Re: ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD - Ridley Scott, December
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:07 pm
A new spin is being thrown on Wahlberg, although I'm not sure if it's his people trying to do this indirectly or if it's someone from WME, which is more likely.
Their version of the story is that Wahlberg's contract didn't include any reshoots at all, and that Wahlberg felt he'd taken a big salary cut to agree to do this movie at all. Williams' contract included reshoots.
But they are parsing a sneeze here.
The issue remains that Wahlberg took a secret payday while the other Above-the-Line people worked for free. It remains a selfish move, particularly the part where he kept it a secret.
I should note that I would have less of an issue with Wahlberg's (and his agent's) conduct here if they'd been up front about what they were doing. They could have just said that they were not willing to do these reshoots unless Wahlberg was paid for them. There's nothing wrong with that and they had no reason to hide it. I could even have understood this scenario if Wahlberg had presented an issue about shooting another film that this reshoot was blocking or delaying. But Wahlberg never said any of those things, and as I understand it, Williams is actually the one who was in a position where the next project was impacted by her return to this film for 9 days.
Regarding your thoughts on Michelle Williams, your sarcasm is showing. Nobody said that it was controversial to point out that Mark Wahlberg has sold more movie tickets, regardless of the quality of the movie. (I don't think either of us would be standing here defending the high intellectual content of the Transformers movies or Daddy's Home...) My point wasn't about her acting abilities. I was referring to the reason why Williams is regularly cast every year in multiple feature films. Yes, she's a good actress. And yes, she is a draw for people who go to movies like Brokeback or Blue Valentine or Manchester. I expect she'll continue to be cast in movies for a good long time to come, and she'll continue to do interesting work. To be fair, we should note that actors like Mark Wahlberg come and go in the spotlight over the long term, while actors like Michelle Williams tend to stick around. Case in point: Burt Reynolds. In the 1970s, Reynolds was the biggest movie star in the year - regularly drawing massive salaries and filling movie theaters across the country. Flash forward 20 years and he found himself struggling to make a comeback, in addition to going through a humiliating public divorce. Flash forward to today and the man is a broken shadow of his younger self, reduced to selling his memorabilia and barely able to walk. Steven Seagal had a similar arc, albeit with far less talent than Reynolds had walking in. Seagal's arc was a lot shorter, given how little someone in his range can actually do onscreen. Mark Wahlberg has been smart enough to put himself into the producer's seat, so that he will at least have that to fall back on in a few years. Brad Pitt and George Clooney have taken similar approaches.
Re the Golden Globes, it sounds like you were watching it for the car-crash snarking fun. I honestly have never seen the point of that, but I get how it can be entertaining - particularly if one watches from that perspective. But I do call shenanigans about the notion that celebrity behavior does not bother you. If it was just a curious puzzle, you wouldn't regularly post about it, at times in an outraged tone. And I get it - these people can be annoying. They can be infuriating. I just don't see why you'd want to subject yourself to something that you know is only going to have a negative effect. I don't watch the Golden Globes because they have no meaning in the industry, and they're more of a joke than anything else. To me, the behavior there really is a curiosity, but not enough of one for me to watch.
As for why I would watch conservative-leaning programming like Fox News or listen to AM radio programming, it's because I believe in listening to everyone's point of view. I don't need to agree with Bill O'Reilly to acknowledge that he has at time made cogent points. If I only listened to Pacifica Radio and ignored everything else, I would have very little understanding of the world and anyone else in it. As far as websites like this one, I continue to contribute because we're discussing things that are part of the world in which I work. I'm curious to hear what people think about that work, which has always been the mainstay of this site. We have many things in common when it comes to our interests in film scores, classic television, etc. But I do reserve the right to speak up when I see something that's way off. That may not be popular, but it's the way I've conducted myself not only here but where I regularly live and work.
Their version of the story is that Wahlberg's contract didn't include any reshoots at all, and that Wahlberg felt he'd taken a big salary cut to agree to do this movie at all. Williams' contract included reshoots.
But they are parsing a sneeze here.
The issue remains that Wahlberg took a secret payday while the other Above-the-Line people worked for free. It remains a selfish move, particularly the part where he kept it a secret.
I should note that I would have less of an issue with Wahlberg's (and his agent's) conduct here if they'd been up front about what they were doing. They could have just said that they were not willing to do these reshoots unless Wahlberg was paid for them. There's nothing wrong with that and they had no reason to hide it. I could even have understood this scenario if Wahlberg had presented an issue about shooting another film that this reshoot was blocking or delaying. But Wahlberg never said any of those things, and as I understand it, Williams is actually the one who was in a position where the next project was impacted by her return to this film for 9 days.
Regarding your thoughts on Michelle Williams, your sarcasm is showing. Nobody said that it was controversial to point out that Mark Wahlberg has sold more movie tickets, regardless of the quality of the movie. (I don't think either of us would be standing here defending the high intellectual content of the Transformers movies or Daddy's Home...) My point wasn't about her acting abilities. I was referring to the reason why Williams is regularly cast every year in multiple feature films. Yes, she's a good actress. And yes, she is a draw for people who go to movies like Brokeback or Blue Valentine or Manchester. I expect she'll continue to be cast in movies for a good long time to come, and she'll continue to do interesting work. To be fair, we should note that actors like Mark Wahlberg come and go in the spotlight over the long term, while actors like Michelle Williams tend to stick around. Case in point: Burt Reynolds. In the 1970s, Reynolds was the biggest movie star in the year - regularly drawing massive salaries and filling movie theaters across the country. Flash forward 20 years and he found himself struggling to make a comeback, in addition to going through a humiliating public divorce. Flash forward to today and the man is a broken shadow of his younger self, reduced to selling his memorabilia and barely able to walk. Steven Seagal had a similar arc, albeit with far less talent than Reynolds had walking in. Seagal's arc was a lot shorter, given how little someone in his range can actually do onscreen. Mark Wahlberg has been smart enough to put himself into the producer's seat, so that he will at least have that to fall back on in a few years. Brad Pitt and George Clooney have taken similar approaches.
Re the Golden Globes, it sounds like you were watching it for the car-crash snarking fun. I honestly have never seen the point of that, but I get how it can be entertaining - particularly if one watches from that perspective. But I do call shenanigans about the notion that celebrity behavior does not bother you. If it was just a curious puzzle, you wouldn't regularly post about it, at times in an outraged tone. And I get it - these people can be annoying. They can be infuriating. I just don't see why you'd want to subject yourself to something that you know is only going to have a negative effect. I don't watch the Golden Globes because they have no meaning in the industry, and they're more of a joke than anything else. To me, the behavior there really is a curiosity, but not enough of one for me to watch.
As for why I would watch conservative-leaning programming like Fox News or listen to AM radio programming, it's because I believe in listening to everyone's point of view. I don't need to agree with Bill O'Reilly to acknowledge that he has at time made cogent points. If I only listened to Pacifica Radio and ignored everything else, I would have very little understanding of the world and anyone else in it. As far as websites like this one, I continue to contribute because we're discussing things that are part of the world in which I work. I'm curious to hear what people think about that work, which has always been the mainstay of this site. We have many things in common when it comes to our interests in film scores, classic television, etc. But I do reserve the right to speak up when I see something that's way off. That may not be popular, but it's the way I've conducted myself not only here but where I regularly live and work.