wearetheborg

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/art...illion-richer/

Did Nicholson make money off the TDK movies?

Solid Snake

It says "any future sequels to the film" from what they have there. Considering the Nolan films aren't sequels to that era, I'd say no.

Mike86

That's pretty ridiculous that he got paid to do nothing at all for three films (I'm guessing this is only counting the first four Batman films prior to the reboot). Honestly as much as I like Batman (1989) I'm really not even that overly impressed by his Joker portrayal. The biggest thing it had going for it was that they nailed his look. Aside from that as has been said in the past it more or less seemed like he was just playing himself but exaggerated.

Why So Blu?

Yep, one of the most legendary deals ever for an actor.

TGM

good for him... he was the only good thing about those first 4 Batman movies.

RocShemp

I wouldn't put it past a crafty lawyer to argue that the Nolan films count as sequels. So he may well have gotten paid for those as well.

Drexl

It's like the Hollywood equivalent of that deal the owners of the St. Louis Spirits got from the NBA. They get a share of the TV revenue every year, for a team that hasn't existed since 1976.

TheMovieman

Given how much TDK & TDKR made, Nicholson would've gotten well over $100m even if it was a small piece of the pie, so I think it's just the direct sequels. But still, sweet deal for him.

RocShemp

Depends on when that $100 million total was calculated. It's possible no one ever thought to later count BB, TDK, or TDKR. Would explain why you never hear from him. He's just rolling on a bed full of his sequel money.

inri222

Troy Stiffler

Probably. Who knows how many points it is. And whether or not it's on the gross or net. And studio accounting is good at hiding money.

My guess is that it has something to do with the rights ownership. If WB had given up rights at some point, it would have 'reset' the deal. But they didn't. And Batman is still Batman.

I don't know. Just a guess.

Why So Blu?

I think he also received 20 million upfront (in 1989) for the role. Keaton got 8 million or something like that, if I remember correctly.

My Other Self

Well, Nicholson was essentially the star as it is and easily the name drawing non-Batman fans in to see the movie. I love Keaton but I don't really consider him a bankable star, even during his prime of the late 80s and early 90s.

Mabuse

I'd like to know more about the deal and how it defines "sequel". Is Batman Forever really a sequel? It's not called Batman 3 after all. It doesn't have the same director or writer not do any of actors from the previous films return.

bluetoast

Tim Burton returns as producer (as well as another guy who is still a producer on every Batman film up to and including TDKR), and Pat Hingle and Michael Gough return from the previous films.

Mabuse

Was Burton really a producer on all three Nolan films? Wow. Well it begs the question, did Nicholson get a piece of those films? Maybe he did. Whose to say what a sequel is or isn't. Clearly in most of our minds the Nolan films are a completely new series of films, but strictly speaking they are just three more films in a long line of WB produced Batman films. Where does it end? Does Nicholson have a piece of Mask of the Phantasm? The Animated Series?

EddieMoney

Someone must've missed Mr. Mom!

TheMovieman

No, he was talking about a different producer (Michael Uslan).

BambooLounge

Fixed.

Really, we cannot know if he got money for the reboots without looking at the contract he signed with Warner Bros.

If WB's attorneys left "sequels" undefined in the agreement then they deserve to be paying Jack for those too as it would be a HUGE oversight.

cleaver

Those numbers can't be right. Keaton was basically an unknown and $20 million + a piece of the back end is impossible.
Where Jack really cleaned up was the licensing. He got a huge cut of the merchandizing and was actually involved in production. On the special features of the DVD he mentioned that he was doing everything he could to keep Joker products in stock at retailers.

Ash Ketchum

If somebody ever snuck a shot of Nicholson lugging boxes of Joker figurines through the Walmart shipping entrance, that would be priceless.

Josh-da-man

It is an interesting problem, what defines a "sequel."

Is any Batman movie going to be a sequel? Does it have to be produced by a certain person? A defined amount of time between movies? Common actors? Would a cold reboot count?

The problem with saying a reboot wouldn't count as a sequel would be an easy out for them to get out of paying Nicholson royalties. After Burton left, they could have just "rebooted" the franchise after Batman Returns and cut Jack out of his contracted lucre.

brainee

Keaton was far from an unknown in 1989. He already starred in movies like Night Shift, Mr. Mom, Gung Ho, Beetlejuice ... he was one of the biggest comedy stars at the time. Of course, the big debate at the time was why he was cast as Batman. But a strong 7 figure salary was what he was getting then.

Mabuse

Upon thinking about it more I call bullshit on the original quote: While Nicholson famously negotiated a great deal for himself and it has been widely reported that he made over $100 million from the film I don't think he made any money from subsequent films. His $100+ million was made because he had back-end points on the film (which set a new record for highest grossing film ever) and he had a percentage of the merchandising to what was probably the biggest merchandised film ever. I think the part about future sequels just isn't true. Can anyone show another source for that detail?

bluetoast

Batman never set a record for highest grossing film ever. E.T. maintained that until Jurassic Park.