I’m a big fan of Randy Quaid. The man just brings so much pure character to every role he plays. Sometimes outrageously silly, sometimes deadly serious, the man seemingly always delivers. The same is true of his performance in Brokeback Mountain.
However, all is not smiles and giggles in Brokeback land. Randy Quaid is suing the producers of the film alleging that they engaged in “intentional and negligent misrepresentation”. What’s the problem? The good folks over at the USA Today give us this:
Quaid filed a lawsuit Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging the producers got him to work cheap by falsely claiming the movie was “a low-budget, art house film, with no prospect of making any money.”“Yet from day one, defendants fully intended that the film would not be made on a low budget, would be given a worldwide release, and would be supported as the studio picture it always was secretly intended to be,” the lawsuit says. Quaid agreed to waive his usual seven-figure fee and share of gross profits in favor of a much smaller payment, the suit claims, although it doesn’t say how much he was paid.
The story goes on to say that Quaid is seeking… are you ready for this… $10 million in damages. Yikes!
I’m of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, Randy suffered no damage from this. It’s not as if he had to work harder because the film did well and got a wide release. Randy agreed (under whatever circumstances) to do a job for a certain amount of money. He did the job, got paid what was agreed, and that should be the end of it. HOWEVER…
On the other hand I can sort of see where Quaid is coming from. If he took a huge paycut as a favour to the producers under the impression that the film was going to cost much less to make and not get big studio backing or release… and THEN he finds out it cost more to make and got the big studio treatment… then maybe I’d be ticked off too.
I’m not sure what the answer is to this one… the only thing that is certain is that this is going to get messy and it’s not going away anytime soon. What do you think? Should Quaid get more cash?
21 Comments, Comment or Ping
Pudie
I think the real question that needs to be asked here is …
WHY THE HELL IS RANDY FUCKIN QUAID MAKING SEVEN FIGURES!?!??!?
Sure he’s done a few decent things here and there, but more often then not he does some of the stupidest god damn movies there are. No way in hell does the man deserve that kind of paycheck.
Mar 27th, 2006
John Campea
Hey Pudie,
I see what you’re saying… but I think (just my opinion) that you pay the man for his talent level… not the talent level of the directors he’s worked with or how good the movies he was in were.
Just my two cents worth.
Cheers!
~John
Mar 27th, 2006
Stamoz
John,
the bottom line should be that since he signed up for an agreed (from both sides) amount of money, thats exactly how much he should get paid.
You cannot always say for sure that a movie will bring tons of money. What if the movie did extremely bad? Should the producers sue the actors saying that the should get paid less? I don’t think so.
John, I feel that like in the professional popular sports like football, salaries and greed have gone to far. I mean, how the hell a 7 figure amount of salary for perhaps a month of real work, that would be more an enjoyment for me, is regarded as inadequate?
Just my 7 figure cents.
Stamoz
Mar 27th, 2006
Lilly
My thinking on this issue is that if he doesn’t sue, it will set a very dangerous precedent for other actors who have a long career built on integrity, quality and deliverables to protect. Randy isn’t some neophyte who is being greedy. He is a business man as well as a solid, bankable character actor. The producers knew what they were doing when they approached him. They deliberately misrepresented the movie budget and their intentions for releasing the movie in the film houses. They lied to him, tricked and hoodwinked him, and now they want him to shut up about it so they can go on to do it over and over and over again to less experienced actors who possibly won’t catch on, or worse, who will be told my their lawyers and agents this is the new norm in Hollywoood - get used to it or get out. We don’t do shit like this in the real world of business, so why should the producers expect to get away with fraud in the make belief world of movie making? It’s just bad business that will leave a very bad taste in everyone’s mouth. Plus, the upside to suing it getting their names put out there in public for the rest of Randy’s ilk to know who is doing what and that there is legal recourse.
Mar 27th, 2006
Mr Stay Puft
Ditto. Nice post, Lilly.
