Doesn't Deserve 10 MIL!
-
kenji22 — 20 years ago(March 24, 2006 07:05 PM)
$10 million? You've got to be kidding me! I hope he gets nothing. If you reverse the logic, if the movie bombed, should he give back some of his paycheck to cover the movie's losses? I didn't think so. It's ridiculous to ask for more money just because the movie did suprisingly well. He signed a contract to act for a certain amount of money and that's what he should get. Don't sign the contract if you are not satisified with how much you're getting paid. He's just greedy.
-
ashedmaniac — 20 years ago(March 24, 2006 07:13 PM)
And that line of thinking is just narrow-minded. I'm surda0prised you'd be willing to consider anything to do with Brokeback Mountain anyway, what with the whole "homosexual themes" and all rolls eyes. Geez - HE SIGNED THE CONTRACT AFTER BEING LIED TO. Therefore, he was signed to the film under false pretenses. Therefore he deserves the amount he would have made had they told him the truth to begin with.
-Ash
"YDuzItSeemPepleConsidaCaring2BTheAbility2Say"ICare"&Not2ExpresItThruActions,Insite,OrUndastandin?" -
ashedmaniac — 20 years ago(March 26, 2006 01:56 PM)
They didn't have to KNOW. They marketed it a fair amound after it DID make any money to begin with after probably giving Quaid the impression they wouldn't be marketing it much at all. Therefore, you don't have to "prove" they knew it would make more than they said. All you have to "prove" is that someone told Quaid it was a low-budget film and so he lowered his asking price, and that in Hollywood, what would "legally" be defined as a low-budget film is less than what was spent on Brokeback Mountain.
There's no way to "prove" that they knew it would make more money, but that's not the point. But let's see if we can make it clear they PROBABLY knew it would.
Okay, it could easily be surmised that they knew it would make its money back, probably double (or maybe even triple) its budget in profits (especially if it got nominated for awards ((which it almost surely would considering it had major stars you generally wouldn't see playing gay characters in a "love story" and was intended to get a fairly mainstream release if its first few weeks did very well at allwhich is like a combination of a bunch of genres/circumstances you don't often see combined - major stars, gay roles, love story, mainstream, clear buzz and mention in the news for its subject matter, etc.)) and because it was released during what one would generally consider a more "Oscar-centric" release date.
So although I doubt they expected it to make80-some million or whatever I've heard, I DO think they expected it to make a fair amount of money. It's probably made nearly double what they thought it would, but you know, it's like saying a movie that's 150 million dollars isn't big-budget because you could spend 200 or 300 or 400 (etc) million dollars on itthat's not true. 150 million's still a "big budget". So 50 million for this movie still would have been a profit and probably too mainstream (in terms of advertising, marketing, etc - even though that's actually irrelevent to the case - it does help make it clear they weren't working on a film that "wasn't going to be seen by many people" and things like that).
So prove they knew it would make more? You can't. But you don't have to in relation to this lawsuit. But it's fairly easy to see how they could take a guess at its profits and not be THAT afraid that they wouldn't make a profit at all. People act like this movie was risky, but it was moresoan "off-chance" sort of thing that it might not make any money. It was fairly clearly going to make its budget back just from random curiosity, the mainstream stars, the "taboo" subject matter, blah dee blah - as mentioned. If it HAD flopped completely, THAT would have been unexpected, but easily written off as an "Oh, America won't accept gay-centric movies with major stars". That doesn't mean they were thinking the film would do bad business. Not at all.
-Ash
"YDuzItSeemPepleConsidaCaring2BTheAbility2Say"ICare"&Not2ExpresItThruActions,Insite,OrUndastandin?" -
OptimusPrime2 — 20 years ago(March 26, 2006 10:22 PM)
"Thank you Optimus for being the exact moron I was speaking of. You completely ignored everything we said in this mans defense and still sadly assume this lawsuit has everything to do with the money it made. It doesn't, it had everything to do with the budget."
