Comments on: Jack Klugman Sues Over 'Quincy M.E' Accounting; NBC Uni Claims $66M Losses

By: David S

David S — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:42:32 +0000

FRAUDELENT CONVEYANCE, PURE & SIMPLE. DOUCHEBAGS. JACK KLUGMAN & QUINCY M.E. WERE & ARE GOLDEN TO THE VERY WINS. GO JACKIE BOY!!

By: robert green

robert green — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:52:23 +0000

but this, THIS was not what the writers chose to strike about. because this corporate behavior just didn’t matter to them. transparency, honesty, a real sunshine law–none of that was part of the strike. so instead we all wasted 6 months so that nothing could be achieved, and creatives will still get screwed by corporations because no one has the balls (and the empathy to get beyond one’s own parochial interests) to take this on as the real overarching issue of hollywood. because these same corporations do pay us pretty well.

sigh. i could go on and on. but’s that why i have my own blog.

By: The Angry American

The Angry American — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:36:05 +0000

The last time I saw Quincy in the Charlotte market, it was still on network television. I can’t ever remember seeing it in reruns around here, or anywhere else I’ve ever visited. That being said, if it’s been making money, it hasn’t been doing it around here.

To me, it sounds like Jack Klugman might have gotten screwed. But it also sounds like he allowed it to happen to him. How in the world do you not have a copy of your contract? And I agree with another poster here, who said that NBCU wouldn’t dare give him a copy of that contract now that they’re being sued.

If Klugman is really due some money, I hope he gets it. I agree that too many folks have been screwed out of their just reward. But if Klugman signed a bum deal, that’s tough.

By: A spouse

A spouse — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:04:06 +0000

I understand that a 20-year-old actor might have signed a horrible contract under duress, but Klugman was already a star when he signed the Quincy contract.

Who was the agent who handled that contract?

Is it possible that Klugman could win a malpractice suit against the agent’s estate, or the agent’s agency?

By: Harold

Harold — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:04:18 +0000

“I’ve seen many TV syndication contracts, and I have yet to see one where a show is ‘thrown in’ for free.”

Di,

One of the central arguments that Garner’s attorneys made was that the Rockford Files was being packaged with other shows in syndication. The one that was specifically mentioned was Quincy. Garner’s claim was that all of the revenue for the package was being credited to Quincy and none to the Rockford Files. In essence, he was claiming that they were “throwing in” Rockford Files for free. They had a deposition from a Seattle station manager that supported their claim about the packaging.

What will be hilarious is when Klguman’s attorney’s probably make the same agrument. Only one or none is right.

By: Francine Fishpaw

Francine Fishpaw — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:20:10 +0000

I’m sure the studio will do what Disney did to Peggy Lee - stall the case so long that, even if he does win, it’ll be a day or so before he dies of old age. Disgusting.

By: Barry Black

Barry Black — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:10:57 +0000

It is well known that all studios use creative accounting techniques to show a loss. It goes way behind individual contracts—-its all about taxes. When you show a loss there is no tax due!

By: Leper Messiah

Leper Messiah — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:03:07 +0000

J. Michael Straczynski had the same problem with Babylon 5.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:12:33 +0000

Jamie,

Was your lawsuit filed over net profits you were owed? Because I have yet to see even a single legal case where the plaintiff prevailed in such a case.

That’s why people don’t go for net profits, opting instead for the various definitions of gross proceeds. And the really powerful players go for first dollar gross, so that they get their money first.

By: Ben

Ben — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:38:01 +0000

Duchovny sued Fox on the grounds that they signed a revenue-sharing deal but then sold the X-Files shows cheaply overseas to affiliated companies. This meant that their overseas affilated companied had cheaper programming rather than Duchovny earning money had teh shows been sold at their full market value to unconnected companies. Doubtless there would have been some kind of bundling of shows to disguise this. Liek Garner and Jackson, Duchovny settled. I think he was suing for $25M. He’d signed up for something like $110,000 a show for the season before but his final deal was said to be for $30M i.e. he got all that he asked for.

By: John

John — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:38:25 +0000

Where are Jonathan and Jennifer Hart, Thomas Magnum, and Isaac when you need them? I bet you Quincy’s Asian sidekick knows more than he’s admitting.

By: di

di — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 03:49:12 +0000

I’ve seen many TV syndication contracts, and I have yet to see one where a show is “thrown in” for free.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:01:11 +0000

And I stand by comment about Garner being lucky not to have you as a lawyer. It’s obvious you’re not a fighter. You like to tell people what they did wrong. You would have lectured Garner on how he fucked up his contract.

A lot of good that does people. Apparently his lawyer fought and I’d say an 80 percent settlement is pretty darn good on what was a reportedly substantial sum of money.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:55:50 +0000

“Harold is mostly right on his diagnosis of the situation. Without seeing the contract, nobody knows whether NBCU is in default of the contract or not.”

Mmmm, that’s not what Harold said. You see, Harold doesn’t even have to see the contract! He already knows that “All of the charges that will be against the gross are defined in the participation agreement. EVERY ONE”

Of course, this is preposterous to say regarding an agreement that was made in the 1970s. As you say, quite simply we don’t know until anyone sees the contract.

Harold can’t quite decide whether he believes this is a pointless case or not. He says “Anyone who has a “net profit” agreement is just holding a sheet of paper. Nothing more” then backpedals and says “The only time that anyone is doing anything wrong is if they make charges against net profit that are not stated in the participation agreement.”

No shit, Harold. What do you think they’re suing about?
Harold, I was recently involved in a legal matter where an arrogant lawyer like yourself told me I would lose. And lose big. He spouted a lot of crap like you, acted as if his answers were the ONLY ANSWERS. PERIOD. And anyone who was a “random uninformed person” without the knowledge of Harold knew nothing.

Well, I won my case and thank goodness I didn’t listen to the lawyer who sounded EXACTLY like you! It’s just incredible…

By: neogejo

neogejo — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:09:14 +0000

How could NBC believe that the public will buy such a story.
“Quincy ME” was a money maker for the studio. My mother would watch it three times in one day.
Now, that was just in the states. Imagine what they make worldwide.

I believe that studios will not syndicate unless they can turn a profit.
The studio has made its profit.
Give the man his due.