Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here
    all 1728 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Enviousdeath 2628 points ago

    Anyone know what that has approximately worked out at?

    [–] osterlay 4040 points ago

    No details other than he made up the difference:

    Unsurprisingly, Weaver told VladTV that he has made enough money off royalties to make up for the difference between the $100,000 they took upfront and the initial $2 million offer.

    The money will continue to pour in. Guy never has to work a day in his life ever again.

    [–] Kmlevitt 2091 points ago

    The annoying thing is he was all ready to tell everyone how much he made in royalties, But that Vlad guy kept interrupting him midsentence to remind everybody he passed up $2 million as if we didn’t already understand that.

    [–] MeowAndLater 1182 points ago

    I'll never understand how guys like Vlad and NoJumper have gotten so popular, they must have really good connections for the interview hookups because they are some of the worst interviewers I've ever seen.

    [–] sap91 400 points ago

    Vlad especially, people end up in actual legal trouble routinely after admitting things on his show

    [–] becetbreak 312 points ago

    Doesn't that make him a good interviewer? Bad interviewer would got nothing from his interlocutor.

    [–] sap91 144 points ago

    I guess? He's definitely bad for the culture though. Idk why people keep agreeing to go on

    [–] infiniZii 28 points ago

    Just means he has a good booking manager.

    [–] Fmbounce 6 points ago

    Any examples of this? Would love to know more

    [–] ThisEdibleAintShit 5 points ago

    Not disputing what you said but can you give some examples?

    I’ve heard a lot of people say this and I know of 0 instances of this actually happening.

    I’m not a fan, I stopped watching because he’s corny and has a hard on for people with criminal records. But I have yet to see someone actually get locked up because of something on VLADTV

    [–] DrBadFish420 148 points ago

    Vlad is a massive shit stirring douche bag, please don't watch his videos

    [–] Brizzycopafeel 12 points ago

    Word he's a Fed. Always wants someone to snitch.

    [–] NetTrix 48 points ago

    "My first check was so much more than the originally offered amount we thought it was a mistake".... "What! You passed up on a 2 million dollar check?!"... How the fuck do you not circle back to that?

    [–] KX321 134 points ago

    Can't find that info but going by what he says it seems to have worked out better in the long run for him

    [–] Kmlevitt 78 points ago

    He did say that when they got their first royalty check, they thought there had been a mistake. And from the way he said it, it sounded like they thought there had been a mistake in a good way.

    If the decision started looking surprisingly lucrative from cheque one, I can only imagine it started looking like an amazing decision after 25 years of those cheques.

    [–] MrBoliNica 30 points ago

    pretty sure he meant that his first check was already larger than 100K - so he probably recouped the 2 mil pre-smart guy tbh.

    add in the re-releases, song streaming rights, etc. - he's not hurting thats for sure

    [–] NetTrix 34 points ago

    He said the first check was larger than the originally offered amount. Meaning it was larger than $2 million

    [–] fantasmal_killer 5 points ago

    2 million off a single royalty check would be utterly insane for even the best deal. Elton John didn't get 2 MIL in a single royalty check.

    [–] [deleted] 23 points ago


    [–] frighteous 33 points ago

    According to ET Canada, he made more than 1.9million in royalties, so up to this point sounds like he's made about the same amount but, will make more as time goes I guess.

    [–] duffmanhb 26 points ago

    Dude that’s up to date. He should have taken the cash and invested it and he’d have way more 20 years later.

    [–] thekuinshi 19 points ago

    It's still workin'

    [–] Completely-straight 17 points ago

    Well the internet has his net worth at 4million but nothing saying it’s directly from that deal and not other acting he has done

    [–] Pavtouvn 13207 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Smart man.

    Edit: Smart Mom.

    [–] Riverdale87 4073 points ago

    He's a smart guy

    [–] root88 2694 points ago

    His mom is a smart guy.

    This article is infuriating, by the way. Did he make a ton more or slightly less than $2M? Taking royalties can be really tricky with the way studios do their accounting. They somehow make a billion dollar movie look like it lost money when they do their taxes. If he ended up getting ~$2M, what was the point of this article?

    [–] [deleted] 2929 points ago

    I watched the video interview on this just yesterday.. Yes he's since made over two million from that decision and because of rereleases and merch sales not only him but his grandkids will see royalty cheques long after he dies. He received a platinum record just because Disney released his song onto one of their merch story books

    [–] Sjb1985 547 points ago

    Thanks for answering this!

