- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,710
- Reaction score
- 35,488
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
LINK
General gist, Wright negotiated with the producers to get a salary equal to Spacey's, threatening to expose she made less at a point where some polls indicated people liked her character more.
So first off, more power to her. Get what money you can get. I have zero qualms with her attempting to do that.
Now, with that said...
I have ZERO issue with her making less than Spacey initially or even through the first little bit. And I think anyone pointing to it, at that time, as being an example of a "wage gap" would be ridiculous.
Kevin Spacey, at the time House of Cards was launching, was a SIGNIFICANTLY bigger name than Robin Wright.
Prior to 2013, Spacey had significant leading roles in the Usual Suspects, Outbreak, Seven, LA Confidential, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, American Beauty, K-Pax, Pay it Forward, Superman Returns, 21, and Horrible Bosses amongst others. He had Best Supporting and Best Acor awards on his resume.
Meanwhile, Robin Wright's significant headlining roles was The Princess Bride (Not bridge) back in 87, Forest Gump and solid supporting roles in Unbreakable, Moneyball, and the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. And had nomajor industry awards to her name.
Part of what immediately caught my attention to House of Cards was the fact that Kevin Spacey was in it. The fact that "jenn-ay" from Forest Gump was in it registered as a simple "oh, neat" reaction. I would dare say I am not the only one.
As to the fact her character was more popular than Spacey's at a point; that doesn't surprise me. Frank Underwood as not made to be likable, and Claire for a good portion of time was clearly a more "likable" character than Frank. That doesn't necessarily mean that she was necessarily the more important character, or the more liked portrayal.
I also disagree with the authors assertion that the show couldn't go on without her. Of the two, Frank...and Spacey...would be the more indispensable one in my honest opinion. While the show has gone down hill the past two seasons, the removal of Frank would be significantly more of a disincentive for me to watch than losing Claire. Partially because I rate Spacey extremely high as an entertaining actor to watch. Partially because I think the loss of Claire would do wonders for Frank's character more so than the other way around, partially because the show has made Frank to be far more fragile and vulnerable seemingly than Claire.
Again, more power to her for getting equal pay. The show has catapulted her back into the spotlight and put her into the running for actual leading roles again. It has also brought her industry recognition in terms of awards that she didn't previously have. It's not unreasonable to suggest she should have her pay bumped at this point.
But the insinuation it seemed that it was an indication of a "wage gap" over the fact she hadn't already been making as much as Spacey, the clear a-lister on that cast, just seemed really off to me.
General gist, Wright negotiated with the producers to get a salary equal to Spacey's, threatening to expose she made less at a point where some polls indicated people liked her character more.
So first off, more power to her. Get what money you can get. I have zero qualms with her attempting to do that.
Now, with that said...
I have ZERO issue with her making less than Spacey initially or even through the first little bit. And I think anyone pointing to it, at that time, as being an example of a "wage gap" would be ridiculous.
Kevin Spacey, at the time House of Cards was launching, was a SIGNIFICANTLY bigger name than Robin Wright.
Prior to 2013, Spacey had significant leading roles in the Usual Suspects, Outbreak, Seven, LA Confidential, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, American Beauty, K-Pax, Pay it Forward, Superman Returns, 21, and Horrible Bosses amongst others. He had Best Supporting and Best Acor awards on his resume.
Meanwhile, Robin Wright's significant headlining roles was The Princess Bride (Not bridge) back in 87, Forest Gump and solid supporting roles in Unbreakable, Moneyball, and the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. And had nomajor industry awards to her name.
Part of what immediately caught my attention to House of Cards was the fact that Kevin Spacey was in it. The fact that "jenn-ay" from Forest Gump was in it registered as a simple "oh, neat" reaction. I would dare say I am not the only one.
As to the fact her character was more popular than Spacey's at a point; that doesn't surprise me. Frank Underwood as not made to be likable, and Claire for a good portion of time was clearly a more "likable" character than Frank. That doesn't necessarily mean that she was necessarily the more important character, or the more liked portrayal.
I also disagree with the authors assertion that the show couldn't go on without her. Of the two, Frank...and Spacey...would be the more indispensable one in my honest opinion. While the show has gone down hill the past two seasons, the removal of Frank would be significantly more of a disincentive for me to watch than losing Claire. Partially because I rate Spacey extremely high as an entertaining actor to watch. Partially because I think the loss of Claire would do wonders for Frank's character more so than the other way around, partially because the show has made Frank to be far more fragile and vulnerable seemingly than Claire.
Again, more power to her for getting equal pay. The show has catapulted her back into the spotlight and put her into the running for actual leading roles again. It has also brought her industry recognition in terms of awards that she didn't previously have. It's not unreasonable to suggest she should have her pay bumped at this point.
But the insinuation it seemed that it was an indication of a "wage gap" over the fact she hadn't already been making as much as Spacey, the clear a-lister on that cast, just seemed really off to me.
Last edited: