david prowse darth vader

During an interview with Equity Magazine, David Prowse, the actor who played (but didn’t voice) Darth Vader in the original Star Wars trilogy, claims that LucasFilm has yet to pay him any residual payments on Return of the Jedi because the the film has yet to make a profit.

“I get these occasional letters from Lucasfilm saying that we regret to inform you that as Return of the Jedi has never gone into profit, we’ve got nothing to send you. Now here we’re talking about one of the biggest releases of all time,” said Prowse. “I don’t want to look like I’m bitching about it,” he said, “but on the other hand, if there’s a pot of gold somewhere that I ought to be having a share of, I would like to see it.”

Of course, Return of the Jedi has grossed over $572 million worldwide, which includes an estimated $88 million when the film was re-released in 1997. So how is it possible that the film has yet to make a profit? Prowse really can’t be serious, can he?

TimesOnline contacted LucasFilm about the story but the company declined to comment as a matter of policy. In the interview, Prowse warns young actors to know exactly what kind of contracts they are signing:

“There is a big difference between having a share of the gross profit and having a share of the net profit. It is a huge difference in just one word. Sometimes, with net profit, with all the expenses and so on, it seems like you end up paying them.”

Hollywood contracts are notoriously one-sided, but I’m pretty sure Prowse must be mistaken about that letter and what might be owed to him for Return of the Jedi, right?

/Film reader Seth posted the following in the comments:

Gross profit is what you get if you are a big enough actor or producer to demand this. You get a percentage of profit based on the gross of the film - how much it makes before any costs. Therefore, you are guaranteed to get paid since the studio can’t hide anything.  Very few people can demand gross points. But if you have them and your film hits big, you make millions. In fact, this can be so profitable you will sometimes see big stars forgo any salary at all except union minimum just to get these points.

Unfortunately, Mr. Prowse relates what is almost universally the case with a net profit clause. Studios almost never pay on this clause, as they claim nearly any and every expense possible to keep the film from showing any actual profit. Very few films have ever shown a net profit on the books.

How do they do this? Well first, imagine that George Lucas decided to go to New York tomorrow to talk about showing Return of the Jedi in 3D. And he stayed at the Ritz Carlton, ordered sushi at 3 a.m. from room service and used the hotel phone to call Bahrain to make prank calls.

Well, 26 years after the release of the film, the accountants at Lucasfilm are going to charge $86,000 to the costs of Return of the Jedi. I am NOT joking. This is what they do. If George Lucas utters the words Star Wars and he’s spending money, they’re putting it on the red line for one of those films.

On the flipside, Mr. Prowse would be wise to use the FORCE, aka a lawyer, to get Lucasfilm to cough up. You see, as you can tell by the above, the accounting is utter bullshit. And on a film like Return of the Jedi, Lucasfilm would be extremely reluctant to open its books in open court. Extremely reluctant because of how incredibly embarrassed studios have been in the past when they have made the mistake of doing this. Plus, the ensuing publicity would be embarrassing to Lucasfilm. Can you imagine the hedlines if Darth Vader sued George Lucas?

In short, if you have net participation on a film that has grossed hundreds of millions, you may get some dough, but you’ll have to sue to get it.

  • John
    RotJ not making a profit is a joke. With all the money Lucas has it would be disgusting for him to not pay Prowse what he was promised.
  • Tristan
    That's cold.
  • What? Lucas screwing someone out of money? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaw. Can't be. I mean, that kind of thing doesn't happen in Hollywood, ever. Never happened. :
  • Well, The Simpsons have been in red numbers forever, so who knows?
  • Seth
    Unfortunately, Mr. Prowse relates what is almost universally the case with a net profit clause. Studios almost never pay on this clause, as they claim nearly any and every expense possible to keep the film from showing any actual profit. Very few films have ever shown a net profit on the books.

    How do they do this? Well first, imagine that George Lucas decided to go to New York tomorrow to talk about showing Return of the Jedi in 3D. And he stayed at the Ritz Carlton, ordered sushi at 3 a.m. from room service and used the hotel phone to call Bahrain to make prank calls.

    Well, 26 years after the release of the film, the accountants at Lucasfilm are going to charge $86,000 to the costs of Return of the Jedi. I am NOT joking. This is what they do. If George Lucas utters the words Star Wars and he's spending money, they're putting it on the red line for one of those films.

    On the flipside, Mr. Prowse would be wise to use the FORCE, aka a lawyer, to get Lucasfilm to cough up. You see, as you can tell by the above, the accounting is utter bullshit. And on a film like Return of the Jedi, Lucasfilm would be extremely reluctant to open its books in open court. Extremely reluctant because of how incredibly embarrassed studios have been in the past when they have made the mistake of doing this. Plus, the ensuing publicity would be embarrassing to Lucasfilm. Can you imagine the hedlines if Darth Vader sued George Lucas?

    In short, if you have net participation on a film that has grossed hundreds of millions, you may get some dough, but you'll have to sue to get it.
  • Seth
    FYI, I didn't explain gross profit versus net profit. Gross profit is what you get if you are a big enough actor or producer to demand this. You get a percentage of profit based on the gross of the film - how much it makes before any costs. Therefore, you are guaranteed to get paid since the studio can't hide anything.

    Very few people can demand gross points. But if you have them and your film hits big, you make millions. In fact, this can be so profitable you will sometimes see big stars forgo any salary at all except union minimum just to get these points.
  • WOW! A rational, enlightened and intelligent post.

    Come on Seth write "Lucas smells of bums" or something or you'll look out of place on here.

    In all seriousness I wish more people with intelligent things to say would contribute on blog comments sections.

    thank you.
  • Well now we know! And knowing is half of the battle...
  • GregoryV
    George Lucas, you're such an asshole. Buy the brotha a car or something!
  • Xono
    Just when you thought Lucasfilm couldn't suck anymore along comes a gem like this.

    The level of greed that permutates Lucasfilm is brazen when you look it, take their attempts to try and hook another bunch of children at a young age with the star wars clone wars cartoons that's all its for as a means to sell more merch to another generation that doesn't think much of star wars.

    I hope David Prowse gets whats owed to him and Lucasfilm are shamed into paying up.
  • topler
    Ain't that the truth. My 3 year old son didn't know Star Wars until the Clone Wars cartoon commercial this past summer. Know between me, my family, Santa Claus and begging we have probably spent over $300 alone for Star Wars toys that are made like shit. He loves them but the new Millennium Falcon is the biggest piece of crap toy ever made. At least Santa and his elves built it in his shop rather than us spending $150 bucks for it. Oh wait? My son is hooked and he things the Stormtroopers and Anakin are good guys. Lucas needs to go ))<-->(( with Chewbacca.
  • mana
    When I saw this article, this is all I could think of (fast forward to 1:20)[youtube BB7_t_IrbF4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB7_t_IrbF4 youtube]
  • Goddamn that is cold. I'd like rip on George Lucas a little with the rest of my comment, but everything I have to say is negative and obvious.
  • Hope Prowse ends up getting his fair share.
  • Wow, George Lucas is a greedy selfish asshole concerned only with making money. Who knew?
  • Sam
    Of course there's no profit, lucus laundered the money in to a food account that he uses to feed his neckchin
  • topler
    funny!
  • David
    While I'm not disagreeing that George Lucas may be an ******* remember that almost every studio does this and this isn't the first big movie that this has occurred. I've also heard that almost every movie, even the few that are as big/bigger than RoTJ pay nothing or almost nothing to any actors in net profit agreements.
  • Has the IRS ever gone after movie studios? Seems like a potential goldmine in taxes.
  • Hobo General
    If George Lucas starts paying residuals to Darth Vader, that would be akin to funding terrorists.
  • Hobo General
    And any nerds that start trying to say that the Rebel Alliance would be the terrorists clearly don't know their Galactic history.
  • Lucas is an evil Genius..
  • No, just evil.
  • ___
    This is commonly known as 'hollywood accounting'. Look it up on wikipedia.
  • Well that's just effin' show business. =/
    Somebody please tear Mr. Lucas a new hole.
  • Jar Jar Binks, little Anakin, young Anakin, Episode III's plot, and now this.

    The list just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
  • While it may seem unfair in this case, there is good reason in the entertainment industry to employ net profit agreements. Net profit agreements balance the effects on studio-distributors with the effects on net profits participants. They prevent the studios from giving too much of the back-end, which would water down its incentives to market the film effectively. At the same time, they also give the participants a share of the back-end, albeit contingent, which sharpens their incentives both before and after the completion of production.

