MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Randy Quaid: Futurist Or Fuck Up?

So word hit the street, via a website that Variety, of course, does not credit, that Randy Quaid is suing Focus Features for “tricking him” into taking what is likely scale to do Brokeback Mountain by representing the film as a low-budget indie.
Though the media sucker… uh, reporters reported on the “indies at the Oscars” over and over and over and over and over and over, anyone thinking straight always realized that $15 million – $20 million movies are not indies, no matter what division of a massive conglomerate is releasing them. Now that The Weisnteins are in bed with MPAA signatory MGM, Lionsgate is the only true indie still in this sbudget range. Fox’s The Family Stone cost less than Brokeback… is it more, less or equally indie?
So with the line utterly blurred and the studios long using the “indie arms,” their Dependents, as a negotiating tactic to get names to work for less than their normal price, is Randy Quaid striking a blow for actors’ rights or is he just a guy past his money making prime trying to cash in and shooting himself in the foot while hoping to get a multi-million payday just to go away?
(Maybe someone needs to send him a BBM postcard. And maybe agents or SAG will soon be negotiating a price for this form of now-standard talent exploitation.)

15 Responses to “Randy Quaid: Futurist Or Fuck Up?”

  1. Crow T Robot says:

    Reminds of when Wesley Snipes sued New Line because David Goyer’s “Blade Trinity” DIDN’T hit.

  2. Lynn says:

    Fuckup. Damaged to the tune of $10 million? Yeah, right. I’m sure that’s what he typically makes on projects like those “Day of Destruction” TV movies. Yeah, right.
    While there might be some logic to the argument of “They lied to me, so I took less money upfront” it makes no sense whatsoever why he didn’t negotiate a deal for a bonus of some kind if the movie reached a certain level of financial success. Those deals are common, and if, theoretically, the producers wouldn’t agree to that, then gee, wouldn’t he have been tipped off to the fact that they *did* expect to reach that threshold?
    So either make a deal where you’re protected, or shut up. Don’t go whining later because a movie you had 10 lines in turns out to be far more successful than anyone reasonably envisioned at the time it was produced.

  3. palmtree says:

    From what I understand, Randy is a real upstanding guy. If that’s true, then it makes me think that perhaps he feels he was genuinely lied to.
    But part of me thinks that he is hard up for some cash and the prestige from being in an Oscar winning film just isn’t enough.

  4. James Leer says:

    “Family Stone” cost $17 million to Brokeback’s $14 million. Now, those are the public budgets, and it’s entirely possible they cost more — this lawsuit should determine it. But I don’t think Family Stone was less expensive than Brokeback.

  5. palmtree says:

    Isn’t it false to link independent filmmaking and low budgets? Lucas is also independent, yet his films are hardly low budget. I know that is an extreme example, but I don’t think budget determines whether something is indie or not. Rather how is it financed.

  6. jeffmcm says:

    Am I right in thinking that this was probably a tactical move on Quaid’s part to shake down the producers for a settlement that would be less than $10m but still substantial?

  7. Lynn says:

    Yes.

  8. montrealkid says:

    I think the assertion in the lawsuit that Randy Quaid was integral to the film’s success is laughable. As is the claim he spent months “preparing” for the role.
    It’s hard to imagine why he would bother going through all this unless it’s just sour grapes at not holding out for usual seven figure salary and back end deal he usually gets (which I have trouble believing).
    I wonder what he got paid for the Ice Harvest considering the budget for that movie was only $16 million….and I wonder if he would’ve pulled the same stunt had that movie been a suprise success.

  9. James Leer says:

    Anna Faris is calling her lawyer right now.

  10. eoguy says:

    Variety labels any “indie” film as a movie that is independently financed, so basically anything indie is something run through a production company that is separate from the studio. Granted, that means that a major studio only released about 8 or 9 “studio” movies each year, but that’s the reality of the business, I suppose. Nonetheless, I agree it is a little misleading, and the definition of indie, which has been debated endlessly, to some, means a movie with a tiny budget financed by a guy and his credit card. But that definition is a little shaky because it’s the kind of thing that could easily be created as a good story, rather than documented in records.

  11. David Poland says:

    JL – What is a “public budget?”
    You mean what’s been published in the press?
    You can’t be reading me this often and still be that naive, can you? I know I don’t rant on about the endless numerical lies in this business as much as I used to, but… oy.
    As for the rest… of course he was spun. But that is now standard operating procedure. That is one of the main reasons why there are “indie” divisions… to exploit the willingness of talent to work for less in the name of art.
    And of course Quaid was not an irreplaceble part of the BBM success. But do you see this as different than Wal-Mart endlessly claiming the lowest price but then delivering higher prices on most staple items (according to a study done last year)?

  12. jeffmcm says:

    James Leer clearly said that he understands those budget figures might not be correct.

  13. James Leer says:

    Well, DP, I am referring to the $14 million budget that has been repeatedly cited by the Hollywood Reporter, Variety, etc. Perhaps the actual budget is higher. But then, what makes you think that the $17 million budget of “The Family Stone” isn’t actually higher as well? Suddenly, in that case, the studio is a paragon of honesty?
    Every public record indicates that “Brokeback” cost around $3 million less to make than “Family Stone.” If you can source something that indicates differently, I’d be happy to read it.

  14. hepwa says:

    Randy Quaid should do two things:
    1) Sue his agent for allowing them to make a deal he felt was dishonest of misleading (does anyone really think he sits in on final negotiations?).
    2) Find a really good P.R. person who can repair his image. Who the hell is going to hire him after this! His part in BBM was the best work he’s done in years — he should’ve paid them to be in it, ’cause (let’s face it), the most people nowadays remember him for is being the rummy who flies his fighter jet into a spaceship.

  15. Joe Straat says:

    If you make something like “Christmas Vacations 2″ and someone is STILL asking you to be in movies, you have NO right to bitch about money.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Công ty cổ phần thương mại dịch vụ khoa học mới là 1 công ty môi trường hàng đầu khu vực hồ chí minh với dịch vụ đa dạng giá thành hợp lý, với đội ngũ nhân viên trẻ năng động đầy kinh nghiệm on: Trailer: The Wolf of Wall Street

Jay Shooke on: Don Draper: Critic

gw on: My Right Eye

Mr. A on: Review: Man of Steel (spoilers)

Paul Doro on: Don Draper: Critic

David Poland on: Trailer: The Wolf of Wall Street

Nick on: Don Draper: Critic

berg on: Trailer: The Wolf of Wall Street

The Pope on: Trailer: The Wolf of Wall Street

lazarus on: Don Draper: Critic

Quote Unquotesee all »

“I have to imagine from Mr. Spielberg’s point of view, the paradigm shift in the 1970s was just the new “normal,” a “halcyon era” from which we are straying in the 21st century–because theatrical exhibition is tenuous (as it has been since the 1940s), the home video market has dried up and people are watching pirated movies on their phone. Spielberg’s coming-of-age era was for him the halcyon period that the 21st century “implosion” will cause to go “crashing into the ground.” But he is wrong. The market for movies is actually diverse and highly segmented–although from the top-down movie industry vantage point and media punditry you would not think this to be true.  Would we really mourn for Mr. Spielberg or ourselves if Lincoln would have been made for cable or had played on public television?  Is it bad for humanity that cable television is creating wonderful, resonant stories in long-form series that people want to watch at home on TV (or streamed onto their computer)? I don’t think so, but it is a paradigm shift and it might affect people’s theatrical moviegoing habits. Televisions in people’s homes have had that effect for seven decades–it is not a new phenomenon. As Art House cinema impresarios we need to focus on what WE can do at our theaters and in our communities. It is not productive for us to fret over what pundits say or about what well-meaning filmmakers like the Stevens–Spielberg and Soderbergh–say. We should fret about what we can do in our communities. What we can do to support filmmakers.”
~ From A Response By Russ Collins, CEO, Michigan Theater – Ann Arbor And Director, Art House Convergence, To Mr. Spielberg

 

“Do not kick me under the table. I hate that. I don’t need you as my ­conscience, my Jewish Jiminy Cricket. Especially do not kick my boots. You know they protect my ankles. Richard Burton had great talent. He’s ruined his great gifts. He’s become a joke with a celebrity wife. Now he just works for money, does the worst shit. And I wasn’t rude. To quote Carl Laemmle, “I gave him an evasive answer. I told him, ‘Go fuck yourself.’ ” In his time, Sam Goldwyn was considered a classy producer because he never deliberately did anything that wasn’t his idea of the best quality goods. I respected him for that. He was an honest merchant. He may have made a bad ­picture, but he didn’t know it was a bad picture. And he was funny. He actually once said to me, in that high voice of his, “Orson, for you I’d write a blanket check.” He said, “With Warner Brothers, a verbal commitment isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.” Gregg Toland, who shot so many ­Goldwyn pictures, told me that in Russia, if you didn’t see every actor’s face brilliantly, they had to go back and reshoot it. Sam was the same way. Whenever there wasn’t a bright light on a star’s face for 30 ­seconds, he went nuts: “I’m paying for that face! I want to see the actor!” Long shots, all right, but no shadows.”
Maverick Hollywood Reniassance Man Henry Jaglom Garners Alleged Table Talk From Orson Welles With His Trusty Recorder