Doesn't Deserve 10 MIL!
-
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?" -
ojdidntdoit6 — 20 years ago(March 25, 2006 08:07 PM)
Give the man what he deserves? What?
It doesn't matter if they would have told him the movie would have a budget of 100$ million, Randy Quaid getting 10 million dollars is complete beep
He was in 10 minutes of the movie, was he good? Yes, good for 10 MINUTES.
What other reasons? Oh, I know why he deserves it. Because Randy Quaid is such a HUGE box office draw, because of all the big hits hes been in over the years, he deserves the same financial respect as Tom Cruise.
Now, one reason why he might be asking for 10 MILLION dollars for his small part is because he was lied to, even if he really was lied to. And hes pissed off. Yes, exactly, thats one of the only reasons I can think of.
10 Million dollars for a 10 minute part is complete beep he wouldn't have been paid half as much as 10 million. He is a has-been, he was a great actor, and is still pretty decent, (im not saying I myself am a great actor, I don't act, im just stating a opinion) but damnit, he has been in close to no "big movies" in the past couple of years. He doesn't deserve that much money for this one film, and this work.
I wonder how much Jake and Heath got paid, since they had larger and more complex parts, they had to have a sex scene, making out scenes, overall difficult scenes. And they were the big joke when the movie was released, but I can only wonder how much they were paid. I can guess from 2-5 million each, I wouldn't expect anything more. So I guess Quaid deserves atleast 5 million morewhy?.WellbecauseHes Randy Quaid.
Now, cue the defensive replies where all you can do is insult Jake, Heath, and Lee. Trying to use that to defend Randy Quaid.
Go Ahead.
Im Waiting. -
swordoftheshogun — 20 years ago(March 25, 2006 08:42 PM)
Why can't idiots like you understand that NOT ONE PERSON IS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT JAKE OR HEATH WAS PAID YOU FREAKING MORONS.
NOT ONE PERSON IS INSULTING ANG LEE, HEATH OR JAKE. NOTICE HOW I HAVE TO USE CAPS BECAUSE CLEARLY SPEAKING CALMLY ISN'T GETTING THROUGH YOUR STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID THICK SKULLS.
The man was LIED to. Why can't you morons accept this? This has 111cNOTHING to do with ANYONE ELSE ON THE FREAKING MOVIE OK? Quaid has an ASKING PRICE. IF you could hold a job for more then a few years, your salary SHOULD go up every year right? Hence you have your own asking price. If you worked in an office doing such and such for 30 thousand a year, by the end of five to ten years, you should be making close to sixty grand, unless you work at a seriously crappy company. Your value is determined by your resume and Quaid has a very long and somewhat debatable career, but the fact is QUAID HAS AN ASKING PRICE OF 1-2 MILLION PER PICTURE OK?
When he was asking to come to this picture, he told the movie would be LOW BUDGET (still following me thick heads?) and this LOWERED HIS ASKING PRICE. This would be the same situation if you were a paralegal or lawyer and your client said he could only pay you half of your usual salary demands. NOW THEN, when Mr. Quaid found out the movie was going to be a higher budget movie and get a worldwide release when he was TOLD the movie was going to be nothing special, he promptly asked for the rest of what he was due. This would no different then that lawyer or paralegal asking for the rest of his money when he/she finds out a client does in fact have the funds to pay your usual salary price.
THAT'S ALL THIS IS ABOUT. QUAID IS NOT ASKING FOR TEN MILLION DOLLARS BECAUSE HE DESERVES TEN MILLION. HE'S ASKING FOR TEN MILLION BECAUSE HE WAS LIED TO. HAVE YOU EVER, AND I MEAN EVER HEARD OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES? LOOK IT UP SOMETIME AND REALIZE THAT WHEN PEOPLE ARE LIED TO ABOUT MONEY, THEY EXPECT IT BACK AND DUE TO THE LOVELY LEGAL SYSTEM WE ALL SHARE, LAWYERS COST A BUNDLE. IN ORDER TO GET WHAT HE FEELS HE IS DUE, HE NEEDS TO ASK FOR A HEFTY AMOUNT TO PAY FOR ALL THOSE LOVELY COSTS.