    Another important aspect of the net profits agreements is that they are not tailored to deny contingent compensation under all circumstances. The addition of a major star has a tremendous impact on whether or not a net profits participant is likely to recover. This is because major stars are likely to be “gross participants,” and their compensation is in part a function of the film’s gross receipts. The breakeven point for net profits participants depends on the presence of gross participants as well as the magnitude of the production and distribution budgets. These too are interrelated, as big stars are complements for production and distribution expenses. The likelihood of receiving net profits from a successful movie will almost certainly fall when a gross participant is added to the project. However, the expected value of the net profits participant’s overall contract will increase. The gross participant’s presence increases the likelihood that the project will actually go into production and that means that the net profits participant is more likely to receive his or her fixed compensation
  • Jamieson
    It’s not just Lucas doing this, it's EVERYONE. Yet, this again appears to be a story with which Lucas can be flogged for his megalomaniacal tendencies instead of looking at the bigger picture.
    I’m not trying to put on a case for the defence here because I find Lucas highly hypocritical on this matter because both he and Coppola created their own independent studios because they hated the way Hollywood worked, only for them to adopt the very same practices. However, Mr Prowse and the majority of the Star Wars actors have made a handsome living from conventions and other spin-offs (such as books) due to them being in a galaxy far far away, considering this is down to Lucas shouldn’t the inventor expect a percentage from these revenue streams? Surely its only fair that their appearnce fees and spin-offs should forfit a percentage to LucasFilm? Yet more importantly, what about all the artists, production designers and art directors that have created not only brands for studio franchises but thousands of products for the retail industry. Shouldn’t they, perhaps more so than actors, be given royalties on their work?
    This is what really grinds my gears, we plead for profit decency for a guy who was a walking clotheshorse and has made a decent living because of a costume, but what about the guy who actually designed the costume? Toys are made because of designers, books are reliant on their work for publishing deals while DVD extra features rely on their talent and artistry. And what do they get in return? Nothing, just a scale rate and pat on the head while their masters take home all the accolades.
    As i mentioned, every studio does this, both major and “independent”, however it’s Lucas who is being signalled out for attention and yet he actually put he’s own cash into Episode 5 knowing that it could have bankrupt him. Again, i’m not defending his actions but when put into perspective shouldn’t the whole industry being put under investigation?
    The quicker this becomes a universal problem that tackles the heart of the matter the quicker we can start to think about rewarding those who truly deserve it instead of marginalising the issue. It’s happened before, but only when “stars” are involved. One example that springs to mind is Sigourney Weaver, James Cameron and Gale Ann Hurd threatening to take FOX to court over Aliens receipts. Fox claimed the film didn't turn a profit and when the trio started court action and FOX were facing the real possibility handing over their books the matter was quickly sorted out of court. This was also due to FOX wanting Weaver for Alien 3 and not wanting to piss off Cameron (although they might have thought twice after seeing The Abyss), but it shows it can be done. Unfortunately, it only ever happens when “talent” believe they’re being taken for a ride or when writers bitch about residuals, which makes me question where is the writers support and threats of strike action for the artist guild? Surely the "we're all in this together" mentality extends to the art department, right? Oh right, they’re not imperative to the creative process.
  • Peter
    TLDR.

    Abridge, windbag.
  • Troy
    How low, pay up Lucas!
  • David Ward
    Regarding massively succesful blockbusters - ALIENS (1986) was another case, like this one involving David Prowse.

    It's my understanding that Sigourney Weaver and James Cameron sued 20TH Century Fox to receive their long overdue pay checks...back in the late 80's.

    The spin created by studios is disgraceful and purely money oriented, even lying with creative accounting - to the director and headlining star.

    Contemptable behaviour. Hope Dave Prowse stops taking this BS.
  • unfortunately your post sounds just about right. Actors (and everyone else) really need to be careful what kind of contracts to sign if they get a role in a big movie that's bound to make lots of money at the box office.
  • Bob
    Bottom line. Read your contract carefully before signing, and if you don't like the deal then don't sign.
  • Is Prowse the new Indiana Jones?? Is Spielberg on his way to take part in this raping as well???
  • Just to clarify, Seth defined Gross Profit: "You get a percentage of profit based on the gross of the film - how much it makes before any costs."

    That's not quite correct. What Seth describes would be a percentage of the Gross (Revenues) itself. Gross Profit is something else. Gross Profit is the Gross Revenue generated by the film, less the Direct Costs of producing the film. Direct Costs are items which are indisputably part of production... paying actors / crew, feeding them, travel to filming locations, city permits for filming, equipment rental and repair for that particular film, set construction costs, editing and post production... etc. etc.

    That is Gross Profit. Net Profit is the Gross Profit less further auxilliary costs that are indirectly related to production... marketing and promotion, clerical and accounting staff salaries, executive salaries, telephone and internet connectivity, postage and shipping, asset depreciation, miscellaneous costs... etc. These are generally referred to as Operating Costs. As several have rightly noted in the comments, virtually ANYTHING related to the film can be classified in Operating Costs, thus reducing the Net Profit.

    In short:
    Gross Profit = Gross Revenues - Direct Costs
    Net Profit = Gross Revenues - Direct Costs - (Indirect) Operating Costs

    And in general, when one is talking about whether a movie "broke even," we're talking about whether the Direct (Production) Costs were covered by the Gross Revenues. But reaching that "break even" point does not mean there is a Net Profit when all the other costs (most of them legitimate) are deducted. So a film can easily make what seems like a nice Gross Profit but yield no Net Profit (a.k.a. "the bottom line").

