Mark Wahlberg and his talent agency, William Morris Endeavor, will donate $2 million to a fund dedicated to fighting pay inequity and harassment of women in Hollywood.Why shouldn't I presume that the agency would get the best deal it could for all of its clients? I guess, going forward, anyone representing an actress will be able to get more based on the bad publicity potential of disparate pay. But in this particular case — as I understand it (hard to tell from the NYT) — Williams had a contract that agreed to do reshooting and Wahlberg did not. That put Wahlberg in a strong bargaining position, and the agency got him $1.5 million for the extra 10 days of work. Williams was stuck performing on the contract she'd already signed, which may have been the best deal for her at the time it was made. Who had any idea this strange calamity would hit the film? (Kevin Spacey became so toxic, his scenes had to be reshot with a different actor.)
The donation will be made in the name of Michelle Williams, Mr. Wahlberg’s co-star in the movie “All the Money in the World,” after an outcry about pay discrepancy in reshoots for the film. Ms. Williams received a per diem of $80 for 10 days of work while Mr. Wahlberg negotiated a fee of $1.5 million. The two actors are represented by the same agency.
“Over the last few days my reshoot fee for ‘All the Money in the World’ has become an important topic of conversation,” Mr. Wahlberg said in a statement. “I 100% support the fight for fair pay and I’m donating the $1.5M to the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund in Michelle Williams’ name.”
January 14, 2018
Time's Up! — after a week of shaming — for Mark Wahlberg (who didn't do anything wrong).
The NYT reports:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
92 comments:
Sounds like Ms Williams needs a better agent and perhaps needs to get herself educated on contracts and contract law.
Why should Wahlberg have to pay for HER ineptitude?
Agree with DBQ.
@DBQ A key fact here is that the same agency represented both actors.
I would not assume she was poorly represented. A freakish thing happened, and she'd made a concession in her contract that may very well have been in her interest at the time she made the deal.
It could be she isn't worth what Wahlberg is or there's at least the perception she isn't worth what Wahlberg is.
Women could always go out and set up shop across the street from the studios and steal all the best female talent by paying them what they're worth.
I guess that the takeaway from this is that women are fluffy-brained creatures that shouldn’t be allowed to sign contracts or complicated stuff like that.
There must be some tax advantage or some other business benefit for Wahlberg in this. Its not like he gave Williams the one and half million.
Mark Wahlberg is a huge star. Possibly the biggest star in Hollywood. Michelle Williams is not. Her time is not nearly as valuable as his, and she is pretty much interchangeable with many other actresses, sorry to say. So yeah, he had enormous leverage and could insist on being paid extra for reshoots. The time he spends reshooting he could be spending making another megablockuster film. The guy has been a money making machine the last 7-8 years.
Learn to read the fine print yourself instead of relying on someone else to do it for you.
Who is really to blame here (if anyone)? Assume blame is in order, it's spread throughout an elaborate system.
The company making the movie got hit with a big problem and wouldn't have wanted to spend any extra money than it needed to.
At the point of signing the actors, why would it pay anyone more than they had to? But why were male stars getting more than females? It might have to do with the roles and the stories that are being told (which has something to do with what people are paying to see but possibly also the preferences of the people who control production).
The roles are extremely gendered and the actors and actresses are more stereotypically male and female than ordinary people are. That may have something to do with the supply. Masculine men may be much less likely to go into film acting than feminine women. The man has to be able to act and look right and appeal to audiences. Maybe audiences are more accepting of the next nice looking young woman than they are ready to accept a new man.
Strong Independent Women show their strength by whining to get more money, rather than working for it. Female entitlement on display.
You can't have real contracts with women. They're always allowed to change their minds.
I wonder what this fund is going to do to fight pay inequality in Hollywood. It sounds like a boondoggle in the making.
Ann has it right. Pretty women are a dime a dozen in Hollywood.
I wonder how much he charges to go on the field after the Patriots win the Super Bowl and kiss Brady’s ass? He does it great, gazing lovingly into Tom Terrific’s eyes.
