Queen Latifah : Shame on her

So she is suing the makers of the movie "Perfect Holiday" for $275,000 she says she was not paid for a cameo she did for them. That was a small indy movie that only made a little over $5 million (US). I would think with all the money she has why stiff this indy movie. I am disappointed in her.

"U'D" isn't a word.

I care.

its a proven fact, typing in caps makes me listen better.

---

Why should she be shamed if they owe her the money she should get it, IF THEY OWED U MONEY U KNOW U'D WANT IT TOO

---

The point was that she's already a multi-millionaire and as such it's a relatively small sum. It shows she's no different from most rich people in this way. I bet her biggest fans would quickly leap to praise her if she publicly waived the money and said 'Heck, they need it more than I do'. That sort of thing would be remembered and would probably make her more popular.




God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

$275,000 is not a small sum. For anyone. If they agreed to pay it, they need to pay it.

---

$275,000 is not a small sum. For anyone.

---

Let me explain something to you; and this is a mathematical fact: The value of any commodity e.g. money, is relative to the amount of that commodity owned. To a person with a 1,000,000 oranges, 4 oranges is of relatively little value; yet to a starving man with 0 oranges, the value of 4 oranges could be equal to everything he owns, even up to his very life. This principle is equally true of money. The wealthier a person is, the less the value to him of any sum 'X' (and the lower sum 'X' is, the less relative value it has). Equally, the greater the personal wealth against which sum 'X' is compared (and the more this increases), the greater the relative value of sum 'X' decreases.

Now you can argue this fact till the cows come home but it'd be like arguing with an astronomer that the moon is made of cheese.





God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

If they agreed to pay it, they have to pay it. What about that isn't getting through your fat head?

---

If they agreed to pay it, they have to pay it. What about that isn't getting through your fat head?

---

If you could get into your obviously very little head the things I've written on the matter, you wouldn't need to ask stupid questions, in an irate manner. Sadly for all who have to have anything to do with you, you're an idiot, incapable of understanding anything beyond your own simplistic drivel.

Yet since I'm quite a patient person, I'll try again, except this time I'll only point out ONE thing for you to think about (if you can). Note that in my being so generous, you won't even have to go back and re-read anything.

"If they agreed to pay" DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY DID AGREE TO PAY.



God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

---

"If they agreed to pay" DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY DID AGREE TO PAY.

---

You really think she would have done it if they didn't agree to pay? If you really believe that, then I'm not sure you have the right to question the intelligence of others.

Anyways, as to whether or not she should sue, sometimes it's not about the money but about the principle. I have MetroPCS and they repeatedly have brought back this $21 charge that we don't owe. And every month we have to call and straighten the whole thing out which amounts to hours worth of crap. Now it would be easy enough to just pay it and get rid of the problem, but it's the principle of the thing. They agreed the pay, and you can't tell me that they didn't, and they didn't. Doesn't matter if it's a drop in a pool, they should pay her.

OBAMA WON!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

You really think she would have done it if they didn't agree to pay? If you really believe that, then I'm not sure you have the right to question the intelligence of others.

---

I know that she could have agreed to do the work without first properly understanding what she was getting into.
I have the right to question the intelligence of others when they repeatedly reply to me in a manner that suggests they are idiotic.

---

Anyways, as to whether or not she should sue, sometimes it's not about the money but about the principle.

---

I've already explained why it makes little sense for QL to go after money even if it is merely a matter of principle. I understand the concept of taking action because of the principle involved but she has FAR more to lose than they have and too little to gain; she may even end up worse off by defending her principles. I'd bet money on it that her advisors are telling her exactly the same as I am.

---

I have MetroPCS and they repeatedly have brought back this $21 charge that we don't owe. And every month we have to call and straighten the whole thing out which amounts to hours worth of crap. Now it would be easy enough to just pay it and get rid of the problem, but it's the principle of the thing.

---

Although this may appear to be the same in principle, actually it isn't. Firstly, you have no reputation on the line when you make your fight. Secondly, you aren't (presumably) already super-rich. Thirdly, the issue isn't one upon which the survival of the 7eccompany hangs. There are other differences.
You'd also be very much mistaken to imagine that it would automatically be a simple matter of paying MetroPCS off; it is actually possible for them to try to same trick again if they discover that you fall for it.

Companies have long had to be regulated to stop unfair commercial tactics. There are no end of crooks in the world and the world of business is no exception. Yours is one such tactic (and a very common one, sadly) because it's very easy for a company to say, 'Oops, sorry, we made an 'accounting error'' or 'It was a computer error' etc. and then just drop the charge; and this is only necessary if they are ever taken to court over the matter - which they know is time consuming, stressful, and expensive. Just as with high-pressure sales techniques, companies know that some people will lie down and allow the company to fleece them. On a large scale, this sort of thing makes dodgy businesses a fortune. So, as I say, paying may well not solve the problem.

---

They agreed the pay, and you can't tell me that they didn't

---

I didn't try to tell you they didn't agree to pay. As before, if you read the entire thread you'll see my explanation of what I believe was most likely to have happened. In short, if contracts have been signed to the effect that 'they agreed to pay' then presumably they wouldn't have a leg to stand on and wouldn't refuse to pay up. Since fighting legal battles is so costly, and 'they' are a small bunch of people who aren't wealthy, they must feel pretty confident that they don't owe her anything and that if she takes them to court, she'll lose (and look stupid). Note that they are not, as in your example of a party making false demands, charging her for something she hasn't taken.



God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

---

I know that she could have agreed to do the work without first properly understanding what she was getting into.

