Richard Linklater got “screwed,” alleges he was never paid for Dazed And Confused
“It’s like… where’s my money?” the director asks Universal
Aux News Richard Linklater
It seems production and distribution companies really like to pull some slimy stuff when you’re a young writer or director at the beginning of your career. For Richard Linklater, he got a taste of this when he made Dazed And Confused in 1993. When asked recently if he made any money off of his first studio-attached feature, Linklater response was a swift “Fuck no!”
“It’s like… where’s my money?” Linklater said during an interview with The Daily Beast. “How come a movie that cost less than $7 million has $12 million in interest against it?”
Despite its cult success, Dazed And Confused only made around $7 million upon its theatrical release. However, according to Linklater, the film banked around $30 million in home video sales. He doesn’t know where the money went, but he says none of it went to him.
“I don’t know. Ask Universal! Hollywood accounting,” Linklater said. “I remember really asking for a piece of the soundtrack, because I picked all the songs, and they were like, ‘Oh no… First film, you know?’ N.W.A is still pissed off about that first contract. Everybody has that first story of getting screwed with their first project. That film was an indie success. It made more than it cost theatrically, and over the years it’s been everywhere.”
“That’s such a cliché to bitch about. But I did go through the Hollywood experience,” he added.
However, despite the financial woes, Linklater still expressed his gratitude. “Here I complain, but they did greenlight the film, and they wouldn’t greenlight the film today. Cast of unknowns? Period film when not much happens, riding around? One film out of Sundance? I don’t think there’s a pitch for that movie today, so I sit here very, very blessed that I came along at a time when studios were going, ‘Hey, we’ll make this and this and then throw some chump change over to these guys.’ I’m still grateful I got the film made, and got it made the way I wanted it to.”
31 Comments
This is a shame. He should have been not-paid for “Boyhood” instead.
zing!
Glad I’m not the only person underwhelmed by that one. The gimmick was the full story there.
Feels like it was a full year before NPR stopped talking about how amazing that gimmick was.
Having said that: I do think Patricia Arquette deserved her Academy Award win for it. I just wish it were in a better movie worth my time to rewatch.
Co-sign on Arquette, she was definitely the strongest element.
One of the greatest movies ever. Cheap and quick and brilliant. Like True Romance from the same year.
And its an absolute stone-cold classic, one of the best coming of age movies of all time. He tried to go there again with Everybody Wants Some, which is moderately fun, but only further confirmed just how great and, more importantly, REAL Dazed and Confused is.
Gratitude don’t pay the bills. If they stiffed him, they should pay up.
That’s a unique and terrific opinion, thanks for sharing.
He needs to file a grievance with Payroll.
He didn’t realize they pay Net 30……… years.
The AP/AR crowd approves this message.
Needs to get Herbert Kornfeld on those accounts pay’bo bitches, for sure.
Hells, yeah.
I work in accounts receivable, and let me tell you, AP really is my nemesis. It’s not really their fault, because AP is nothing but a cost to any corporation so they’re typically ridiculously understaffed, but there’s always some sort of dumbass excuse with these people.
Gotta be hard to get that money. Herbert knew it.
Even Peter Jackson had to sue to get an audit of Lord of the Rings. It’s not just first time or indie directors.
Every film shows a loss, but studios always show a profit.
Best industry advice I ever got was, “Always get money upfront, because it’s likely the only money you’ll ever see from a studio.”
As Freakazoid once said, “Always ask for a piece of the gross, not the net. The net is fantasy.”
Either that or take control of one aspect completely. Like say keeping the merchandise rights for your scrappy Sci-fi fantasy film.
Reminder of how Miramax applied 1/4 of their expenses at 1994 Cannes Film Festival (read: yacht rental) to Clerks even though they were mainly there for Pulp Fiction.
Notright notright notriiiight.
That’s what I love about these young indie directors, man. I get older, and I can still screw them.
Everyone needs to go back and read JMS’ historical diatribes on this as it applies to Babylon 5. He had many, many, many posts on it, IIRC…
Most writers would trade their offspring to have JMS’ number of chances at bat.
On the plus side, making no money probably helped when the real Wooderson and other former classmates of Linklater’s sued him for using them and their names for characters in his movie.
“Dude, Where’s My Money?”
I mean, he was paid a fee as a director right? Does he mean like, he hasn’t made money off its subsequent success, as in royalties, etc.? Is that something that is expected from most movies? I’m asking honestly, I don’t know how the process generally works. I know there’s all kinds of shady bookkeeping to make it look like even the most blockbuster movies don’t actually make money, so I assume it’s fairly standard that a relatively smaller picture doesn’t turn a huge profit.
How much does Linklater actually expect to get from this movie? Did he sign a contract that says he gets a percentage of royalties and that Hollywood accounting is showing a loss so he doesn’t get paid? Or he signed a contract giving up a lot of things?