This is an interesting case. Wahlberg did absolutely nothing wrong. Why is he in anyone's crosshairs -- other than because he's a man. This is what Sexism looks like.
Williams should have sued her Representative for securing a pretty lousy contract for her.
They should all sue Kevin Spacey.
I assume actors have learned a lesson from this in future negotiations.
What everyone above already said, but I admit I'm callous enough to have laughed at the extremely crappy pay of $80.00 a day. Have illegals been driving down the wages of no-name actors, too?
(I'm assuming she's a no-name, but I don't know most big names from Adam these days, either.)
Angel-Dyne. Michelle Williams isn't a no-name, she's a fairly big name. But she isn't a star that brings people to your movie. She's more in the category I'd call Good Actress.
OTOH Michelle Williams got more for the re-shoot than my ex-wife would have gotten, ceteris paribus.
I wonder how much they each got paid for the film, before the reshoots.
Of course Wahlberg did something wrong. A woman has bad feelz!
Maybe the crocodile will eat him last.
Paying people to go away only encourages them to come back.
Social justice, we love it. Want more of it. Ooooooh-rah.
Strangely, after all the machinations and money changing hands, Williams is still ostensibly left with $800 for 10 days work.
MayBee: Michelle Williams isn't a no-name, she's a fairly big name. But she isn't a star that brings people to your movie. She's more in the category I'd call Good Actress.
Then I'm laughing even harder. Somebody's agent done screwed up.
Hollywood is one of the least equitable places going when it comes to compensating the on-screen talent. The A-list men may not be happy with this move considering how much more they make than their female co-stars.
I think what's happening here is the appearance of impropriety, at least to the people who can't be troubled to dig deeper than "Muh gender pay gap!!11!11!1!1!!"
This move was to avoid the appearance of impropriety (and it was only an appearance, not actual). If only this concept could be grasped by people in government, where actual impropriety is openly flaunted.
Nobody mentions who Wahlburgs agent is, so I will
Rahm Twinkletoes Emmanuel's brother
John Henry
OpenID cyrus83 said...
Hollywood is one of the least equitable places going when it comes to compensating the on-screen talent.
Exactly.
So is the pay equity fund that's being created going to fight for SAG-AFTRA to equalize pay for top talent, like they do at the bottom? I don't think that will be popular.
I wonder if stars like Jennifer Lawrence and Michelle Williams have any idea how little sympathy America has when they quibble over millions. I’m unable to watch Jennifer Lawrence onscreen, so like nails on a chalkboard is she.
I can't find their original salaries for the film anywhere. The re-shoots storyline has taken over my Google.
It is possible that the market for Mark Wahlberg's services commands a higher price than the market for Michelle Williams' services. He's apparently a bankable star that a producer can use to guarantee box office, and Williams is ... not.
That has real value that translates into better contracts and $$$.
It doesn't seem complicated from where I sit. Could be wrong. But probably not.
But people want to turn it into a "wage gap" issue and virtue-signal the hell out of it. OK. Right.
@DBQ A key fact here is that the same agency represented both actors.
I wasn't aware of that, however, was it the same agent or a different one within the agency? I worked for an "agency" a broker dealer firm. There are many different agents within the firm representing their clients and not all agents are equally capable.
I would not assume she was poorly represented. A freakish thing happened, and she'd made a concession in her contract that may very well have been in her interest at the time she made the deal.
This is true. Her agent may have made the best deal for her at the time and SHE acquiesced to it. Just because her deal turned sour, through no fault of her own, why should someone else, who had nothing to do with it (Wahlberg) be financially punished and berated publicly.
Is she not responsible for her own actions or decisions? Instead of punishing an unconnected and innocent party, you would think that a responsible adult would chalk it up to a "learning experience", instead of playing the victim/feminist card. All of this knee jerk, feminist piling on for every perceived infraction, is doing the feminist agenda no good.
Live and learn. You can't be a victim all of your life, in everything that happens to you.
It is sort of insane to think of millionaire actresses as victims of the patriarchy. It’s so self-indulgent and ludicrous, just like how the stars acted at the Golden Globes.
