Posted on 03/24/2006 4:46:03 AM PST by veronica
Eddie: "Every time Catherine would turn on the microwave, I'd piss my pants and forget who I was for about half an hour. "
"Yeah, but daddy says I'm the best at it."
This is interesting from a contractual point of view.
With studios trying to "launder" movies into appearing independent but in fact still owned by the studios. Thus you can make a "controversial" film without huring the suits.
This is a business issue which can ultimatly favor conservative themes. No longer will the left wingers of hollywood be able to tap into big budge resources to make agenda films like that homosexual porn film.
"Bust a deal. Face the wheel!"
A great movie about hashish smuggler sent to a Turkish prison.
Holy crap! Producers ripping off actors! I can't believe it! What has Hollywood come to?
Oh...didn't know he appeared in Brokeback. Thanks.
Hey Randy, did you really think the producers of a leftist propaganda film would be really honorable and trustworthy people?
Simple solution: Don't appear in these kind of films.
Right, and the government can't take your property for private enterprise. < /sarcasm >
Thanks. It took me until your post to figure out if he was in the movie or not. The writer of the article is rather vague about it.
Randy Quaid is hardly a big enough star to complain that he was cheated out of big star money. I'm sure they paid him more than a "Randy Quaid" is worth.
He doesn't exactly put asses in the seats.
And, oh yeah, I forgot the California factor. All bets are off.
So that explains the blue leisure suit...
He doesn't exactly put asses in the seats.
To be fair, Randy Quaid is an actor who commanded a salary of $2.25 million ten years ago (according to imdb.com). For an established name, such as his, he'd likely expect to be paid in the same ballpark today.
You often enough see actors taking chump change for a "small film" because they believed the project artistically worthy. Seems as though Randy Quaid used bad judgement in more than one way on this project. Chalk it up to a learning experience and move on would be the smart thing to do.
I doubt that anyone is going to attend or avoid a film because Randy Quaid is in it.
I like Randy Quaid but this lawsuit is very similar to a Steve Bozell lawsuit on the Phil Hendrie radio show.
Bozell lawsuits-->>
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/philhendrie/lawsuits.html
Every actor has an agent and a SAG contract...even low budget movies that are not techinically 'union'....so it depends on what his agent negotiated in his actor's contract. He should have made at least the bottom rung SAG rate for his performance. And if the contract states that he was not to receive compensation because of the 'art film' genre then, he may have a case. He could then, argue that since the movie made money...he is entitled to payment on the 'backend' (pun not really intended).
lol
Cousin Eddie can carry a film!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.