It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:35 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:04 pm
Posts: 9229
pizza_Place: world famous
I ain't working for free biatches!

Why this is a story I don't know. Michelle Williams should have said the same thing.

Mark Wahlberg had producers of "All the Money in the World" "over a barrel" when he demanded $1.5 million to reshoot scenes from the movie last month, and director Ridley Scott is furious he was left in the dark and "hung out to dry" ... this according to multiple sources connected to the production.

Our sources tell us the reshoot -- triggered by the ousting of Kevin Spacey -- went down this way ... Michelle Williams was the first actor approached by a producer -- not Ridley Scott -- and she jumped at the task, saying she'd move mountains to complete the movie. She eventually agreed to do it for pennies ... she got $80 per diem and that's it.

At around the same time, we're told Ridley flew to London to see Mark and convince him to do the reshoot. Mark, we're told, agreed, but there was no discussion of money.

We're told after Wahlberg was on board, producers approached Christopher Plummer and signed him up.

Our sources say after Wahlberg committed, his reps and the 2 main financiers for the movie had discussions, and his reps said Mark "never" works for free and demanded the money, and made it clear he would not reshoot the scenes unless he got what he was after. We're told the financing guys had no choice and agreed to pay.

We're told when Ridley went public and said everyone was working for free, that was based on information he was given. We're told he feels betrayed and angry.

The complicating factor ... Wahlberg and Williams are both repped by William Morris Endeavor. We reached out to the agency for comment -- whether the agency should have given Michelle a heads-up that their other client was making a bundle while she was working for free. We got a "no comment."

_________________
Nas wrote:
We lose a lot of rights when we look the other way when it doesn't affect our lives or it isn't a cause we agree with.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 pm
Posts: 15944
pizza_Place: Boni Vino
Perfect example of the myth of unequal pay. You get what you negotiate...there is no reason to believe this had anything to do with gender discrimination.

_________________
To IkeSouth, bigfan wrote:
Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:29 pm
Posts: 38016
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Yeah and of course Hollywood feminists are outraged over it. Longer piece on it here.


Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams starred in a feature film together this year, “All the Money in the World,” which is based on the true story of a 1973 kidnapping and directed by Ridley Scott. The film earned Williams a Golden Globe nomination.

There was only one problem. The film also starred Kevin Spacey, an award-winning actor but also an accused molester. In his attempts to get the film out with a clear conscience in the age of #metoo and in the face of credible accusations against Spacey, Scott purged Spacey from the film, and replaced him with Christopher Plummer. Scott was lauded for the move but had to do reshoots as a result.


Enter Scandal No. 2. Williams and Wahlberg both agreed to do more work on the film, but not for the same terms. The two stars had reportedly already been paid below their normal rate for the movie, and Wahlberg was not content to come back for union minimum. Williams, on the other hand, was under the impression everyone was doing their part for minimal pay to make the project work, so she accepted a per diem of $80 for an extra 10 days of work — a total of about $1000 — whereas Wahlberg got $1.5 million.

Hollywood is outraged.




Chastain is right. She is worth more than that, but she agreed to work for a pittance. And that’s part of the problem.

I’m sympathetic to Williams’ urges, here. She’s in a film she believes in. She wants to help it succeed despite the misdeeds of her male coworker, and therefore decides to take a hit for the “cause.” Unfortunately, the “cause” is not just art, as Sonny Bunch points out, but a bunch of rich guys attempting to recoup their cash because they cast a pretty well-known predator in a role and had the misfortune of that coming to light during late stages of filmmaking. Oops.

Here’s what Williams said about flying overseas over Thanksgiving week to work for free for 10 days away from her daughter:

“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.”
As an employee, you have two choices. Do you make your employers pay for the mistake they made casting Spacey, which is no fault of your own, or do you consent to be a team player (possibly a sucker) and give your work away for nearly free? They need you to finish the film, after all, and you’ve done nothing wrong. In fact, you’ve already been a team player by taking less than your market value for a project you like.


Walhberg made the former decision. Williams made the latter.

Now, it’s certainly a big issue, because she’s a successful actress getting paid far less than her successful male counterpart. But she’s also a symbol of what causes some of the pay gap, to the extent it does exist (and it’s far more nuanced than the simple 77-cents talking point).