Not only is Hollywood a den of rapists, it also systematically oppresses women. They should just stay in the kitchen where they belong. These men have been angry at women taking roles and getting paid ever since the days of Shakespeare.
Thank God Hollywood is here to save us all from Hollywood.
This blurb from ETOnline says Wahlberg took a pay cut to get the original film greenlit:
Before the allegations against Spacey even surfaced, Wahlberg originally took a significant pay cut when he signed on for the film, which had not been greenlit prior to his commitment.
I would not assume she was poorly represented. A freakish thing happened, and she'd made a concession in her contract that may very well have been in her interest at the time she made the deal.
As I read around the internet looking for information about their original salaries, I see that she was eager to be in this film because it is actually a starring role for a woman, and definitely awards bait. She wanted this movie made and released because it made her career brighter.
My understanding is (and this may be incorrect) Michelle Williams was willing to do the reshoots *for free* just to get Spacey out of the picture, but they *had* to pay her scale due to SAG-AFTRA minimums - which I assume are included as boilerplate in most contracts, so it was considered normal and mundane and not worth negotiating over.
My guess is that Wahlberg's agent negotiated that language *out* of the initial contract and they got a bonus payday out of it that they weren't expecting, but cleverly arranged for just in case.
It's also my understanding Michelle didn't make the initial issue of it, it was a friend who complained publicly at the Golden Globes.
As I understand it, Ridley Scott (the director-- male) also worked for free or scale for the reshoots.
Ha ha. The thing that was supposed to get them good publicity (removing Spacey) got them bad publicity.
Ha ha.
"I wonder what this fund is going to do to fight pay inequality in Hollywood."
-- I think, if anything, Wahlberg should have flat out given it to her, but not as a charitable contribution, but in a way it was fully taxable.
"This is true. Her agent may have made the best deal for her at the time and SHE acquiesced to it. Just because her deal turned sour, through no fault of her own, why should someone else, who had nothing to do with it (Wahlberg) be financially punished and berated publicly."
Wahlberg might have been able to get a higher price if he hadn't reserved his right to bargain over reshoots. Maybe that term was important to him because he wants tighter control of his time, and he has other work.
Call me cynical, but I believe there is a good reason her original salary is never mentioned in the pity-poor-Michelle-Williams storyline of the reshoots.
Movie stars discover that the world isn't like the movies they act in.. It's so easy to fabricate a just, equitable society where true love triumphs in the finished film, but first you need to sate the sartyrs, embezzlers, and egotists who are involved in the making of that film.........I just recently saw Battle of the Sexes. It was based on the tennis match between Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King. Total crock. Bobby Riggs was presented as a poor, lonely soul tormented by his addiction to gambling. I always figured Bobby Riggs as more like Sgt Bilko than as some Dostoevsky character, but that would make him too much fun for a feminist narrative. In the movie, Billie Jean has a tender, loving relationship with her girlfriend, and her husband is a bit of a cypher. In reality, it was Billie Jean's girlfriend who outed her when she sued her for palinony. Not so loving. Her husband was a business entrepreneur who initiated and set up the separate women's league of tennis. Theyre divorced now, but they remain close friends. In reality, the heterosexual relationship was more supportive and enduring than the lesbian one. That's not the kind of story that Hollywood can get their head around.
"I assume actors have learned a lesson from this in future negotiations."
-- That, like almost everyone else in the private world, they should keep their pay private?
Mark Wahlberg is a box-office draw, Michelle Williams is not. More time and effort was put into negotiating Wahlberg's contract in an effort to get him (and the ultimately his agency) as much money as possible. Maybe Michelle Williams needs to shut up and try upping her game in the future.
Why shouldn't I presume that the agency would get the best deal it could for all of its clients?
I don't know, but if the market economics are correct on this then get ready for either: 1. Fewer women in film, 2. Lower quality films, or 3. Somehow magic will happen and people will now have their consciousness forcibly shifted to find the more boring, less risk-taking sex to be way more compelling onscreen.
1) Mark Wahlberg will fill seats in the theater and get people to order/download the movie. (2) They had contracts that were followed.
