It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:18 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:12 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA
hearthesilence wrote:
I haven't seen this movie yet, but is it inaccurate to describe the re-shoots as mainly shot-reverse shot scenes of boring conversations in large rooms?


I would say that's inaccurate. While Plummer obviously isn't involved in the action-oriented scenes, and many of his scenes are conversational, there's also plenty of location shooting with him in England. It's really pretty remarkable how the production got so much important footage re-shot and successfully integrated into the film so quickly.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
Seriously, the Plummer footage is some of the best stuff in the movie, not only because of his performance but the new interior shots featuring him are very well-lit and photographed, certainly more visually interesting than the jail cell the grandson sits in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
It has now emerged that Wahlberg refused to participate in the Plummer re-shoots unless he was paid that $1.5 million sum. Other actors in the film including Williams did not have any such demands. He's been quoted by USA Today's source as saying "I will not approve Christopher Plummer [as his costar in the film] unless you pay me."

In the same story, Michelle Williams is quoted as saying "I said I'd be wherever they needed, whenever they needed. They could have my salary, they could have my holiday, whatever. Because I appreciated so much that they were making this massive effort [to replace Spacey]."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Thought experiment: Pretend Williams demanded the 1.5 million for reshoots and approval of Plummer, and Wahlberg worked for free (+ per diem). She'd be the hero of the movement right now, wouldn't she?

I think it's that this situation came out because it illustrates the very real pay disparity in Hollywood, and yet at the same time, as more and more details come out, I feel like it actually has less and less to do with the pay gap and is more just a product of the production trying to completely ramp back up in a manner of days. Knowing they now had to pay Wahlberg, should the producers have then turned around and then re-offered to pay Williams (and Plummer, and Timothy Hutton, etc.)? Maybe, but then again, that's not the best way to run a business. Like any media story, people are looking for villains, and I'm still not sure that Wahlberg is it. Their shared agency is maybe the "villain", but even that is, I think, too simplistic a way to look at it.

The point of my above thought experiment is this: other than maybe his "I never work for free" attitude, has Wahlberg actually done anything wrong here? And even saying "I never work for free", well, would you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
Life experiment: Dig around and find out what all your coworkers make. Enjoy your newfound awareness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: NYC
The fact that the likes of Marky Mark had veto power over Christopher Plummer's casting is real cause for nausea, and explains a lot about contemporary Hollywood.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Roscoe wrote:
The fact that the likes of Marky Mark had veto power over Christopher Plummer's casting is real cause for nausea, and explains a lot about contemporary Hollywood.

Why, though? I genuinely don't know what you mean by this - you seem to be putting all your rhetorical weight on an assumption (or multiple assumptions) that I apparently don't share.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: NYC
Basically, that Marky Mark is an exceedingly bad actor of little discernible ability beyond muscle-building, best restricted to Transformers-level productions -- for him to have the power to keep the likes of Christopher Plummer (you know, an actual actor of real talent and ability) from having a major role in a non-Transformers type motion picture is pretty depressing.

Just my take on it. Mileage will vary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:44 pm 
Not PETA approved
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada
I can't locate the article at the moment, but it claims that Wahlberg didn't have reshoots in his contract, and so could negotiate for more money, whereas Williams did.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
I’m not an expert in Hollywood contracts but I think it would be highly unorthodox for the contract to not include any reshoots whatsoever.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
swo17 wrote:
Life experiment: Dig around and find out what all your coworkers make. Enjoy your newfound awareness.

Actually many social scientists recommend that.

Anyway, of all the bad things Wahlberg has done saying show me the money is not one of them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
Roscoe wrote:
Basically, that Marky Mark is an exceedingly bad actor of little discernible ability beyond muscle-building, best restricted to Transformers-level productions -- for him to have the power to keep the likes of Christopher Plummer (you know, an actual actor of real talent and ability) from having a major role in a non-Transformers type motion picture is pretty depressing.

Just my take on it. Mileage will vary.

This wasn't about vetoing Plummer--he knew full well that they were screwed without him and milked that leverage for all the money in the...hey, wait a minute. I'm sure he would have done the same regardless of who was cast.

It was the smart financial move, if a selfish one. Or I dunno, maybe he sends it all to his mom or something. Not my place to judge.

Also, I think I've enjoyed more Wahlberg roles than Plummer ones...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA
I don't think Wahlberg did anything wrong, per se, but he (or at least his management) did something in poor taste, definitely. Normally, I'd have no problem supporting Wahlberg getting paid for sudden reshoots, but these was a fairly unique situation, and Wahlberg was already paid for his work on the film, so his excuse that "he doesn't work for free" isn't really relevant. And after all, Wahlberg most likely accepted the part to boost his acting profile--he certainly didn't need the money in the first place--so he kind of shot himself in the foot by allowing greed to get in the way of his supposed artistic accomplishments.

Let's not forget, either, that films are supposed to be a collaborative effort, and if Wahlberg wants to break out of action and action-comedy roles, he's not going to get cast in many more modestly budgeted productions, where if some kind of emergency arises (like lost digital data/footage) he might need to come back and "work for free".

When I get the film again (I suppose on Blu-ray, since there probably won't be a UHD/BD combo), I'm going to watch carefully, and see how much of Wahlberg you could delete from the film without losing much or all of the plot/narrative. Perhaps if this had come out a bit earlier, Scott would simply have cut Wahlberg's role down as much as possible, basically to say "fuck you" right back at him. That would be a perfectly acceptable, but tasteless, move on Scott's part.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:14 pm 
Not PETA approved
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada
McCrutchy wrote:
Wahlberg was already paid for his work on the film, so his excuse that "he doesn't work for free" isn't really relevant.

Er, he was payed for his work on the film, now he wants to be paid for sudden extra work on the film. It's the same relevance as demanding overtime pay when you're asked to work overtime.

The only reason anyone cares is not that Wahlberg got paid for extra work, but that someone else didn't and that person was another gender. According to this story, anyway, it's not due to gender imbalances in the work place, it's Wahlberg and his management exploiting a situation for more money. That Williams didn't do the same is down to personality rather than sexism, I'd say. But in the end, none of this matters. Who cares if Wahlberg gets a Hollywood studio to pay him more money.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA
Mr Sausage wrote:
Who cares if Wahlberg gets a Hollywood studio to pay him more money.

I wonder if Michelle Williams does. Not that this is a wage gap issue, but if I were her, I'd be less than impressed (even if only with my representation), and so would every other studio that could see Wahlberg as a financial liability.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 12:47 am
Michelle Williams also has the same agency as Wahlberg, which allowed Wahlberg greed to create negative publicity to an already troubled production. If I were Michelle Williams right now I would fire my agent after this debacle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:49 am
Location: Transylvania
Mr Sausage wrote:
That Williams didn't do the same is down to personality rather than sexism, I'd say.
Possibly, but couldn’t you say that a female actor, even one of Michelle Williams’ stature, does not feel empowered in today’s Hollywood to hold out for money for reshoots and is inclined, encouraged—maybe even expected—to “play nice” just to get the movie made whereas no one bats an eye when a male actor demands extra for reshoots? That certainly seems to be what the actors’ agency was counting on.

I think the agency, once they knew Wahlberg was getting paid for the reshoots, should have informed Williams and demanded the same fee for her, even if she had previously said she’d do it for nothing. It would have been the right and fair thing to do for both clients. But, you know, maybe they did that. It will be interesting to hear Williams’ side of things when she breaks her silence (far in the future, I expect).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 10:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am
Werewolf by Night wrote:
Mr Sausage wrote:
That Williams didn't do the same is down to personality rather than sexism, I'd say.
Possibly, but couldn’t you say that a female actor, even one of Michelle Williams’ stature, does not feel empowered in today’s Hollywood to hold out for money for reshoots and is inclined, encouraged—maybe even expected—to “play nice” just to get the movie made whereas no one bats an eye when a male actor demands extra for reshoots? That certainly seems to be what the actors’ agency was counting on.

I don't think it was at all a question of empowerment, but rather one of Williams doing something gratis for moral reasons. The talent agency probably let each actor do their own thing, not wanting to either push for more money at the risk of bad press or directly order the actors to work for peanuts against the actor's and the agency's self-interests. All evidence points to her voluntarily working for scale, but that doesn't mean that she didn't feel empowered to ask for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:17 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:48 pm
I'm amazed that MW, a guy who was paid around 70 million last year, didn't just donate this relative pittance to charity and just defuse the bad PR.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
I don't know, if this story is true I wouldn't be so shocked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:02 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Why does Dave Holmes have a book?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:49 am
Location: Transylvania
Wahlberg is donating the money to Time’s Up, WME will donate an additional half-million.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
I'm glad all these actors are finally only receiving a fair wage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 3:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
I think we’ve all learned a valuable lesson here: equal pay is the responsibility of the employees, not the employers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 3:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
I wonder if there is another thread on here where we talked less about the actual film


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection