What is Digg?130 Comments
- Mark2600, on 09/07/2008, -0/+175No matter how much you have, if you make a deal, you stick to it. Paramount agreed to pay him box-office revenues, he didn't receive them. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
- campo, on 09/07/2008, -1/+142if there was an agreement, he's still entitled to what he is owed, even if solely as a matter of principal
- awesometastic1, on 09/07/2008, -0/+96who cares how much money he has. He could have 100 billion dollars and it wouldn't change the fact that if they owe him money, they should have to pay him.
- jcaino, on 09/07/2008, -1/+90It's funny how the movie studios get all up in arms about how torrent downloads are taking their revenue....but they're not even sticking to their contracts with the actors? ***** the MPAA.
- inactive, on 09/07/2008, -5/+81More Like "No Money for Old Men"
- inactive, on 09/07/2008, -0/+38Now watch as he hires someone to retrieve the money by any means necessary.
- cygnus2112, on 09/07/2008, -1/+36Read this document to learn how "back end" money works:
http://www.nzfilm.co.nz/getattachment/1b403831-b76 ...
Simply put, some actors will go into a movie and either not take money up-front or take only a little bit to gamble for payoff if the movie makes it big. That way the producers get a big name to put in and the actor can star in more movies that aren't heavily funded up-front. It's more of a partnership. In business terms, it's like investment.
If the makers of NCfOM didn't pay TLJ the backend money that was agreed, then he has every right to sue them. - hansolo, on 09/07/2008, -0/+32It seems common in Hollywood.
Hopefully Tommy Lee Jones was smart and had it all in writing and in clear wording that prevents fishy accounting like the gross/net revenues the movie studios love to play with.
It's funny how the movie studios always seem to claim that every 'blockbuster' movies actually lose money for them. - bwonder, on 09/07/2008, -0/+28could you be more naive?
- seantubridy, on 09/07/2008, -0/+28From the title of the post and the photo, I thought he was referring to himself in the third person.
- trogdor282, on 09/07/2008, -4/+26They do this all the time. There was no Forrest Gump II, because they cooked the books so that FG technically lost money, and never sent the author a check. So he was like fine *****, if it didnt make money then why let you make a sequel?
- ventralnet, on 09/07/2008, -2/+21you a ***** moron. who cares how much money he has he still should get paid money he is owed.
- rsh28630, on 09/07/2008, -1/+19While nearly everything about the film was superb, there can be no question Tommy Lee Jones' performance was essential. If you doubt that, try listening to the audiobook after watching the film. Like musicians, actors are almost always screwed by the nefarious scoundrels who run their respective industries. With luck and a good attorney, he'll get paid for his work. Besides, it's not about how long you're in the saddle that counts.
- moheybee, on 09/07/2008, -0/+15Amen! It's just like the RIAA saying that people are stealing from them, suing...and then not giving any of the money won't in suits to artists.
- cawpin, on 09/07/2008, -1/+13First, it's ***** "would HAVE". Second, you're a moron.
- eddy23170, on 09/07/2008, -1/+13He should stroll around Paramount Studios with a silenced shotgun and pressurized air-gun. I bet he would get some attention then.
- charlietuna, on 09/07/2008, -0/+11That's what I try to tell my girlfriend - yet she still says my performances are too brief.
- mingusmingus, on 09/07/2008, -1/+12i'm pretty sure that the entire concept of the movie is about realizing your limitations as you grow older... tommy lee WAS the film. the two other leads were just something for TLJ to react (or fail to react) to.
- OpCzar, on 09/07/2008, -7/+17The word you're looking for is "principle".
- Dugglous, on 09/07/2008, -3/+13Well if you go by that thinking, the studio has like 100 times as much money, so why jip Tommy Lee Jones?
TLJ is the man by the way, so ***** the MPAA for screwing him. - dafragsta, on 09/07/2008, -1/+11That principle is the very reason that small productions or productions that have been more geared at making a quality movie over a box office success have ever gotten big name actors who are serious enough about their trade that they'd risk not making as much money to make a more fulfilling movie.