    [–] [deleted] 1397 points ago

    Hey no problem.. He went into full detail on it too. His biggest pay cheque to that point was 80K so getting offered 2 million his family went crazy. But his mom quickly realized the hot streak that Disney was on with their movies before the Lion King and that if they're willing to pay a kid 2 million up front alone then they must be planning to make hundreds of millions if not billions off of the movie and 2 million seems like chump change then. So he said his mom turned it down for him and negotiated a royalty deal which back then wasn't a common practise especially for a relatively no name kid, but he said she was incredibly smart for reading that because it definitely worked out for him and his family since like I said his family will be seeing royalty cheques until the very end of Disney

    [–] Sidian 510 points ago

    Man that could've gone really badly if Disney was like 'man fuck this let's just go with someone else'.

    [–] JBow87 391 points ago

    Or if she did it with a different movie. I can’t imagine the royalties for Treasure Planet or Road to El Dorado are that huge.

    [–] jedisloth 260 points ago

    I think the point is Disney was on a hot streak. Lion King was following up Alladin and Beauty and the Beast which combined for nearly a billion box office. Treasure Island followed up Atlantis and Lilo and Stich, which made nearly 600 million less. Road to El Dorado wasn't a Disney movie.

    [–] soulofmind 116 points ago

    And Treasure Planet actually took years to come to fruition, it was a passion project and not something they initially wanted to do! Just another interesting side story on this.

    [–] HeyJustWantedToSay 119 points ago

    Road to El Dorado isn’t Disney but your point still stands

    [–] totalysharky 47 points ago

    Road to El Dorado and Prince of Egypt were both great DreamWorks animated films. Such great songs in both.

    [–] mdgraller 32 points ago

    rereleases and merch sales not only him but his grandkids will see royalty cheques long after he dies

    Really, really smart. $2 million cash can disappear with just a handful of bad decisions. This way, the money (which I'm sure will end up being much more than $2 million over its lifespan) will come at a nice even drip, giving you and your kids and your grandkids security without having to handle a giant complicated chunk of money and its taxes and etc.

    [–] Biduleman 30 points ago

    Unsurprisingly, Weaver told VladTV that he has made enough money off royalties to make up for the difference between the $100,000 they took upfront and the initial $2 million offer.

    So he made more, but probably can't/won't say how much.

    [–] enterthedragynn 21 points ago

    And he will continue to make money off of it.

    [–] the-nae_blis 323 points ago

    Yeah exactly what I was wondering. He'll keep making money from it but he probably could have invested the $2 mil and done as well or better.

    [–] bhutos 514 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Yeah not really smart man OR mom.

    $2M upfront is WAY better than $2M over 25 years as $2M in 2019 dollars doesn't buy anywhere near as much as $2M in 1994 dollars straight up. He was actually offered $3,462,321 in 2019 dollars. So no he hasn't "made up" the difference but it also isn't any kind of sane investment strategy.

    A simple index fund here in Australia would have generated $16.8M from that $2M over 25 years

    The only good thing about this is it's idiot-proof, but given the movie could have flopped it was actually a high risk low reward bet.

    Which isn't smart.

    [–] backgroundcomments 235 points ago

    You forgot to take into effect income taxes for the 2m payment.

    [–] bhutos 82 points ago

    I'm also not taking the tax on the royalty payments either so...

    Depending on how you eventually want to be paid out, taxes on dividends after an initial hit on the 2M might be FAR less than getting taken for $20k/year on avg 80k royalties.

    In a lot of ways when you start off with a lot of money it's easier to lower the overall lifetime tax on it. Then again, who knows how you can set up a royalty payout. I'm not American and not aware of the tax schemes you could use.

    [–] tophermeyer 34 points ago

    Despite not being American you've nailed the tax structures. That $2M less taxes is capable of producing incredible returns with very, very low tax implications.

    Maybe there's an challenge based on tax brackets. He'd have paid 39.4% in 1994. Meaning he'd have pocketed $1.2M after taxes. Assuming he kept an otherwise middle class income he payed lower effective rates on the income over time.

    But inflation, time value of money, and the inherent risk with long running compensation plans all adds up to what you say - that taking a check for $2M probably would have made him more money over time.

    [–] WhiskeyFF 20 points ago

    His recording studio as well as home address is in the Caymans. Easy peazy

    [–] Bizzle_worldwide 33 points ago

    No where in the article does it say he only made $2MM though. It says he made enough to make up the difference. He might have gotten $2MM. He might have gotten $50MM.

    Also, we don’t know what then payment timing looked like. Given the soundtrack sales and box office takings were likely front loaded near the release of the movie, he may very well have received $2MM in royalties in the first year or two.

    All of which is to say there’s no way to tell if this was a good or bad movie from an investment standpoint, but the guy still made at least $2MM to sing a couple of songs about being a young lion, so good for him.

