Full Article Text

T H U R S D AY, M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 0 6Quaid's "Brokeback" Lawsuit A Sign Of Trouble?Every major studio has a specialty division that develops smallermovies. And the New York Times suggests Randy Quaid's lawsuit overBrokeback Mountain is a sign of trouble for them. Why should actorstake cut-rate pay to make a movie when the studio has every intentionof putting its full marketing muscle behind the film and could reap bigrewards? (Brokeback will easily earn $300 million worldwide via boxoffice, DVD, TV sales, etc.) The NYT is juggling several different issuesand none of them seem to really apply or make sense.1. These movies are labors of love, not studio profit centers -- movieslike Brokeback Mountain don't get made because of studios. They getmade because actors and directors and writers have pet projects, laborsof love they yearn to film. Brokeback languished for years, even withmajor talent willing to work for cut-rate pay. So the idea that Universalsaw Brokeback as a potentially huge money earner but wanted tosqueeze every penny out of the actors to make it even more profitable issilly.2. Net profits -- Randy Quaid apparently was given some "net points"on the movie. As every single person in Hollywood knows, "net points"are virtually meaningless trinkets, handed out as symbolic gimmes tomake people feel good. (Screenwriters and minor actors like Quaid arethe sort of people who get net points.) Everyone knows virtually no filmEVER delivers a net profit, no matter how much money it makes. Starswith real power get gross points and even "first dollar gross points" andhuge upfront salaries. An actor like Randy Quaid would never expect toparticipate in a movie's profits on any level. The salary he receives isthe only money he will ever make and he knows it, his lawyers know itand the studio knows it, even if they placate his ego with some "netpoints." Quaid never has and never will get a piece of the back end. Theidea that he should do so for a movie in which he appears onscreen formaybe five minutes is ludicrous. A really big star making a small moviemight have called for a bonus if say it grossed $50 million at the boxoffice. Thus, no problem. They make the film and if it clicks, they makemore money.3. Ira Deutchman, a longtime industry player, says "If, in fact, thesmaller movies don't pay off for talent even when they hit, the studioarthouse divisions will stop being able to make the movies. They'll fallinto the same trap as the parent companies: if no one believes there's aNext Blog»sal1mineo@hotmail.comSEARCH BLOG FLAG BLOGFOLLOW BLOGP O P S U R F I N G . C O MS U R F I N G T H E WAV E S O F P O P U L A R C U LT U R EB Y M I C H A E L G I LT Z & F R I E N D SPOPSURFING.COM: Quaid's "Brokeback" Lawsuit A Sign Of...http://popsurfing.blogspot.com/2006/03/quaids-brokeback-lawsu...
1 of 37/29/09 2:21 AM
FAV O R I T E L I N K SAmericablogFive O'Clock Lightning baseball blogDeep Pop -- Lori Lakin's BlogThe Back Page -- Jason Page on ESPNRadioCine-Blog -- George Robinson's BlogDocuments On Art & Cinema - DarylChin's BlogBrucie G's Wondrous Blog OfAdventure and Mystery -- BruceGreenspan's BlogB L O G A R C H I V E▼ 2009 (17)▼ July (3)1939 -- The Greatest Year ForMoviesSwimming Bans Those Hi-TechSuits!Best Movies Of The Year -- TheMaster List► June (3)► May (1)► March (2)► February (1)► January (7)► 2008 (86)► 2007 (781)► 2006 (2412)► 2005 (5)C O N T R I B U TO R SAaronBiboyMichael in New York POPSURFING.COM: Quaid's "Brokeback" Lawsuit A Sign Of...http://popsurfing.blogspot.com/2006/03/quaids-brokeback-lawsu...
2 of 37/29/09 2:21 AM
POPSURFING.COM: Quaid's "Brokeback" Lawsuit A Sign Of...http://popsurfing.blogspot.com/2006/03/quaids-brokeback-lawsu...
3 of 37/29/09 2:21 AM