Ex Sony head Amy Pascal - Women accept less

[RB]

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-31434419

Amy Pascal addressed the women work for less at Sony as revealed in the email attack.

She paid them less, because they accepted less e.g. Jennifer Lawrence

Now she says women should know their worth.

I am so tempted to say classic of women keeping women in their place.

But, It is like wow and fumes.

[Moonlight Graham]

One of the main reasons women make less than men on average, and might always make less, is that many women leave work to have children. Even if you're on mat leave for a year with a guaranteed job when you come back, that's still one full year gone where you would have gained experience and could have moved up the ladder compared to men.

Now, if unequal pay for equal work and equal qualifications does exist then that's obviously not right. But equal pay for equal work vs equal pay for equal qualifications are 2 very different things. A man and a woman may have the same job title but one might be more experienced than the other.

[RB]

Now, if unequal pay for equal work and equal qualifications does exist then that's obviously not right. But equal pay for equal work vs equal pay for equal qualifications are 2 very different things. A man and a woman may have the same job title but one might be more experienced than the other.

How about they have the same job title and the expected outcome is the same - guarantee that people will never have the same abilities.

The pay is different. I think that is the problem here Pascal addressed in a Amy Pascal speaks about the Sony hacks, says actors at 'bottomless pits of need'

Quote from Amy Pascal @ out of all place Silcan Valley "Sony leaks was detailed payment information that showed women were paid less than men: “I’ve paid [Jennifer Lawrence] a lot more money since then, I promise you. … Here’s the problem: I run a business. People want to work for less money, I pay them less money. … Women shouldn’t work for less money. They should know what they’re worth. Women shouldn’t take less. ‘Stop, you don’t need the job that bad." Unquote

[Michael Hardner]

I think that is the problem here Pascal addressed in a Amy Pascal speaks about the Sony hacks, says actors at 'bottomless pits of need'

No, not actors. The quote is: "And anyway, it's almost impossible to satisfy a Hollywood star: "They’re bottomless pits of need," she said. "You’ve never seen anything like it."

People confuse Hollywood stars with actors all the time. Hollywood stars make a much better living than the average person, actors make much less. It makes me wonder whether starting the conversation about pay for women with Jennifer Lawrence should prompt us to reboot the discussion and start over. Or maybe it takes something like this to get people talking, I don't know.

I see valid points in Pascal's comments on negotiation practices by men vs. women, as well as MG's questions about the impact of maternity leave. Both could be true, or not but both points should advance the discussion. By advancing the discussion, we should also move it away from Hollywood stars since very vew of us negotiate multi-pictures details, but we all negotiate smaller things every day, and we're also all impacted by maternity leave too.

[kimmy]

Trying to draw any parallel between the gender wage gap in Hollywood and the gender wage gap on Main Street is completely wrong, because the reasons are completely different. For regular people, things like differing work preferences between the genders are factors. None of that applies in Hollywood. In Hollywood, female stars have historically been paid less than male stars because movies driven by male stars have historically made more money.

In the not-too-distant past there was always an assumption that you could just roll a truck with $20 million dollars up to Will Smith's door (or Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis or Jim Carrey or lots of other mega-stars) and you would have a guaranteed blockbuster hit because everybody would just go see Will Smith or Bruce Willis or whoever. That was the thinking. These mega-stars were money in the bank. They were "bankable" (in a real sense, not an Ed Asner sense, BC2004.) And there were no female equivalents, no female star whose name alone would create a blockbuster.

I think this has somewhat changed. First off, I don't think there's any "mega stars" anymore. I don't think there's any actor or actress whose presence alone is enough to guarantee a hit. And I think that the number of hit movies driven by female stars has increased in recent years. Studios are probably more willing to risk money on a movie based around female stars now than they would have been in the past. Conversely they're probably less willing to give a supposed "mega star" $20 million, because recently we've been seeing "mega star" vehicles become commercial failures.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

.....They were "bankable" (in a real sense, not an Ed Asner sense, BC2004.)

Wow...still smarting from that spanking five years ago ?

[The_Squid]

Maybe Jennifer Lawrence has a bad agent?

Or maybe she negotiates he own contract and is bad at it...

Taking one quote from one executive about one Hollywood actress and expanding it to women everywhere is silly. Especially when there is enough real data from the real world to actually make your point.

[kimmy]

Wow...still smarting from that spanking five years ago ?