    That being said, I find it hard to believe Return of the Jedi falls into the No Net Profit category.
  • Goobity
    Mr. Prowse has been making a living off being a glorified extra for the past 30 years. He knew what he signed up for: that's why there was a contract.
    I met him several years ago, and he was asking $60 to sign Star Wars memorabilia. I turned him down. He's been whining and bitching how he's been wronged for decades, and yet he continues to whore himself out.
    He's kind of a jerk, really.
  • JarJarNot
    Maybe he needed a few bucks to buy food with....
  • Seth
    With extremely rare exception, I have never heard of a net profit participant getting paid without some kind of legal action.

    The only film I can remember paying net participation without any "prompting" was the movie Ghost, which cost almost nothing and made so much money that they couldn't spend it fast enough.
  • I agree that it is quite rare in the industry, particularly when you've got talent that can command gross profit agreements. However,when there is no exceptional talent taking gross points, the net profits clause provides some incentives to the talent who have a significant impact on the outcome; the incentive effects of the net profits clause fade away precisely when that intermediate level talent has less impact on the outcome.
    So, If the movie is made with no-name talent and it succeeds at the box office, the back-end could be substantial. You are absolutely right that the vast majority of movies will fail to show a net profit even when they are commercially successful, but this is influenced in large part by the presence of the gross participants. (Take another Demi Moore flick, Indecent Proposal, which , had five gross participants: stars Robert Redford, Demi Moore, and Woody Harrelson; producer Sherry Lansing; and director Adrian Lyne.)
    The general idea is if a film without a major stars succeeds, the net profits participants are likely to receive some contingent compensation. To give you a few examples other than Ghost: Grease, The Bad News Bears , Ordinary People , Star Trek II , III , IV , and Flashdance.
    Still, I would agree that it is "extremely rare," given the number of projects completed each year, and would guess that only about five percent would actually pay out.
  • Prowse: You said the money'd be left at the city under my supervision.

    LucasFilm: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
  • bmoney
    This does go on everywhere in Hollywood. The Tolkien estate has still not seen any residuals from LOTR. The films have grossed about 6 BILLION worldwide and yet there always seems to be no money in the piggybank when it is time for disbursements to go out.

    I am sure the estate was paid a fee to license the trilogy, but they have also missed out on a major payday from the receipts.
  • HollywoodHills
    Prowse needs to Force choke a bitch...
  • joe
    they had a contract for net profit. it's the guy's own fault for not getting a better contract. go ahead and rip on lucas but he's technically in the right, and he was not the first nor will he be the last to do this. so try saying something quasi-intelligent instead of ripping on lucas for having employees that know how to write good contracts.
  • Gordon
    He's making plenty of money from other Lucasfilm-related work, guys. It's not like he's destitute.
  • Sadly, this is how most of the big movie business operates, and odds are, with all the little costs adding up, there (technically) may not be anything to pay him. Doesn't make it right, however.
  • Simply put, welcome to Hollywood. It's sad, but this is how the big boys play .
  • Nan
    In addition to the excellent *longer* explanatory posts from Seth, Jeff Glass, Jamieson, and Phil Rice, I can only add:

    - Remember that it wasn't even 'standard' for actors to get' a piece of the back end' (net profits) at all until the early '80s, in part due to Lucas: overwhelmed himself by the success of the film, he gave a 1% net profit point out divided up among the cast, including Prowse. That gift was an early, unexpected fortune for a bunch of young, struggling actors. It may seem like a paltry gift, but it was initially a lot of unbargained-for money, and you will never see any producer or studio do that again.

    - Since Lucas owns the film(s) outright, its not surprising that there are many financial items that get accounted-for before one would calculate any available "net profits". "Star Wars" money has been used to seed THX, ILM, (the beginnings of) Pixar, etc., etc.

    - Not realizing his 'net points' hardly leaves Prowse penniless from his weeks of work in the films from around 30 years ago - he still should get 'residual' checks ensured by his membership in British Actor's Equity. They are not huge but the video business on an old title - not to mention 3 - builds up pretty quickly over time. He may even be owed checks from Warner Home Video for "Clockwork Orange".

    Prowse has done incredibly fortunate by Lucas for his relative role in the films. There really isn't any occasion for Lucas-bashing.
  • Dave
    Hasnt David Prowse been diagnosed with Prostate Cancer recently as well?

    http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/passtheremote/...

    Not trying to be sensationalist or anything, but if the guy wants the extra money to pay for medical costs, I'd say he damned well deserves it soon.
  • I met Mr. Prowse at a convention in NYC about 14 years ago. He had a table and was signing autographs. Sadly very few people were stopping by his table. He really never received much fanfare for his service on those films.


    chuck
  • 790
    He prob needs the cash as I've read he has prostate cancer.
blog comments powered by Disqus