---

You've been repeatedly claiming the fact that she's a mega star with tons of money as a reason why she should let them get away with breech of contract (which I still feel the urge to laugh at). You really think she'd do even a 2 second cameo without knowing EXACTLY what she was getting into?

---

I have the right to question the intelligence of others when they repeatedly reply to me in a manner that suggests they are idiotic.

---

It's funny you should say this because your statements are definitely making you seem to be the most idiotic person on the board. No matter how 'intelligently' you state your point, if what you say is stupid, then it's still stupid.

---

I've already explained why it makes little sense for QL to go after mone1c84y even if it is merely a matter of principle. I understand the concept of taking action because of the principle involved but she has FAR more to lose than they have and too little to gain; she may even end up worse off by defending her principles. I'd bet money on it that her advisors are telling her exactly the same as I am.

---

Yeah, and the thing I find saddest about that is the fact that you actually think that makes any damn sense. I'm sorry but I think it's only foolish people like you who'd view her negatively for wanting what she was promised.

---

Although this may appear to be the same in principle, actually it isn't.

---

Actually it is, in that it's about the principle not the money. You say if I pay, who's to say that they won't pull the same thing again, later down the line. It's the same for her. Who's to say if she just lets it go, just to be nice and stuff to the people trying to breech their contract, that another company down the line will do the same. And then another and another. She is essentially a business. Her person, her likeness, etc. And she must run herself like a business. How many businesses do you know that would let if go if someone promised them a sum of money (which is not peanuts despite the fact that you'd like to portray it as such) and then refused to pay?

---

In short, if contracts have been signed to the effect that 'they agreed to pay' then presumably they wouldn't have a leg to stand on and wouldn't refuse to pay up. Since fighting legal battles is so costly, and 'they' are a small bunch of people who aren't wealthy, they must feel pretty confident that they don't owe her anything and that if she takes them to court, she'll lose (and look stupid).

---

If you think this is true, then you don't understand this country very well.


OBAMA WON!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

You've been repeatedly claiming the fact that she's a mega star with tons of money as a reason why she should let them get away with breech of contract (which I still feel the urge to laugh at). You really think she'd do even a 2 second cameo without knowing EXACTLY what she was getting into?

---

You're operating under the illogical premise that because QL is a mega-rich star she can't be mislead or make errors of judgement. In fact, QL would have to be an expert in film contract law, psychology, and a host of other areas to even stand a chance of being above making a mistake over a contract or business deal. Thus, yes, I do think she could do work without full knowledge of what she's getting into. Be careful not to confuse thinking one knows exactly what one is getting into and actually being certain of it. Everyone who ever made such a mistake thought they knew what they were doing.

Moreover, don't you realise that such mistakes happen all the time? QL isn't the first star to get into a legal wrangle over a contractual dispute, nor will she be the last. What makes you think QL is immune?

---

It's funny you should say this because your statements are definitely making you seem to be the most idiotic person on the board

---

Oh I see - because you think this, then everyone else must as well, eh? Then of course you've got your critical eye on every other stupid person posting here and can thus unerringly adjudicate that I'm the most idiotic. Wow! I wish I had your powers.
How about you confront my arguments and not me? Oh, sorry, you can't so you lash out at me instead.

---

I'm sorry but I think it's only foolish people like you who'd view her negatively for wanting what she was promised.

---

'I'm sorry' but it was clear from your previous post to me that you'd not even read the entire thread, so to suggest my explanation of why she'd be making a mistake to pursue this claim could only have come from someone foolish comes off as ingenuine.
How about you prove to me that you've actually read my explanation by explaining to me how I could be mistaken - rather than simply accuse me of being foolish. Simply hurling insults doesn't convince me of anything other than that you're out of ideas.

---

You say if I pay, who's to say that they won't pull the same thing again, later down the line. It's the same for her.

---

Oh, so Metro was in breach of a contract you signed with them, were they? No they weren't! YOU were the one they were claiming was in breach; and you say they had no grounds to make such a claim - which is exactly what I'm saying could be QL's case!
It doesn't make sense to refuse to pay QL if there is a contract supportinb68g her case - it would result in them having to pay even more than she is claiming they owe her!

---

Who's to say if she just lets it go, just to be nice and stuff to the people trying to breech their contract, that another company down the line will do the same.

---

Who said she should let it go 'just to be nice'? I certainly didn't. Like I said, read what I said, don't jump to false conclusions. Besides which, as I have had to repeat ad nauseum to people like you, none of us know with any certainty that she did have a solid contract (or even any contract at all). Film lawyers don't come cheap, you know; it's a highly specialised branch of law. Which means that a low-budget production may have falsified contracts or persuaded QL to take them on their word (perhaps thinking that a verbal contract is as good as a written one). Without a sound contract it is possible to refuse to pay her. With a sound contract, it'd be suicide to refuse to pay her. Ergo, the existence of a sound contract MUST be in doubt.

---

How many businesses do you know that would let if go if someone promised them a sum of money (which is not peanuts despite the fact that you'd like to portray it as such) and then refused to pay?

---

Every last one would have no option but to let them go - if they were fool enough to render services on a mere promise instead of a solid contract; which is exactly what it appears QL has done.

---

If you think this is true, then you don't understand this country very well.

---

Again, a statement noticeably lacking in any supporting explanation.



God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

lol she can easly get a LAWYER to look over the contract to see if it's fair or if they own her anything. idiot

im sorry but she isnt super rich she made a few hit albums years ago but that was years ago she has made many movies but she has never been an A hit actor.

---

im sorry but she isnt super rich she made a few hit albums years ago but that was years ago she has made many movies but she has never been an A hit actor.