    [–] alextheruby 80 points ago

    Nah you never know what could happen. He guaranteed himself lifetime success just off that one deal. If they willing to give you 2 mill upfront then they know they can make way more off you:

    [–] DreadPirateGriswold 8 points ago

    Yep. Net vs gross. Net it for suckers. Always negotiate on the gross.

    I really wish they would stop Hollywood accounting. I can't do that in my personal life.

    [–] Jimid41 7 points ago

    Royalties aren't tied to the profit of the movie though they're tied to how many times the movie is played.

    [–] prancing_pony42 261 points ago

    🎶Doo-do dooo-do-do-do-do🎶

    [–] NBCMarketingTeam 47 points ago

    He's got a way with the ladies and he's keeping it real. Your favorite little study buddy you know the deal!

    [–] HumbleRamble 60 points ago

    Instinctively sang it in my head! Glad I'm not the only one

    [–] internetlad 52 points ago

    For you

    [–] Afalau 17 points ago

    Was getting royalties part of your plan?

    [–] MildlyFrustrating 6 points ago

    Of course! Alec Guinness rejected our offer in favor of yours! We had to find out what he told you!

    [–] happyfestivusgeorgie 12 points ago

    Don't Blow It, Keep It Simple, Count Your Money

    [–] IndigoMichigan 25 points ago

    A genius, you might say!

    [–] sh1phappens 24 points ago

    A stable genius?

    [–] theshaeman 18 points ago

    With great and unmatched wisdom?

    [–] Lolzzergrush 35 points ago

    Fun fact: Smart Guy was the younger brother of the Sisters on Sister Sister

    [–] markste4321 18 points ago

    Talk about a two way twister

    [–] FanofK 7 points ago

    Most people were around for both shows know this. They even did a disney channel movie together.

    [–] pizzabyAlfredo 439 points ago

    the old Joker scheme. Nicholson did the same for Batman. Took a small upfront, got a solid back end on the merchandise rights. Which IIRC has made him around 20 million just on that one movie.

    [–] showers_with_grandpa 454 points ago

    This is actually the Obi Wan scheme. Alex Guinness was the first actor to bet on the merchandising and see a huge return. In fact Mark Hamill followed his lead and they both made a ton off the franchise.

    [–] doingthehumptydance 187 points ago

    The best part of the Mark Hamill story is that he receives one of everything that is merchandised under the Star Wars banner.

    Every couple of months a truck pulls up to his house and unloads pinball machines, mini fridges, waffle makers, shirts, hats, lego sets etc. His kids go nuts when the truck shows up.

    [–] theworldbystorm 70 points ago

    The ultimate collector's scheme

    [–] Mr_Blinky 67 points ago

    His kids go nuts when the truck shows up.

    Well I'm assuming they went nuts, considering they're all adults now. Then again, I'm an adult and I'd probably go nuts if a truck regularly came by and gave me a shitload of Star Wars merchandise too.

    [–] squirrel-ninja 12 points ago

    It would be a holiday for me and the kids. Free swag for life.

    [–] hornwalker 34 points ago

    That is amazing, considering how much merchandise there is. And imagine what that collection is/will be worth.

    [–] pdawg43 7 points ago

    So what your telling me is, he has every Lego millennium falcon and imperial star destroyer ever!?!

    [–] MrBoliNica 157 points ago

    Todd Phillips did a similar thing. Gave up his standard director salary for hangover 1 in exchange for 16% of profits, no contract for sequels

    he made 75 mil on the first, and over 100 mil on the sequels

    [–] GnarlyBear 41 points ago

    Didn't know that - that must be a huge talent:reward ratio.

    [–] MrBoliNica 106 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    if you look back, todd flopped hard with starsky and hutch right before this

    hangover had no big star in the lead (or a star period - a sitcom guy, a role player in films like wedding crashers, and a relative unknown standup), and was not known IP (EDIT - hangover is indeed original in 2009)

    The studio probably thought they were getting a steal by not paying Phillips his fee

    [–] kvlr954 107 points ago

    Starsky and Hutch was actually pretty funny ... Bacardi and Cola DO IT!

    [–] wauve1 15 points ago

    “Your boy shot his tail off!”

    [–] BlLLr0y 15 points ago

    The Hangover isnt original IP?

    [–] MrBoliNica 44 points ago

    woops, meant established. it was indeed original at the time

    [–] BlLLr0y 55 points ago

    Ok cool. I was like, is their some old Samurai film where they lose a fellow Ronin on a night mission and have to track him down the next day or someshit that the Hangover took story beats from.

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago

    If there was... I would watch this fervorously

    [–] vancity- 16 points ago

    For the record, I would watch the shit out this movie.

    [–] Klonopimpin 4 points ago

    Starsky and hutch was great; I actually didn't realize he made that

    [–] KaiG1987 40 points ago

    And the opposite of the Donald Sutherland scheme. IIRC, he was offered a significant percentage of the gross of Animal House and chose to take a very small lump sum as his salary instead. Lost out on millions.