If, by her name alone, Michelle Williams could bring 30 people into a theater to watch a movie, I'd be surprised. (30 people who were not friends or family). This is not a knock on Michelle, but this is a reflection of the marketplace. I doubt that she could.
Mark Wahlberg could star in a movie featuring him and a talking teddy bear, and still fill enough seats and get enough downloads to spark a sequel. This is what pays for Hollywood. Not the Michelle Williams of the world. At least, not yet for her.
Early in their careers, when they're in their early twenties, is the pay disparity between men and women that great? The problem is that women are so strikingly attractive when they're young, and the moment passes. Men retain their sex appeal for an extra ten or twenty years. Blame Darwin. Anyway, men who retain their star status into middle age and beyond pick up the big paychecks. There are some women stars like Julia Roberts or Sandra Bullock whom the audience is willing to follow into middle age, but not so many as men.
This is from a different NYT article:
Although several actors with small parts, including Timothy Hutton, had agreed to return for reshoots for minimum pay, Mr. Wahlberg was not one of them, according to the people briefed on the negotiations. He asked his primary agent, Doug Lucterhand, to push for more money. (Ms. Williams is represented at William Morris Endeavor by Brent Morley.) Mr. Wahlberg was already not thrilled to have worked for roughly 80 percent less than his standard fee, the people said, especially since overseas distributors were using his box office track record to promote the film.
Because Ms. Williams had already committed to return, Mr. Wahlberg had leverage over the production team: He was the only major missing piece, and the clock was ticking. The finished film was set to be released in theaters on Dec. 25.
Imperative ultimately agreed to a $1.5 million payment.
So Wahlberg took a pay cut at the beginning- as perhaps did Williams. And it was more in her interest (she was the star!) to get the film to the public.
In the meantime, the movie is struggling to make money. So talk about economics.....
Nobody mentions who Wahlburgs agent is, so I will
Rahm Twinkletoes Emmanuel's brother
John Henry
Mark Wahlberg will fill seats in the theater and get people to order/download the movie
If, by her name alone, Michelle Williams could bring 30 people into a theater to watch a movie, I'd be surprised
I know who Mark Wahlberg is. When his name is mentioned I know some of the movies he has been in and can see his face in my mind's eye.
Michelle Williams.....I had to google search for her. I had and still have no real idea who she is. Her face doesn't stand out and she looks like one of 50 generic blond actresses. Even her name is generic.
THIS is one reason that Wahlberg gets paid more. He is WORTH more.
Imagine if Michelle WIlliams said: "This is stupid. Mark should keep the money. He earned it by negotiating shrewdly. If it was my $1.5 Million, I would keep it."
We are not surprised nowadays, when people do not take that kind of high road. It would make some people -- maybe starting with Mark Wahlberg -- want to work with her more, though.
Well aybee did mention the agent and I see I was misinformed about Emmanuel
So sue me
John Henry
The new Blacklist is a powerful tool, and Wahlberg was wise to avoid being placed on it.
She should have thanked Markey Mark for agreeing to help her get her vehicle rolling and thrown in a tag team blowjob with one of her girlfriends. Wahlberg paid his dues years ago.
"Her face doesn't stand out and she looks like one of 50 generic blond actresses."
-- I recognized her as the Dawson's Creek girl. I couldn't tell you what else she's been in though. I was just surprised she was still acting.
Michelle Williams was a supporting actress in the very well-known movie Brokeback Mountain and partner of the late and marginally legendary Heath Ledger so if her name has to be GOOGLED despite all that to know who she is then you know this is all fucking bullshit anyway. She just didn't make the mark that she thought that by virtue of her gender she had made.
THis stuff is getting so out of hand.
Nobody cares how much money The Funky Bunch made.
Is she not responsible for her own actions or decisions?
Of course not. She's female.
I think we're all hypothesizing without knowing what the standard movie contract looks like. Maybe most contracts are like Wahlberg's but I'd bet that most are like the contract Williams signed -- you put X number of days into the original shoot, you can do another couple days of reshoots after they start editing. No biggie -- until the reshoots run a couple weeks.
