A few words about the actor Randy Quaid...

Yes, I know it's silly to care about what any celebrities do and it's one of my downfalls--reading all the entertainment gossip pages--but this article really annoyed me about Randy Quaid.
From Yahoo's entertainment pages:
Randy Quaid sues studio over "Brokeback Mountain"Friday March 24 5:43 PM ET
Actor Randy Quaid has sued the studio and producers behind "Brokeback Mountain" for $10 million, saying he was underpaid for his supporting role in the acclaimed film about two cowboys who fall in love.
According to the lawsuit, filed on Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court, producers tricked Quaid into appearing in the movie for what was "effectively a donation of his time" by "falsely representing it as a low-budget, art-house film, with no prospect of making any money."

The lawsuit names Focus Features, a specialty studio of General Electric Co.-controlled Universal Pictures, as well as Focus co-presidents James Schamus and David Linde. The movie, which cost about $14 million to make, has grossed roughly $160 million at the box office worldwide...Although "Brokeback" drew critical raves, many believed its box-office potential was limited because of its subject matter. (yeah, whatever) But the film gained numerous honors, including eight Oscar nominations, as it crossed over to a mainstream audience. Ultimately, it earned Academy Awards...The lawsuit says Quaid, an Oscar nominee for a supporting role in the 1973 film "The Last Detail" has a history of working at reduced rates in "experimental, non-mainstream" movies for the sake of art.

Quaid said he agreed to appear in "Brokeback" for a nominal sum -- rather than his customary seven-figure fee plus a percentage of the box office gross -- because the filmmakers convinced him it was a low-budget picture with no commercial potential.

The director himself, who is not named as a defendant in the suit, told the actor: "We have very little money, everyone is making a sacrifice to make this film," the suit says.

However, the suit claims that "from day one, defendants fully intended the film would not be made on a low budget, would be given a worldwide release and would be supported as the studio picture it always was secretly intended to be."

Moreover, the suit says, Linde obtained Universal's backing for "Brokeback" by presenting it to his studio bosses as a film "that was going to make money."


So--you agree to work for less for the sake of "Art" but when the "Art" makes money you want more money. So it's really all about the money, not the "Art." So what happens when some "Art" film he makes tanks and doesn't so much as break even? Does he sue to give some of his salary back? Should our soldiers serving in Iraq sue for a higher paycheck because they thought they might be serving in peaceful times? Should teachers who take a certain salary sue for more money when the test scores reveal that their schools are now Exemplary? Should ministers ask for more money because they saved someone who went on to do great things? Quaid made a bad business decision. He did it for the "Art" so he should enjoy the movie now for Art's sake. Quaid's full of crap. Go parlay your role in the "Art" film into some other seven-figure job. Then share that salary with me when the movie tanks and I waste $8 and a night out to see it.