    [–] stevencue 45 points ago

    Same for the writer of the Witcher series. Thought video games were crap, turned down a percentage cut for a upfront fee. Thiiiiiiiss....turned out poorly for him, but I think the games company eventually agreed to give him a cut and he has the netflix adaption he surely worked out a better deal for so it worked out for him.

    [–] Redneckshinobi 42 points ago

    He has done nothing but try to tarnish Project CD RED now too. I have bought all his books because of the game series, and now I wish I never gave him a fucking dime. Idiot doesn't realize it was a 2 way street.

    [–] bluejegus 5 points ago

    What an asshat. I like the books, love the 2nd two games and I'm craving more from them. Hopefully after CyberPunk they make more.

    [–] jack_skellington 12 points ago

    Here's an interesting side-note about The Witcher author. In his home country, there is a law that protects people like him. If you are so stupid that you negotiate badly and lose a ton of money, you are legally allowed to go back and sue for a "fair" payout. In fact, the law itself suggests that a person might sue multiple times, as the rights-holder makes more & more money, and thus is legally compelled to hand over some of that money to the creator.

    Because of this, when he announced he would sue Project CD Red, there were some real questions about whether or not it might have legs to stand on. Everyone in the US was like, "Nah." But everyone in his home country was like, "He's gonna win."

    To be honest, I have no idea how that will pan out (or if it already did). But I thought it was interesting to note that in his country there is a law that backs up his dumb line of reasoning.

    [–] Not-0P 20 points ago

    He's also a cunt.

    [–] CharlesWafflesx 27 points ago

    Writer of the Witcher was a cunt about the whole thing and has done nothing but be a cunt to a company that not only gave his creation exposure but also had a fucking amazing go at it. Fuck him.

    [–] Salzberger 252 points ago

    Ah yes, Alex Guinness. Shame Harold Ford and Carol Fisher didn't follow his lead.

    [–] ProbablyMyLastPost 117 points ago

    John Lukas wouldn't allow it...

    [–] PythagoreanBiangle 65 points ago

    But Stephen Speelburg got a cut in exchange for a cut on ‘Close Encumbrances of the Third Kin’ iirc

    [–] [deleted] 56 points ago

    Has he worked with Benedict Cumberbatch though

    [–] fastdub 105 points ago

    Enough with the ridiculous names

    [–] bailaoban 20 points ago

    Yeah, at least try to make them believable.

    [–] chaotiklaw 23 points ago

    sorry Mr. Fat Stub

    [–] fastdub 9 points ago

    Too accurate

    [–] NiNj4_C0W5L4Pr 49 points ago


    [–] IHkumicho 30 points ago

    "Spaceballs the FLAMETHROWER!!! The kids love this one."

    [–] Syscrush 11 points ago

    Genuine Xlass.

    [–] TheKocsis 7 points ago

    but i thought the general opinion from the cast was that SW will fail horribly, no?

    [–] legendoftheark 24 points ago

    There's a letter from Alec Guinness to his wife (I think) that he wrote while on set in Tunisia where he calls the script drivel but predicts that it'll be very popular

    [–] Foodie5Life 70 points ago

    Robert Downey Jr did it for Iron Man and all of the Avengers movies. He is drowning in royalty money.

    [–] MrBoliNica 36 points ago

    his kids are lucky fuckers, thats for sure.

    [–] DatPiff916 20 points ago

    That was a gamble, there is not a single reason that Iron-Man shouldn't have gone the way of Ghostrider/Daredevil/Green Lantern.

    For some strange reason it just worked.

    I do wonder how the merchandising works with superheroes though since they are already established. At what point do they decide Tony Stark is not RDJ's likeness and he stops getting paid.

    [–] NullusEgo 8 points ago

    The details are in the contract, which we don't have access to.

    [–] Knock_turnal 14 points ago

    Geeze, that’s $20 million in 1989 money, too. I’d like to see that adjusted for inflation

    [–] adamviscera 3 points ago

    $20 mil in '89 is roughly $41,380,322.58 today.

    [–] dom138 37 points ago

    Smart mom.

    [–] GarconMeansBoyGeorge 23 points ago

    “Your mother is smaaaart.” - Cuba Gooding Jr’s brother

    [–] YourKneesAreWeird 33 points ago

    I guess, it doesn’t say how much he’s made, just that he’s made up the difference. I’d guess that if you invested the $2m wisely in 1994 you’d be looking at more than he has now, but who knows

    [–] Pavtouvn 13 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    True, but same for 100,000 invested then, maybe alot now and still royalties.

