Comments on: Randy Quaid Sues Over Brokeback Mountain

By: Jaydon Staten

Jaydon Staten — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:54:49 +0000

Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron…

By: Diana

Diana — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 05:49:06 +0000

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].

By: Diana

Diana — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 05:37:33 +0000

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!

By: Diana

Diana — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 05:30:50 +0000

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.

By: GBstar

GBstar — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:58:20 +0000

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.

By: mogulus

mogulus — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:46:39 +0000

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.

By: Fiona Wilson

Fiona Wilson — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:06:06 +0000

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.

By: Bullet in the head

Bullet in the head — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:28:38 +0000

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.

By: Joboo

Joboo — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:50:37 +0000

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.

By: John Campea

John Campea — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:23:41 +0000

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