Skip to content

No, really, just no

Olivia Colman has criticised gender pay disparity in the film industry and said she would be paid more if she was a man, arguing that it is rooted in an outdated idea that male actors draw in the audience.

Luscious and lissome young birds have been known to draw audiences too. There’s no other possible reason for Megan Fox’s “acting” career.

That a man at 40 or 50 might be seen to be only just growing into his maturity is something that might be true but it’s not exactly outdated – it’s been true for the few hundred thousand years of our species.

It’s even possible to wish that it were outdated but then we’d all be kings for a day, right?

13 thoughts on “No, really, just no”

  1. Women are paid less than men in the film industry?

    If we include porn, which is part of the film industry whether these posho birds like it or not, then I would hazard a guess that on average men are paid significantly less than women.

    Maybe she should be campaigning for equal pay in porn.

  2. Chernyy, I must admit I didn’t notice Ms Colman in the epic “Donkey on roller-skates” but then my attention may have been diverted…

  3. She could have got her agent to ask for more money: the studio could then decide to pay it or go with someone cheaper.

  4. Since she won that Oscar she has become unbearable. She and Rachel Weisz were very good in what was frankly a terrible film.

    Well let’s hope she does better in Backdoor Housewives 5.

  5. Since much of the time the Oscar ends up with a film that is a “critic’s film”, i.e. unwatchable if you don’t see two hundred films a year and are looking for novelty, I doubt that Oscar means much for payment.

    After all, pay comes from expected film income.

  6. I’d never heard of her of course.

    But I must admit that, having seen her picture, she’s not the luscious and lissome young bird I might consider paying lots of loot to drool over.

  7. “Research suggests that [women have] always been big box office draws,”

    Show me the research, because in terms of movies, that is bullshit. That was true back in the 1940s and 1950s, when you had Judy Garland, Joan Crawford, Doris Day and Bette Davis, but then TV came along and women started switching to TV and the cinema audience for women diminished considerably.

    The biggest female led movies last year? Well, Barbie, but that’s more about the brand than Margot Robbie. The Little Mermaid? Again… brand. Poor Things with Emma Stone, the 45th biggest movie of last year. After that, you’re down into the movies grossing $40m. Shah Rukh Khan is a bigger global box office draw than most Hollywood actresses.

    Women are mostly accessories in big movies. Look at Indiana Jones, or James Bond. They generally replace the babe in each movie. They’re disposable.

    You want to make money as an actress over 30? You need to get a recurring role on a TV show. That’s where your audience is. And if the show’s a hit, people will keep paying you for continuity reasons.

  8. The guys who played Mark Corrigan, Jez, Superhans and Johnston were much funnier on Peep Show than she was.

  9. So is that why that Page person flipped to Elliot – so she could be paid more? Did it work? If this article is correct the switcheroo should have resulted in an immediate pay rise.

  10. I’m sure Olivia Colman makes up for any shortfall of money with all her “charity” ads fees

    Ghastly, ugly women, crap actress too imo, never liked her. As Laurence Fox says “I wouldn’t shag her”


    Rev Dr Crispin Pailing’s church is in Liverpool. Scousers not into woke bollocks and mostly stauch RCs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *