The Business: News, Rumours, Analysis, and More

[xaxat]

Really shitty. But, unfortunately, not much of a surprise.

Exclusive: Wahlberg got $1.5M for 'All the Money' reshoot, Williams paid less than $1,000

The whole story is so messed up.

[methodwriter85]

You mean all that stuff about how the actors did it for free only really applied to the woman and not the alpha male lead?  I'm shocked.

[NUguy514]

1 hour ago, xaxat said:

Really shitty. But, unfortunately, not much of a surprise.

Exclusive: Wahlberg got $1.5M for 'All the Money' reshoot, Williams paid less than $1,000

The whole story is so messed up.

[absnow54]

The article posted here is much better than the Entertainment Weekly one I saw this morning, which made it seem like Whalberg got paid 1500x Williams salary for the entire shoot (although given Q ratings and Michelle Williams pension for indie award bait, I'm sure there was a huge discrepancy in their overall salaries too.) I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know the magnitude of reshoots required for both actors (I assume it's obvious based on what scenes Christopher Plummer is in.) Based on trailers and ads, it looked like Mark Whalberg shared more scenes with him, and therefore probably had more extensive reshoots. That said, if reshoots took place over a week. Even if Michelle Williams was only needed for an hour of filming. The most generous way you could play this. Pretending that Mark Whalberg filmed for 24 hours a day over 7 days. That would still make his hourly rate nearly $9000. Meaning he was still paid at least 9 times more than Michelle Williams.

[afterbite]

I can see where Wahlberg had them over a barrel here since he decided he wasn't going to do it because it needed doing and that they couldn't simply reshoot the whole thing, including the scenes he was in with an actor replacing him, but I wish they could have. I might actually see the movie if they'd switched him out for someone else. Pretty minimal chance with him in it, because I refuse to support anything he's associated with. I hate that this dude, who is neither a good person nor a good actor, is in top box office movies. I refuse to say he's a top box office draw, because I imagine people go see Transformers movies because they're Transformers movies and not because he's in them. Then again, I will freely admit that my abject dislike of him could be coloring his actual importance to the motion picture industry in this case.

[SeanC]

I’m kind of surprised that the actors’ contracts didn’t cover reshoots.  In which case, my guess would be that the studio approached the stars about doing the reshoots cheap, which Williams agreed to, but Wahlberg held them for ransom.

[absnow54]

I’m kind of surprised that the actors’ contracts didn’t cover reshoots. In which case, my guess would be that the studio approached the stars about doing the reshoots cheap, which Williams agreed to, but Wahlberg held them for ransom.

I'm sure they did, as reshoots are pretty common, but they don't usually take place 3 weeks before the film is released, at least not major ones. I would guess they're usually scheduled well in advance, as actors schedules get booked up (see the reshoots for Justice League and Henry Cavil's digitally removed mustache) so it might not have been cheap for Mark to move around his schedule (or, he was just being a dick.) I think SAG-AFTRA rates are right around $1k a day, which supports Michelle doing it for "nothing" since she's at least required union wages.

[Angeleyes]

I’ve been wondering if Mark Wahlberg was already in the midst of filming another movie and they had to pay a higher price for reshoots for him to cover any financial penalties he incurred for missing time on the other film?  I hope we get further explanation soon. 

[Morrigan2575]

I wish there was more details to this report.  Ridley Scott, Michelle Williams and other actors all agreed to come back for cheap for whatever reasons. I don't think this is about pay discrepancy but, more an actor only caring about money while everyone cared about the principles involved.

[caracas1914]

Catherine Denueve signed a letter with 100 other prominent French women who think #metoo (at least in France) has gone too far.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/01/10/europe/catherine-deneuve-france-letter-metoo-intl/index.html

 

I don’t think it’s so much cultural as class elitism; Denueve can appreciate the art of seduction but I seriously doubt she runs across the type of harassment other do.

[aradia22]

First reaction to the French letter. Well, that's shitty. Especially the Roman Polanski part. Let it go, France. You're not winning that one. Second reaction, I'm about to go to bed. Give me a while and I'll try to read it in French and report back.

[NUguy514]

Yeah, Deneuve's support of Polanski means I won't consider anything else she has to say.  Fuck her, that man is a monster.

[aradia22]

Well, this had a lot of vocabulary I didn't know so I had to lean on google translate a little (lots of Sexy French Depression in high school classes but I didn't need words like "rape" or "social media"). The gist...

