Exhibitors Herald (Mar-Jun 1919)

EXHIBITORS HERALD AND MOTOGRAPHY banks and William S. Hart — to name the foremost — are paid millions for their actual and direct services — for goods made by them and by them delivered. It is not by favor they are paid sums as astonish the mind — and following them are literally scores of other popular screen artists and capable screen directors whose annual incomes are more than the President of the United States and his entire Cabinet ! Incomes and salaries that the Steel Trust or Standard Oil would not dare to arouse their stockholders by paying the men who control and direct these great and dominating industries. These are the salaries of motion pictures of today. What will they be tomorrow? Already Chaplin and Pickford and Fairbanks, believing that the goods they actually make do not net them a just proportion of the profits that are made from them, so they have combined, not only to produce, but to sell the films they appear in. Think it over. Why should such sums be paid these people, when in no other field of human endeavor does a tithe of what the Chaplins, the Pickfords and the Fairbanks' of the film industry receive, and still ask more— ever be apportioned ? $670,000 for Twelve Pictures In this matter of surprisingly stupendous salaries alone the art-industry of motion pictures is sui generis! When it was announced that Chaplin was to receive over six hundred thousand dollars a year, free and clear, for twelve two-reel pictures — work he had done for fifty dollars a week— the whole world rubbed its astonished eyes. Yet it came about simply through the simple situation of demand and supply. Chaplin was paid this vast sum of money as a mummer in the movies, because for the exclusive sales rights to these twelve pictures it was figured that the profits, over his salary and the cost of taking the pictures, would be nearly three million dollars at a moderate estimate ! I was concerned in the forming of the Lone Star Film Corporation, which set all the motion picture stars bigmoney-mad when it contracted with Chaplin to pay him $670,000 for making twelve two-reel pictures inside a vear This was in 1916. We cannot say, "To Hell with Yesterdav!" when we speak of 1916, for this was the year that, taking their cue from Chaplin, all the motion picture stars who knew or who believed they were box office attractions, began to clamor lor compensation like Chaplin's. This was the start and beginning of the astounding star salaries, bonuses, guaranteed participations in the gross sales of their films, and what not, that we have today and will have tomorrow! ??ire follows a true C0P3r of the prospectus of the Lone Star Film Corporation, which (it is significant) was formed on or about April 1, 1916. The capital stock of this corporation was $1,500 000 of which the preferred stock, $400,000, in cash, was raised and contributed by the same group that had produced my $10,000 prize idea serial, "The Diamond from the Sky " in 1915: SPECIAL CHAPLIN CO. ("Lone Star Pllm Corporation") (Prospectus! as Figured by Its Promotors) Capital Stock $1,500,000 Preferred 400 000 Common 1,100,000 Preferred to be retired, after paying one dividend of 7 per cent, at 1 10 30 Income on 12 Two-Heelers a Year, One Per Month. 150 Print Copies, 7 Days at $50 per day $ 52.500.00 36,750.00 52,500.00 42,000.00 63,000.00 105,000.00 150 150 150 150 150 14 14 28 70 25 20 15 10 5351,750.00 Tear's number of releases 12 Total gross income on basis of 150 copies of 12 two-reelers Cost of distribution 30% (This is to be paid the Mutual Film Corporation.) Cost of Production $870,000.00 Less Cash from Preferred 400,000.00 Profit United States and Canada Australian Bid, Net $100,000.00 England, Net 300,000.00 Russia, France, Spain and Other Foreign Countries 300,000.00 $4,221,000.00 1,266,300.00 $2,954,7,00.00 470,000.00 $2,484,700.00 700,000.00 Total profits on 12 reels $3,184,700.00 Preferred Stock at $110 redeemable $440,000.00 7% Dividend Preferred Stock One Year 28,000.00 468,000.00 $2,716,700.00 TOTAL NET PROFIT (First Year) Comedies to Cost $200,000 It will be seen that it was estimated that the cost of making the proposed twelve two-reel Chaplin comedies was $200,000, exclusive of Chaplin's salary of $670,000, of course. It will also be noticed that the preferred stock of $400, 000 was to pay seven per cent and a ten per cent bonus, and then be retired. The balance of the suppositious and expected profits, supposedly most conservatively estimated at $2,716,700 the first year, was to apply as dividends on the $1,100,000 of common stock, of which each purchaser of the preferred stock was to receive one share with every share of the preferred stock they paid for. Up to this time the cost of the average two-reel comedy that Chaplin had appeared in, had cost from $3,000 to $10,000 to take. Allowing $16,666 as cost of taking each of the twelve proposed two-reel comedies was considered almost a double estimate. But, alas, the cost of taking the Lone Star Chaplin comedies rose to most unbelievable amounts ! I heard many strange stories of the wheres and whys, but, as I was not at the Lone Star Studios in Los Angeles, 1 have no personal knowledge of why they cost what they did. But it was an astounding case of burning film and burning money. I have heard it stated, but have not seen the figures, that some of these two-reel comedies cost as high as $90,000 ! They did not show it. Commenting on "The Floor Walker" The first "The Floor Walker," was a fairly good Chaplin— the main laughs being the star's acrobatic humor on a department store moving staircase, or escalator. But it was not nearly so good as "The Bank" or "Shanghied," the last two pictures he had taken for Essanay. I may divert here a moment and state that while Chaplin was making these last two pictures for Essanay in Los Angeles he was disposed to accept an offer made him by Jay Cairns, for the Mutual Film Corporation, for a salary of $2,000 a week, but some of the Mutual heads thought this price preposterous at that time ! The succeeding Chaplin Lone Star Comedies created no such furor as his recent independent picture, "Shoulder Arms !" In fact one of them "A Night Out," in which he cavorted alone upon the screen with a taxidermist's collection— it was the third of the series — was a failure and was cancelled everywhere. (To be continued)