Like what, he was lied too? How the hell do you know he was lied to. Were you there when they talked to him? So shut the hell up. Nobody thought this was going to make money. It was even released to a small limited amount of theaters at first and there wasn't really any advertising for it. They only released it to more theater when it was making money and thats when they started advertising it more. -
IWFTriplehGame — 20 years ago(March 25, 2006 02:05 AM)
First, I would like to say that Randy Quaid is the man.
If they lied to him to take less money, that's fraud, and he deserves the cash. If not, then he doesn't.
The facts in the case will decide the outcome, not any of our opinions. -
ljb581985 — 20 years ago(March 25, 2006 09:11 AM)
Uh Quaid doesnt have a good movie career and isnt worth 10 million buckswhat do you guys want to join his cult..cause you guys are defending him sooooo muchmaybe..maybe he deserves like 500,000 tops but thats it. He was in the movie for mer minutes..no much screen time at all. 10 million bucks is tooo much.
-
JonnytheMann — 20 years ago(March 25, 2006 12:19 PM)
This is such BS, guys. Randy Quaid wouldn't make $10 million if he got a lead role in a major Hollywood movie. He simply isn't worth that much. He had a bit part in this movie. His part probably took 2 days to film. He's pathetic.
All generalizations are dangerous even this one. -
ashedmaniac — 20 years ago(March 25, 2006 01:04 PM)
Many people sue for more money than they believe they have been cheated out of to establish a point. In this case, I believe it is because he believes he deserves compensation for having his name and performance attached to a film that he assumed few people would hear about and see due to what he was told. If it turns out he was lied to, then he deserves his normal salary as well as probably legal fees and some amount because of any marketing that was done for the film and maybe something for "damages" to his reputation because he's gone and filed a perfectly justifiable lawsuit (if they did lie to him) and yet 90% of people on these boards seem to want to run him into the ground for it. I'm not a big fan of the man, but as soon as I heard about this stuff, I knew everybody would be jumping to the wrong conclusion about the situation (if they did lie to him as Quaid claims) - so I quickly came here to try and get people to see the reasoning behind it. It seems everyone's concerned with what "Randy Quaid's worth" and not with the issue here - that he may have been lied to, cheated out of his fee for the film, and then had his name attached to a movie that was marketed and promoted as a major film when he was under the impression it was just going to be a "respectable low-budget film" of sorts. I must admit that when I saw him in Brokeback Mountain, I thought "Isn't this a little too 'high class' for him to be in such an Oscar-baiting movie? Why exactly is he in this?" and now I realize why - he didn't think it was going to go anywhere because they told him it wasn't.
-Ash
"YDuzItSeemPepleConsidaCaring2BTheAbility2Say"ICare"&Not2ExpresItThruActions,Insite,OrUndastandin?" -
sinnerofcinema — 20 years ago(March 26, 2006 02:57 AM)
He's ungrateful and hope he gets nothing. I hope other filmmakers catch on to this guys stint and refrain from hiring him. Any actor with a gut and a souther accent could have done his role. His name hardly sold the film. I personally would have gotten and grateful unknown and not waist money on ungrateful pricks like this.
-
Keshet83 — 20 years ago(March 25, 2006 05:22 PM)
I totally agree with you. I can't believe the nerve of this guy. I think it's a near miracle that Brokeback made the money it did. I am sure Lee and the rest never thought it would make that much. Quaid should shut the hell up and just be grateful he was able to be a part of such a great movie. How many people are lucky enough to make lots of money for their art? I am sure he has plenty of money from other films. Really, he is acting like such a beep
-
ashedmaniac — 20 years ago(March 25, 2006 05:29 PM)
Go to your job and get paid half your wages because they're "expecting to have a rough day". Then, after the day requires at least an average amount of work from you, don't bother your employer to see if you can get your normal pay - because you clearly don't deserve it. You should be thankful you have a job at all!
(Note the sarcasm throughout meant to establish the absurdity of your comments.)
-Ash
"YDuzItSeemPepleConsidaCaring2BTheAbility2Say"ICare"&Not2ExpresItThruActions,Insite,OrUndastandin?"