I note that Mark Wahlberg is an extremely prolific actor, shooting 17 movies just since 2012 (see his filmography here) and reshoots may cause significant problems for him, e.g., if he's shooting on location and has to return to Hollywood, and consequently he may have added an unusual clause to motivate his directors to get it right the first time and to cover his expenses if he has to abruptly leave one film set to do reshoots for a different film.
I also see that Williams' career is taking off lately, and it will be no help to her if a pissed-off Mark Wahlberg insists to his agent that he never wants to make another film with her again. Not that anybody in the "Time's Up" movement cares.
We watch Brokeback Mountain every Christmas! That movie won awards from Hollywood people, you guys are not trying to say that you don't watch it every year too? It's like Sixteen Candles, you have to watch it a lot to get the full effect.
The only people who did anything wrong here are the people shaming Wahlberg.
I guess you could say Williams screwed up, but only in the way of betting on the wrong thing, but it still might have been the safest bet for her.
The person least in the wrong is Wahlberg, who did his duty to himself, his agent, and his dependents by getting the most he could just like everyone else would including the critics. I'm sure he had weak negotiating positions in his past that in hindsight look foolish or unfair today, but he is a man and never had the option of whining about that. Imagine him doing that. Would it be respected, honored, rewarded? He had to just go back to work and work harder.
At Wahlberg's tax rate it will cost him about half, assuming this is a charitable deduction. He should not have caved, but Hollywood is all about posing, and hypocrisy - rarely principle or honesty.
Democrats have no concept of what the term "contract" is supposed to mean.
Just another symptom of a social construct in terminal decline, namely Hollywood and all that goes with it — film stars, moguls, the BIG money. Hollywood and film culture generally are about a century old, that's a pretty good run on one head of steam. Perhaps it is time for Hollywood to fade away. It took a World War to erase the Victorian Era, perhaps this #MeToo excrement will likewise erase the Great Makebelieve.
It is now thirteen years more or less since I pulled the plug on my TV. It was a trial at first, what was I to do with these long evenings without the "background noise" of television corrupting the silence of thought? It was something like the discomfort city dwellers experience at night in the country, no traffic noise, no sound of the hustle and bustle of humanity in its multitudes, no street lights, no garishly illuminated signage, just the Moon and the stars and the whispers of nocturnal things going about their lives. They lie awake in their beds, restless without the discordant lullaby of the city. But eventually, they get used to it and learn to appreciate life dictated by the cycles of the heavens rather than the networks' scheduling managers. I got used to no TV. Now I find it boring in the extreme. In living my social life I find I cannot absolutely avoid television, to do that requires a hermitage. I'm not a hermit or an ascetic of any kind, I'm just a person who is over Hollywood, at least its current manifestation. However, when I am confronted with the insistent rectangular thing I find myself becoming utterly bored with it and my acquaintances whose attention it holds hostage. It's like being the only sober person in a roomful of drunks. Virtually nothing broadcast on the air or via a cable service can hold my interest very long, even "science" documentaries because they are pared down so ruthlessly to match the "ideal" demographic (which appears to be a 14-year-old girl with an IQ south of 90) that there's hardly any meat remaining to nourish a hungry mind. To carry the metaphor a bit further, television is like denuded bone sold at filet mignon prices.
Movies are about the same. When I first pulled the plug I thought Netflix would fill the void. Such a fool I was. I exhausted their library of worthwhile content in about three weeks. I took me a few months to realize that the really good films were too expensive to license for the skinflints who operate Netflix. Apparently, their business model encompasses the inventory of the typical video rental store located in a lower-middle income suburb. Then it was bye-bye Netflix. The others aren't much better. That's when I began to read again. The volume of my reading had always been higher than average, a steady rain compared to the median drizzle. Now it is positively torrential. My outlay for ebooks, audiobooks, and real paper 'n glue hardbacks exceeds what most people pay for premium cable service, and I don't regret a penny of it. The only films I seem to enjoy these days are classic film noirs, and it's not nostalgia. Most of them premiered a decade or two before I was born. What holds me is the craft of them — acting, writing, direction, lighting, what have you, the whole megillah. A few modern offering can compete with Double Indemnity, but not many. In the last ten years only three new films really returned an aesthetic profit for me, the rest were breakevens and red ink writeoffs. For example, the other day I finally watched the much ballyhooed Dunkirk, a film that should have riveted my attention, but no. My thoughts constantly returned to how wasted Kenneth Branagh was in that sadly disjointed pointlessly worm-eyed disappointment. There's plenty of room for another Dunkirk, one would say a vastness.
