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!"