Mar 27th, 2006
Bullet in the head
… Yeah I’m with Lilly on this one, the contract should not stand because it was misrepresented, I hope he wins.
It’s very different from him having all the facts, choosing to take a lower fee based on them and then crying when the movie does well.
Mar 27th, 2006
Triflic
I can’t see this as other than being career suicide for Mr. Quaid. And that is just too bad, as he was pretty damn good in his short (what 8 screen-minutes tops?) time in BBM.
I don’t care whether the man is right or wrong…I just think this is a dumb idea career-wise. I mean, folks probably noticed his great performance in the movie, but who the hell is going to hire him now…
Exec Logic (I’m not saying this is right, but it’ll happen): Quaid??!! He’ll sue us if the movie is a hit! Let’s just hire Dylan Baker or Robert Patrick instead.
Mar 27th, 2006
Joboo
It just seems like common sense to have a system where the main actors in a film get paid more if the film makes X number of dollars at the box office. More and more is earned by the actors if the film’s intake climbs to huge levels. Probably wouldn’t work … I guess that would be … too fair, or something.
Mar 27th, 2006
John Campea
Hey there Joboo
I see where you’re coming from… however I have to respectfully disagree.
I don’t see why an actor should get paid more because the director did a great job, or because the marketing company did a great job, or because the screenwriter wrote a fantastic story. Why should the actor reap the rewards? They risked nothing, they didn’t put up their own money did they?
I think an actor should do a job that they get paid to do (like everyone else), and then that’s it (just like most everyone else).
Just my two cents worth mate.
Cheers!
~John
Mar 27th, 2006
Marty
So if he wins he’ll get more money out of this than Gyllenhaal or Ledger? That’s kinda weird. I don’t agree with actors getting the obscene amounts of money that they do but, hell, if they lied to the guy then they deserve everything they get. Can’t really hold anything against Quaid. If I thought I had even a half of a half of a half of a case against someone where I might win ten million dollars then I’d be fucking sueing as well! I’d sue their balls off!
Mar 27th, 2006
Joboo
John,
Well, I don’t know why it couldn’t apply to all parties involved. My mistake to just refer to the actors. Not to sound like a commie socialist, but if a film pulls in 150 million dollars and cost 25 million to make, it just seems like there should be enough pie to go around so everyone involved shares in its success.
I guess ultimately my point is that there’s no telling how well a film will or will not do. Some great films to poorly and some crap films blow the roof off. Having the profits of all involved parties attached (at least to some extent) to the bottom line seems to make sense to me. I’m no bean counter though and I’m sure the bigwigs in Hollywood would scoff at such a notion.
Mar 27th, 2006
John Campea
Hey there Joboo
Thanks for clarifying that. :)
However, I guess what I would say to that “Share the pie around”, is that I would only be in favor of it if the actors had to give back a portion of their salary if the movie looses money.
THe way I see it (And heaven’s knows I’ve been wrong before) is that if only certain people stand to loose money if the film bombs… then they should be the only ones to reap the extra winfall if the movie is a hit. The actors et all should be paid what they agreed to be paid no matter if the movie looses or makes money.
Just my two cents.
Cheers!
~John
Mar 27th, 2006
Joboo
Yeah, I see your point. I guess I was just thinking about smaller films where actors wouldn’t be signing for $10-$20 million before a single frame is shot. With independent films where base salaries are much much lower in order to simply make a movie possible, I just thought it would be honorable to to compensate those who chose the work over the money.
Still, I see what you mean. Actors have pretty much created the bed in which they sleep. And no, I don’t see Tom Cruise giving a refund if one of his movies tanks.
Mar 27th, 2006
Bullet in the head
John, I am not so sure they “risk nothing”; accepting the wrong role can do a lot of damage to an actor‚Äôs career ultimately costing them a lot. I mean it‚Äôs maybe not the same risk as the investors run or even many of the gambles people take in their everyday lives, but can wreck careers, just as choosing the right role can make them.
