Hollywood history is usually written in years, not weeks. But in late 2017, Ridley Scott did something that basically broke the industry’s logic. He erased a lead actor from a finished movie.
All the Money in the World Kevin Spacey was, for a few months, a completed project. Spacey had spent ten days in front of the camera, buried under pounds of latex to play the elderly oil tycoon J. Paul Getty. The posters were printed. The trailers were in theaters. Then, the world changed.
The 11th-Hour Erase
When the sexual misconduct allegations against Spacey surfaced in October 2017, the film was less than two months from its release. Most directors would have pushed the date. They would have delayed, prayed for the news cycle to move on, or maybe just let the film sink.
Ridley Scott did none of those things. He decided to cut Spacey out entirely.
Honestly, it sounded like a suicide mission. Scott didn't just trim a few scenes; he replaced the central figure of the film with Christopher Plummer. And he did it while keeping the original December release date. This wasn't just a creative choice. It was a $10 million gamble to save a $40 million investment from becoming "radioactive" at the box office.
How they actually did it
The logistics were a nightmare. You've got to realize that many of the scenes were shot in remote locations or on complex sets that had already been struck.
✨ Don't miss: Temuera Morrison as Boba Fett: Why Fans Are Still Divided Over the Daimyo of Tatooine
Scott had to:
- Recall the entire main cast, including Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg.
- Secure the original filming locations in Italy and the UK.
- Re-light and re-frame 22 different scenes in just nine days.
- Edit, color grade, and mix the audio for the new footage in record time.
What's wild is that Christopher Plummer was actually Scott's first choice for Getty. The studio had pushed for Spacey because they wanted a "bigger name" at the time. Ironically, Spacey’s performance required him to be aged up with prosthetics, whereas Plummer, then 87, just walked onto the set and looked the part naturally.
The Performance Gap: Spacey vs. Plummer
If you ever get the chance to see the original trailer featuring Spacey, the difference is jarring. Spacey’s Getty was a creature of makeup. He felt like a villain from a comic book, cold and somewhat artificial.
Plummer brought something else. He played Getty with a terrifying, grandfatherly charm. It wasn't just that he replaced Spacey; many critics argued he significantly improved the movie.
There's a specific kind of arrogance in J. Paul Getty—a man who would rather haggle over a ransom than pay to save his grandson. Plummer captured that skinflint energy perfectly. He ended up getting an Oscar nomination for the role. Imagine that: getting a Best Supporting Actor nod for a job you didn't even have six weeks before the ceremony.
🔗 Read more: Why Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy Actors Still Define the Modern Spy Thriller
The Pay Gap Controversy
While the reshoot was a technical triumph, it sparked one of the biggest scandals in modern Hollywood labor history.
Everyone thought the cast was returning for "per diem" or for free as a show of solidarity. Michelle Williams famously took less than $1,000 for the extra work. But then the news leaked: Mark Wahlberg had negotiated a secret $1.5 million payout for the exact same reshoot days.
This revelation blew the doors off the conversation about the gender pay gap. Both actors were represented by the same agency, WME, yet one was paid a fortune while the other was told everyone was working for peanuts. Eventually, Wahlberg donated that $1.5 million to the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund in Williams' name, but the damage to the "we're all in this together" narrative was done.
Why it still matters today
The All the Money in the World Kevin Spacey saga wasn't just about one actor's fall from grace. It was a proof of concept. It showed that in the digital age, no performance is permanent.
If an actor becomes a liability, they can be swapped out like a piece of faulty hardware. We’ve seen similar things happen since, but never on this scale or with this much speed.
💡 You might also like: The Entire History of You: What Most People Get Wrong About the Grain
It also changed how studios look at "key man" insurance. If you're a producer now, you're looking at your lead actor and wondering: What happens if I have to delete them tomorrow?
Actionable takeaways from the Getty saga
If you’re looking to understand the impact of this event on the industry, keep these points in mind:
- The Power of the Director: Ridley Scott’s clout allowed him to override a major studio (Sony) and spend millions of their money on a hunch. Very few people have that kind of "final cut" authority.
- The Shift in Casting: Studios now vet "problematic" histories more than ever. The cost of a reshoot is a permanent line item in the risk assessment of any major production.
- The Transparency Movement: The Wahlberg/Williams pay gap led to massive changes in how agencies handle multi-client negotiations. You're seeing more transparency in contracts because of what happened on that set in November 2017.
The movie itself is a solid thriller, but the story about the movie is arguably more fascinating than the kidnapping of John Paul Getty III. It’s a case study in crisis management, technical brilliance, and the shifting morals of an industry that decided, for once, that some names aren't worth the price of the ticket.
For those interested in the technical side, you can find side-by-side comparisons of the Spacey trailers versus the final Plummer scenes on YouTube. They offer a masterclass in how different acting choices can fundamentally change the temperature of a scene without changing a single line of dialogue.