Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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 15:18:33 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <v5kdua$2sgt8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5hksf$28sr0$1@dont-email.me>
 <717514766.741126361.344244.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
 <v5jsv9$2p8tv$1@dont-email.me> <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 <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> 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!