Feature
- Do You Hate Your Partner, Too?
- California Teen Avoids Heavy Sentencing by Passing the Buck
- Wanna Buy Your Teenager a Padded Push-Up Bra?
- Vampires in Texas!
- These Guys Are As Bad As Westboro Baptist Church
- Funny Letters Sent to Women's Magazines
- Women's Ski Jumping: Still Not a 'Real' Sport
- Will the World Be Pro-Choice Soon?
- Are We Getting Too Lazy to Even Divorce?
- Forever 21's Maternity Line: Glamorizing Teen Pregnancy?
Divorce is never pleasant, and it seems that there are two issues that seem to establish the bottom line: children and money. Michael Douglas and ex-wife Diandra have certainly struggled with both—son Cameron is in prison for being Michael Douglas’ son on drug charges and now Diandra has filed a lawsuit alleging that she has the right to half of his earnings from Oliver Stone’s Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps where he reprises his role as Gordon Gekko from 1987’s Wall Street.
The 65-year-old actor, who starred in Wall Street in 1987, is said to be furious after Diandra claimed her divorce deal says she is entitled to half of any money Douglas gets from his movies – including any ’spinoffs’ from his previous films.
This includes Oliver Stone’s upcoming Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, in which Douglas reprises his role as greedy Gordon Gekko, according to Diandra’s lawyer Nancy Chemtob.
Ms Chemtob told Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew Cooper last week: ‘It’s the same character, the same title, just years later.’
I see Michael Douglas’ point here. I mean, Diandra received $45 million dollars in the divorce settlement. That’s a hell of a lot of money, and it seems to me that asking for more at this time, well over ten years later, is frivolous at best. Evidently, Michael Douglas was not an easy man to be married to (he used “sex addiction” before it became the new little black dress). However, I would think that $45 million dollars would more than pay for any degree of pain and suffering (inasmuch as you can put a price tag on it) not to mention allowing both Diandra and their son Cameron to continue the lifestyle to which they’d become accustomed.
Since this seems pretty plain and simple to me, I find Douglas’ counterargument to be kind of a stupid exercise in semantics.
She added: ‘They’re not the same thing.’
Ms Chinitz added Douglas, whose divorce from Diandra saw her receive a payout of approximately $45million, is not happy about the new lawsuit.
She explained: ‘He doesn’t want her to be an albatross around his neck forever.’
Yeah, I totally get the albatross analogy. I mean, should Diandra Douglas win this lawsuit, it would set a rather frightening precedent. For example, Michael Douglas has been in several movies where he’s a family man whose love life threatens to mess up his family (think Disclosure or Fatal Attraction). Should he play a similar role in the future, shouldn’t Diandra have a cut of that? He has an upcoming film called Racing the Monsoon—the grammatical phrasing is the same as Romancing the Stone. Yup, that’s definitely a “spinoff.” Where would it end?
Also in question? Whether the lawsuit should be dismissed because it wasn’t filed in the right location.
Ms Chinitz also told judge Justice Cooper that the case should be dismissed because it should have been filed in Santa Barbara, California, where the former couple divorced, and because it has no merit.
However, Ms Chemtob told the judge that she filed the suit in New York as it is where both parties currently live.
She also said there is nothing that suggests the case can only be heard in California.
At the hearing on Wednesday, Justice Cooper told Ms Chinitz and Ms Chemtob that he hasn’t decided the result of the case and won’t until he decides whether it should go ahead in New York, or be sent back to Santa Barbara.
I think divorce is always painful and usually bitter. I am a child of a painful, bitter divorce and I’ve recently wrapped up an extremely painful divorce. My divorce was the last resort following my ex-husband’s descent into alcoholism, and it still breaks my heart that it had to come to this. However, I would like to think that I will have moved on to the point that metaphorically screwing my ex-husband will just seem silly thirteen years from now. In fact, maybe I’ve already gotten there, since I find Diandra Douglas’ lawsuit to be completely asinine.
Your thoughts?
You Might Also Like ...
-
-
16
I agree, she comes off as bitter and gold digger-ish. she got 45 million dollars, such a big sum of money. has she spend it all and is now coming back for more? that’s just sick.
Why is she so hung up on a movie that happened 13 years ago? I fail to comprehend.
Some of this can also be perpetuated by her attorney,he gets some too. I have a divorce attorney in the family,I know how they can generate settlements.
Read the linked article.
Spinoff, sequel – same thing.
They had an agreement and it looks like he is out of luck on this one.
That’s what I was thinking.
He signed the damned agreement. Why wouldn’t she hold him to it?
This is a direct sequel. As the very nice lady in question herself pointed out, it’s the same title, same character, and later in time–meaning, a fucking sequel. If it were a spinoff, one of the major characters from the first film would be in it for a cameo and it wouldn’t be much at all like the first. Elektra is a good example of a spinoff, spun of course off of Daredevil. Scorpion King, Evan Almighty, these are spinoffs. Wall Street 2 is clearly NOT a spinoff.
Saying a spinoff and a sequel are the same thing is painfully stupid.
You’ll have to forgive me. I have zero interest in all things Hollywood. I don’t watch TV, seldom catch a movie.
I am “painfully” ignorant of the jargon involved.
Yet curiously unmoved by my lack. How very odd I am.
I can see both sides of the argument, technically. However I agree that the bottom line is, poor taste. What a rarified world these people live in where a 45 million dollar settlement wasn’t enough to last, making it worthwhile to publicly rehash all the details of your failed marriage. “Shameless” is the word that comes to mind. That and “petty.”
* addendum…to be fair, I suppose I should say, “But, good try!”
[...] Last Monday, Constance McMillen’s lawyers filed notice at the U.S. District Court to accept a settlement offer from the Itawamba County School District, who have agreed to fork over $35,000 in addition to [...]
She is not a gold digger. This is money she and her son are legally entitled to. She put a lot of heart and soul into her marriage to this man. She was there when he climbing the ladder. In the end she got a “thanks for the help, but I think it’s time for a newer model.” She has to think not only for the future of her son, but for the future of her grandchildren. Just like Michael Douglas is leaving a legacy for his future grandchildren by his second wife, the first wife should be able to do the same thing. He doesn’t want her to be an albotors around his neck? That’s what marriage and children are. You are for ALWAYS linked to that person like it or not. The children bind you together (if you have children) or the final language of the divorce decree. In this case they have both.
“Diandra claimed her divorce deal says she is entitled to half of any money Douglas gets from his movies – including any ’spinoffs’ from his previous films.”
.
“This is money she and her son are legally entitled to.”
.
I do not see that. Where was that? She “claimed” this to be true, but I do not see it stated(up to the ruling no doubt).
.
“She put a lot of heart and soul into her marriage to this man. She was there when he climbing the ladder. In the end she got a “thanks for the help, but I think it’s time for a newer model.”
.
The reasons behind her leaving him may be based on his behavior, but I do not see that as an argument for anyone being entitled to 50% another persons life.
.
Lets a business woman marries an artist and 20 years later after climber the corporate ladder she deiced that his motivation compared to other men is unattractive. He finds out she no longer wants him and bitter divorce ensues. He was an artist and thus a mostly stay at home dad, so ends up getting the kids. He also gets half of her assets and claims he is entitled to half of any major business deals she makes.
.
I’m sorry just no.
a = say
Then why comment on this and why are you hear reading it?
Dear Blurry – If you have no interest in this then why are you lurking on here and reading these things and posting comments? Be who you claim you are.
Dear “Blurrysmarty”,
I am who I say I am – a feminist.
This is a *Feminist Blog*. Get it?
If not, I’ll try typing slower next time, just for you, okay?
mwahs!