End of story, kindly shut the hell up now please. This man has done nothing wrong. He hasn't said ONE bad thing about your stupid movie or asking for more money on top of his usual salary. He is NOT greedy, he is asking for what he deserved in the first place. ALL of you would have done the same.
This isn't about starving for your art. Had the producers been straight up with him (and i'm sure they were with Jake/Heath AND Lee, or else they would have done the same), this would have never happened. -
OptimusPrime2 — 20 years ago(March 26, 2006 07:55 AM)
It's a stupid lawsuit because how on Earth would they of known that it was going to make a lot of money. Anyways they paid him1c84 low because it was a low budget movie. It only cost 14 million to make. What does he expect to be paid. Hes not even a big actor either. I honestly didn't even know his name and I watch a lot of movies. This guy is a greedy bastard.
-
swordoftheshogun — 20 years ago(March 26, 2006 08:23 AM)
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.
Kindly shut the hell up now and read the facts before you ever post again. -
Lias — 20 years ago(March 30, 2006 06:02 AM)
Where your argument breaks down is: he didn't have to do the movie. He could have gone off and done something where he got his usual.
What is all this "lied to" stuff anyway? No one could predict this movie would take off. If Randy had asked for points up front, they might have given it to him. But HE didn't even have enough faith in the money making power of this movie to ask for that.
He needs to just deal with the fact that he signed a legal contract of his own free will. It's not as if he was tied up there for months. Instead of spending his time in court, he should try to salvage his reputation and get out there and make a blockbuster so he can get some of that big money he's so worried about. -
Lias — 20 years ago(March 30, 2006 05:55 AM)
He did not work for free. His union would never allow that in the first place. Secon5b4d, even with his "pay cut" I guarantee he made more than the rest of us make in the same amount of time on the job. Maybe more than some of us make in a year.
-
ashedmaniac — 20 years ago(March 30, 2006 10:17 AM)
I never said he worked for free, so I hope you weren't replying to me there. Also, regardless of how much he made "compared to us" - that shouldn't discount his earnings. If someone is paid three dollars when they should have been paid five - it's wrong. If someone is paid three million dollars when they should have been paid five million - it's wrong. I'm not going to get into the ethics of actors being paid so much for their work - as that's not the issue here. The issue here is with the deception that the makers of the film MAY have taken part in.
-Ash
"YDuzItSeemPepleConsidaCaring2BTheAbility2Say"ICare"&Not2ExpresItThruActions,Insite,OrUndastandin?" -
Lias — 20 years ago(March 30, 2006 11:02 AM)
He "should" get paid what his contract said he would get paid. No more, no less. If what he was to be paid was contingent on the budget, then that has to be in the contract. If it's not, then he has no case. No one forced him to be in that movie.
-
ashedmaniac — 20 years ago(March 30, 2006 11:05 AM)
Lias - regarding the above post - I agree with you - with the exception of the potential of a verbal agreement in regards to the budget (or mass release) effecting the contract. Then again, that could be chalked up to a "5b4;bad agent" or something if the contract itself says nothing to do with thatso who knowsbut yes, I agree with you in principal. The specifics there are where we're probably going to get blurry.
-Ash
"YDuzItSeemPepleConsidaCaring2BTheAbility2Say"ICare"&Not2ExpresItThruActions,Insite,OrUndastandin?" -
Lias — 20 years ago(March 30, 2006 05:51 AM)
Not going to happen. I sign a contract, just like Randy did. Quaid isn't claiming he didn't get what was in the contract - which he had every opportunity to refuse to sign in the first place if it was not to his liking.
He's saying he wants a new contract for work already completed.