Sueing BBM for ten million dollars?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Randy Quaid
bettyville — 20 years ago(March 24, 2006 12:25 PM)
First of all, the movie had a good chance of not making any money, so the producers didn't lie to him. He signed on to a movie about a romance between two cowboys, not Spiderman 3. Second, he's in the movie for about two minutes. Third, he's not worth ten million. I like him (much less now) but it's not like people rush to the theaters to see him. Ten million is what Jack Nicholson makes. He ain't Jack. It just seems like a greedy move. None of the other cast members are suing for more. "Movie Laundering" is one of the most rediculous terms ever coined. Come on, Randy, you should just be happy to be in a movie that was critically acclaimed (don't even mention The Last Detail cause that was 40 years ago).
-
Cali-lily — 20 years ago(March 24, 2006 01:44 PM)
However, they told him it likely wouldn't make money, then it turned around and made a fair chunk of change. He should be entitled to some of it.
Hey, you take your chances, right? Nothing is a sure thing and that is so true in the film industry. If the film had been a critical bomb would he have sued to have his name pulled from credits?
If I knew your name I'd send you 5b4a bouquet of freshly sharpened pencils -
theopener80 — 20 years ago(March 24, 2006 02:15 PM)
I agree by his logic if the film REALLY bombed they should have pulled some of his original pay too. I was actually surprised, like everyone else, that the film made money. It wasn't supposed to, and really is the little art-house film it was sold as. It just became popular. Randy Quaid is acting like a greedy child. Actor's don't get paid based on how well a movie does, unless they agree to that upfront (few cases of that have happened Jack Nicholson from "Batman" as the Joker for example).
-
kikiscastle77 — 18 years ago(April 24, 2007 08:42 AM)
Everything is hearsay, until you hear it from the "horses mouth". The truth of the matter is, no-one (except Randy and the powers that be) really know what was said or agreed upon. It's easy to sit in judgement of celebs and others, but what woud you do if you were in the same situation.
-
sinnerofcinema — 20 years ago(March 26, 2006 02:20 PM)
He should be entitled to nothing UNLESS he previously negotiated it prior to the shooting of the film. After is a little too later. It shows desperation and greedand sayhe's doing this for publicity. What kind of publicity does it seem like he's getting. I'm betting independent filmmakers are not calling off the hook to sign him on or are they?
-
canon-stuff — 20 years ago(March 26, 2006 06:15 PM)
Look, I'm sure the 10 Mil was not Randy's own doing. Most of the time it is advised by legal staff and where they think they can win and the amount. In most cases, these type of lawsuits are settled out of court. If you start with a higher figure, there is more room to move in the legal negotiations and settlement. Hell, did you all not watch Erin Brockovich?? I feel it will be down to a Mil or less in compensation. The difference between what he was paid and the compensatory amount. He may only get $250K-$500K range. It's the principal of the matter. As an example Howard Stern a few years back settled a lawsuit with producers for 50 grand. He was suing for $5 Mil but settle out of court. The filmmakers told him it was a done deal and was to star with Melanie Griffith but later on reneged on the verbal contract and the movie was never made. So by Quaid asking for $10 Mil, he may only get 5-10% return. It's mostly legal crap going back and forth.
-
swordofthe
2000
shogun — 20 years ago(March 24, 2006 02:28 PM)Anyone who says this movie wouldn't make money is full of you know what. The premise was easy, the marketing was already there. All you had to was pander to the gay audience and the "curious" market would go and see it. This film had the makings of a successful film.
The incident in question for Mr. Quaid was that he was told the film would be a low budget movie, and thus he took his asking price down. Quaid was told the movie would be around 1 mil to 5 mil I assume by what he is claiming. He took a lower asking price because of this, and was told the film would not have a wide release.
The film did however, had a wide release. It won awards and netted a good profit the company and will likely double it's profit on dvd alone. Quaid is greedy yes, but he is justified in asking for more money. Heath and Jake and company should also be asking for their profits if they were told the same.
