ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23092
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

#1 Post by AndyDursin » Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:16 pm

What's the song over the front of this trailer? I've never heard it before. :lol:
ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD follows the kidnapping of 16-year-old John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer) and the desperate attempt by his devoted mother Gail (Michelle Williams) to convince his billionaire grandfather (Kevin Spacey) to pay the ransom. When Getty Sr. refuses, Gail attempts to sway him as her son’s captors become increasingly volatile and brutal. With her son’s life in the balance, Gail and Getty’s advisor (Mark Wahlberg) become unlikely allies in the race against time that ultimately reveals the true and lasting value of love over money.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 4292
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

#2 Post by Paul MacLean » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:43 pm

Please Ridley, fewer Alien Covenants and All The Money in the Worlds, and more of this...

Image Image Image

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 5219
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

#3 Post by Monterey Jack » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:45 pm

Say what you will about the quality of his recent work, credit Scott for being so ridiculously prolific at an age where I couldn't even imagine getting out of bed before 10:00 AM. :shock: :lol:

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23092
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

#4 Post by AndyDursin » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:24 pm

The man sleeps, and eats, and makes movies! It's a miracle of evolution! :lol:

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23092
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

#5 Post by AndyDursin » Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:00 pm

Might want to download this trailer while you still can....Spacey is being replaced by Christopher Plummer! And the film opens next month!

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... e.amp.html

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 5219
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

#6 Post by Monterey Jack » Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:13 pm

How unbelievably spiteful and spineless. :?

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23092
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

#7 Post by AndyDursin » Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:54 pm

I don't know about spiteful. It's probably very smart, very proactive from a business standpoint. A distraction they don't want to deal with in an evolving scandal that could kill the movie. I mean, is Kevin Spacey owed something here? He got paid. The filmmakers and producers have every right to' protect the work that they made.

Let's face it, Spacey is cooked. And I would bet they know what's coming down the pike too. Like Harvey Weinstein, I can't imagine lots of people knew...

Also an unprecedented move as far as I know. Here's the Deadline blurb:
In a unified front, the cast and crew of the film, and Sony Pictures, unanimously agreed to re-shoot all of Spacey’s scenes, with Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams’ cooperation part of the mix. This comes on the heels of the decision to pull the film from the prestige closing night slot of the AFI Festival. That move resulted after a weekend of back and forth, with Scott and Friedkin in particular incensed that the sordid allegations against Spacey might doom a film that Scott dropped everything to direct, and on which so many people worked hard and did not deserve to see the results hobbled in the marketplace because of the taint of scandal. So they took control of the narrative. Scott is a maverick, and didn’t shrink under the pressure to re-stage the key scenes involving J Paul Getty, the oilman who refused to pay a ransom after his grandson, John Paul Getty III was kidnapped.

Spacey worked about eight to ten days on the film, but the character is an important presence even if much of the action in the thriller involves the frantic efforts of the kidnapped heir’s mother Gail Harris (Williams), and Getty’s advisor (Wahlberg) to free the youth. The nightmare escalated after the family received his severed ear as proof the kidnappers were going to kill him if the money wasn’t delivered.

Though far more dramatic, considering how quickly the release date is approaching, with the need to not only reshoot but also to redo the marketing materials, this becomes the second instance where filmmakers refused to allow their picture to be doomed by scandal. The other example came when writer/director Taylor Sheridan, stars Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen and producers Basil Iwanyk and Matthew George wrested back control of the critically acclaimed Wind River from The Weinstein Company after dozens of women claimed that ousted TWC co-chairman Harvey Weinstein molested them.
http://deadline.com/2017/11/kevin-space ... 202204437/

mkaroly
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

#8 Post by mkaroly » Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:15 am

In light of everything, it seems to me to be a justified and proper move.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 4292
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

#9 Post by Paul MacLean » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:52 am

Here's a very interesting article which covers more of the the logistics surrounding Spacey's replacement...

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/11/all-th ... 201895667/

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23092
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

#10 Post by AndyDursin » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:39 pm

That's a great article Paul, thanks for posting!

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23092
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

#11 Post by AndyDursin » Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:24 am

Wahlberg now getting all kinds of grief for getting $1.5 mil for reshoots while most everyone else did it for nothing.

The main crux of the "controversy" seems to be Michelle Williams should also get $1.5 million just because she's a woman.

The issue that people do pay to see Mark Wahlberg and most have no idea who Michelle Williams even is seems to be lost on these idiots.

BtW Those morons also include Judd Apatow!

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1018351001 ... ssion=true

KevinEK
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:32 pm

Re: ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

#12 Post by KevinEK » Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:25 pm

At a certain point, I find it necessary to correct a lot of misconceptions being thrown around here, usually from individuals who either don't know all the information or don't understand the information they have.

I've actually taken the time to see All the Money in the World. Not sure if anyone else here has done so. I recommend you do, as it's actually quite a good movie. To my mind, Ridley Scott at 80 years old is making more interesting movies in the overall than Spielberg, which is something I never would have thought we'd see happen 30 years ago. I'm not counting the new Alien movies Scott has been making, as those clearly are intended to be commercial moneymakers and not particularly deep in the thinking area. But The Martian and this film are fine pieces of work, which will continue to hold up under viewing in another few years.

I've heard angry criticisms in other parts (not at this site, I think) of the recasting decision made here by Scott, as though this was just typical liberal Hollywood PC-ism or whatever other dismissive name critics wanted to give it. Those critics apparently didn't look at the full discussion of what happened - if they had, they would have seen that Sony did not want Scott to do the reshoots. They wanted him to just put the movie out as-is and see how it did. Their thinking was that it was going to be a lot of money out the window for nothing and he was too close to his release window to do the reshoots. Scott made the decision himself to do the reshoots and had enough clout to override Sony.

Having watched the film, I can say that it works quite well with Christopher Plummer in the role of Getty. From what I've seen of the Spacey footage, the movie is better without him, regardless of the reason for the change. Spacey is clearly playing under a mountain of FX makeup while Plummer simply presents the character. The brief footage I've seen of Spacey is frankly distracting rather than helping the movie. Spacey's shoot took 10 days to accomplish, and the Plummer reshoot took 9 days. They were not just reshooting parts of scenes but completely restaging many of them. The Plummer scenes took less time due to needing much less makeup time, obviously. To my eye, Plummer is actually playing something closer to a lead character than a supporting character, given how much screen time Getty has, and how much weight the character holds over his scenes.

The issue with the reshoot payment isn't "just because she's a woman." The issue is that everyone involved understood they were doing the reshoots gratis and apparently Wahlberg negotiated a side deal for himself. Which potentially makes it a really selfish move on his part, as he was fully aware of what was going on and played this game. He knew everyone else was donating their time and decided he'd get another payday out of it. There's an added complication in that both Williams and Wahlberg are represented by the same agency, meaning that the agency was fully aware of what was happening on this movie and apparently didn't tell her. The fact that it's a male star getting a huge paycheck and a female star getting nothing just points up a situation that's been discussed for eons - namely that men do earn more than women. The people discussing this disparity are not "morons", regardless of whether posters here think that to be the case. They are pointing out something that actually happens in reality. And this isn't a matter of whether everyone going to this movie is going to see Mark Wahlberg, something I frankly doubt. This movie is getting attention because of all the controversy around it and because Ridley Scott cast it with popular actors including Wahlberg and Williams and now of course Plummer.

It's ridiculous to dismiss the discussion with the trope that anyone thinks Michelle Williams should automatically be paid 1.5 million like Wahlberg "just because she's a woman." That's nonsense. The issue is that one of the two stars of the movie got a big payday out of a shoot where the other star was paid nothing. It's not a question of whether she should get 1.5 million. It's a question of whether she should be paid nothing and not told that her co-star was well-paid. And I'm hoping we're not going to get into the weeds about Plummer's compensation or the crew's, since he was a new actor to the movie and of course was paid, as was the film crew which worked through Thanksgiving week to do this. The understanding on set that was in play was that Ridley Scott, Michelle Williams and the rest of the cast, all of whom had already been paid for their work on the film, came back in and agreed to just do this reshoot for per diem if needed. The idea that one person in the cast used the situation to secretly profit is distasteful and selfish of that person. When I was on JAG for several years, I used to see this kind of behavior all the time from the cast and from the crew. It was an attitude of "Me, me, me, mine, mine, mine. Cake and ice cream for me, and everyone else, well, they'll just understand." I found it shameful then and I continue to find that kind of behavior shameful now.

