Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan From: mcewan@uiucdcs.UUCP (mcewan ) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: re: Re: Superman II - The Question - (nf) Message-ID: <6011@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 4-Mar-84 22:27:48 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.6011 Posted: Sun Mar 4 22:27:48 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Mar-84 02:20:30 EST Lines: 22 #R:decwrl:-592100:uiucdcs:10700065:000:711 uiucdcs!mcewan Mar 4 19:37:00 1984 As I understand it, the reason Brando's scenes were excised from SUPER- MAN II was because of greed on the Salkinds' part. On top of the $3.7 million that he got for playing Jor-El, Brando was guaranteed a percentage of the prof- its. By cutting his bits out of SUPERMAN II, they didn't have to pay him any percentage of *that* film. /* ---------- */ Perhaps the Salkinds realized that paying huge amounts of money to an actor for playing an extremely minor bit part that he was not well suited for in the first place is stupid. The opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of any sane person. Scott McEwan pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan "Wait! That isn't a moon! It's a toaster-oven!"