Sueing BBM for ten million dollars?
-
swordoftheshogun — 20 years ago(March 24, 2006 05:40 PM)
You guys just don't get it. Randy isn't asking for more money because he is greedy, he is demanding the money because people LIED to him. They told him it was a LOW-BUDGET movie that was in the range of 1 million to 7 million. Randy Quaid's asking price for a movie, regardless of the length is 1-2 million dollars considering his long resume. How he gets off on asking this much is beyond me, but people actually do pay the man this much for a movie.
Randy Quaid is suing in PRINCIPLE because he lied to. It's not a question of how much Brokeback Mountain made, that has nothing to do with it. The producers told him the film wasn't going to be marketed, that it was a cheap movie and would never ge5b4t noticed. He lowered his price then because he was told all of that, and then realized they lied to him.
Randy is justified in his lawusit. He doesn't deserve ten million dollars, but if everything he has said is true (you people are far too quick to judge this man, shame on all of you) then he deserves the rest of his usual asking price at least.
That's all this is, he has nothing against the movie and the money it made. He wants to make a point that he was robbed of what he would normally make and wants to make them suffer a little for doing so. Don't you dare tell me you wouldn't do the same if someone said they would have to slash your salary by 50% and then later you find out the company is making record profits. That's the basic idea here, Randy deserves the rest of his money and that's all he originally wanted. Now he wants to take more money away from them as punishment, it's not different then some jackass who "injures" himself at work and sues for hundreds of millions, where are you guys when that happens? -
nicver — 20 years ago(March 25, 2006 11:48 AM)
He is a very talented actor but I am sure that being Dennis' brother must have helped him a bit.
In this case, he was lied too. The budget was twice the budget limit which the SAG gives to a movie to be labeled "low-budget".
A $30 million marketing budget was attached to it from the get-go.
Don't forget that this is an industry, not just an artform.
If in any type of project you lie to a partner and misrepresent your intentions, for instance telling an engineer that his work will be for a charity16d0 and it turns out to be a succesful commercial enterprise instance, then this engineer is going to sue you if he agreed to lower his salary.
Plain and simple.
And he is a very talented actor, better than his brother, just does not have the same good looks (I guess that years of boozing and good eatin' does get to you in the end). -
swordoftheshogun — 20 years ago(March 25, 2006 08:25 PM)
quang, it still doesn't matter. If he was lied to, he deserves the money he was owed, plain and simple. Do I agree with the lawsuit? No. But I agree he deserves the rest of his money IF (and that is the keyword here) he was lied to and was told the film was a certain budget but it was instead a bigger one with more room for profit.
I just don't understand the point of lying to the man, I mean it's not like it's a huge difference anyways. What was the point of hiring Quaid for this role and lying to the man? Couldn't they hire someone else for cheaper if they really wanted to avoid this sort of thing? Is Quaid really that high in demand these days doing b movies?
All we are asking is to not judge the man yet. Let's hear this out and if he is indeed in the wrong, i'll join you guys on the picket line if need be. Quaid isn't trying to beb68 selfish, he's trying to prove a point and everyone one of you would do the exact same if you felt you were owed money because someone lied to you. I would file a lawsuit for more actually, because it's very likely Quaid will be lucky to get a dime by the time this things ends. Look at the poor guy who helped in Chicago. The film earned hundreds of million in theatre and dvd sales and he is owed more then ten million and he'll be lucky to pick up half a mil tops. Where are you guys on this one? Why isn't anyone yelling at the Weinstein's? I'll tell you why, because half of you can't clear the crap from your eyes on this movie and assume Quaid is attacking the movie because he is greedy and ANY attack on this movie MUST mean you are either anti gay, pro cowboy or "just a hater". This is just a stereotype of course, I would none of you would think of any of those reasons being the reason behind this lawsuit. It's just a matter of words, that's all it is, and quite franky, it is none of our dam business. -
turi1 — 20 years ago(March 28, 2006 12:10 PM)
I agree with you!! And he was on the mocie like for 30 seconds, and to be honest he has to be happy to be in a great movie!! Imagine if he deserves 10 millions, how much money does jake, michelle, ledger, anne derearves? I hope that nobody give him another movie anymore!!
-
Squishy-12 — 20 years ago(March 29, 2006 01:02 PM)
I haven't seen the movi111ce yet, and didn't even know Quaid was in it.
Given that his career is headed deep in the direction of absolute crap like "Category 7: The End Of The World," you'd think he'd be grateful for any work he gets.
Hope he enjoys his new "radioactive" status. Who's going to hire a sloppy dink who will sue you if your movie makes money?