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.