Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ubiquitous Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Superman (1978) John Williams' score Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:18:33 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <717514766.741126361.344244.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> <999213490.741193857.614425.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 21:18:35 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2af065b645a96ea26285e2b886eecf85"; logging-data="3031976"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+oRP4M4Dzh9qoITvtVsC+yUF6PJNS9gIY=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:GTNsRBo2hi6FJcTUKKY6P8t9Y8w= X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.12N (x86 32bit) Bytes: 1804 anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote: > Ubiquitous wrote: >> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote: >>> Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>> By the mid '70s, wasn't it clear that Brando, based on his past >>>> reputation alone, wasn't bringing in the kind of audience that justified >>>> his salary? >>> >>> No. They financed the movie based on the fact that Brando was in it. It >>> wouldn't exist without him. So he was worth everything they paid him. >> >> Did Brando get paid? The S's had a bad rep for not paying people and >> keeping a step ahead of bill collectors. >> >> [Kerman's incorrect formatting fixed.] > >Siri says he was paid $4 million. You'll notice that he wouldn't let them >use him in the second film. Brando is not a fool. -- Let's go Brandon!