Leonardo da Vinci.
Didn't earn a bean. And is now better known for a crudy book and second rate film instead of his masterworks and scientific andmilitary inventions. Great shame on both scores.
The individual backers (usually financial millikonaires) stand to gain most collectively because of the ability to deffer tax liabilities over 15 yearsa.
"In the financing scheme for the movie, Invicta (a British tax specialist) buys the entire film from Sony for £100 million, and then immediately leases it back to the producer. Invicta covers its cost by raising cash from wealthy individuals, typically City bankers, whose individual investment often amounts to £2 million to £3 million.
The investors’ money is then guaranteed by a stream of payments from Sony, made over a 15-year period. However, those participating do not profit directly from the investment in the fund. Instead, they benefit from deferring tax bills that run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The Invicta scheme is structured in such as way that investors get access to some of the money that would otherwise have gone to the taxman. That allows them to profit from the capital before their tax bill eventually falls due."
Thinking about the other half of your question, Tom Hanks didn't gain much from the 'fame' aspect of the film. But he was already pretty tarnished.