If you want to be paid for your job, you need to insist on being paid for your job. People will take every opportunity to pay you nothing if you’re willing to do your work for free, be you man or woman. Women give people that opportunity more often than men do. I’m no one, and you couldn’t get me to work for 10 days overseas over a holiday for $1,000. Not happening. As a fan from way back in the “Dawson’s Creek” days, I’m somewhat mystified Williams was on board for it.

Sallie Krawcheck, one of Wall Street’s few women CEOs, has pointed out the self-inflicted wounds women get by accepting the idea there’s no money in the pot for them:

“What I’ve found over time is that when it would come to bonus time or raise time, I would hear from the gentlemen, “I want to make X.” I don’t think I ever heard from a woman who worked for me, “I want to make X.” Ever. And research shows, men ask and women don’t. … Say we’ve got two employees, Joe and Joanne. They’re both set to make $5 in bonus. Joe comes into my office and says, “Hey, Sallie, I’ve had a great year. I’d like to make $10 this year.”
After Joe leaves, I call the head of HR, and we sort of say, “Can you believe this? Joe wants to make $10, he’s in for $5, ha ha ha.” But we don’t want to lose him. So we put him in for $7. And that means Joanne isn’t going to get the $5 we had planned. She’s going to get $3. Because the bonus pool doesn’t go up. She sees her bonus actually reduced.”

This isn’t just anecdotal. Women are about four times less likely to ask for raises than men, according to research that prompted Carnegie Mellon economist Linda Babcock to write two books on the subject and study tactics for getting women to take a harder line, such as putting on negotiating classes for young women.

“I tell my graduate students that by not negotiating their job at the beginning of their career, they’re leaving anywhere between $1 million and $1.5 million on the table in lost earnings over their lifetime,” Babcock told NPR in 2011.

When everyone but Wahlberg agreed to come back for chicken scratch to the ironically titled “All the Money in the World,” his representation rightly pressed his advantage. The filmmakers had everyone they needed, for little to no money, except him. Back up that Brinks truck.

Williams could have done the same. Would she get labeled “hard to work with?” Maybe, though simply asking to get paid more than a per diem for your very valuable skills isn’t exactly out of line. I certainly think being tough in negotiations is harder for women in an industry as demonstrably sexist as Hollywood, but why make it so easy for them?

It’s worth pointing out Wahlberg’s not getting a reputation boost for his ask, either. He played hardball and he’s deemed all kinds of problematic for it, but he’s got $1.5 million to console himself with. The two actors are represented by the same agency and it seems Williams may have been ill-served by her agent, or lied to about what everyone else had agreed to. Do I think her agents and the guys making the movie are great people? No, but it’s hard to argue that when an A-list actress agrees to work for nothing, you shouldn’t take her up on it. I have a hard time believing they wouldn’t have taken Wahlberg up on it, too.

Too often, women are also sold a bill of goods about how to solve this problem. Congress will fix it, activists say. Lily Ledbetter fixed it but not before the 1963 Equal Pay Act fixed it. And yet, here we are. There are injustices in the world. Life isn’t fair. And when you can remedy a small part of that by being a little more of a hard-ass, you should. It’s a lot quicker and more effective than an act of Congress and it normalizes being an assertive woman in the workplace. Ask for more, get a negotiating coach. Don’t work for nothing. Don’t assume everyone else is. What’s the word for that? Empowerment.

Hollywood has very real problems with sexism, but a powerful actress agreeing to not get paid isn’t at the top of the list, though it’s a good lesson. Neither Wahlberg nor Williams was the predator, and neither should have paid the price for Spacey’s misconduct. Williams agreed to. Wahlberg didn’t. His was the right call.

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
Not all inequality is wrong.

If a movie stars Wahlberg it is likely to make much more money than it is if it stars Michelle Williams.

All the complaining about things like this does is distract from actual issues in Hollywood.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:45 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 76678
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If a movie stars Wahlberg it is likely to make much more money than it is if it stars Michelle Williams.


And likely to be a dumber movie. interesting how that works.