---

Relativity again. She's not super rich like Bill Gates but she's rich compared to most people. I'd be willing to bet she made several million dollars from her records and at least a million more from her film work. If she's invested wisely this could easily be in excess of $10 million and if, for example, she's invested in property, she could be worth over a hundred million.



God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

I'm curious why an artist should be expected to let a company that has a contractual obligation to pay for her artistic services off the hook just because the amount may be relatively small relative to her overall net worth. If she were to let that happen once, what would prevent other companies from trying the same tactic until the value of her artistic services would decline to nothing. It doesn't seem to be good business to me. And it seems that she handles business quite well.

---

I'm curious why an artist should be expected to let a company that has a contractual obligation to pay for her artistic services off the hook just because the amount may be relatively small relative to her overall net worth.

---

I'm not saying she should be expected to let the matter go but that fighting for the money from her position looks worse for her than it does for them (and that because of this, she might be well-advised to let them off the hook).

---

If she were to let that happen once, what would prevent other companies from trying the same tactic until the value of her artistic services would decline to nothing.

---

Not signing up to make films with productions companies that lack the financial muscle to complete the deal would prevent it happening again. Such a dispute is only likely when there are sufficient grounds for a case and on balance this implies to me that the production company wasn't operating entirely honestly. While it apparently couldn't afford to pay Queen Latifah properly it wasn't willing to let this stand in their way of hiring her; and the only way it can pull this sort of stunt off is with dodgy contracts cleverly worded, word-of-mouth only deals, flattery, BS, false promises never recorded on paper, etc.
It's possible that Latifah is the guilty party but I doubt it because she has so much to lose and so little to gain from such tactics. A small production company however can see itself as having nothing to lose and everything to gain - even from the publicity surrounding a financial lawsuit with a big star!

---

It doesn't seem to be good business to me.

---

1908

Well, in the light of the grim reality of how some of those at the bottom of the ladder are willing to play in order to get success, the good business is sometimes to walk away and learn a lesson of caution. Look at Michael Jackson paying $30M to that kid and his family to drop the child abuse lawsuit. No matter how innocent he was (assuming he was) it didn't make good business sense to go to court over the matter. As it happens, it made the same business sense even if Jackson was guilty.

Of course the Latifah case isn't of the same damaging magnitude as the Jackson one was but the principle is the same.

Bear in mind that if the deal was as clear cut as Latifah fans would like to imagine, the little guys wouldnt dare try to pull a fast one because losing such a lawsuit would probably ruin them. Theyd only be willing to risk ruination i.e. see themselves as having nothing to lose if they genuinely felt they had a case.




God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

im sorry but no matter how much money someone has a dollar is a dollar.

just because person x has 500 million dollars doesnt mean 250,000 isnt that much to them.
i personally wouldnt want someone to short me 250,000 even if i was worht 10 trillion

Absolutely - you do a job, you get paid. That's the agreement. "Waving" your fee after the fact, particularly when the people who hired you refuse to pay it, sets a bad precedent. Exactly how much money is it okay to NOT pay an actor (or anyone else!) you hired to do a job? I mean, if someone hits the lottery and has $20,000,000 in checking, is it then acceptable for that person's employer to stop paying them if they still work there, or to withhold the person's final paycheck because, hey, that person has plenty of money now?

I agree with Heidi. That's how stars stay rich, they get money for things that they do, whether it be small indy movie roles. If every star just said "eh, forget it. It was a small role anyways.", movie producers would take advantage of that and every star who made cameo appearances wouldn't get paid.

its business, if they owe her, then they need to pay her.

---

$275,000 is not a small sum. For anyone. If they agreed to pay it, they need to pay it.

---

Using the technique of fragment sentences doesn't make you more right. The fact is that wealth is relative. $275,000 can be equivalent to less than $10 if one's total wealth is sufficiently high. This is a mathematical fact


God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

And it's a mathematical fact that $275,000 is a hell of a lot more than $10 (27,500 times more, in fact). 275k can buy a house; 10 can buy a meal at Taco Bell. They can never be "equivalent," no matter who is holding it.

Un da despus de la tormenta, cuando menos piensas, sale el sol

You're simply denying the facts. You're wrong. There are super-rich people making $50 MILLION bets at elite horse tracks in Japan (for example) i.e. throwing away sums that would buy Queen Latifah up lock stock and barrel without batting an eyelid. That sort of wealth makes $275,000 less than a joke, not even noticable.

Economy changes can also render ANY amount worthless.



God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

And using flawed logic doesn't make you right. $275,000 is not an equivalent to $10 because one's total wealth will most likely determine the lifestyle. Bottom line, too many people in entertainment try to get out of paying for services. I'm glad she sued, and I'm glad they settled. You didn't agree, but that doesn't make you right.

My logic is sound. If you want to go down the road of arguing that it isn't, then you're going to have to explain why, which - conveniently and tellingly - you haven't done.

---

$275,000 is not an equivalent to $10 because one's total wealth will most likely determine the lifestyle.

---

Will most likely" doesn't cut it. Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in the world, still lives in the house he bought in 1957 for less than $50K. He spends his free time playing bridge, golf, and watching football, for none of which one needs to be a billionaire.

Notwithstanding this, the point I made about the relative value of cash sums is a MATHEMATICAL (& logical) FACT. As I've explained (whether you understand it or not) any attempt to judge the 'worth' of a sum of money to an individual must take into consideration the relative wealth of that individual.

Your 'bottom line' is nothing but your own unfounded opinion. You've offered no explanation as to what constitutes 'too many' people trying to get out of paying for services (note that you also imply that it's acceptable for a certain number of people to do this), you've given no examples, and offered no explanation as to your experience that might support such a comment.

