View Full Version : Movie Divorce set to cost Mel Gibson $600 million
Wowser... $600m!
Looks likely to be the biggest divorce settlement in Hollywood history.
Lawyers will be rubbing their greedy little hands together.
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,28383,25331576-7485,00.html
quickstraw
14 Apr 2009, 13:37
I find the media reports a little bit annoying about this one. His wife is no gold digger. It's not like he was a billionaire and married a one-legged floozie and has to give her hundreds of millions of dollars just because she lay on her back.
He made his fortune and she was there the whole way and had 5 or 6 of his kids. She is entitled to 50-60%.
I hope these 2 can sort it out without going through the courts.
How much do you want?
Half.
Ok. Where do I deposit the money?
Admiral Afterworld
14 Apr 2009, 14:44
Don't care.
Don't care.
Anyway, it's a bit of a shame that when these celebrity break up all that the media care about is how much it is going to cost.
Hopefully Mel sees that she has been a big part of his life and gives her a decent sized chunk of his money.
I thought Opus Dei frowned upon divorce.
I hope he will flagellate himself to a suitable degree as penance.
Perhaps he could fly to the Phillipinmes next Easter and get a cross next to John Saffran.
tandino
14 Apr 2009, 18:23
I find the media reports a little bit annoying about this one. His wife is no gold digger. It's not like he was a billionaire and married a one-legged floozie and has to give her hundreds of millions of dollars just because she lay on her back.
He made his fortune and she was there the whole way and had 5 or 6 of his kids. She is entitled to 50-60%.
That's fair enough, but 60%?
quickstraw
14 Apr 2009, 19:30
That's fair enough, but 60%?5 kids. Women are rightfully entitled to 60% if they were in the relationship when all the money was made and have kids. Their kids have all grown up so maybe 50% is more equitable.
tandino
14 Apr 2009, 23:46
5 kids. Women are rightfully entitled to 60% if they were in the relationship when all the money was made and have kids.
It that assuming a custody arrangement anything other than 50-50?
quickstraw
15 Apr 2009, 09:41
It that assuming a custody arrangement anything other than 50-50?
50/50? Who does that? The most likely scenario is that the kids stay with the Mother and spend every second weekend or so with the Dad. This is the norm because the Dad usually works and the Mum is usually doing home duties. This is the typical functioning of most families - Dad wins bread, Mum takes care of kids. Therefore, in a divorce the woman usually get's 50-60% because she has the kids.
It's a pretty simple and uncomplicated concept.
red+black
15 Apr 2009, 11:00
****ing gold diggers :thumbsd:
They had 7 kids, and only two of them now are under 21 (19 and 10).
No way does she deserve more than say $100m.
TheGeneral
15 Apr 2009, 16:59
Give Robyn Gibson Mad Mel's Fijian Island with the condition that she has to live on it for the term of her natural life.
As with custody of kids, women still get the benefit of the doubt more than the man when they divorce.
tandino
15 Apr 2009, 20:22
Therefore, in a divorce the woman usually get's 50-60% because she has the kids.
But costs associated with ongoing childcare would be taken into account when forming child support arrangements. Why then would there be a need to account for these costs when splitting up the cash?
California divorce law everything made during a marriage is considered common property; unless there's some other arrangement, she's automatically gets 50%. :eek:
red+black
15 Apr 2009, 22:24
California divorce law everything made during a marriage is considered common property; unless there's some other arrangement, she's automatically gets 50%. :eek:
which makes you wonder why the rich people would invest so much time and money in tax minimisation, offshore accounts etc, but wouldn't either have an air-tight pre-nup in place or ensure that the case would not be heard in another state (say have multiple residences, different states/countries).
while the reality is he is probably screwed, she does not deserve half a billion dollars. what a joke.
DeadlyAkkuret
15 Apr 2009, 22:31
Didn't know Mel was that loaded. What would you even do with $600,000,000? It seems like a ridiculous ammount to sue for, once it gets above 100 million what's the difference?
Invigoration
15 Apr 2009, 23:15
5 kids. Women are rightfully entitled to 60% if they were in the relationship when all the money was made and have kids. Their kids have all grown up so maybe 50% is more equitable.
Oh god, turn it up.
Didn't know Mel was that loaded.
For a start he commanded a very hefty salary at his peak, but funding successful movies yourself is the quickest way to a billion dollars.
He wrote, directed, produced and personally funded both Apocalypto and The Passion of the Christ, which would have made him hundreds of millions of dollars.
I think he's also done very well in property over the years.
Found this on wikipedia... pretty astute investor is Mel.
Gibson has an avid interest in real estate investments, with multiple properties in Malibu, California, several locations in Costa Rica, a private island in Fiji and properties in Australia.
In December 2004, Gibson sold his 300-acre (1.2 km2) Australian ranch in the Kiewa Valley for $6 million.
Also in December 2004, Gibson purchased Mago Island in Fiji from Tokyu Corporation of Japan for $15 million. Descendants of the original native inhabitants of Mago (who were displaced in the 1860s) have protested the purchase. Gibson stated it was his intention to retain the pristine environment of the undeveloped island.
In early 2005, he sold his 45,000-acre (180 km2) Montana ranch to a neighbor for an undisclosed multimillion dollar sum.
In April 2007 he purchased a 400-acre (1.6 km2) ranch in Costa Rica for $26 million, and in July 2007 he sold his 76-acre (310,000 m2) Tudor estate in Connecticut (which he purchased in 1994 for $9 million) for $40 million to an unnamed buyer.
Also that month, he sold a Malibu property for $30 million that he had purchased for $24 million two years before.
In 2008, he purchased the Malibu home of David Duchovny and Téa Leoni.
What would you even do with $600,000,000? It seems like a ridiculous amount to sue for, once it gets above 100 million what's the difference?
Often in these situations it is not the amount but the fact they want half on principle... often the desire to get more is fueled by bad blood following a breakup rather than pure greed.
A female family friend who went through a nasty divorce often said to me she didn't care if she "won" as long as he "lost". I've also had cricket mates head into divorce mediation with the same attitude after a complete relationship breakdown.
Quite sad really, although I highly doubt Mel's divorce will be anything other than amicable.
red+black
16 Apr 2009, 12:39
For a start he commanded a very hefty salary at his peak, but funding successful movies yourself is the quickest way to a billion dollars.
He wrote, directed, produced and personally funded both Apocalypto and The Passion of the Christ, which would have made him hundreds of millions of dollars.
Imagine if he directed, produced and personally funded good films! Although he did produce and direct Braveheart also.
Often in these situations it is not the amount but the fact they want half on principle... often the desire to get more is fueled by bad blood following a breakup rather than pure greed.
A female family friend who went through a nasty divorce often said to me she didn't care if she "won" as long as he "lost". I've also had cricket mates head into divorce mediation with the same attitude after a complete relationship breakdown.
Which is why we males should siphon off some money for hookers and blow. And divorces.
Imagine if he directed, produced and personally funded good films! Although he did produce and direct Braveheart also.
I really liked both films.
Funding it is the important part as you get large majority of the profit.
Braveheart was not nearly as successful as Passion of the Christ at the box office, which is the highest grossing rated R film in history (#41 of all time).
The Passion of the Christ make Mel a cool US$400m... it took US$612m at the box office worldwide, and only cost $30m to make (plus $15m on marketing).
Interestingly Braveheart only took $210m at the box office and cost $70m to make... although it did win 5 Oscars including best film and best director for Mel.
Apocalypto took US$121m at the box office worldwide and cost US$40m to make plus whatever marketing cost. He would have made good coin, but probably only US$20m - US$30m.