Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
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: <v5jsv9$2p8tv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5hksf$28sr0$1@dont-email.me> <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 <ahk@chinet.com> 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!