They do trot out the same rape is a crime we're not disagreeing that there's a necessary conversation happening now about sexual violence argument. But then it immediately gets to how they feel like they're accused of being traitors and that they're being silenced and this limits free speech. (And yeah, no, however you translate it that line about Puritanism and witches and victimhood is bonkers.) They complain that without means of defending themselves or responding, people were indicted on social media and in the press. (Except nope...? Because these are entertainment industry people? And they certainly had a means of responding. Dustin Hoffman responded. Ed Westwick responded. They didn't have a means of shutting down the conversation or convincing people of their innocence. But they were certainly able to respond.) They complain that this form of "justice" has had its "victims" who were forced to resign just because, while at work, they tried to touch a knee, steal a kiss, talked about intimate things at business dinners, or sent sexual messages to women who did not reciprocate. (Um, dafuq? No shit. Firstly, once again doing inappropriate shit and sexual harassment is 100% grounds for being fired. You're not a victim because of that. You're not supposed to do that kind of shit at work. Secondly, forcing unwanted physical contact or sexual attention on someone outside of work is not great either.) Also, all of this is bad because instead of helping women to claim autonomy, it aids the cause of enemies of sexual freedom and religious extremists and treats women like children who have to be protected. (This is so fucking French.) Men are supposed to exercise self reflection on behavior from 10, 20, or 30 years ago and repent. (Firstly, adorable that you think all this bad behavior is so far in the past. Secondly, what is bad about self-reflection and then asking for forgiveness and trying to do better if it's warranted after that self reflection? How do you think things change if perpetrators and those complicit are never self-reflective? Otherwise then it is always going to be up to victims coming forward after the fact instead of actually changing the culture.) The wave of purification has no limit. Examples of stuff. (I do think sometimes all kinds of liberal/social justice movements may be overly zealous and have the effect of limiting or silencing art. And that's a valid conversation to have. But also, maybe we need to stop celebrating Roman Polanski all the goddamn time and letting him still work without punishment or repercussion. Also, being critical about the artwork itself and calling it problematic doesn't mean that's where the analysis stops and you can't ever watch that movie again. People have been calling movies misogynistic forever and those movies still get watched.)  Already, editors are demanding we make male characters less sexist. (Oh, no... someone is asking me to make changes in my work. Censorship! You can finance a movie yourself. You can self-publish a book. If you're 1. dependent on someone else and 2. making art for a mass audience then you're not entitled to do whatever you want and you're not entitled to have it received however you want it to be received.) Blah, blah some nonsense about an app. (Which actually sounds a bit like BDSM contracts which you'd think sexually liberated French people would be into.) Some philosopher said the freedom to offend is indispensable to art. (1. Cool for that guy. People say a lot of things. It doesn't mean they're right. 2. No one said you couldn't make offensive things. Do it on your own time with your own money. 3. And if it gets received poorly you can't complain. Offensive art doesn't have to be popular art or celebrated art, ok?) At the same time, we defend a freedom to annoy as indispensable to sexual freedom. (Again, dafuq?) The sexual impulse is by nature offensive and savage but we are able to not confuse clumsy flirting with sexual aggression. (Admittedly, this sentence was particularly hard for me to parse. The structure of the sentence feels off and its hard to tell what they're actually arguing. The first part is an MRA/pick up artist argument. So... nope on that.) Then there's a weird bit about how women are complicated so in the same day they can be businesswomen but also be sexual objects without being complicit in patriarchy and also not be traumatized by inappropriate contact on the subway. (I'm starting to think some of these weird sentences are not my faulty translation skills but just terribly phrased arguments. 1. Yes, it's not either or where you can only be intellectual and professional and a feminist or you can be a sexual being who enjoys male attention. 2. If you're specifically being objectified, which is different from just being desired or being in a romantic relationship and if you are participating in a project of female objectification for a movie or something then yes, that is helping to bolster patriarchal structures. I'm tired of this pop feminist argument that anything a woman chooses to do is feminism. It's not. Sometimes you make a personal or artistic choice that has political implications. It's OK to be critical of that. It's also OK to not throw everything away and assume you're a garbage person. 3. Where did this subway thing come in? No one is asking you to be traumatized. They are asking you to be supportive of people who have experienced traumatic situations. What is so bad about asking you to be empathetic?) As women, we don't recognize ourselves in man-hating feminism or feminism that hates sexuality. (Oh, wow. How fucking original. Feminists hate men and sex. What else? They're lesbians who loves cats? Glad you felt you had to write this letter to show that you're the "good ones." Sexual aggression and a lack of consent is not sexuality.)

[vibeology]

Thank you for all that @aradia22. I too have some high school French and took a pass at the letter and think your translations are about as good as you're going to get. Some of the sentences are strange because the arguments are a hot mess.