Moreover, and more to the point, there has been no evidence that 'they' settled. So don't try to pass off the lie that they did. On the contrary, as I've explained, the likelihood is that she dropped the case.

Finally, with what are you claiming that I didnt agree? I suspect that you've not read this entire thread, or even all of just my posts.


God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

---

Notwithstanding this, the point I made about the relative value of cash sums is a MATHEMATICAL (& logical) FACT. As I've explained (whether you understand it or not) any attempt to judge the 'worth' of a sum of money to an individual must take into consideration the relative wealth of that individual.

---

That would depend on how you define wealth. There are a lot of people who are wealthy on paper but dont have much money. The determination of what makes you "wealthy" (net worth) is not the same as the amount of liquid funds you have available. From a rudimentary banking POV, wealth usually determines how much you can borrow or how much the financial industry thinks what you own is worth. It is rarely a true dollar amount of money.

From a purely mathematical POV, you are correct when you consider the percentage of what a sum of money is relative to the total. What those types of formulas fail to measure are the external factors like lifestyle, bills, or other costs for her business. The assumption is based on her net worth or wealth, which usually means very little in comparison to liquid capital.

Additional factors the mathematical formula does not cover are the costs to her agent, management company, publicists, etc. that would be guaranteed a portion of the money she earned from the film. Based on your logic, QL should not go after the film for payment, but who pays all of the people entitled to a percentage of that fee? Should she also do that out of the kindness of her heart?

---

Your 'bottom line' is nothing but your own unfounded opinion. You've offered no explanation as to what constitutes 'too many' people trying to get out of paying for services (note that you also imply that it's acceptable for a certain number of people to do this), you've given no examples, and offered no explanation as to your experience that might support such a comment.

Moreover, and more to the point, there has been no evidence that 'they' settled. So don't try to pass off the lie that they did. On the contrary, as I've explained, the likelihood is that she dropped the case.

---

Unfortunately, in the entertainment industry, lawsuits like this one are very common. They happen all of the time, especially in music and movies, and like most civil suits, it's5b4 just an aggressive way to force the defendants hand and make them respond. QLs company co-produced the film. So, while I dont know if actual money changed hands, Im sure they settled. Sometimes giving someone a producer credit in your next endeavor can make the demand for money go away.

More than 80% of civil suits of this nature are settled because of the costs to defend them. If the filmmakers lose, they are not only on the hook for the original sum, but all costs associated with court fees and QLs attorney fees. Not only that, if she had dropped the case, there would be no way to keep the other side from claiming victory. If it was settled, there could be an order in place to not discuss the details.

---

That would depend on how you define wealth. There are a lot of people who are wealthy on paper but dont have much money. The determination of what makes you "wealthy" (net worth) is not the same as the amount of liquid funds you have available. From a rudimentary banking POV, wealth usually determines how much you can borrow or how much the financial industry thinks what you own is worth. It is rarely a true dollar amount of money.

---

Blah, blah, blah. I knew I should have used the word 'money' and not wealth. Let's get this clear right now. I meant MONEY, not wealth. I don't need a lecture from anyone on the difference, or on liquid assets, etc., much less from a stranger who tries to correct someone on the basis of something they wrote without having read all of their comments.
Besides, tied-up wealth can easily be made liquid if necessary, so it's a weak argument at best and one which is being presented purely for the sake of arguing. None of us know how much liquid cash QL has or hasn't got, so why drag this in? Answer? Purely, it seems, because you want to argue that my logic is faulty. Well, sorry to burst your bubble but it isn't. In the absence of facts the best anyone can do is use inductive reasoning based on probabilities and related known facts e.g. that QL made 'x' amount selling records, is 'said to be' worth 'x', etc. All things considered, and without making pedantic arguments like the definition of wealth, QL has millions of dollars i.e. at least $2M. Compared to most people this very conservative estimate makes her 'rich', in which case, $10 to her is less than it is to them.

---

Unfortunately, in the entertainment industry, lawsuits like this one are very common. They happen all of the time, especially in music and movies, and like most civil suits, it's just an aggressive way to force the defendants hand and make them respond.

---

Had you taken the time to read the entire thread you'd have discovered that I've already said more about the entertainment industry, lawyers, and court cases than you have. In posting as you have you imply that I haven't covered this and that you are educating me. This would be false, and I'd thank you not to play that game.

---

So, while I dont know if actual money changed hands, Im sure they settled.

---

You aren't sure at all. You're expressing a mere opinion in the absence of the fact. You've said yourself that,

---

More than 80% of civil suits of this nature are settled because of the costs to defend them.

---

That sir, is significantly less than 100%, isn't it? So there's a 1 in 5 chance that they didn't settle - according to your own logic. Yet, as so many others before you, you're not being objective. You're showing a bias in favour of QL which you haven't justified. To question my logic while doing this is just astonishing. Logically you should take into account the possibility that 'they' are in the right and that QL is wrong; and to save you having to read the entire thread, this is all I've said. I haven't said she is wrong. On the contrary, I've said they probably did try to stiff her. My position has only been to argue that 'they' could be guiltless.

There is a good probability that a settlement was reached. Note that this is not the same as 'she was right and they were wrong'. Again, the probability is that there was some blame on both sides e.g. genuine misunderstandings, honest mistakes. These are more likely than outright criminal intentions (on either part). There are easier ways to steal money from rich people than making a film with one of them with the intention of stiffing them on their wages. Indeed, it's more likely that QL would try a deliberate act of criminality than them (I'm talking of the likes of a 0.00001% likelihood of QL being a criminal compared to a 0.000001% chance that the film makers were deliberately criminal).

