MovieChat Forums > Apocalypse Now (1979) Discussion > Marlon Brando was not worth $3 million.

Marlon Brando was not worth $3 million.


10% of the film's budget for him to do...that? Um, no. You barely even saw the guy!
FFC could've hired some other actor to play that part just as well for 90% less and without any of the diva demands/behavior.

reply

With big name actors it's not about if their role merits the large amount of money they recieve. In real terms it clearly does not.

But Brando's name will sell tickets, he is world famous.

He really does not have to do much apart from show up...and he did indeed do very little.

You want Brando, you're gonna pay foe him.

reply

Yea, that's what I figured it was about. Just using his name to sell tickets. Sad! But still...if someone was willing to pay me $3 million for three weeks worth of work in 1978 (or today for that matter), I think I'd find a way to set my demanding diva antics aside. Especially considering they'd worked together before! Evidently the human ego has no limits.

reply

The other issue is about an actors standing within the acting community.

If they are considered a guaranteed box office draw then they have a minimum fee. And the more hits they have, the bigger the fee.

Plus there is also healthy competition between actors as to who commands the bigger fee.

To be honest, it's the agents that negotiate the fees. It's not the actors demanding huge salaries.

Same happens in the world of sport...people being paid what we would consider to be obscene amounts of money.

And as you said, their work does not equate to the vast amount of money they are paid. It's a different world to the likes of us working stiffs...

reply

Money talks. Brando and Coppola working together again would have sold millions of tickets.

reply

I can't help but wonder if he'd have gotten more bang for their buck casting someone like Burt Lancaster, Gene Hackman, or Rod Steiger... even a foreign actor who could do an American accent well enough like Oliver Reed or Richard Harris. Sure the mega-star-power wouldn't quite be there but they'd have fit the part better and cost a lot less. This would have freed up enough cash to cover more of what Coppola wanted. I'm sure he later viewed casting Brando as a huge mistake, but who would have known he'd have been such a problem beforehand as Brando's career owed a lot to him. Still, Brando being in the film made a lot more sense than his role in Superman, which I didn't even really notice was Brando when I was a kid. That role was barely a role at all and cynically cast just because they needed a big star name to splash on the poster because Christopher Reeve was a no-name at the time.

reply

I really like Brando as Kurtz. Whatever diva-ish bumfoolery he engaged in on set was ultimately worth it, both commercially and artistically.

reply

Yeah, Brando kicked axx as Kurtz.

reply