 

26 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

They complain that this form of "justice" has had its "victims" who were forced to resign just because, while at work, they tried to touch a knee, steal a kiss, talked about intimate things at business dinners, or sent sexual messages to women who did not reciprocate. (Um, dafuq? No shit. Firstly, once again doing inappropriate shit and sexual harassment is 100% grounds for being fired. You're not a victim because of that. You're not supposed to do that kind of shit at work. Secondly, forcing unwanted physical contact or sexual attention on someone outside of work is not great either.)

I also would love for these people to point me to the person who was fired for one time touching someone's knee. Because I've been following this story very closely and I don't remember that person. What I do remember is James Franco winning an award last weekend even though he was exposed trying to pick up a teenager for sex a few years back. I remember the asshole who groped Terry Crews getting a month suspension and already being back at work. Dustin Hoffman got asked a few uncomfortable questions at a press event. Woody Allen is still filming a movie and has Amazon's backing. The (too few) people who have been fired have been accused of multiple rapes and assaults. A few men have quit and admitted to harassment to get ahead of the story. But I don't remember anyone being fired for one knee touch or one isolated sext. That is a fantasy being used to excuse far worse behaviours.

Also, all this subway stuff- I commute on a bus every work day. I have been brushed up against because it's too crowded and I have been groped. I can tell the difference. I've never met a woman who can't. I've never made a fuss or been bothered by accidental touching. I have called out gropers. And if I was traumatized by the latter, (though no, that seems far to extreme a word for me personally) that would be my right to feel the way I feel.

[aradia22]

I think people are sometimes uncritical of the work of different social ideologies and power structures in shaping how they see the world to their detriment. There are a lot of things in the culture that maliciously/nefariously and unconsciously promote the importance and virtue of things like stoicism and being cool and tough and unfazed and unemotional, etc. It's a lot to unpack so I'm simplifying. Where you run into trouble is when you're not critical of why you think the way you do and then still apply those feelings to be critical of other people. I live in NY and take the subway most places. One night a guy sat next to me, whipped out his dick and started masturbating. It was late at night and I didn't see the point of making a thing about it so I just moved to another train car at the next stop. Does it make me tougher or cooler or braver or better for not being traumatized by this? No. Would I be angry at another woman if she had felt violated or emotional after this? No. Because empathy is a thing and everyone doesn't feel the way you do. 

[Angeleyes]

Apparently, Wahlberg’s demand for more money stemmed from a clause of first refusal for co-stars. He refused to approve Plummer without more pay. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/01/11/exclusive-mark-wahlberg-refused-approve-christopher-plummer-unless-he-paid/1026347001/

[SeanC]

53 minutes ago, Angeleyes said:

Apparently, Wahlberg’s demand for more money stemmed from a clause of first refusal for co-stars. He refused to approve Plummer without more pay. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/01/11/exclusive-mark-wahlberg-refused-approve-christopher-plummer-unless-he-paid/1026347001/

Yeah, I figured it was something like that.

This is a bit of a weird instance, in that the gender pay gap in Hollywood is undeniable, but this isn’t really a good example of it.  It’s not about the studio valuing Williams less, it’s Wahlberg dickishly extracting maximum value.

[aradia22]

To me those aren't hugely different problems. Because a system is in place where someone like Wahlberg (or Robert Downey Jr. or whatever white male it is at the moment) has more bargaining power. And he's also choosing to be a dick instead of going along with what's best for the movie without gouging them for more money which they could easily lose with all the scandal already threatening to sink the movie which is why they recast in the first place. 

Quote

Williams previously told USA TODAY that when Scott's team called to request her time for the reshoot, "I said I'd be wherever they needed me, whenever they needed me. And they could have my salary, they could have my holiday, whatever they wanted. Because I appreciated so much that they were making this massive effort."

It's too early for me to get into this without rambling wildly but this quote just kills me. Because it's so familiar. Women are always being nice and good and kind and getting less for it and not even being valued and appreciated for it. It's just expected and their kindness is taken advantage of while men stomp around acting like dicks and, for the most part, no one thinks worse of them for it. 

The most recent example of a woman playing hardball I can remember is Jennifer Lawrence. I can't remember if she held up X-Men or Hunger Games or Passengers or some combination of them by refusing to do the movie or sequel unless she was paid more. It's tough to have this conversation around people who are making so much more money than many people see in their lifetimes. It becomes loaded. But going back to Williams, it's a familiar pattern at all economic and class levels. 