I'm sorry, I was typing the word "bankable" and I couldn't help remembering that argument. I don't recall a spanking. I do recall yourself and whats-her-name spending a lot of energy arguing a point that has been proven hilariously wrong in the time since.

Maybe Jennifer Lawrence has a bad agent?

Or maybe she negotiates he own contract and is bad at it...

Taking one quote from one executive about one Hollywood actress and expanding it to women everywhere is silly. Especially when there is enough real data from the real world to actually make your point.

Amy Pascal's comments have no applicability to anything beyond the world of Hollywood.

The thing that separates Hollywood stars from most other kinds of employees is that they aren't interchangeable with each other. They're similar to pro athletes in that sense. You're out trying to find a defenseman for your NHL team and you call Dustin Byfuglien and say "hey, I have $6 million. Come play for my team!" and he says "sorry dude I am signing with Winnipeg" so then maybe you call Mark Giordano next, but you have to remember that if you do that you're getting a completely different player with different strengths who will make your team different from the first guy you called.

And the same is true of movies. You've got $10 million and need to hire a leading lady for a film project. Who do you call? Sandra Bullock? Charlize Theron? Jennifer Lawrence? Well, they're all completely different. Your movie will be different depending who is in it. J-Law is completely wrong for the role, and Sandra Bullock won't even cross the street for $10 million right now. So maybe Theron is your top choice, but her agent is making a lot of demands and then you start thinking, maybe Milla Jovovich would make the movie for a lot less money. Is Charlize Theron worth all the extra money and headaches, or could the movie still be a hit with Milla? Like, there's no objective way to gauge how much an actor or actress is worth to a movie project, because there are no objective comparisons to be made. It's all subjective, based on intuition and historical performance. Maybe the producers then start thinking "well, Charlize is a much bigger name, but we're making an action movie and Milla has made lots of action movies that have done pretty well so she would still probably bring action movie fans to the theatres."

In discussing Jennifer Lawrence's paycheques it should be pointed out that she has not been a big name for very long. She may have earned much critical attention for "Winter's Bone" but that was not a widely seen movie. I suspect they got her signature on the contract for all 4 Hunger Games movies before they started making them, to avoid getting shaken down by contract demands. She also signed her contract to appear in several X-Men movies prior to Hunger Games becoming a giant hit, so she is probably being vastly underpaid for the X-Men movies as well.

"American Hustle" looks like it was her first chance to really cash in on her new stardom, and it looks like she didn't make the most of the opportunity. Perhaps she felt that the chance to work on a prestige project like "American Hustle" was worth it as a career-builder for her regardless of how much she was paid. Perhaps at that point in her career she and her agent thought that what they were being offered was amazing and had no idea that she could have probably demanded much more.

Here's an email exchange regarding her pay on the movie:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/12/exclusive-sony-hack-reveals-jennifer-lawrence-is-paid-less-than-her-male-co-stars.html

In an email dated December 5, 2013, Andrew Gumpert, President of Business Affairs and Administration for Columbia Pictures, wrote to Pascal and Doug Belgrad, President of SPE Motion Picture Group, about the “points”—or back-end compensation—that each actor was to receive on Hustle. (The “Amy” referred to is Amy Adams, “O'Russell” is director David O. Russell, “Renner” is Jeremy Renner, and “Megan” is Megan Ellison, head of Annapurna Pictures, which co-financed Hustle.)

“Got a steve warren/gretchen rush call that it’s unfair the male actors get 9% in the pool and jennifer is only at 7pts,” the email reads. “You may recall Jennifer was at 5 (amy was and is at 7) and WE anted in 2 extra points for Jennifer to get her up to 7. If anyone needs to top jennifer up it’s megan. BUT I think amy and Jennifer are tied so upping JL, ups AA.”

Gumpert added, “The current talent deals are: O’Russell: 9%; Cooper: 9%; Bale: 9%; Renner: 9%; Lawrence: 7%; Adams: 7%.”

It looks as if the production company-- "Annapurna Pictures"-- was only offering Lawrence 5% and Sony kicked in an extra 2% to get her on board. Sony felt like if more money was required it should come from Annapurna's share, not their own. But ultimately the movie did get made, and Lawrence and Adams did settle for less, and they got more shiny trophies for their cabinets from the movie.

I think there are two lessons from this. The first is that it is, as Pascal said, a business. Jennifer Lawrence probably knows now that she has a lot more leverage to ask for more money, and I am sure that she will use it when they try to hire her to return for more X-Men movies. The other lesson here, clearly, is that Jeremy Renner has an amazing agent.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm sorry, I was typing the word "bankable" and I couldn't help remembering that argument. I don't recall a spanking. I do recall yourself and whats-her-name spending a lot of energy arguing a point that has been proven hilariously wrong in the time since.