---

Not only that, if she had dropped the case, there would be no way to keep the other side from claiming victory.

---

This is chop logic, I'm afraid. Without evidence of victory they cannot reasonably claim it. Any such effort would be countered by QL's people with any of numerous claims not least of which would be the simple truth.

---

If it was settled, there could be an order in place to not discuss the details.

---

Again, this h2000as all been discussed. You really should try to read threads, especially ancient ones, before you jump in with accusations.
If the case was settled, what reason would QL have for demanding a clause that 'they' cannot discuss the details but something that would make her look bad or which could be perceived in a bad light? In other words, this is still no sound argument that 'she was right and they were wrong'.

Now, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about this comment of yours:

---

You didn't agree, but that doesn't make you right.

---

With what are you saying I didnt agree?




God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

---

Again, this has all been discussed. You really should try to read threads, especially ancient ones, before you jump in with accusations.
If the case was settled, what reason would QL have for demanding a clause that 'they' cannot discuss the details but something that would make her look bad or which could be perceived in a bad light? In other words, this is still no sound argument that 'she was right and they were wrong'.

---

I've read your responses, and they all sound the same. You disagree with anyone that doesn't agree with you, and then, accuse them of disagreeing because they like QL. You accuse people of not offering facts, but nothing you have offered is much more than your opinion or perception. So, what's the difference?

---

Now, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about this comment of yours:


You didn't agree, but that doesn't make you right.


With what are you saying I didnt agree?

---

You didn't agree with the variables that can alter the calculations. That doesnt' make your calculation correct. You keep posting that your calculation and statements are based in logic. Logic is dictated by what you believe and how you interpret things. So, saying your answer is right because its logical is like saying your opinin is correct because you have one. You're speculating about the lawsuit just like everyone else. Unless you are involved in the lawsuit or have a copy of the contract, everything you're posting is your opinion.

---

Again, this has all been discussed. You really should try to read threads, especially ancient ones, before you jump in with accusations.
If the case was settled, what reason would QL have for demanding a clause that 'they' cannot discuss the details but something that would make her look bad or which could be perceived in a bad light? In other words, this is still no sound argument that 'she was right and they were wrong'.

---

Who said QL was the one that asked for the clause? The production company might not want the details made public.

---

I've read your responses, and they all sound the same.

---

Thats because Im consistent and replying to the same comments from different people, repeatedly, dumbo.

---

You disagree with anyone that doesn't agree with you

---

If Im right and they disagree with me, then Im right to disagree with them; and I am right because my stance has only been to point out that QL could have been in the wrong. This is an incontrovertible fact.. Anyone who wants to argue this is wrong (and an idiot since it's laughably simple).

---

and then, accuse them of disagreeing because they like QL.

---

If their comment or argument is biased e.g. She was stiffed so they should pay up. Its as simple as that then such a disagreement is valid dumbo.

---

You accuse people of not offering facts, but nothing you have offered is much more than your opinion or perception. So, what's the difference?

---

Youre another idiot who cant tell that what Ive been saying is not mere oda0pinion but INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS. Are you now going to start this argument again? Are you seriously going to try to pass off the inane notion that it is impossible for QL to be wrong, that there is NO EVIDENCE to support any argument that she was robbed?
If youve got new EVIDENCE then present it for us to see and use. If you havent, then we remain where we were years ago when this thread started; and it remains true that QL may NOT have been stiffed.

---

You didn't agree with the variables that can alter the calculations.

---

Dont talk rubbish! It was I who provided the variables!
This accusation very strongly demonstrates that either you havent read all my comments (and so are a LIAR), or youve read them and failed to comprehend them (in which case youre a poor one to criticise my abilities as a logician).

Furthermore, this comment of yours:

---

You keep posting that your calculation and statements are based in logic. Logic is dictated by what you believe and how you interpret things.

---

demonstrates how poor a logician you are! Logic is NOT dictated by what I believe, ignoramus. It is dictated by form. I neednt believe any of the terms in a logical analysis for me to work out the conclusion.

---

You're speculating about the lawsuit just like everyone else. Unless you are involved in the lawsuit or have a copy of the contract, everything you're posting is your opinion.

---

It is NOT an opinion to argue that QL may NOT have been robbed. As long as certain particular facts are unknown i.e. whether or not a contract existed, what judgement was made in a court, etc. it is a statement of truth to say that QL may not have been robbed. Thus, it's a FACT. If you can't understand this then it also becomes a fact that you are, mentally, inadequately equipped to argue about this i.e. you're a cretin.

I now suspect that youre the same troll who rolled up long after the thread was dead to start an argument and insult war. Youve used precisely the same pattern: first open with an unfair accusation to which Im likely to respond and then claim that nothing Ive said is anything more than opinion (when in fact its a conclusion derived from deductive and inductive reasoning based on FACTS).

Now youre going to parrot yourself, endlessly repeating, post after post, Thats just your opinion - because you dont understand the reasoning processes and cant differentiate between facts and opinion.

Now Ive demonstrated above that you dont understand logic so you have no credibility as a philosopher of even the most basic kind. Ive also demonstrated that youre a pedant who wants to argue the toss, irrelevantly, about the difference between wealth and money.
Add to these FACTS that this an old thread, and youve used the exact same tactics as tiger86-2, and it is easy to conclude that youre a loathsome, stinking, dirt-bag troll loser.

---

Who said QL was the one that asked for the clause? The production company might not want the details made public.

---

How low can you get? Already you're on your belly wriggling in the filth of deceit. It was you who said that if no such clause was obtained, there would be nothing to stop the other party fr5b4om claiming victory. Ergo, any reply in the context YOU provided HAD TO HAVE QL as the one who demanded the clause. Now youre seeking to argue the complete opposite. Again, you show yourself to be either too stupid to follow the line of your own thinking or youre a lousy, low-life, trouble-making troll. Which is it?


God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

Human behavior is anything BUT logical. Logic by definition does not take context or meaning into consideration when determining whether or not something is true. Wouldn't a true logician know that?

You appear to be someone emotionally invested in QL's behavior. You have been arguing your position and reasoning on this subject for 3 years. On more than one post, you have stated you feel QL is wrong or this situation will make her look bad to the fans. You clearly have an issue with her.

BTW, I never argued who asked for the clause. You asked why she would ask for the clause if she won, and I replied that the other side could have been the ones to ask for it. Either you can't read, or you're just trolling. You can't have it both ways, and only someone with serious issues resorts to name calling to prove a point when someone disagrees with them. Maybe, you should seek some help.

---

Human behavior is anything BUT logical. Logic by definition does not take context or meaning into consideration when determining whether or not something is true. Wouldn't a true logician know that?

---

Hey troll, this topic isn't about logic or general human behaviour. I don't need, much less want, a discussion with you about this (or anything else). Stick to the topic or piss off. Yet since you're obviously a troll who EVIDENTLY came here specifically to tell me I am wrong in order to start an argument, you won't. Not until you've been soundly crushed under the weight of evidence that you're a cretin making a public spectacle of himself.

---

You appear to be someone emotionally invested in QL's behavior.

---

You aren't capable of correctly determining such a thing - you're too stupid. Go and read through other posts Ive made elsewhere. Youll see NOT ONE comment about her, or reference to anything to do with her. If I was 'emotionally invested' in QL, Id be all over this board making it obvious. However, I'm not, and you know it. You could easily have checked this. The evidence against your words is there for anyone to see. Ergo, this is just an empty troll tactic to cause trouble. Youre a transparent, intellectually insecure loser seeking to massage a deflated ego by attempting to be seen on a public board, being clever. Your agenda is doomed. Idiots can never appear clever, not even in an argument with another idiot, much less against someone like me.

Moreover, if I was emotionally invested in either party it'd be with the independent film makers because I'm one of their ilk. Earlier posts of mine have already said this (but you, dumbo that you are, can't add two and two together and correctly work out where my allegiance would be most likely to lie).

Furthermore, I havent been arguing my position for 3 years. Only a bird-brain could conclude that from dated posts!!! How many posts are there and how long would each one take to write? Give a day for each one and you'd get FAR less than 3 years. So go away and get yourself a brain transplant with a budgerigar before you try to argue with a grown up because currently you're making an awful example of yourself.

---

On more than one post, you have stated you feel QL is wrong

---

Quote it. If you're right, you'll be able to quote me (and you wont because you cant). I'll be waiting.

---

BTW, I never argued who asked for the clause. You asked why she would ask for the clause if she won

---

No, you implied it. You said:

---

Bottom line, too many people in entertainment try to get out of paying for services. I'm glad she sued, and I'm glad they settled.

---

The clear implication is that they were among the too many and that you were glad because you want to think they didn't get away with doing this in this case. In short, your position is that she was right and they were wrong (and that this was proven in a court of law). I replied that you have no proof that they settled. Your reply was:

---

if she had dropped the case, there would be no way to keep the other side from claiming victory. If it was settled, there could be an order in place to not discuss the details.

---

Thus you were suggesting that any such gagging order would be to prevent them from claiming victory. Clear as daylight. This is the context of the argument between you and me. You cant change this by suggesting, after the fact, that you were referring to either party - dumbass. The evidence of your own words is here for all to see.
Also, if she had won she wouldnt be afraid of them claiming victory and so wouldnt have any need for a gagging order.

Moreover, gagging orders do NOT prevent the press from covering a story. They covered it in the first place so why wouldnt they see it through? Answer: because there has been no newsworthy ending. Theres little news in the fact that a lawsuit has been dropped. That amounts to an idle threat; and any newspaper or broadcaster that published news about a celebrity lawsuit tha7ect turned out to be nothing but an idle threat is going to want to report that! Yet if millionaire superstar Queen Latifah has been beaten in a lawsuit she started, or has won a lawsuit against crooks who tried to stiff her, that is newsworthy gagging order or no. In such situations the reporters merely announce that an undisclosed sum is believed to have been agreed upon but that a gagging order has been placed on both partiesQL said she was glad that the thing is behind her, that shes looking forward to working on her new (whatever it is) but that she was unable to comment further etc. That is how such cases are reported. We all know this except dumbasses.

---

Either you can't read, or you're just trolling. You can't have it both ways, and only someone with serious issues resorts to name calling to prove a point when someone disagrees with them. Maybe, you should seek some help.

---

Notice dear readers (now theres a joke) how zabbree hasnt passed comment on my suggestion that he (rather it) is actually tiger86-2, the troll I tore strips off earlier in this thread, the troll who originally popped up as if out of nowhere, long after the thread had been dead, to accuse me of being wrong, now come back to exact its great revenge? How unusual is this? Wouldnt a normal person, faced with a false suggestion, be surprised by it and at least say something against it? But not our zabbree!
Notice how its replies are exactly as short and vague as those of tiger86-2?

Either you can't read or you're a troll (and clearly you can read) because I'm not just insulting you. I'm demonstrating, with QUOTES, how you're wrong and then insulting you. It's not rocket science, chimp.