But really this begs the question:
"How the hell does Quaid justify earning a seven figure salary in the first place?"
That question will sadly never be explained. It is the flaw that is Hollywood. -
cjevans — 20 years ago(March 24, 2006 02:44 PM)
That simply isn't true. Most people were very doubtful of the film's box office chances. It was viewed as simply a gay film, and few believed that a gay film could do very well at the box office. Most people thought it might make ten to thirty million domestic at best. Ang Lee repeatedly expressed shock that the film did so well. Quaid was just lucky to be in a good film, instead of his usual junk like The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle.
-
ashedmaniac — 20 years ago(March 24, 2006 05:25 PM)
I think it's naive to say that people believed Brokeback Mountain would not make that much money. Its whole marketing strategy was going to be based around the word of mouth and "controversy" things surrounding it. It was MARKETED to look like The Little Movie That Could while all along they were maneuvering it to make money. Did you even see when it was released? Prime time for "Oscar season". As if they weren't thinking "Well, at least it could get nominated and, 5b4in March or so, after it probably wins something, we could make some more money." Granted, it wasn't helped a lot by the Oscars, but that is the general idea behind many "similar" films released around the same time of year.
Randy Quaid, while assuredly not one of the best actors in the world, is entitled to monetary damages if he feels he has been misled while in negotiations for the film. Is 10 million what he would have asked for for his role in the film had it been clear what the budget was? No (It would have been considerably less than that). But does he feel that, now that he's been "cheated" out of what his typical salary for this type of film would be, he should be entitled to what he would usually get for this type of film? Yes. And clearly the 10 million is an inflated figure used to help establish how greatly Quaid feels he was decieved by those who led him to believe it was a low-budget movie.
So if what he's said is true, is he justified in suing them? Certainly. Does he deserve 10 million? Probably not. Will he get 10 million? Probably not. But if his accusations ARE true, then he will almost definitely be getting some amount of money. And, in my opinion, he DOES deserve a fair amount more money if what he's claimed is true.
-Ash
"YDuzItSeemPepleConsidaCaring2BTheAbility2Say"ICare"&Not2ExpresItThruActions,Insite,OrUndastandin?"2000; -
cjevans — 20 years ago(March 24, 2006 05:29 PM)
It was a low-budget movie. They didn't have much money to spend on a lot of things they wanted to do. the reason they didn't have the money is because it was viewed as too risky a proposition. why do you think the film took so long to get made. This is utterly contemptible after the fact rationalization to rob the film producers and should make Quaid's name poison to film makers.
-
ashedmaniac — 20 years ago(March 24, 2006 05:36 PM)
Apparently there's some SAG (or something) guidelines as to what constitutes a "low-budget" film and this doesn't fall within those guidelines by at least a few million (Just working off of information I read here - it may not be correct information so if it isn't, this post is meaningless - but just consider that it might be correct info for this post here). So if anybody told him it was "low-budget" while he was negotiating, they "lied" to him and it would be fairly clear to a court that he's entitled to some sort of renegotiation and/or compensation.
-Ash
"YDuzItSeemPepleConsidaCaring2BTheAbility2Say"ICare"&Not2ExpresItThruActions,Insite,OrUndastandin?" -
Iwishyouwell — 20 years ago(March 30, 2006 07:49 AM)
Brokeback Mountain is not a low budget picture, its a mid budget picture. Low budget films are classified as productions with a total spending budget of 5 million or less, which BB mountain clearly doubled. If Quaid was misinformed of the real financial scope of the project, and that misinformation directly affected his salary decision, the company needs to reimburse him according to the true budget. Had they told the truth from day one, assuming they are even in the wrong, they could have avoided having to not only pay Quaid based off the original budgetary brackett, but also in light of the considerable profit they have garnished since the films' release. If he wins this will cost them far more than had they simply paid him according to the true scope of the project.