calling him “a good businessman”?

    If Michelle had asked for ANY special treatment it could have ended her career- and it would all be Kevin Spacey’s fault. This is what upsets me the most.

    • Harryg says:

      Also, the whole “if you don’t know your worth and can’t negotiate, it’s not my problem”-attitude in general is so repulsively ayn randian. What happened to caring about other people and their well-being? I’m so disgusted right now, about so many things.

    • Neelyo says:

      YES! If the shoe was on the other foot no one would be praising her business acumen. And no one should be commending him for his negotiating skills. It’s just gross.

  27. Jayna says:

    I admired Ridley Scott and Michelle for taking nothing in his case and nominal in hers. Mark was still all about the money when their backs were against the wall trying to make this recast and reshoot happen in a short span of time.

    This is just damage control on Mark’s end and their agents’ end.

  28. Boxy Lady says:

    Mark Wahlberg: I hope God forgives me for appearing naked in Boogie Nights.

    Also Mark Wahlberg: How can I use the fact that my costar is a sexual predator so that I can make more money for myself? Yeah, God should be fine with this.

  29. minx says:

    He’s still a homely untalented racist.

  30. Michelle says:

    I read that he was already filming something else and if that is the true, Indo understand why he wouldn’t want to do it for free. Especially if he had to disrupt another set or travel back and forth.

    I also don’t understand, if they were contractually obligated to do reshoots wouldn’t that have been covered under their original salary? Why would payment arrangements had to have been made at all?

    I am not a Mark Wahlburg fan at all but I don’t really condemn him here. He’s not a small films, “i’m in it for the craft” type of actor. Is it morally questionable for him to hold the film hostage? Yes. But I’m not sure it was technically wrong. He saw an opening and he took advantage it.

    I actually think the agency is way more responsible because they stepped up for the male client and not the female one.

    • msd says:

      I don’t know about him but Williams was working when Spacey was dumped. She was shooting Venom. She gave up the break she was supposed to have over Thanksgiving and ended up working every day for two months.

  31. Topher says:

    The Oscars are going to be epic this year. Can’t wait.

  32. Snappyfish says:

    Mark Wahlberg is and has always been a POS Douchebag. He shows it all the time. I never understood why anyone pays him any attention or a dime. The only movie I could tolerate him in was The Departed. The movie was excellent & it made him watchable.

    I was impressed how Scott recast Spacey. I hope the 2million helps but I don’t give Marky Mark any credit for this save his butt move. Williams deserves better from her rep no matter what his contract stated

  33. Elizabeth Rose says:

    It would literally take All the Money in the World for me to ever have any respect for this douche canoe.

    Saving face is not doing the right thing.

  34. LittlefishMom says:

    He’s a d*ck. They should have fought for her from the jump. Too little too late boys.

  35. SM says:

    I can’t put it into words how much I detest someone like Marky Mark. He will use anything in order to get ahead, in this case the fact that the whole movie would collapse if they did not oblige and payed hom whatever redicilious amount of money he can get for his lack of talent and then when called out for being a self-absorbed jackass will do someting as “noble” and “political conscious” like this. He is one of the big reasons the people (sorry, women) in Hollywood are trying to fight the fight are perceived as hypocracy, like saying and doing the right thing only when shamed into doing them.

  36. Hannah says:

    Not a Wahlberg fan but if I have to go back to a project after an event I absolutely negotiate pay for that.

    People acting like this is some kind of points in the column of gender pay gaps…it isn’t. Now Mark didn’t get compensated. Michelle didn’t. And the studio has more money than ever.

    Perhaps Christopher Plummer shouldn’t have been compensated given the nature of the reshoot? Where does this end?

    Place pressure on the movie studios and agencies. I hope to see both the studio and agency match the donation, not in Michelle’s name but in the name of those abused by Kevin Spacey.

  37. holly hobby says:

    I still can’t get over the fact that an underwear model has a right to ok an Academy Award winner (plus Captain Von Trapp!) to take over a role.