[afterbite]

2 hours ago, aradia22 said:

To me those aren't hugely different problems. Because a system is in place where someone like Wahlberg (or Robert Downey Jr. or whatever white male it is at the moment) has more bargaining power. And he's also choosing to be a dick instead of going along with what's best for the movie without gouging them for more money which they could easily lose with all the scandal already threatening to sink the movie which is why they recast in the first place. 

It's too early for me to get into this without rambling wildly but this quote just kills me. Because it's so familiar. Women are always being nice and good and kind and getting less for it and not even being valued and appreciated for it. It's just expected and their kindness is taken advantage of while men stomp around acting like dicks and, for the most part, no one thinks worse of them for it. 

The most recent example of a woman playing hardball I can remember is Jennifer Lawrence. I can't remember if she held up X-Men or Hunger Games or Passengers or some combination of them by refusing to do the movie or sequel unless she was paid more. It's tough to have this conversation around people who are making so much more money than many people see in their lifetimes. It becomes loaded. But going back to Williams, it's a familiar pattern at all economic and class levels. 

I just made a similar quote in the Weinstein thread, but you put it so much more succinctly (and so much better) than I did. Great job outlining what stinks about this.

[NUguy514]

Wahlberg is a homophobic, racist, misogynistic, violent asshole and an almost always shitty actor, so I shouldn't be surprised by this.  I can only hope that these revelations at this particular time in history will cause everyone in Hollywood to turn on him, but I sadly doubt anything will actually come of it.

[AshleyN]

4 hours ago, aradia22 said:

To me those aren't hugely different problems. Because a system is in place where someone like Wahlberg (or Robert Downey Jr. or whatever white male it is at the moment) has more bargaining power. And he's also choosing to be a dick instead of going along with what's best for the movie without gouging them for more money which they could easily lose with all the scandal already threatening to sink the movie which is why they recast in the first place. 

It's too early for me to get into this without rambling wildly but this quote just kills me. Because it's so familiar. Women are always being nice and good and kind and getting less for it and not even being valued and appreciated for it. It's just expected and their kindness is taken advantage of while men stomp around acting like dicks and, for the most part, no one thinks worse of them for it. 

The most recent example of a woman playing hardball I can remember is Jennifer Lawrence. I can't remember if she held up X-Men or Hunger Games or Passengers or some combination of them by refusing to do the movie or sequel unless she was paid more. It's tough to have this conversation around people who are making so much more money than many people see in their lifetimes. It becomes loaded. But going back to Williams, it's a familiar pattern at all economic and class levels. 

God, this. And beyond just not being appropriately valued or appreciated for being a team player, we've literally JUST SEEN, with Mira Sorvino and Ashley Judd, how easy it is to kill a women's career with just a whisper of her being "difficult". If anyone other than a white male had tried to pull a stunt like this they'd never work again.

[Trini]

5 hours ago, aradia22 said:

It's too early for me to get into this without rambling wildly but this quote just kills me. Because it's so familiar. Women are always being nice and good and kind and getting less for it and not even being valued and appreciated for it. It's just expected and their kindness is taken advantage of while men stomp around acting like dicks and, for the most part, no one thinks worse of them for it. 

And half the time, they actually get rewarded for it.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Trini

[Captain Carrot]

8 hours ago, NUguy514 said:

Wahlberg is a homophobic, racist, misogynistic, violent asshole and an almost always shitty actor, so I shouldn't be surprised by this.  I can only hope that these revelations at this particular time in history will cause everyone in Hollywood to turn on him, but I sadly doubt anything will actually come of it.

It won't as long as his movies are successful. But dickish behavior does catch up to actors if they have a few bombs. (Just ask Val Kilmer). So, this could still come back to haunt Wahlberg. (fingers crossed).

[SeanC]

The PR heat was too hot for Marky Mark, apparently, as he's now donating the money to the Time's Up legal defense fund in Williams' name.

Damage control, but it's a positive that he was shamed into donating the money to a worthy cause.

[NUguy514]

Had this whole thing not become public knowledge, Wahlberg would never have done that, so this is all about trying to save face. Also, his donating it in Williams' name infuriates me even more, although I'm not sure if I can specify exactly why. I'm glad for #TimesUp, but fuck. him.

[Kel Varnsen]

On 12/01/2018 at 9:59 AM, aradia22 said:

To me those aren't hugely different problems. Because a system is in place where someone like Wahlberg (or Robert Downey Jr. or whatever white male it is at the moment) has more bargaining power. And he's also choosing to be a dick instead of going along with what's best for the movie without gouging them for more money which they could easily lose with all the scandal already threatening to sink the movie which is why they recast in the first place. 