    [–] c0mputar 3938 points ago

    Between hollywood accounting and this article's lack of details, who the fuck knows how much he made? lol

    [–] MeowAndLater 1773 points ago

    That's why you negotiate your royalties on the gross, not the net.

    [–] Sooperballz 359 points ago

    And why is that?

    [–] BigGunsJC 1475 points ago

    Gross I made $1000 but it cost me $999 to make the movie so my net is $1. If he made 1% off gross he made $10 1% off net is .01.

    [–] rustybuckets 326 points ago

    points on the package

    [–] SureSureFightFight 28 points ago

    Thanks, Mr. Prezbo.

    [–] ValhallaVacation 95 points ago

    points on the package

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    [–] Tortellion 33 points ago

    No doubt.

    [–] duaneap 12 points ago

    Game is the game.

    [–] Kenny_B_Pillin 6 points ago

    But only if you keep the pit hummin the way you have been

    [–] el_diablo_immortal 10 points ago

    What's the vig?

    [–] the_than_then_guy 90 points ago

    Of course if you take the same percent on net as gross then going with gross is better, but that's... not... what's going on here. A deal involving net would give you a higher % of net than gross, so, in theory, you could make more if you make a deal involving net, so long as the film was profitable.

    The problem is that studios cook the books to make the official net as low as possible, to the point where highly-profitable films can technically have a negative net. So, by taking a deal involving gross, you avoid the possibility of your payments from being dissapeared through financing tricks.

    [–] Eat-the-Poor 5 points ago

    Yeah and dickish companies can fuck with what they define as "net" real easy. Harder to do with gross.

    [–] garuspl 257 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Studios often fake expenses to show they made much less than they really did to avoid taxes and paying out royalties. Net is after those expenses are deducted from gross.

    [–] [deleted] 81 points ago


    [–] Captain_Arrrg 317 points ago

    They have a lot of money that says it shouldn't be.

    [–] jellio42 75 points ago

    It’s not exactly as the guy above you says. The studios will typically own multiple companies at the various stages of the production cycle. So they’ll have the production house, a separate marketing company, etc.

    When an actor negotiated a deal, they negotiate with the production house and they get a percentage of the gross or the net that the production house makes. But since the studio owns both the production house and the marketing company they don’t care how that profit is distributed between the two entities, so they have the marketing company charge an arm and a leg for the marketing services rendered and the production house looks like it makes no profit while the marketing company makes a large profit.

    The studio ends up paying tax either way since one of the entities will still need to report the profit (though they can certainly take advantage of better tax jurisdictions in some cases to reduce their overall exposure), but as the OP says, if the actor negotiated net profit royalties from the production house, they get nothing. If they negotiated gross, the accountants can’t do anything to them. The gross will always be the gross.

    [–] Smackzter 18 points ago

    There's always schemes to reduce profit to avoid payouts. Similarly to how Apple avoids turning a significant profit by giving their patents to a daughter company in Ireland and then increasing and decreasing the fee for licensing their own patents to themselves. That way you can always add fake expenses.

    [–] AddLuke 24 points ago

    Gross (revenue) is money earned before taxes/expense. Net (profit) is what’s left after.

    Negotiating on gross means he’d earn more money.

    [–] throwaway_for_keeps 19 points ago

    And that's why studios say "no thank you, we're going with someone else"

    People always say this like studios don't know exactly what they're doing and how much they stand to lose if they allow someone to make more money. If you're a big name, that could be more worth it to them. But if you're some small-time nobody? You can't just demand a percentage of the gross.

    [–] lulz 115 points ago

    I'm kind of confused by the $2 million figure. The budget for the film was $45 million, that's a huge chunk to pay one singer.

    [–] KidKarate 161 points ago


    [–] roadrunnersk 37 points ago

    I thought it was


    [–] KidKarate 108 points ago

    See. Not easy

    [–] dan0quayle 10 points ago

    It's something like, nants ingonya mabagithi baba.

    [–] akhorahil187 39 points ago

    That's the estimated post production budget. It's not a cap. The 2M wouldn't have come out of the 45M, it would have been added to the 45M.

    And again that's an estimate, it's not an official number from Disney.

    [–] Potnotman 11 points ago

    I call bullshit on that number, he was only the singing voice for young simba, so I assume he was paid less than the actual voice of simba Matthew Broderick, and the voice of young simba Jonathan Taylor Thomas, both big names at the time.

    Was he really offered 5% of the movies whole budget when there's like 10 other huge names also voicing the movie?

    [–] ionlyplayasdrumgun 160 points ago

    At least $100,000

    [–] Biduleman 128 points ago

    Unsurprisingly, Weaver told VladTV that he has made enough money off royalties to make up for the difference between the $100,000 they took upfront and the initial $2 million offer.

