she should fire her agent and get a better agent to negotiate her future contracts. she had a lot of leverage before the sequel was made. she was half the show. now, it's crying over spilt milk.

#1 Just stop being an ass, do the world a favor.

If your obvious blame the victim misogyny hadn't affected your reading comprehension, you would have read that Anderson battled the executives and won equal pay to Duchovny on BOTH the original series and this one.

Zeesh, you misogynists are thick as a brick.

if she was paid equally, she's hardly a victim then, and the whole premise of the story is false. most people, regardless of sex, have to negotiate for the best wage they can - most employers low-ball their salary offers and expect you to negotiate up. that's not sexism

@3 Wow, with this 2nd comment you really resolved any doubt about whether judybrowni's assessment of you based on @1 was correct.

@5 x-files without Anderson would suck. she is great and half the appeal of the show. the tension between the 2 is what makes it work.

she is hardly a victim though.

@6:

@2's cogent assessment notwithstanding, did you actually READ any of this? She spent THREE YEARS fighting for a wage equal to Duchovny's on the original series, and then had to turn around and FIGHT AGAIN for wage-parity on this new one. See, here's the difference: Duchovny, her CO-STAR, didn't have to fight for shit, they OFFERED him a higher wage, no negotiating required, no "leverage" exerted. So saying she's "hardly a victim", because she EVENTUALLY got equal pay after having to fight for it - TWICE - is like saying, "well, you don't really have anything to complain about because we didn't completely screw you over for your entire term of employment."

@5 A fair question, but I think the show could work without Duchovny, but I wouldn't tune into a reboot without Anderson. Of course the studios wouldn't bet there's a lot of people that share my opinion, but they're idiots.

@8 the term wage hardly applies to entertainment stars. you set a very very low bar for use of the word 'victim'. for ex, if russell wilson is paid below what tom brady makes, does that make russell a victim? or if tom brady is paid below what peyton manning makes, is tom brady now a victim?

and if when you write she had to 'fight' you actually mean 'negotiate' then, yeah, you're correct.

she didnt 'need' the work on the sequel. she has a successful series going already. so one could argue she left money on the table by agreeing to pay equal to David.

Irregardless, She should be called a 'victor' instead of a victim for getting the pay she thought she deserved. By constantly falling back on the 'victim' identity, it reinforces that identity which i think is counterproductive.

@10: You are hell bent on missing the point, and shifting your ground to do so.

First, having obviously not read the article, you blame Anderson for not firing her agent.

Then, again not reading the article, you declare there to have been no problem because eventually she did receive appropriate compensation.

Then when Comte blows holes in your argument by basically summarizing the article for you, you fall back on "well she makes a lot of money anyway so she shouldn't complain".

She is a victor because she overcame an attempt to victimize her.
Twice.
They are stars of comparable stature.
Why was he offered twice the amount of money right from the start?
That is the point.
She had to fight for an amount of money that he did not have to fight to get. They just gave it to him.

@10 it's "regardless"

@12: THANK YOU

@11 the big hole in your argument is that you assume David and his agent did no work for him and they just 'gave' him money. Without any negotiation. That's hardly how contract negotiations work. But sure, if we should feel so bad for Anderson, a person in the 1% on half her salary, and buy the line that she was soooo victimized by the big bad studio men , then yah, ok I guess you are right. I just have a hard time feeling sorry for millionaires regardless of their gender.

@10:

So, suddenly you're an expert on entertainment and production employment contracts? "Wage" is most certainly the correct term, regardless of the amount, because it's paid on a weekly basis just like any other job (excluding any back-end monies that may also be part of the deal memo and contract). Tom Hanks gets paid a weekly WAGE, just like the Day Performer working at-scale, because that's how the Union employment contract is set up.