_________________
His mind is not for rent to any God or government.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 16901
pizza_Place: Pequods
She should have held out for more money, especially for a reshoot. She deserves a DBotW for that

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68609
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Yeah the piece Rogue posted lays it out nicely.

It's on her if she agreed to work for less than her worth.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If a movie stars Wahlberg it is likely to make much more money than it is if it stars Michelle Williams.


And likely to be a dumber movie. interesting how that works.
I guess it depends. I'm not a big fan of Wahlberg but if you take their combined movies and make a list of the ones that I would like I think he wins by a good margin. I mean, I literally don't know the last Michelle Williams movie that I saw without looking at her IMDB page. Now that I look at it, I guess it is Oz and Shutter Island, and I don't remember that she was in either.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:29 pm
Posts: 38016
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
I’m about at the point where Judd Apatow can be thrown down a well anytime .


Image

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68609
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
badrogue17 wrote:
I’m about at the point where Judd Apatow can be thrown down a well anytime .


Image


Gotta protect women from themselves.

And timid men who are afraid to speak up.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39604
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Not all inequality is wrong.

If a movie stars Wahlberg it is likely to make much more money than it is if it stars Michelle Williams.

All the complaining about things like this does is distract from actual issues in Hollywood.


You apparently did not get the memo.

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:50 pm
Posts: 6721
pizza_Place: Parts Unknown
badrogue17 wrote:
I’m about at the point where Judd Apatow can be thrown down a well anytime .


Image


Just like that self righteous asshole Dan Harmon, it will turn out Apatow is a creep and clown.

_________________
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Have a terrible night and die in MANY fires.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:32 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Posts: 33817
She agreed to do it for pennies. He didn't. What's the big deal? Had she asked for more money, the studio would have paid her the same because she had all the leverage. But she didn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:35 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:12 pm
Posts: 17947
pizza_Place: 6 characters
Never, ever, ever, ever, ever do work for free.

Ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:03 pm
Posts: 4320
Location: Lake Wynonah, PA
pizza_Place: Il-Forno in Deerfield
The agency angle is the most idiotic, I'm pretty sure that there is some level of confidentiality when it comes to talking about people that are being represented. And just because it is the same agency doesn't mean it is the same agent.

_________________
Krazy Ivan wrote:
Congrats on being better than me, Psycory.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 42924
Psycory wrote:
The agency angle is the most idiotic

Wrong.

What better time would there be to collude with two of your clients to extract the most money? This was a movie that was strongly considered for oscars and other award nominations. With Spacey in the movie, the studio would have been completely fucked. Any agent involved with an actor that was asking for a re-shoot should have been able to bend this studio over and extract a large windfall.

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
Douchebag wrote:
Psycory wrote:
The agency angle is the most idiotic

Wrong.

What better time would there be to collude with two of your clients to extract the most money? This was a movie that was strongly considered for oscars and other award nominations. With Spacey in the movie, the studio would have been completely fucked. Any agent involved with an actor that was asking for a re-shoot should have been able to bend this studio over and extract a large windfall.
My guess is that if Wahlberg ever found out that his agent let his negotiations with a studio be known to another actor to help them that he would blind his agent and then find a new one.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37078
Location: ...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:02 pm
Posts: 11735
pizza_Place: Angelo's Pizza in Downers Grove
Per TMZ:

Michelle Williams was not betrayed by anyone when she agreed to do reshoots for free when her male counterpart raked in $1.5 million ... so claim sources familiar with the situation.

As we reported, when producers asked Michelle to do reshoots for "All the Money in the World," she quickly agreed to work for nothing. Mark Wahlberg, on the other hand, demanded $1.5 mil and, as one source put it, "He had producers over a barrel," and he got what he was after.

Mark and Michelle are represented by the same agency -- William Morris Endeavor -- and there's been criticism that WME should have given Michelle a heads-up that Mark was getting paid, and paid a lot.

Sources familiar with the contracts tell TMZ, Michelle's contract required her to do reshoots as part of her overall salary, whereas Mark's deal did not include reshoots.

One source put it this way ... Mark's agents at WME did not communicate with Michelle's agent to let him know what Mark was getting paid, adding, that type of communication doesn't really happen between agents.

