... the special effects people made the suit. You do realize it's not a documentary, right?
1965
12.5 million
It's called a make up studio! LOL
he said he was paid 4.5million, and his contract said he was supposed to get $8mil for the second movie, but they had a choice of casting him or not. So they ended up offering him only 1mil for the second movie
No. Absolutely not. I imagine that seeing the "Chaplin," you'd make that misconception. But no, the two are just dead ringers. Even Geraldine Chaplin, the daughter of Chaplin saw a parallel between the two.But I'll give you this much--he was born to play Charles Chaplin. The best role of his entire career. Still, in a strange way...Yeah, I guess... he is...
1965
1965
12.5 million
It's called a make up studio! LOL
Robert Hooke was not the first scientist to make a microscope, but he did make significant improvements to the compound microscope design in the 17th century. Hooke's microscope was crucial in his work and observations that led to the publication of his iconic book "Micrographia" in 1665.
he said he was paid 4.5million, and his contract said he was supposed to get $8mil for the second movie, but they had a choice of casting him or not. So they ended up offering him only 1mil for the second movie
No. Absolutely not. I imagine that seeing the "Chaplin," you'd make that misconception. But no, the two are just dead ringers. Even Geraldine Chaplin, the daughter of Chaplin saw a parallel between the two.But I'll give you this much--he was born to play Charles Chaplin. The best role of his entire career. Still, in a strange way...Yeah, I guess... he is...
He is TOTALLY HOTT!!!!!!! Especially in Iron Man. He is one hot hunk!!!!!!!!!
because they scientist
Yes, and no. It depends on how much he is being offered to star in the role. and also, how ever much they make for that movie, goes to the box office of the movie. Not much of it goes to the actors.
Knowledge + Human = Scientist
No