No problem....Ed Asner is still "bankable" at age 85:

[Michael Hardner]

Why would you care one whit about this Americal liberal though ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Why would you care one whit about this Americal liberal though ?

Sir...I care about all Americans. Somebody has to make great cinema and television for Canadians to watch !

[Michael Hardner]

Sir...I care about all Americans. Somebody has to make great cinema and television for Canadians to watch !

Very true. We contribute what we can to that cause also.

[bush_cheney2004]

Very true. We contribute what we can to that cause also.

Of course...who can pass up a chance to watch Love It or List It on HGTV ? I trust that Hilary Farr gets at least $1,000,000 (U.S.) per episode in keeping with the spirit of this thread.

[overthere]

Katniss Everdeen won a raise from $500,000 upfront to $10 million between the first two Hunger Games – that figure is a combination of salary, bonus and escalators, and doesn’t include the next two installments that she shot in the past year.

Lawrence does just fine.

[kimmy]

No problem....Ed Asner is still "bankable" at age 85:

See, this is why it was important to point out that I was not referring to "bankable" in the Ed Asner sense.

To some people "bankable" apparently means that you can get a guest spot doing voice acting work as Old Man Walters on The New Scooby Doo Adventures, and take your $200 cheque to the "bank" and cash it.

But for purposes of this discussion, that's not the kind of "bankable" we're talking about. We're talking about the kind of "bankable" where a guy can phone Disney and say "ok, I'm going to need 7% of the back end, plus raises for Chris and Scarlett and Chris. Or else you go find somebody else to be Tony Stark," and Disney's response is "sure thing, Mr Downey. We'll draw up the contracts right away."

-k

[cybercoma]

Sir...I care about all Americans. Somebody has to make great cinema and television for Canadians to watch !

Meanwhile, the topic in the thread is about an actress who made it big off a story that was lifted almost entirely from Japanese cinema. American cinema and television doesn't innovate. It regurgitates.

[kimmy]

Meanwhile, the topic in the thread is about an actress who made it big off a story that was lifted almost entirely from Japanese cinema. American cinema and television doesn't innovate. It regurgitates.

I've seen Battle Royale, and to say Hunger Games was lifted almost entirely from Battle Royale is massive hyperbole. Only the general premise-- teenagers forced to compete in a fight-to-the-death tournament-- is the same.

Does Hollywood innovate? Many of their most successful stories come from other media-- history, legends, novels, and lately comics. And the insistence on remaking successful movies over and over is pretty annoying. I'm not sure that Spiderman needs to be rebooted every 5 years, or why a there has to be a new Ghostbusters movie.

On the other hand, innovative projects do get made. Every once in a while something comes along that breaks new ground in some way. Toy Story, The Matrix, and Pulp Fiction are examples of movies that were innovative and had lasting impact on films that came later. I think those are examples of movies that truly innovated. There are lots of other movies that while not truly innovative are at least original material. I think that if we went through a list of movies and called them either innovative, original, or regurgitated, I think that the list of regurgitated movies would be shorter than you'd expect, and the list of original movies would be longer.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

Toy Story, The Matrix, and Pulp Fiction are examples of movies

Definitely.

... that were innovative

Not sure.

and had lasting impact on films that came later.

Uh...

I think that if we went through a list of movies and called them either innovative, original, or regurgitated,

Thoughts...

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/10-most-influential-films-of-the-century

What do you know ? Toy Story is on there !

[Black Dog]

Thoughts...

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/10-most-influential-films-of-the-century

What do you know ? Toy Story is on there !

Hard to deny any of Kimmy's examples are not hugely influential films. Certainly more filmmakers today would look to any one of those before a good number of the movies on the list. Who but hardcore film buffs and racists has ever watched Birth of a Nation?

[Michael Hardner]

Who but hardcore film buffs and racists has ever watched Birth of a Nation?

Or film buffs and communists watching Battleship Potemkin ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Birth of a Nation is a very important film at several levels and has been designated by the U.S. Library of Congress as "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry". 100% fresh rating !

[Black Dog]

And I'd bet more people have seen the Matrix since 1994 than have ever watched Birth of a Nation. Nothing to do with the value of the latter, but it's liek arguing about the Canterbury Tales versus Harry Potter in terms of modern influence.