I dont give a toss if you disagree with me. There a5b4re plenty of people here who don't agree with me and to whom I've not replied. I dont care what you want to believe or think. Im responding to a personal attack from you. This was always your intention. It's the EVIDENCE that youre a troll; and only calling me a troll in return, without demonstrating it as I have done, is simply another obvious troll tactic.

I shot you out of the sky the moment you tried to explain the field of logic to me. Ive destroyed every on topic argument youve offered. Id already destroyed every argument you've offered (as you know from the last time you tried to troll me and got your arse kicked from here to Timbuktu).

Traipse back to your bog-hole, simpleton. No one likes trolls.

For troll watchers: Expect another very short reply that addresses very little of what I've said and provides not one iota of new information for this topic.


God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

Seeing as she's a proffesional, she probably has a contract, so it was probably in her contract. It'd be illegal for them not to.

The thing is this, look at it like a business. She is a walking business she is actress, singer, and plus size model. Each one of those entities is an economy in itself. It employs people (assistants, producers, agents, managers, etc. etc.) When she does cameos, or appearances that is time that is being diverted from the other duties. Hence = time is money. That being said her time was evaulated at 250,000. Money that perhaps would have been generated in the other ventures that "Queen Latifah" is. That being said, they need to pay her.
As a small business owner, (and I do mean SMALL) there are not enough hours in the day to do all the things I need to do. I can only imagine what Queen Latifah's day is like.

By this logic, I should not have to pay my credit card bills, VISA and Discover are multi-billion dollar corporations and $3000 is a relatively small sum. They should waive the money and say "Heck, he needs it more than we do." That sort of thing would be remembered and would probably make them more popular.

Shame on VISA & Discover!

---

By this logic, I should not have to pay my credit card bills, VISA and Discover are multi-billion dollar corporations and $3000 is a relatively small sum. They should waive the money and say "Heck, he needs it more than we do." That sort of thing would be remembered and would probably make them more popular.

---

Nope! Yours is the chop logic. You've failed to recognise the glaringly obvious difference between corporations and celebrity individuals. Corporate identities, by definition, often evade personal blame because they are the complex sum of thousands of people, not individuals. Queen Latifah can be personally cited in this matter and it is her individual reputation that would suffer for it.

You've also demonstrated ignorance of the fact that multi-billion dollar corporations are criticised for the unequal society for which they stand i.e. many people do cry 'Shame on Visa' when there are starving millions in the world.

God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

Since you are feigning coyness and throwing around the word "ignorance" after I used a playful model to illustrate a very simple point, 5b4let me make my position perfectly CLEAR (not to you because I have accepted that you are either baiting me or illogical)it is profoundly ignorant to think that if a creditor has more wealth than a debtor, it is somehow immoral for them to seek financial renumeration for an outstanding debt. Trust me, I tried this logic while in college and a judge let me know that the law was not on my side.

---

Since you are feigning coyness and throwing around the word "ignorance"

---

Im not feigning anything and using a word once is not throwing it around.

---

after I used a playful model to illustrate a very simple point

---

This is evasive, back-tracking, nonsense which I reject, for two reasons. 1) Attempting to illustrate a "very simple point" is to patronise me and the rest of the IMDb community.
2) You attempted to deride my thinking by prefacing your 'explanation' with the prhase, "By that logic". You then presenting a wholly inappropriate comparison that you felt represented the same thing. This wasn't 'playful', it wasn't respectful, and it isn't correct.

---

it is profoundly ignorant to think that if a creditor has more wealth than a debtor, it is somehow immoral for them to seek financial renumeration for an outstanding debt.

---

What is "profoundly ignorant" is the way you fail to understand the difference between corporate entities comprised of thousands of people over a wide geographical area in numerous locations, and a single individual of celebrity with a personal reputation at stake. It is also ignorant of you to fail to appreciate that my posts on the matter were written from at least as much a practical perspective as a moral one. Thirdly, it is ignorant of you (Ill leave it to others to decide whether or not it is profoundly ignorant) to use the nonsense word renumeration.

---

Trust me, I tried this logic while in college and a judge let me know that the law was not on my side.

---

I would be as much of a fool to trust you, a complete stranger, as Queen Latifah would be to enter into business without proper contracts. I will, however, go so far as to accept that your ignorance and faulty logic failed you elsewhere in your life.




God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

Does her reputation suffer from it? No, it doesn't. How exactly the fact that she is suing someone for more than a quarter a million that they owe her would destroy her reputation? $275,000 is quite a lot of money even for a millionaire. And yes, if the producers of that movie promised they would pay her she has the right to sue them and she must do it. She wouldn't have gotten rich if she allowed people like these producers to use her without paying her.

---

Does her reputation suffer from it? No, it doesn't.

---

That depends on whose opinions one chooses to value. Types who are more interested in wealth acquisition than wealth sharing would march into court with eyes locked ahead so they don't see those shaking their heads. The types who think that money isn't everything will be among the head-shakers; and they will think less of Queen Latifah for it. Does she care? I doubt it.

---

She wouldn't have gotten rich if she allowed people like these producers to use her without paying her.

---

You said it - she's rich. Isn't there then an argument that the struggling film makers could be given a break? To some people, yes. To her (and apparently you), no, if they can't swim on their own, they must sink. The trouble with the latter view is that no one gets anywhere on their own and Queen Latifah was supported to her wealthy life-style all the way.
The thing boils down to which side of the fence any human being wants to be on: the caring sharing side, or the hard-hearted, tight-fisted, greedy side. I would suggest that most, especially in Hollywood and famously capitalist nations like America, are firmly in Queen Latifah's camp despite that everyone knows the saying that money can't buy happiness.