I've always believed the example of Wahlberg's best acting involved not a single word of dialogue at all.
I wonder why we use the phrases "man up", and "don't be a girl"? Is it male hubris, becuase women say that the most, although usually only to men.
You ladies need to stop coddling each other. If you truely want equality, then treat yourselves equal. Not just taking the convenient good stuff. It's like going to Vegas and telling them you get to win every time because you're a girl.
Hey, we're busy having a hissy fit here.
Stop trying to interrupt us with facts.
It does seem another step in the removal of agency of women.
"We don't understand the contract we negotiated!"
Has she fired her agent? If not I assume she was, and remains, satisfied with her representation/contract.
I think less of anyone in this type of situation for not halting the issue in its tracks.
It seems that she favored security over compensation. At least until #MeToo activism created exploitable leverage for a retroactive contract change. Wahlberg is simply managing risk by paying off the feminist mafia proactively, as is customary for individuals and corporations when threatened with litigation, JournoListic abuse, and Occupation by the diversity racket.
Mark Wahlberg donates $2 million to some bogus equality charity. Meanwhile Michelle Williams is still Rat Fucked. Why not just give the cash to Michelle Williams, she would be happy and this agency would get another 15% on the same cash. Walberg could write it all off.
Speaking of pay inequality in acting, where is the movement to equalize male porn star pay to that of the female porn stars?
Why would any film company use Michelle Williams in future?
Bad publicity.
I've no idea who she is and I expect - without checking - that she's very attractive. But Hollywood is not short of very attractive women.
Why should a studio take a risk on her and what her friend might say in the future, when very attractive women are not a scarce commodity in Hollywood - one reason why a disgusting lech like Weinstein could be so successful.
Sorry. I just don't get the idea og Brokeback Mountain
Someone needs to explain to me again why I should watch a movie about 2 gay sheepshaggers. Or shepherds.
And why does every article I've ever seen call them cowboys instead of shepherds?
John Henry
Not only was there a difference in contracts, but everyone has heard of him, and most people haven't heard of her. Total nonsense. Can't believe they're making that ridiculous donation.
1. Hooray for Mark Wahlberg, you have the representation to get you all the $$$ that you deserve.
2. Michelle Williams didn't complain, so stop calling her a whiny "B".
3. He could have gotten ahead of the bad press by just stating the obvious, he is a bigger, bankable star than Michelle. No doubt about that. She is way more talented but she is not the draw that he is. She knows that, she is not playing the victim in all of this.
4. It was a good thing that Wahlberg donated that money.
Back off both of them, people. Neither of these people started this whirlwind so neither can be blamed for the direction it took.
Vicki from Pasadena
Between this and the Aziz Ansari "sexual assault" story today, its becoming clear that young women today want protection from the society they've helped create, but can't ask for it in the name of religion or morality.
From Wahlberg's Wikipedia entry:
"At 16, Wahlberg approached a middle-aged Vietnamese man named Thanh Lam on the street, and using a large wooden stick, bashed him over the head until he was knocked unconscious while calling him a "Vietnam fucking shit". That same day, Wahlberg also attacked a second Vietnamese man named Hoa "Johnny" Trinh, sucker punching him in the eye. According to court documents regarding these crimes, when Wahlberg was arrested later that night and returned to the scene of the first assault, he stated to police officers: "You don't have to let him identify me, I'll tell you now that's the mother-fucker whose head I split open." Investigators also noted that Wahlberg "made numerous unsolicited racial statements about 'gooks' and 'slant-eyed gooks'."...
