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.

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

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

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.

Ditto. Nice post, Lilly.

... 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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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

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.

John, I am not so sure they "risk nothing"; accepting the wrong role can do a lot of damage to an actor’s career ultimately costing them a lot. I mean it’s 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.

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.

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.