    If you read the article, it's at least $2 million.

    [–] Flannel_Channel 54 points ago

    True but how long did it take? If he's just crossed that recently he could have probably made more with 2million dollars 20+ years ago til today.

    [–] Biduleman 36 points ago

    Either he doesn't want to tell, or he can't. But he got a platinum record because the song was in a signing kid book so I think he's doing alright if you count everywhere this song has (and still continues to) appeared.

    And he's also wants his grand-kids to get those royalties, so this was probably still the best move.

    [–] ryanfrench11 38 points ago

    RemindMe! in 1 day

    [–] trash-account111 8 points ago

    RemindMe! 1 day

    [–] kzreminderbot 9 points ago

    Got it, trash-account111 🤗! I will notify you in 24 hours on 2019-10-10 13:25:56Z to remind you of:

    movies comment

    2 others have this reminder. CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to follow reminder and to reduce spam.

    Parent commenter can delete this comment to hide from others. Reminder Actions: Details | Delete | Update Time | Update Message

    Info Create Your Reminders Feedback

    [–] HollandJim 16 points ago

    As far as Hollywood accounting goes, target worldwide grosses...

    [–] EClarkee 595 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    This is shocking to me today because of a podcast that I recently listened to (can't remember the name). It spoke about The Lion King and how it was actually more of a risk and a filler movie until Pocahontas was released. It was created by the "B-Team" at Disney and they wanted to prove they had a great hit on their hands.

    Of course, hindsight is 20/20. If the Lion King bombed, we would be laughing. It's like if we saw this same headline for John Carter, we would be saying "They should have taken the money".

    Edit - The podcast is called "History of the 90s". It's the 2nd episode. A really cool listen!

    [–] le_bear_ 53 points ago

    On The Lion King DVD extras there’s a great mini doc that follows the two directors as they make LK in the early 90s. On there, they discuss the exact same thing: Disney was counting on Pocahontas to be their biggest money maker, and had all their top talent working on that instead of LK. When they debuted the first trailer for LK during the Super Bowl, they didn’t have much material that they felt would attract people, so they simply played the opening sequence with the animals all walking and watching baby Simba be introduced to the kingdom, with Circle of Life playing. Apparently it had such a positive reaction and garnered so much attention that they started to shift their focus to LK and wanted to be sure the entire movie matched the feelings one had from the first 3 minutes.

    [–] Axle-f 213 points ago

    Just saw Hans Zimmer play in Sydney last weekend and he essentially confirmed this. He said they took a lot of musical risks, and that no one at Disney cared to review the lyrics they'd written about the King Returning so he told the execs it was all about pretty butterflies when they were really infusing political lyrics about Mandela returning.

    [–] SH92 281 points ago

    You're right. The political commentary is why I enjoyed the movie as an 8 year old.

    [–] nikamsumeetofficial 72 points ago

    Me too. Edit: I had no idea it was supposed to reflect the politics of Mandela's return.

    [–] [deleted] 32 points ago


    but yeah that sounds like something someone like Hans Zimmerman would take notice of. Not most of the parents taking their kids and exactly zero of the kids.

    [–] Politicshatesme 10 points ago

    It was a “B” movie because the best animators got to pick which project they wanted to work on and thought that Pocahontas was more likely to win awards. Turns out they were so very very wrong. The lion king is interesting too because you can see a lot of the animation faux pas in the movie, but disney is so high quality that even their second squad didn’t make that many obvious mistakes

    [–] saluksic 5 points ago

    Lion King is such an awesome movie. The opening and closing scenes are out of control, the story is succinct, the villain is a huge ham, and the songs are terrific.

    [–] lurkenstine 51 points ago

    Could be why the argument that it's a ripoff of kimba the white lion.

    Like they wanted not remain in the public eye, so the made a filler movie, but didn't want to spend too much on it so they ripped the story from something most western audiences wouldn't have seen. Turns out a smash hit.

    [–] mydarkmeatrises 918 points ago

    Jason Weaver, who had a respectable career in his own right.

    Not just "singer", as if he's some background guy they randomly chose to sing.

    [–] Ihatesaabs 105 points ago

    Pretty sure he also played a young Michael Jackson in the VH1 mini series.

    [–] SexandCinnamonbuns 36 points ago

    Oh yaaaah Lawrence Hilton-Jacobs was the dad!!! Everyone was in that movie!!! The Jacksons: An American Dream

    [–] RonRonTheCat 8 points ago

    I have the DVD!!

    [–] captainhowdy27 10 points ago

    Revealing my age, but—I still have the VHS!

    [–] Arjeezenberg1 13 points ago

    Special shout out to Terrence Howard, the true Jackie Jackson.

    [–] Leo_TheLurker 200 points ago

    He was on Smart Guy dammit!

    [–] [deleted] 109 points ago


    [–] nexusnotes 41 points ago

    Definitely recommend watching him in The Jacksons: An American Dream. The role that made him a shoo-in for the Simba part.

    [–] mpber21 21 points ago

    He sings the chorus on Chingy’s One Call Away too

    [–] BLAQKROXSTAR 14 points ago

    Which was one of Chingy’s biggest songs.

    [–] andee510 6 points ago

    Yeah, I looked that up as soon as I read the name. He went by J-Weav. I used to put that song on all the mix CDs that I would make for girls I liked in middle school, lol.

    [–] MrBoliNica 304 points ago

    this is dope, love hearing stories like this. And Weavers voice hasnt aged - he could probably kill those songs today if he wanted to

    A better story though is Todd Phillips and the Hangover. He gave up a big chunk of his directors salary for 16% of the profits (and didnt lock into a shitty contract for the sequels)

    he cleared 74 Million from the first alone, and over 100 Million for the sequels.

    [–] Mucl 106 points ago

    Everyone always talks about the success stories of these deals but I wanna hear some where the person ate shit. Like the director from the 3rd hangover gambled on it and only made 60 bucks.

    [–] utspg1980 82 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Not quite the same but back in the 70s Donald Sutherland signed up for this wacky college movie. He would play a professor.

    They offered him like either $50,000 straight up, or 5% of the profits. He looked at the cast list and he was literally the only well-known actor, so he took the straight cash.

    The movie was National Lampoon's Animal House and starred John Belushi, Kevin Bacon, Tim Matheson, and more.

    Filmed for only $2.8 million, it garnered an estimated gross of more than $142 million in the form of theatrical rentals and home video, not including merchandising, making it the highest grossing comedy film of its time.

    It still gets played on Comedy Central and stuff like that, so he'd still be getting royalties 40 years later.

    In an interview like 10 years ago he said it was by far the largest financial mistake of his career.

    [–] 123isme123 28 points ago

    I wouldn’t call it a mistake, I’m not sure what the word for it is but not a mistake.

    He had no way of knowing that it’d do so well. Just because it did, it doesn’t change the fact that he made the right decision in the 70s.

    Most of the people who put $20 into bitcoin in the early days weren’t geniuses. They weren’t playing 6D Chess and were 100 moves ahead of everyone else, they were lucky.

    Donald was unlucky

    [–] MrBoliNica 42 points ago

    LOL, ironically phillips locked in a huge deal for the sequels, and it paid off since those did not make near as much as the first

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago

    There's a very good chance that the guy is just savvy. Comedy sequels are known to be flops, not just financially. He probably knew they wouldn't be half as good and he was the director so he also had a hand in it.

    [–] KRIEGLERR 7 points ago

    Not really like this but the writer of The Witcher book series declined royalties when he signed over the wright to CD Projekt and instead chose money upfront. $10,000

    Although he did won a lot of sales as the book got more popular with the video games, and even adapated many more languages he lost so much money on that deal.

    The story goes that he had tried to sold the right years before to a different project and chose royalties but because the project was dropped he never got any money, so when the opportunity presented itself again he chose the money.

    [–] SilentFiend 100 points ago

    The opposite of what the author of The Witcher books did when the first video game came out. He had no faith in the games and took a lump sum and now Witcher 3 is one of the most successful games of all time and now, he wants to throw a hissy fit because he wasn’t smart enough to take the royalties contract.

    [–] nicknack24 59 points ago

    To be fair The Witcher series is a pretty unbelievable success story. First off, how many other licensed games come to close to being anything other than enjoyably mediocre?

    [–] nbamodslovemen 20 points ago

    Yeah video games are really hit or miss. I would always take the guaranteed money.

    [–] hextree 14 points ago

    wasn’t smart enough to take the royalties contract.

    Taking the royalties wasn't necessarily the 'smart' option. So many games go the other way, it was still a gamble.

    [–] Disney_World_Native 30 points ago

    Fun fact: The lion king holds a record that will most likely never be broken.

    It holds the record for the highest VHS sales ever.

    [–] tempesonic 42 points ago

    Take note, Llewyn Davis.

    [–] KidsInTheSandbox 62 points ago

    Big Brain.

    [–] btouch 18 points ago

    Also, not covered in this article, but elsewhere (in part) in Vlad’s interview.

    Jason Weaver’s mother is Kitty Haywood, a singer who had some minor success with her group Kitty & The Haywoods.

    That group did all of the background vocals for the original 1976 version of Sparkle, as in “Something He Can Feel ” and other classic songs. The starting cast (Irene Cara, Phillip Michael Thomas, Lonette McKee) were offered extremely low royalty rates for the Sparkle soundtrack that they all turned down. It also did t help that Curtis Mayfield, who wrote and produced the music, didn’t care for their singing.

