The singer for young Simba in the original Lion King claims he was offered $2 million dollars and he turned it down for royalties. Am I crazy to think that figure can’t be correct?

Hear me out here. Jason Weaver, the singing voice of Young Simba claims he was offered "something like $2 million" to do his role in the original 1994 Lion King. This has been reported various places. From what I can tell they all seem to be linking back to this interview clip. The reason this has seen so many repeated reports is because he turned down 2 million 1994 bucks and opted for royalties instead–and the heart-warming pay-off to this story is that he has now purportedly made way more than that now in royalties.

My wife mentioned this story to me in passing and I laughed and said, "oh you must have that figure wrong; there's no way they were paying a child singer $2 million for doing only the singing voice of one character for half the movie. He sang what, like 5-6 songs?" Like I wouldn't be surprised if Jonathan Taylor Thomas wasn't paid that much for the movie. Well, I looked it up and found numerous articles repeating this claim. I don't know anything about how Hollywood operated in 1994 and if Disney was on par with other studios or not, but that seems…. more than extravagant? To make sure I wasn't crazy, I checked some other figures. According to Parade magazine in 1990 Macaulay Culkin, for his role in Home Alone, made $100,000. Well, you say, no one knew it was going to be a hit. Well… sure, but he's also the lead actor who basically carries the movie by himself. Also, when he was red hot after Home Alone, he stared in My Girl in 1991 where he reportedly made "upwards of $1 million" according to a quick google. So you're telling me, the hottest young star in Hollywood, at one of his hottest moments made $1 million dollars in a starring vehicle, and only 3 years later (probably less because of the lengthy process of animation), a child singer is getting offered DOUBLE that amount to be just the singing voice for half of an animated movie?

I'm looking at Weaver's imdb at the time and it appears he had some small roles in some TV stuff. Maybe he had some clout outside of movies/tv I'm unaware of, but… again… unless I'm missing something (and I might be), he wasn't exactly a box-office draw.

Let's also look at the budget of The Lion King: $45 million dollars. This movie also stars Matthew Broderick, Jeremy Irons, James Earl Jones, Whoopie Goldberg, Rowan Atkinson, Nathan Lane, Cheech Marin, and Jonathan Taylor Thomas to name just the actors who are famous (obviously that list doesn't even include the voice of Nala, or young Nala, etc.). Presumably some of those also have alternate actors for singing voices? Also this movie has music by Elton John and Tim Rice who must've both taken a healthy cut. What does the breakdown of that $45 million look like split between all these big names?

A couple other quick stats for comparison (these are all quick googles, so it's possible my data is slightly off)

*Shawshank Redemption (1994): On a $25 million dollar budget Tim Robins made $2.5 million as the lead actor and as a known actor. Morgan Freeman only made $300k.

*Pulp Fiction (1994): John Travolta reportedly made $150k (granted, this was an "indie" movie)

*Stargate (1994): for some more context Kurt Russell, a major star at the time, was paid $7 million of a total film budget of $55 million. It's hard to know how to formulate the translation then to Disney animated films, so make of that what you will.

So I don't know why I'm obsessed with it–and it's possible that I'm just comparing nonsense numbers, but I'm curious if anyone with any better knowledge can speak to this. Maybe Disney just paid SUPER well? But again, we're talking about a relatively minor role within an ensemble cast, STACKED with bigger names that I would assume would have to be getting paid significantly more than a virtual unknown kid. (I should also say: I'm not trying to diminish the hard work of singers or voice-actors–I'm just emphasizing that point for perspective.)

Here are the options that I see it:

1) Disney in 1994 just paid their entire cast tons and tons of money. Meaning, as usual, the animators got paid squat.

2) Disney likes to provide special, extra compensation for singing voices because maybe they believe the movie succeeds or fails based on the songs? Or perhaps because he participated in the main character he was compensated dramatically more than some of his big name co-stars?

3) I'm an idiot and actually Jason Weaver was a big deal in 1994

4) He mis-remembered the amount. Maybe it was something like $200k, which is a TON of 1994 dollars and would've been pretty life-changing. But of course…. who confuses 200k with 2mil?

I want to reiterate: I might be missing something. Perhaps my (admittedly random) data reference points are misleading or irrelevant. I'm really not trying to be a jerk about Jason Weaver–and I'm happy it appears that the royalties have been so fruitful for him (especially given how cruel "Hollywood accounting" can often be). But I still am having difficulty convincing myself that he was offered $2 million 1994 dollars for that role.