[James2001]

Suppose its a shame and a blessing they didn't go for a % of revenue of sales, like you sometimes used to see with film actors (First-dollar gross the practice was called). 

I think only the top, top stars with lots of clout are ever offered that.

Quite a few people get offered a share of the "net profits", but because of all the jiggery pokery that's done that means even most of the biggest blockbusters are shown supposedly to lose tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars on paper, most of those people never see a penny.

Of course, it's not the reality, just a load of moving money between subsidiaries as a tax dodge and way to not to pay people money (then they can't be made to pay taxes and royalties on profits that on paper don't exist), but it means loads of people who expected to be quids in with their agreed share of "profits" from major blockbuster movies have got nothing.

There was an internal Warner Brothers document that leaked a few years back showing how one of the Harry Potter films supposedly lost more than the film's actual budget despite grossing around 6 times its budget at the box office, basically down to Warner Brothers shifting hundreds of millions of dollars between different parts of the company , it's all very shady!