That said, if the movie DOES bank, they deserve every penny they are owed. They shared in the risk as much as anyone else and technically, they are an investor in the movie. - mingusmingus, on 09/07/2008, -2/+11***** off and go watch Transformers then, *****.
you obviously didn't get the movie at all. - bubut, on 09/07/2008, -1/+9Yeah I guess so huh. Douchebag.
- xjohnmcclanex, on 09/07/2008, -3/+1110 million dollars for 10 minutes of movie airtime? hell of a payday.
- inactive, on 09/07/2008, -1/+9Show TLJ the money!!!!!
If the movie "the fugitive" has taught us anything, its that TLJ will stop at nothing. The Big Dog is always right. - EtherGnat, on 09/07/2008, -0/+7I dunno, does Paramount need the money so bad they have to screw him?
- JordanM85, on 09/07/2008, -3/+10Pay the man. Tommy Lee Jones is hardcore.
- 1807, on 09/07/2008, -0/+7He should look in every dog house, pent house and hen house to find it.
- HyperionHK, on 09/07/2008, -2/+9You hear that whooshing sound? That's the sound of the movie going right over your head.
- inactive, on 09/07/2008, -0/+7Do you know what cliche means?
- MRintheKeys, on 09/07/2008, -0/+7If that is the agreement than he is entitled. Like in the previous thread, he took less money upfront to help the production and would be promise money on the back end. If they didn't pay him, they're screwing him. I'd sue them.
- bluesnowmonkey, on 09/07/2008, -0/+6I think you have it backwards. There's always gross revenue. Their trick is making it seem like there's no net revenue.
- inactive, on 09/07/2008, -3/+9"horrible ending?" god i hate the ***** out of the retard reporters at TMZ. buried.
- sneezy555, on 09/07/2008, -1/+6Who said the MPAA is screwing him?
- publiclurker, on 09/07/2008, -0/+4 He's been on the run for 90 minutes. Average foot speed over uneven ground bearing injury is 4 miles an hour. That gives us a radius of 6 miles. What I want out of each and every one of you is a hard-target search of every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse, and doghouse in that area.
- wampalord, on 09/07/2008, -1/+5Now, I'm not defending the MPAA, but they're not the ones in charge of studio budgets. "***** the movie studios" is what you wanted to say.
- inactive, on 09/07/2008, -0/+4Yeah, the old joke is, "Promise 'em part of the gross!" Because at the end of the day they'll make sure there's no gross. A producer who'd run HBO Pictures for some years told us once in a lecture that he loved his wife, but the most important person in his life was his forensic accountant.
- punchinelli, on 09/07/2008, -0/+4Tommy wants all of the money he was promised. HE DOES NOT BARGAIN
- sh0rtstop00, on 09/07/2008, -1/+5the Title makes me laugh
- graemee, on 09/07/2008, -0/+4He does know you're guilty and this time he cares.
- DestroyFascism, on 09/07/2008, -1/+5Paramount = greed
- stafa786, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3It really is no country for old men.
- giveer, on 09/07/2008, -1/+4Yes.
- nakedcellist, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3No surprises here: it's called Hollywood accounting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
Remember this if you feel guilty about downloading movies... - Br3ach, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3If that is what they agreed to in a contract, they should give him what they owe, friendo
- Trav1289, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3dude he could play old snake. Just saying.
- solid12345, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3Good lord, will people realize the MPAA is a separate entity and more of a lobbyist for film studios? They have nothing to do with this.
- Tonkatsu, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3"Well all the time ya spend trying to get back what's been took from ya, more is going out the door. After a while you just have to try to get a tourniquet on it." -NCfOM
- funkyloki, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3No we are not. Greed would be if they paid him what they owed him, and then he demanded more money and sued to get it. He took a hit in up front pay to do the movie, because he was promised proceeds from box office ticket sales, and now that it did well, they are backing out of the deal.
Remember, this is still a job he did. He may be a celebrity, but it is his line of work. I freelance computer consulting, and if I was shorted money owed me, I would sue too if they refused to honor the deal. - btschul, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2He needs to ask Javier Bardem to go to talk to them. With a coin and a silenced shotgun. You bet your ass they'd give him his money then.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is