Our sources say the agents advocate for their individual clients and have a duty of confidentiality not to disclose to one actor what another is getting paid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:02 pm
Posts: 11735
pizza_Place: Angelo's Pizza in Downers Grove
News broke a few days ago that Michelle Williams was reportedly paid less than $1,000 (an accumulation of a modest per diem fee) for her work on the reshoots of All the Money in the World, while her co-star Mark Wahlberg was allegedly paid $1.5 million. The plot thickened yesterday when it was announced that SAG-AFTRA, the actors union, had opened an investigation into that gargantuan pay disparity. Now, insider sources are telling USA Today that Wahlberg leveraged a co-star approval clause in his contract to get that $1.5 million fee, saying he refused to sign off on the replacement casting of Christopher Plummer until his additional payday was in place. Neither Wahlberg’s camp nor his agency, William Morris Endeavor — which also represents Williams — provided comment on the new reporting.

The new USA Today story also contradicts previous reporting on a situation where the truth is muddy. It’s been alternately written that neither Williams nor Wahlberg had reshoot clauses in their contracts, and also that Williams’s contract contained that clause while Wahlberg’s didn’t — which would free Wahlberg up to negotiate for more money, while Williams wouldn’t have such leeway. Now, however, sources tells USA Today that both actors had preexisting language in their contracts concerning reshoots, with one person explaining to the paper, “What he said was, ‘I will not approve Christopher Plummer unless you pay me.’ And that’s how he (expletive) them.” It’s also rumored that director Ridley Scott is upset by the news about Wahlberg’s big payday, since he and Williams both completed the film for very little additional compensation.

Both actors had to work over the Thanksgiving holiday to finish the film with Plummer, and Williams told USA Today at the time, “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.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:29 pm
Posts: 38016
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
I don’t know why Wahlberg just doesn’t come out and apologize for being smarter than Michelle Williams .

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:03 pm
Posts: 4320
Location: Lake Wynonah, PA
pizza_Place: Il-Forno in Deerfield
Big Chicagoan wrote:
One source put it this way ... Mark's agents at WME did not communicate with Michelle's agent to let him know what Mark was getting paid, adding, that type of communication doesn't really happen between agents.

Our sources say the agents advocate for their individual clients and have a duty of confidentiality not to disclose to one actor what another is getting paid. [/i]

As I said, the agent angle was idiotic.

_________________
Krazy Ivan wrote:
Congrats on being better than me, Psycory.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 42924
badrogue17 wrote:
I don’t know why Wahlberg just doesn’t come out and apologize for being smarter than Michelle Williams .

Well he is Jewish (or has a Jewish sounding name).

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:02 pm
Posts: 11735
pizza_Place: Angelo's Pizza in Downers Grove
badrogue17 wrote:
I don’t know why Wahlberg just doesn’t come out and apologize for being smarter than Michelle Williams .



Williams is an artist who makes art. Wahlberg gets paid to be in movies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
If Williams didn't care about getting paid extra for a reshoot because she loved the movie so much then why does she care now?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:29 pm
Posts: 38016
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If Williams didn't care about getting paid extra for a reshoot because she loved the movie so much then why does she care now?

I don’t think she’s making much of a fuss about it . It’s the Greek chorus that’s outraged .

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 pm
Posts: 15944
pizza_Place: Boni Vino
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If Williams didn't care about getting paid extra for a reshoot because she loved the movie so much then why does she care now?


Yep, it's like the parable of The Workers in the Vineyard.

_________________
To IkeSouth, bigfan wrote:
Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 16901
pizza_Place: Pequods
I never heard of her until this week. I knew who Mark Wahlberg was though. That's why he got paid more

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:02 pm
Posts: 11735
pizza_Place: Angelo's Pizza in Downers Grove
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
I never heard of her until this week. I knew who Mark Wahlberg was though. That's why he got paid more


She drove Heath Ledger to kill himself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mark Wahlberg
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Big Chicagoan wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
I don’t know why Wahlberg just doesn’t come out and apologize for being smarter than Michelle Williams .



Williams is an artist who makes art. Wahlberg gets paid to be in movies.


Nicely put!

Which also explains why before this, I had no idea who she is. Or cared to know.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group