It's too early for me to get into this without rambling wildly but this quote just kills me. Because it's so familiar. Women are always being nice and good and kind and getting less for it and not even being valued and appreciated for it. It's just expected and their kindness is taken advantage of while men stomp around acting like dicks and, for the most part, no one thinks worse of them for it. 

The most recent example of a woman playing hardball I can remember is Jennifer Lawrence. I can't remember if she held up X-Men or Hunger Games or Passengers or some combination of them by refusing to do the movie or sequel unless she was paid more. It's tough to have this conversation around people who are making so much more money than many people see in their lifetimes. It becomes loaded. But going back to Williams, it's a familiar pattern at all economic and class levels. 

Keep in mind though that the money Wahlberg got was just money that came from the movie production company or studio. So as much as he is generally a jackass, it is not like it was a movie being funded by an orphanage because they needed to make money to keep open. To me it is almost like hin asking for and getting money and Williams and not even asking for money are two separate issues.

Edited January 14, 2018 by Kel Varnsen

[janie jones]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

To me it is almost like hin asking for and getting money and Williams and not even asking for money are two separate issues.

I completely agree with this.

[methodwriter85]

12 hours ago, SeanC said:

The PR heat was too hot for Marky Mark, apparently, as he's now donating the money to the Time's Up legal defense fund in Williams' name.

Damage control, but it's a positive that he was shamed into donating the money to a worthy cause.

Can I just say that I love you for calling him Marky Mark? Still miss those Calvin Klein days and his foray into acting where he seduced and then terrorized Reese Witherspoon. (Before Boogie Nights made him a legit actor in 1997.)

[JBC344]

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 6:59 AM, aradia22 said:

To me those aren't hugely different problems. Because a system is in place where someone like Wahlberg (or Robert Downey Jr. or whatever white male it is at the moment) has more bargaining power. And he's also choosing to be a dick instead of going along with what's best for the movie without gouging them for more money which they could easily lose with all the scandal already threatening to sink the movie which is why they recast in the first place. 

It's too early for me to get into this without rambling wildly but this quote just kills me. Because it's so familiar. Women are always being nice and good and kind and getting less for it and not even being valued and appreciated for it. It's just expected and their kindness is taken advantage of while men stomp around acting like dicks and, for the most part, no one thinks worse of them for it. 

The most recent example of a woman playing hardball I can remember is Jennifer Lawrence. I can't remember if she held up X-Men or Hunger Games or Passengers or some combination of them by refusing to do the movie or sequel unless she was paid more. It's tough to have this conversation around people who are making so much more money than many people see in their lifetimes. It becomes loaded. But going back to Williams, it's a familiar pattern at all economic and class levels. 

I agree with this to an extant but I also think that Michelle is a lot more astute than we may be giving her credit for.  In this particular case Michelle Williams is the actual star of the movie, despite what Wahlberg is being paid, she is also most likely going to score her 5th Oscar nomination from it, and has already been making the awards circuit as a nominee. 

Despite the PR mess this has caused, I can also see Michelle initially willing to sacrifice more money for the opportunity of the movie being released on time and making her eligible for awards consideration.  She may have even considered it a fair trade. Also not discounting her noble feelings of wanting to get Kevin out of the movie and just doing her part as a team player.

I think Mark is a douche for exercising the clause, but as information comes out we have learned that Mark was scheduled to be working on another movie at that time that he pushed back in order to do the reshoots and get the movie done for Christmas.  In this particular instance it is hard to blame him for asking for the payday when it impacts other productions. 

Trust me, I don't like sticking up for Mark especially in the last few years as someone who has been disappointed in a lot of things he has done, but to be fair the system that allows him to have such a clause is more star based than "male privilege".  Trust me, I'm sure that Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, and Charlize Theron have similar clauses in their contracts as well.  To be honest good for them, there is a very logical and necessary reason why a "star" would have such a clause.

My hope is that we can change the system and our collective mindset where women can feel comfortable asking/demanding compensation for what they are worth, and that the institutions evaluate everyone fairly regardless of gender.

[aradia22]

http://www.refinery29.com/2018/01/187805/liam-neeson-me-too-movement-witch-hunt-reactions

[aradia22]

https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355

Oy. In this case I feel like I'm not on one side or the other. That is, I think we're getting to a place in this conversation where nuance is really going to be key and we're going to have to have tough, complicated conversations. It can't be an across the board defense that waives aside allegations and/or their significance. And it can't be a blatant condemnation where everything is criminal and/or malicious. I super doubt that's going to happen because things were already shitty before we started wading into this gray area. 

Not that society has ever been great with outright rape, sexual assault, and workplace sexual harrassment... but getting into stuff like spousal abuse, date rape, and everything that happens in the context of relationships at least to me feels like it's worse. As badly as those other situations are handled, stuff that happens in relationships always seems that extra bit worse, especially when it comes to determining consent and what qualifies as inappropriate. 

1. I have empathy for this girl and her story.

2. I think he behaved badly. I don't think this specific encounter makes him an irredeemable person but it's a moment to have an important conversation and for him and people who behave like him to start behaving differently. This is what comes of teaching men to be sexually aggressive and to apologize after the fact instead of asking for consent in the first place.

3. I agree that his behavior was inappropriate. And I don't want to take away from her ability to call it whatever she needs to in order to process it. But in the larger cultural context, I know this is opening up a can of worms to call it sexual assault. Personally I feel like we need more words, not less. We need to fully define that spectrum from total consent to rape. Because to me it feels like there should be better language to explain what made this a bad thing beyond "an awkward sexual experience or sexual assault."

4. I think we need to talk seriously about things like "nonverbal cues" and a woman staying in the room or assenting because she feels uncomfortable or she doesn't want to make things more uncomfortable or provoke a negative reaction. I'm not trying to victim blame but I do think we need to stop postponing this big conversation or at least only leaving it to small corners of the internet. On that note...

It took me a while digging into the Online Dating thread but I finally found this. 

[memememe76]

The success of The Greatest Showman on Earth brings up two questions:

1. Can Michelle Williams be considered a viable box office entity who may actually be deemed worthy of a few bucks in future movies? So weird all these defences of the salary drama always mention that her movies earn so little bo money, when this film is raking it in.

2. Is Hugh Jackman our first modern musical movie star? Also, it is nice that he is getting financial success outside the X Men movies.

Edited January 16, 2018 by memememe76

[aradia22]

@memememe76 I don't really get what you mean about Michelle Williams in relation to Greatest Showman. She plays the wife in that movie. So it's hard to say she's the reason people want to see the movie. Did people see American Sniper for Sienna Miller? And it's not doing that great. And I have issues with a movie that romanticizes PT Barnum and... at least from the trailers, is about a circus of "freaks" but focuses on the romance between the two most conventionally attractive actors (Zendaya and Zac Efron). 

2nd point. I guess so. He's certainly the most consistent. Anna Kendrick is in there but even with Pitch Perfect I don't think she's totally mainstream and well-known. Anne Hathaway gave it a shot but it was also part of her (temporary) downfall. No one really took off from other movie musicals like Chicago, Moulin Rouge, Mamma Mia, Beauty and the Beast, etc. because of a combination of a lack of ability (let's be honest, movie musicals don't always call on the most talented folks available) and a lack of reliable work. It's not like the old days when they were churning out musicals and you could get cast in them over and over. I think you can become sort of known as a singing actor like Jane Krakowski. But I think you still mainly gain traction among theater fans... people who follow Broadway shows. I guess you could argue that Zac Efron is also a musical movie star if you count High School Musical, Hairspray, and now Greatest Showman. But that's not really his brand anymore. I mean, technically Johnny Depp has also done a number of musicals... Cry Baby, Sweeney Todd, Into the Woods... but that's not how anyone thinks of him.

If anyone wants to make an argument for a singer turned actress (Cher, Whitney Houston, Madonna, etc.) I am willing to entertain it. Technically I think their movies would count as modern if not current. It's hard to be a musical movie star without doing a number of musicals and Jackman is one of the few actors who have committed to making that part of his brand. Like, are both Sister Act movies enough to make Whoopi Goldberg a movie musical star? Probably not.

[Irlandesa]

52 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

@memememe76 I don't really get what you mean about Michelle Williams in relation to Greatest Showman. She plays the wife in that movie. So it's hard to say she's the reason people want to see the movie. Did people see American Sniper for Sienna Miller? And it's not doing that great. And I have issues with a movie that romanticizes PT Barnum and... at least from the trailers, is about a circus of "freaks" but focuses on the romance between the two most conventionally attractive actors (Zendaya and Zac Efron).

If Wahlberg gets credit for the box office of a movie people see because of brand and robots (And that I didn't even know he'd starred in until recently), I don't see why Michelle shouldn't get credit for The Greatest Showman.  That is how box office is often assessed in basic terms even when it's ridiculous...like just happening to link up with a franchise.

And for all the valid critiques of the movie, I'm not sure I agree that it's not doing that great.  Based on word of mouth, it is having amazing legs, especially for a wide release.  Here is an analysis of its box office feats. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/01/14/hugh-jackman-and-michelle-williams-greatest-showman-just-broke-a-box-office-record/#219d27ca3039

I do wonder if we'll start to see more musicals.  Both Pitch Perfect 3 and TGS have rotten scores but are going to cross 100 million domestically. It's not as successful as the first two but it's still quite healthy given its budget.

[aradia22]

I think it depends on the importance of the role. Unless they're hiding it from the trailers, Michelle Williams is playing that same supportive wife role. It's not her story. If it's a romance (roughly equal focus) of course Emma Stone gets credit for La La Land. Not Oscar bait but people love Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn in Suicide Squad. I legit forgot that Michelle Williams was in Greatest Showman. I spent five minutes being confused because I thought the original comment was comparing Greatest Showman to All the Money in the World somehow. 

I've heard the argument about the movie having legs but it feels weak to me. If it started out with lower numbers who cares if it's not dropping that much week to week? It doesn't have far to fall. I'm not saying it has to do Beauty and the Beast numbers but when it's doing La La Land numbers, we can talk. I'm curious about the budget and promotional budget for Greatest Showman. They have been doing a lot of... unconventional promo on social media, contests, etc. and I'm not sure how much that's actually cost them. 

I think the key to more musicals (if that's the goal) is pulling in crazy numbers like Disney or keeping costs low and then pulling in respectable numbers. It's a shame people tend to favor glossiness and spectacle in successful musicals. It would be interesting to see smaller musicals like The Last 5 Years or Hello Again keep costs low and manage to turn a decent profit similar to the low budget horror movie model. 

[SeanC]

6 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I've heard the argument about the movie having legs but it feels weak to me. If it started out with lower numbers who cares if it's not dropping that much week to week? It doesn't have far to fall.

That’s not how movie box office works, though.  Movies that open low don’t experience correspondingly small declines.  They just vanish quicker, generally.  TGS’ legs are incredible for a film that opened as wide as it did, and a pretty strong sign of great word of mouth.

[aradia22]

Quote

That’s not how movie box office works, though.  Movies that open low don’t experience correspondingly small declines.  They just vanish quicker, generally.  TGS’ legs are incredible for a film that opened as wide as it did, and a pretty strong sign of great word of mouth.

My point is that the accomplishment is being inflated to find something to praise. Sure, it's an accomplishment but that's like all the nonsense about being the biggest movie to open on the second Tuesday in November when there's a leap year. I think people are making too big of a deal. Also, I don't know what week they're in but I don't know how much the studio cares if they want to get the bulk of their profits in the first few weeks (before the theaters get their cut). Truly great word of mouth seems like it should show an uptick in ticket sales. 

[SeanC]

17 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

 Truly great word of mouth seems like it should show an uptick in ticket sales. 

The film has that too.  Its later weekends were larger than its first.

Or if you mean the box office should be consistently increasing week-to-week, by that standard no movie that opens wide has great word of mouth.

Edited January 16, 2018 by SeanC

[absnow54]

Huzzah! Matt Damon is finally becoming self aware!

Edited January 16, 2018 by absnow54

[aradia22]

Quote

The film has that too.  Its later weekends were larger than its first.

Or if you mean the box office should be consistently increasing week-to-week, by that standard no movie that opens wide has great word of mouth.

Were the later weekends better? OK, then I stand corrected. I've been getting a cursory overview that seems like it was blowing the percentages out of proportion which seemed like a weird way to look at things. (I'm making up random numbers but if Star Wars started with a few hundred million and dropped 65%, surely it's still doing better than Greatest Showman starting with 30 million and dropping 10%. But that's the narrative I was hearing.) 

I do think it's not unreasonable to see a bump with smaller awards bait movies but I don't expect that with Greatest Showman as it hasn't been racking up awards or critical praise. Wasn't that what happened with La La Land? My memory is hazy. 

[memememe76]

I have not seen the movie, so I was only commenting on its box office performance, which I think is really quite impressive. It will cross 100m today or so, may even end up beating La La Land. Will cross 200m ww soon, and with some big markets to open, it may reach 300m.

With this and Orient Express, I am hoping that more mid budget movies can succeed without requiring awards buzz.

[Dejana]

The Greatest Showman will end up with an impressive box office total for a live-action musical. It's always better to be in a hit than a flop, but TGS is not really a Michelle Williams showcase. Hugh Jackman, Zac Efron and Zendaya, OTOH, did the bulk of the promo and will probably get more credit from Hollywood for its success.

[Captain Carrot]

21 hours ago, memememe76 said:

With this and Orient Express, I am hoping that more mid budget movies can succeed without requiring awards buzz.

I'm just hoping that the studios start making more mid budget movies period. I never got the whole idea behind only making blockbusters. They cost so much to make that they have to be huge hits to succeed, but a mid budget movie can fairly easily make a net profit. And they are huge successes when the become blockbuster size movies at the theater.

[Craphole Island]

On 1/16/2018 at 2:01 PM, aradia22 said:

Were the later weekends better? OK, then I stand corrected. I've been getting a cursory overview that seems like it was blowing the percentages out of proportion which seemed like a weird way to look at things. (I'm making up random numbers but if Star Wars started with a few hundred million and dropped 65%, surely it's still doing better than Greatest Showman starting with 30 million and dropping 10%. But that's the narrative I was hearing.) 

I do think it's not unreasonable to see a bump with smaller awards bait movies but I don't expect that with Greatest Showman as it hasn't been racking up awards or critical praise. Wasn't that what happened with La La Land? My memory is hazy. 

I believe the box office gross for The Greatest Showman’s second weekend actually IMPROVED by like 140% so that’s definitely pretty crazy and unheard of.

 

l personally just saw it and loved it! It’s a crowd-pleaser, for sure.

[Luckylyn]

19 hours ago, Dejana said:

The Greatest Showman will end up with an impressive box office total for a live-action musical. It's always better to be in a hit than a flop, but TGS is not really a Michelle Williams showcase. Hugh Jackman, Zac Efron and Zendaya, OTOH, did the bulk of the promo and will probably get more credit from Hollywood for its success.

I think this is a huge achievement for Hugh Jackman.  He spent 7 years trying to get a studio to make this movie and it's paying off so well.

[caracas1914]

On 1/16/2018 at 6:41 PM, memememe76 said:

I have not seen the movie, so I was only commenting on its box office performance, which I think is really quite impressive. It will cross 100m today or so, may even end up beating La La Land. Will cross 200m ww soon, and with some big markets to open, it may reach 300m.

The Greatest Showman has grossed 100m domestically and 100m in foreign markets so far, for 200m total gross with an estimated production cost (per BOXOFFICE MOJO website) of 84m.   

Compare with LaLaLand with a relatively low production cost of 30m, a final domestic gross of  151m and 296m in foreign markets for a total gross of 496m.

By any numerical criteria La La Land (Awards, grosses versus costs) was a smash hit.   The verdict is still out financially on The Greatest Showman.

[caracas1914]

On another note, while it’s hard to feel sorry for Disney, they have to be more than somewhat worried that their franchise blockbuster Star Wars has done increasingly bad business in China, the World’s second largest market.

The Last Jedi bombed badly being pulled from most Chinese theatres after the second week.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2018/01/17/china-strikes-back-at-last-jedi-with-lowest-gross-for-a-mega-budget-hollywood-movie-since-2013/#7f9fb4a022dc

Comparing Chinese Box Office:

The Force Awakens    124m

Rogue One   69.5m

The Last Jedi. 31.1 m (and counting)

It’s not expected to gross much more being in so few theatres.  

[aradia22]

I wonder if there's a reason it's doing so poorly in China. I've heard the theory that they simply don't care about Star Wars because their movie industry wasn't vibrant when the original trilogy (and possibly the prequels?) came out. So you don't have the built in nostalgia and perhaps there isn't a desire to jump on the bandwagon late. The franchises and movies that do well send their stars out to court Chinese audiences (press tours, etc.) but I'm sure Star Wars is doing that too. Maybe there's also something about the movie's sensibility/messaging that doesn't play as well in China?

[Shannon L.]

Tom Hanks To Play Mister Rogers In Biopic Set Up At TriStar

[Joe]

On 18/01/2018 at 11:57 PM, aradia22 said:

I wonder if there's a reason it's doing so poorly in China. I've heard the theory that they simply don't care about Star Wars because their movie industry wasn't vibrant when the original trilogy (and possibly the prequels?) came out. So you don't have the built in nostalgia and perhaps there isn't a desire to jump on the bandwagon late. The franchises and movies that do well send their stars out to court Chinese audiences (press tours, etc.) but I'm sure Star Wars is doing that too. Maybe there's also something about the movie's sensibility/messaging that doesn't play as well in China?

The idea of rebelling against authority is deeply unpopular with the government higher-ups, I suspect. And they are in a position to push the message downwards. But how did Rogue One do in China? It had two established Chinese actors.