And what does her "need" to do this have anything to do with - well, anything? Duchovny has an ongoing series himself, so clearly HE doesn't "need" the work either, right? And I can guarantee absolutely NO money was left on the table by either of them; both their respective series have been renewed, Duchovney has been shooting Season 2 of Aquarius since mid-November and Anderson just started on Series 3 of The Fall in Ireland earlier this month. She (or he for that matter) didn't lose a penny by doing what is for all intents-and-purposes a limited-run mini-series, because their schedules left sufficient open time while on-hiatus to accommodate the approximately two and a-half months needed for shooting The X Files.

And anyone in the industry can attest to the fact that negotiating IS a fight, often an ongoing series of back-and-forth running battles that can take weeks, months, sometimes years to bring to completion, particularly in a case like this where there's obvious disparity between what Performer A is making versus Performer B who has equal billing. The fact that it took as long as it did for her to get wage equity the first time around is testament to this; it didn't come to blows or even a lawsuit, but that doesn't make the process any less brutal, because there are huge amounts of money on-the-line if things go south, and if there's one thing studio suits understand, it's the value of a dollar - or several millions of them. You think this would have ever been made if Anderson had decided to not participate? Think again.

@16 - To be fair, I think the original show outstayed its welcome regardless, that was just the last nail in its coffin.

Both actors are the heart of the show, it's the only way this reboot works. I could just be speaking from personal bias though since Duchovny isn't an actor I've grown to be excited about since then.

@14: Nooo you have demonstrated that gender is indeed a factor for you.
Of course there were negotiations on behalf of both performers. No one has assumed otherwise.
You are assuming that the dollar amount offered to Duchvny came as a result of negotiations. That the starting offer to both Duchvny and Anderson were commensurate.
No.
From the get go, he was offered more money than she was.
It doesn't fucking matter how much money it was. They both could be making tens of dollars rather than millions.
The amount isn't the issue
The issue is that as actors of comparable stature, and co stars, he was offered more money for the same work, from the beginning. Before negotiations
That using money as a means of measuring worth, he was considered more valuable than she was from the beginning, with the only meaningful difference between them being their gender.
That is a problem.
And. That. Is. The. Point.

@15 i exactly agree that it could not have been made without anderson. which is why she may have left money on the table. but we'll never know about that for sure, just speculation. was not referring to her other series.

also, wage is usually referred to people who 'work' for a living - meaning they have to do their job to pay their rent. it hardly refers to Tom Hanks.

irregardless, @18 you make a lot of assumptions about what did or didnt go on behind the scenes with these 2 actors and their agents and the company. it's not always a travesty and there's not always a victim in these stories. i wish anderson would have made the studio hurt more if she was truly a victim of a serious wrong. otherwise it just seems like business.

@19: you think what Mr. Hanks does for a living ISN'T work, I invite you to try it for a week, assuming you can hack it that long.

To be paid millions for the luxury of doing what thousands of nameless actors do for a small percentage of that is hardly what most people call work

Did he just say, "irregardless" again?

@21: Are you an actor? Do you have a background in theatre or film? Because Comte and I do, so I suggest you check yourself and your absurd notions regarding what does or does not make acting work.
Do you honestly believe that the amount of compensation has a functional effect on the difficulty of an action? Being paid for your art is not a luxury, and despite your ludicrous opinion to the contrary, is still work.

@22: LOL, I know, right?

@21:

I sure hope you aren't employed anywhere near the software industry with an attitude like that...

@22

As a friend used to say, that's irredundant.

But it does tell us that cassette tape fan isn't able to understand anything but his(?) own views.

@26: No.

I just came here to say that I love you Lissa. Brilliant rebuttals as always. <3

@30: awwww you are kind.
:)

Pridge, we miss you babe. The redneck dumbass trolls have taken over.

What? Pridge? Where?!!!

@30: See? Everybody misses you.
FYI Seattle Sloggers: There's a slog happy at the Cozy Nut next Friday.
:)

I did like the end of the acceptance speech video, where Helen Mirren helps her offstage by holding up the train of her gown.