I frankly don't care what Judd Apatow says, but if Wahlberg is getting "grief", it's because he's earned it. About 1.5 million dollars worth.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23092
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

#13 Post by AndyDursin » Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:20 pm

At a certain point, I find it necessary to correct a lot of misconceptions being thrown around here, usually from individuals who either don't know all the information or don't understand the information they have.
That's probably the most condescending thing I've read today, but thanks, I guess, for "setting the record straight" lol.
I've heard angry criticisms in other parts (not at this site, I think) of the recasting decision made here by Scott, as though this was just typical liberal Hollywood PC-ism or whatever other dismissive name critics wanted to give it.
Nope, not this site. And why would conservatives care about defending an alleged child molester? Such a weird disconnect between what you've read and what reality seems to be. Your comment is actually the first time I've seen partisan politics thrown around in regards to the Spacey thing.
It's ridiculous to dismiss the discussion with the trope that anyone thinks Michelle Williams should automatically be paid 1.5 million like Wahlberg "just because she's a woman." That's nonsense.
I have no idea what you are looking at, but the entire thrust of nearly every article I've read today is EXACTLY that. You must not read what I read, because the interference and discussion is all about the "gender pay gap" which follows the "female empowerment" sermon from the Golden Globes the other night, in which an industry that has seemingly widespread sexual harassment issues decided to lecture the rest of America about it.

It's not my imagination. It's there in every story that's been posted. The issue of whether he should've been paid at all, and that they both have the same agency -- that's a valid point to talk about. But the very thrust of Apatow's comments and nearly everything else I've read today is that he's a man, she's a woman, he got paid a lot of money, and she got nothing.

If you don't like the fact that's the point that's been messaged, please blame the media and every article that's out there.
And this isn't a matter of whether everyone going to this movie is going to see Mark Wahlberg, something I frankly doubt. This movie is getting attention because of all the controversy around it and because Ridley Scott cast it with popular actors including Wahlberg and Williams and now of course Plummer.
You really think Michelle Williams is "popular"? Based on what criteria?

Look, I'm not sure how much attention is being paid to this film at all -- it's made absolutely nothing so far at $20 million and got a lot of mixed reaction.

And my point isn't that "everyone is going to see Wahlberg in this movie," just that Wahlberg is the only star name in this cast. What film has Michelle Williams ever carried that people went to see? Unless you are a movie buff, or remember her from DAWSON'S CREEK (which is now 20 years old), very few people even know who she is, as most of her subsequent career has been spent in independent movies that next to nobody watches. You can count on one hand the supporting roles she's taken in commercially successful films, and even there, she wasn't a driving force in any of them.

The inside baseball stuff about the agency, whether Wahlberg should have been paid in the first place -- that's an interesting discussion to have. Maybe she should get herself another agent and played hardball like he did? Even if he's "wrong," isn't it his right to get what he can based on his commercial track record? The guy sells tickets, she doesn't. This is a big studio movie, it's not some micro-budget indie or a weekly TV episode of whatever show -- he's a bigger star (by a wide margin) over everyone else in the cast, and that's just how it is. Life isn't fair sometimes.

Again, look at the articles out there and the comments that have been made. The point of Apatow and the interference of every article I've read isn't that "he got paid and nobody else did" -- it's that he got paid and SHE got nothing.

KevinEK
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:32 pm

Re: ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

#14 Post by KevinEK » Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:53 pm

Andy, you're entitled to your opinion, but you don't work in the business where I've spent my life.
It may sound condescending to you, but think about how it sounds from someone else's perspective before you make those kinds of comments.

I thought I was clear that I hadn't heard those criticisms about Hollywood PC-ism on this matter from your site. I heard them from Right Wingers I know in Los Angeles, who began screaming at me in red-faced rage about how Hollywood should recut all of its movies going back decades and how Meryl Streep's movies should be thrown in the trash and about how apparently I should be held responsible for Kevin Spacey's conduct since I was told about it second-hand. You may not have heard it from where you are, but I certainly heard it here loud and clear. As I said, I don't remember reading that on your board.

You've badly misunderstood what I said.
You're presenting this situation as though anyone thinks Michelle Williams should automatically be paid that 1.5 million dollars.
You're correct that people are pointing out the major discrepancy, which is what I was noting.
But there very much is a pay gap - this is just a glaring example. Doesn't mean she should get the same money.

I didn't watch the Golden Globes, and I think I've made it clear I see no point in doing so.
You apparently did watch it but were offended by it.
I repeat my question - why do you watch such programming if it offends you so much?
Why do you care what happens at a discredited event, and why do you care what celebrities you dislike say?

Your statement about the film and television business having "seemingly widespread sexual harassment issues" leaves a lot out and is offensive to me, as someone who actually works in the business and knows of what I'm speaking.
The fact is that there are pigs everywhere, and there are particularly pigs where we find people in powerful positions. That would apply to film and TV, but also to the law firm where I worked before this and to pretty much every professional environment I've encountered. If you asked me about pigs in my business, I'd tell you that there are always pigs, and we try not to work with them or deal with them. I've worked on crews and shows where such people were either fired or disciplined. And that includes producers and cast members. But to play this game about how the industry is somehow rampant with perverted men chasing the women and young boys around the tables in every room is really unfortunate. As I've noted before, when I was in Massachusetts in November, my relatives there were convinced that every set was loaded with this cartoon image of hound dogs slobbering all over the place, and I had to talk them down from that image. Because that's what they see in the press, whether it's true or not. Since I work in the business, I think I'd know whether this was rampant or whether we were dealing with the same kind of thing as any other business.

As I noted, I don't care what Judd Apatow says. I don't know why you're reading his comments if you have issues with him in the first place.

The rest of your comments are presumably meant to dismiss Michelle Williams' work since she's not pulling down Jennifer Lawrence's salary or headlining movies like Transformers (which you correctly dismiss in other threads for good reason.)
Michelle Williams was cast in this movie for multiple reasons, which you could discuss with Ridley Scott if you have access to him or his publicist. It wasn't because she was a no-name indy actress from Dawson's Creek. It's because she's known for doing good work, usually in quality movies like Manchester. Scott almost certainly cast her from the strength of her prior Oscar nominations, which numbered three when he started shooting and went to four with Manchester last year. I realize that your opinion is that "next to nobody watches" the movies that got her nominated, but you're missing a big part of that discussion if your only barometer is whether those movies were tops on the weekly box office list. If that were the only barometer, you'd have to wonder why anyone casts her - and my point is that it's not the only barometer.

The point about Wahlberg's conduct here is that it was underhanded and selfish. This isn't a matter of "Life isn't fair sometimes", which is by the way a quite condescending comment on its own, since that's not what I was discussing.
Nobody is saying that Wahlberg has no right to negotiate his contract - that's a false premise.
Nobody is saying that Wahlberg has no right to be paid.
I'm not arguing that Williams should be paid the amount Wahlberg was.
I'm saying that it was a poor choice for Wahlberg to secretly arrange a big payday for himself when he knew the rest of his fellow castmembers were donating the week, and when he'd already been paid for the movie. It's not just that he selfishly put himself above everyone else - it's that he was doing so knowing that the week was designed as a gratis week aside from Plummer. If I was a cast member in that movie and found out that one of the cast secretly arranged a big payout for himself while I worked for free, I'd be unhappy about it too.

Williams is being presented as the most blatant example of how selfish Wahlberg's conduct here was, and because it's an obvious, glaring example of pay discrepancy. And yes, it's a true statement in my business and in every other one that we do have pay discrepancies. You can chalk them up to "Life isn't fair sometimes" but I don't have a problem with people noting it.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23092
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December

#15 Post by AndyDursin » Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:46 pm

Where did I write that Michelle Williams wasn't a good actress? That's totally besides the point. In fact, you totally misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't "dismissing" her but merely saying Wahlberg has sold tickets to films that have made a lot of money. She hasn't. I guess that's controversial to point that fact out? Where did I say that had anything to do with their respective acting abilities (or lack thereof)?

As for the Golden Globes, I wasn't offended by it. I just thought a lot of it was typical, self-indulgent celebrity pretentiousness, like when Natalie Portman had to blurt out "FIVE MEN!" when the Best Director nominees were being named. They have every right to their opinion -- but that seemed to be pretty disrespectful to the individuals who held the honor.

Either way, it doesn't bother me. I find it fascinating in a car-wreck kind of manner. I also could easily flip that around and ask why is it you torture yourself watching conservative leaning programming or visiting similarly themed websites? lol

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest