Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Film Glance Forum

  1. Home
  2. The IMDb Archives
  3. Stamp's deal on Theorem

Stamp's deal on Theorem

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The IMDb Archives
4 Posts 1 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    fgadmin
    wrote last edited by
    #1

    Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Terence Stamp


    DC1977 — 16 years ago(August 29, 2009 12:11 AM)

    On the DVD Stamp mentions the percentage he received for making Theorem was something like 'three points after 2.5 rollover'
    Does anyone know what this means?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • F Offline
      F Offline
      fgadmin
      wrote last edited by
      #2

      filmscholar35 — 14 years ago(August 01, 2011 08:27 PM)

      It means after the film made back two and a half times what was spent on it, he would receive a percentage of the profits after that.
      It was a low budget film, so they likely couldn't afford his normal salary (he was big then). He probably did the film just because he wanted to work with Pasolini and he liked the material.
      Doubt he ever made much money on that film.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • F Offline
        F Offline
        fgadmin
        wrote last edited by
        #3

        DC1977 — 14 years ago(August 04, 2011 02:22 PM)

        Thanks
        Stamp mentioned in an interview that he never made any money from his profit percentage because the ownership of the film changed hands or something like that, I don't really remember.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • F Offline
          F Offline
          fgadmin
          wrote last edited by
          #4

          filmscholar35 — 14 years ago(August 06, 2011 05:32 PM)

          Yeah, da0sorry I answered you like two years after you originally asked that! LOL!
          I really didn't know if you'd ever see my response or not, as yours was such an old post. I just took a shot.
          Often times an actor gets messed over on one of those "back-end deals", where you get paid later, if the film ever makes any money. Rarely do they ever seem to. At least not that ever gets reported. If an actor accepts a back-end deal, they better just be wanting to do the film for its own sake in most cases. Although Harvey Keitel scored well a couple of times doing that. He apparently originally agreed to appear in Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs", as its top-billed actor, for NOTHING up front. Plus, he financed a trip for Tarantino, himself, and producer Lawrence Bender to go to NYC and meet with and audition several actors. Keitel read with all of them. He was who also attracted investors in the first place to give money to make the film, and he insisted on the young novice Tarantino to direct it personally. He was VERY instrumental in getting it made at all. Then, he wound up putting in $240,000 of his own money to complete post-production. So, not only was Keitel acting for free, but the film COST him money. Over a quarter of a million dollars, in fact. He received his first ever producer credit, and top billing. It was worth it. Supposedly, within three years of festivals, theatrical releases, and video sales of the film, of which he received a cut from, Keitel wound up making over three million from the film. I can only imagine what he's made from it by now! It's kind of a classic, now.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0

          • Login

          • Don't have an account? Register

          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
          • First post
            Last post
          0
          • Categories
          • Recent
          • Tags
          • Popular
          • Users
          • Groups