Dee Lampton was paid twice as much as Harold Lloyd!
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:25 am
Boy, the things that turn up on EBay.
It looks like Hal Roach really DID have high hopes for Dee Lampton to become "the next Roscoe Arbuckle".
The evidence is to be found in Lampton's starring contract for Hal Roach, dated July 1916. Over the course of the previous four months the young comedian from Fort Worth worked as a bit player in Lloyd's "Lonesome Luke" series.
According to the contract, Lampton was on a starting salary of $100 a week (rising to $125, then $150 within an 18 month period). That's DOUBLE the weekly salary Roach was paying Lloyd at that time!
The lot also includes a November 1916 agreement between Rolin and Pathe for the distribution of the short-lived "Skinny" series of nine split-reel comedies in which Lampton starred.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Dee-Lampton-Skinny- ... 3362947632

It looks like Hal Roach really DID have high hopes for Dee Lampton to become "the next Roscoe Arbuckle".
The evidence is to be found in Lampton's starring contract for Hal Roach, dated July 1916. Over the course of the previous four months the young comedian from Fort Worth worked as a bit player in Lloyd's "Lonesome Luke" series.
According to the contract, Lampton was on a starting salary of $100 a week (rising to $125, then $150 within an 18 month period). That's DOUBLE the weekly salary Roach was paying Lloyd at that time!
The lot also includes a November 1916 agreement between Rolin and Pathe for the distribution of the short-lived "Skinny" series of nine split-reel comedies in which Lampton starred.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Dee-Lampton-Skinny- ... 3362947632