God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

If the film makers are really struggling why would they promise to pay a lot of money to a celebrity?

What exactly are you trying to prove? Do you think the poor struggling film makers have the right to use a celebrity for free? Do you think that Latifah should let people rob her just because she has enough money? These "poor struggling film makers" STOLE $275,000 from her. They didn't pay her the money that they owed her. They stole them. They committed a crime against her and they have to pay. End of story.

---

If the film makers are really struggling why would they promise to pay a lot of money to a celebrity?

---

You're asking me why some people act in criminal ways? Are you really so naive as to act incredulous that some people would do such a thing?

---

What exactly are you trying to prove?

---

What are you trying to prove? I've made my point, as have others, and you've piped up, YEARS later, to take up the argument. Firstly, I don't have to justify myself to you and secondly I have already made my argument. If you can't understand it that's your problem; I have no desire to explain it to you. If you don't agree, make your case, but don't attempt to mak7ece out that the problem is mine. I moved on from this post years ago.

Today, you've piped up with ZERO evidence that these film makers actually stole anything. What facts have you got that Queen Latifah won the case? I've heard nothing of it either way - which fits the matter as I explained i.e. she probably dropped it because the fault lay with her in not taking sensible precautions against cheats (if they were cheats). Without the facts the objective stance is that either party may be at fault, both may be at fault, or neither party were at fault in a legal sense but one or both thought the other might be.

Your difficulty seems to stem from the fact that you're a fan of hers and so are thinking in a biased way i.e. that 'they' MUST have been to blame when in fact you just don't have any evidence of this. It's no use trying to tear a strip off of me for this. The facts we do have are clear: there is no evidence that she won her case but there is evidence that she made it publicly known that she was taking legal action against the film makers. From this we can deduce one of several possibilities: 1) She was right but dropped the case for some reason e.g. (as I said) because it could be perceived negatively by some people which could then generate negative publicity which her public relations people advised her against; 2) She was wrong and wouldn't have won the case and so dropped it, or 3) she was wrong, lost the case, and paid people to keep it quiet.

My money would be on the former of these in which case the lesson to be learned is still hers i.e. don't make business agreements without proper legal protection.

Now I recommend you stop trying to force into this 'done and dusted' debate false information such as,

---

"They didn't pay her the money that they owed her. They stole them. They committed a crime against her and they have to pay.

---

That is just you ranting without any evide5b4nce.



God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

That is just you ranting without any evidence.

If she is suing them then they had a contract and they didn't do what was in that contract. So yes, they robbed her. And yes, you should tell exactly what are you trying to prove. And no, it was not YEARS after the last post in this topic when I appeared here, it was just a few months. Do you even know the difference between a year and a month?

And I am not a fan of her, btw. I am not biased at all. I just don't get it. It seems like you are not sure what are you trying to prove.

---

If she is suing them then they had a contract and they didn't do what was in that contract. So yes, they robbed her

---

Suing someone doesn't mean they necessarily committed any crime. False lawsuits occur all the time. They may have counter-sued (& may have had good reason to as well). Also mistakes occur. She could have thought they'd robbed her but just been wrong.

---

And yes, you should tell exactly what are you trying to prove.

---

1)I am under NO obligation to say anything whatsoever. 2) It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to say what I'm trying to prove if I'm not trying to prove anything!

I know exactly what my purpose in commenting was. It was to try to offer possible explanations, from an expert perspective, as to what might have gone on for the possible benefit of those who were involved in the discussion. I just happen to know about the realities of movie making at the low end of the market. There are even books out there on the subject of 'guerrilla' movie making i.e. how to make films when you haven't got 'pull' or much money but want to make it big e.g. Robert Rodriguez has written about various illegal things he did to get around problems when he was starting out. It's not new but many people have no idea of these things and thus be inclined to think that QL was just unfairly robbed.

The point being that Queen Latifah may have made the not unknown mistake of trusting someone she shouldn't have e.g. in agreeing to work on mere promises of payment, and 'good-will' agreements. Such things not only won't hold up in a court of law if the film makers do turn out to be deliberately trying to screw her over but cannot reasonably be expected to be made good on if the film makers honestly intended to pay her but simply cant because its all gone pear-shaped. I can assure you it's not uncommon for films to fail because of budget problems. Even major studios have to shelve or entirely drop projects for these reasons from time to time. Also, this neednt be because money is held but not being handed over e.g. it could be because money promised by a financial backer elsewhere has decided to pull out and promises of payments made on that backing then also fail.

I dont know if you read the entire thread but I also argued that Queen Latifah has a duty of responsibility in business herself. Its no good running to the courts just because she got ripped off if she signed something she shouldnt have (or didnt sign something she should have). She was already well able to afford top lawyers to oversee any business deals she entered into so she has no one to blame but herself if she takes the view that she can do it alone only to then come unstuck.

Yes I can tell the difference between months and years. I should have checked to see how long ago I posted my last comment but I didn't; it just seemed like years. Besides, these things are entirely open-ended so you're entitled to join in however long has passed. I just felt like I was being attacked for having done no more than offer my two cents.


God made procreation; the Devil made it fun.

Suing someone doesn't mean they necessarily committed any crime. False lawsuits occur all the time. They may have counter-sued (& may have had good reason to as well). Also mistakes occur. She could have thought they'd robbed her but just been wrong.
____
I know. Do yo1c84u think any major movie star would do any job for anybody without a serious contract? I don't. Do you think she would sue them if they did what their contract says? I don't.