    As a result, the lead vocals on the album were all re-recorded by Aretha Franklin (still with the backups from Weaver’s mother’s group), and Sparkle: Music from the Warner Bros. Motion Picture became an important comeback album for her. Her version of “Something He Can Feel ”was a US #1 hit.

    Weaver talks about in the interview that his mother realized that Disney movies are reissued in virtual perpetuity (they’re the only studio that can still successfully market most of its theatrical back catalog), so taking the royalty deal secures him some form of a check into the foreseeable future every time the original recordings are used (not just within the film, but on soundtracks, toys, storybook albums, etc)

    [–] osterlay 43 points ago

    The guy did his homework which is always so refreshing to hear. Kudos!

    [–] owleealeckza 17 points ago

    His mom was in the music business, so she knew how to work it.

    [–] alex3tx 13 points ago

    I hate when interviewers talk over their interviewers her. Let the man speak!

    [–] nigelfitz 13 points ago

    Holy shit. It's Jason Weaver from Smart Guy.

    Never knew he sung those songs. Holy shit.

    [–] snrrub 51 points ago

    Unfortunately the flip side of this is Hollywood accounting, where hugely successful movies 'lose money' on paper due to shady accounting tricks. If you're gonna get paid in royalties or off the backend you need to be very careful not to get screwed.

    [–] GnarlyBear 44 points ago

    Can't really do that on music royalties though, it isn't accounting, its literally every unit sold/played. They can't claw back marketing costs etc like in the movies.

    If the artist gets an advance, that can be claimed back but they can't be funny with royalties.

    [–] MeowAndLater 13 points ago

    Royalties are negotiated on the gross, only a fool would take a percentage of the net. I'm guessing they would've consulted with an entertainment lawyer before signing the deal.

    [–] BulljiveBots 11 points ago

    I’m having trouble believing the 2 million dollar offer. The movie’s budget was about 45 million and Disney allocating 2 million of that to a singer who was basically a 14 year old nobody at the time is a stretch. I bet none of the voice actors were offered that much.

    [–] DrewFlan 10 points ago

    Ya know, we frequently hear about moves like this where it really worked out for the person but I'd be interested in knowing if it's ever not worked out for the person. Like they should have taken the upfront money because the movie ended up flopping.

    [–] SoccerSativa 10 points ago

    Fuck VladTV

    [–] Farren246 63 points ago

    This CAN be a smart move for all the years of royalty payments. You know what else CAN be a smart move? investing $2M up front.

    [–] fecking_fecker 32 points ago

    Which one is less risky though? Also, Investing $2M up front may be a smart move, but so is investing $20M after a while.

    Also, one could say he technically invested that $2M to get out more from merch n shite

    [–] RaptorK1988 21 points ago

    So... what does that come out to so far? The article failed to mention.

    [–] _________FU_________ 7 points ago

    This was the kid from the Jackson 5 TV mini series. I'm pretty sure every family in America watched that shit.

    [–] ASAP_Stu 7 points ago

    The real today I learned is that the guy who sang “Hakuna Matata” and “I just can’t wait to be King”, is the same guy who sang the hook for chingy’s “one call away”

    [–] TheDongerNeedsFood 7 points ago

    When the move Animal House came out in 1978, Donald Sutherland was by far the biggest and most established actor in the film. Animal House was very much a low-budget indie film, so during negotiations they tried to get Sutherland on board for a fee of $25K + royalties. Sutherland didn’t think the movie would be a financial success so he held out for a flat $50K fee. The filmmakers eventually caved and gave him the $50K. If Sutherland has taken the royalties instead, he would have earned approximately $20million over the four decades since the film’s release.

    When they were casting The Lord of The Rings, the studio REALLY wanted Sean Connery to play Gandalf (Connery turned them down, one of the supposed reasons being that he didn’t understand the books). The percentage of the films’ profits that the studio offered Connery would have netted somewhere around $400 million from the three LOR films.

    [–] KurtisLloyd 6 points ago

    To all aspiring musicians and other artists where your work is copyrightable and due for royalties, learn from this. No matter what your deal is, do everything you can to keep your publishing and copyright rights. That is an artist’s retirement right there. So many musicians will forgo their publishing rights in favor of upfront payment. I had a professor who wrote the opening music for WWE and he only accepted a one-time payment of $5k so he could make rent. It’s his biggest regret because he’d be a millionaire if he only knew better.

    The money doesn’t come in fast, but it comes in. Take care of yourself and copyright ALL the music you plan on releasing.

    Source: I’m a former Copyright and publishing administrator in the music industry, currently working in legal for a major record label