Path: ...!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 10:28:57 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <717514766.741126361.344244.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 16:28:58 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2af065b645a96ea26285e2b886eecf85"; logging-data="2925503"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18smSsGxFIBfwS9K6eg71sVbrlh9AwyjM8=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:uQ+3uPIYbanxSpAUw+HZn4WNq9U= X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.12N (x86 32bit) Bytes: 1785 anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote: >Adam H. Kerman wrote: >> Marlon Brando? He got paid a fortune based on his reputation from the >> 1950s, but this isn't Terry Malloy and it sure as hell ain't Stanley >> Kowalski. It's barely even Vito Corleone. I liked Brando better in the >> voiceover scenes. He seemed to have made more of an effort. Did he care >> about the quality of the movie? >> >> 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.] -- Let's go Brandon!