I don’t agree with the people who think he should “shut up” and take it, you have to stand up for yourself or get walked on, some one has to make a stand, sure he does not deserve 10 million, but its more about teaching them a lesson and loosing money by lying is a good lesson to learn. If he agreed a fee and the film did better than expected for an unknown reason then that would be a different story all together.
Mar 27th, 2006
Fiona Wilson
I think Randy Quaid is quite right and well within his rights to be doing this. Usually, I have no time for celebrities and their damn lawsuits as they generally smack of sheer greed, but this is different. I think his career could very well suffer for his principles but that only furthers my belief that he is bravely upstanding as he will know the risks involved. I say good luck, Mr.Quaid - I hope you don’t need it but I’ve got a feeling you will.
Mar 27th, 2006
mogulus
seriously, I feel that everyone got the shaft ( pun intended ) with brokeback mountain. The writer, in her response to not winning the oscar, showed that she was probably all but assured the oscar from the get go…why else would she get so uptight about losing to such a fine film as “TRASH”?
oh well. “Bustedback mountain” wasnt’ really that great, as you’ve pointed out. it was good. not great. And I can totally see where Randy Quaid is going with this lawsuit and where he’s coming from.
In an age where arty movies are a passion, who wants to screw the actors who are good enough to “dirty” themselves by making them with underpayment when they are marketing the thing as a major motion picture?
I mean, I couldnt even find “march of the penguins” at my local theatre, but I sure as hell could find Brokeback mountain.
Mar 27th, 2006
GBstar
Bottom line being he signed a contract to play a small part in a movie. If he was unhappy with the deal at the time I think that he should have just passed on it. I agree with the other posters who said that only a certain number of people put their arses on the line to get a movie made and those should be the primary ones to reap the reward for a movie’s success. Especially with a movie that going in they knew would draw a lot of debate on both sides. It could have been a complete flop or a hit. This time it was a hit and let me tell you it wasnt bc of Randy Quaid. Take your paycheck Mr. Quaid and use it to buy some sense.
Apr 3rd, 2006
Diana
I know I’m late but Randy will have to come with the proof and not inuendo. If he has no proof and his lawsuit fails, then I hope the studio/producers have counterclaimed for damage to reputation, their attorney fees and other professional expenses to defend against his lawsuit. The case should not take years and should be set with a tight case management schedule. The court should require the attorneys provide a cost estimate or do a cost agreement to be provided a short time after the case management conference so that both parties know what the potential legal costs will be. This is a great settler of legal disputes since the loser should be required to pay the winner’s legal and professional costs.
Apr 4th, 2006
Diana
By the way, I thought Randy had one fine moment on screen in the movie for the few scenes he had. His expression made me laugh out loud!
Apr 4th, 2006
Diana
If the below is true as provided by answers.com - Quaid will have to have documentary and witness testimony to prove the plan was to release all over at the time of his contract negotiation since it started as a limited release.
The film saw limited release in the United States on December 9, 2005 (in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco), taking $547,425 in five theaters its first weekend. According to several sources, including TV Guide [2] and indiewire [3], this was the highest per-showing average for any drama in film history.
Over the Christmas weekend, it posted the highest per theater gross of any movie [4] and was considered a box office success not only in urban centers such as New York City and Los Angeles, but also in suburban theaters near Portland, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, and Atlanta. On January 6, 2006, the movie expanded into 483 theaters, and, on January 13, 2006 Focus Features, the movie’s distributor, opened Brokeback in nearly 700 North American cinemas as part of its ongoing expansion strategy for the movie. On January 20, the film opened in 1,194 theaters in North America; it opened in 1,652 theaters on January 27 and in 2,089 theaters on February 3, its widest release yet. [5]
As of February 16, 2006, Brokeback Mountain had grossed more than $68 million in North America and more than $39 million elsewhere.[6] It is already the top grossing release of Focus Features [7].
Apr 4th, 2006
Jaydon Staten
Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron…
Nov 24th, 2006
Reply to “Randy Quaid Sues Over Brokeback Mountain”