"Commenting in 2006 on his past crimes, Wahlberg stated: "I did a lot of things that I regret, and I have certainly paid for my mistakes." He said the right thing to do would be to try to find the blinded man and make amends, and admitted he has not done so, but added that he was no longer burdened by guilt: "You have to go and ask for forgiveness and it wasn't until I really started doing good and doing right by other people, as well as myself, that I really started to feel that guilt go away. So I don't have a problem going to sleep at night. I feel good when I wake up in the morning." In 2016, Wahlberg said he'd met Trinh and apologized for his "horrific acts".
She said she'd work for nearly nothing to get the movie completed, because she believed so much in it. Now she's unhappy that they took her offer.
Walhberg wanted the movie completed too, I suppose, but did they guy thing and asked for pay for it.
Wahlberg realized he had them over a barrel. Williams let her emotions run off with her. If she had held out for some pay, they would have paid her. Think of how much is riding on having her come do her bits over...just as much as having Wahlberg come back. That movie isn't getting out of the barn unless everyone cooperates, and the studio is set to make a lot on this film, just because of the hype.
Williams needs a Dad in her life who will help her negotiate. Just as a woman should take a man with her when she's buying a car, she should have a man who cares about her give his opinion for this sort of thing.
Girls can learn how to do this just like the boys. I think it's more natural for guys, though.
Look. Some of you people like Wahlberg and some of you don't. But the fact remains that he's a freaking genius at acting and he was a freaking genius from the very beginning like when he played that differently enabled guy in "Who's Eating Gilbert's Grapes."
And he was totally awesome in "A River Runs to It."
So keep some perspective, people!!!
I am altering the deal, pray that I do not alter it further.
Mac McConnellMark Wahlberg donates $2 million to some bogus equality charity. Meanwhile Michelle Williams is still Rat Fucked. Why not just give the cash to Michelle Williams, she would be happy and this agency would get another 15% on the same cash. Walberg could write it all off.
Reaaaaally? Please explain how he could write off the money if he just gave it to Michelle Williams.
The problem is not necessarily her representation. Walberg is a huge star. Huge. Unless one is as huge a star as he is, one is not going to get the same deals he gets. It's that simple.
Michelle Williams net worth is reportedly $16 million.
The white male exploiters here should be jailed for putting her at risk of homelessness. Obviously, the money to pay Wahlberg came right out of her knickers, so to speak.
It's not personal. It's business.
Tell that’s shit to the Jezebel website Victoria.
They are losing their minds over this. It’s hilarious.
Somebody should go over there and post this thread. I would but I can’t seem to be able to post for some reason.
Between this and the Aziz Ansari "sexual assault" story today, its becoming clear that young women today want protection from the society they've helped create, but can't ask for it in the name of religion or morality.
I was thinking things along these lines when reading the Shitty Men spreadsheet thread the other day. It is interesting how the bad acts we keep reading about in these contexts run the gamut from outright illegal assault to caddish behavior, and how a great deal of the the caddish behavior can be avoided by, sorry to be blunt, not being a slut. Don't even entertain the notion of sleeping with people you work with or are not in a committed relationship with and none of that crap can even touch you. (Note: this does not include aggressive unwanted advances, assault etc.) I mean, sleeping with your boss and having him clandestinely remove the condom can't ruin your life if you, you know, don't sleep with your boss, or with people you have to use a condom with in the first place. A little old-fashioned morality along the lines of casual sex being frowned upon would do us all a world of good. That is the advice that would actually HELP women avoid being victims or 'victims,' but God help anyone who has the guts to say, perhaps if you don't want men to treat you like slabs of meat with no self-respect, you could consider not fucking your coworkers and strangers you meet on Tinder.
(I realize that was a bit off-topic, but also not, because are women sensible enough to learn from mistakes, or not? Do they want freedom or do they want to be protected from freedom?)
2020 - who will be the better negotiating team - MSM for Oprah vs Trump by himself and his skills stack for persuasion?
Post a Comment