Simpsons Actors on Strike 519
ameoba writes "The next season of The Simpsons is in doubt as the voice talent is on strike due to a pay dispute. Fifteen seasons of some of the greatest prime-time TV around seems worth the money to me. ."
Don't die (Score:5, Insightful)
Idiots (Score:1, Insightful)
Simpson's are worth it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a lot of us forget that the simpson's, in many other's opinions is what saved fox. They are the reason Fox is still on today.
Has the show gotten worse? No! It has only got better and wittier with time. They deserve every penny of the raise they are asking for.
Re:could the fans help (Score:2, Insightful)
How much does an avarage person make, NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THAT. Why the hell do you want to reward the greed of some washed up voice actors (Let's face it Simpsons ain't what they used to be).
Man, I'd rather feed the poor and hungry or something, but that's just me.
Strike yes, over pay no (Score:3, Insightful)
*8D~
Re:could the fans help (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A thought. (Score:4, Insightful)
it only represents the true value of the voice?
Strikes and High Paid individuals... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A thought. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it greed because its a large absolute dollar value or becuase its a large dollar value compaired to what the producers/network make from the Simpsons?
Why is it greedy to ask for more money? Just because they can ask or just because someone says "Thats enough for you"?
Only in America (Score:1, Insightful)
there is people hungry out there(READ: Asia , Africa, Latin America,etc) and these "persons"
complain about earning 300000$ per episode????
WTH is going on with them?
And the Americans continue wondering "why everybody hate US??"
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most actors are in a position of having one shot at making enough to live off of for the rest of their lives. There isn't any pension plan for most of them from their acting work.
They don't get a large cut of the spin-off merchandizing as their images are not being used. And, it's hard to say what their cut is on the syndication, which is where the money is for the Simpsons.
How many people out there would sit back in a situation where they have 10 years, or so, to make every penny they need to live on for the rest of their lives and then work at a base scale? Wouldn't most people try to maximize it? Face it, we're talking about Fox here. It isn't like any show is assurred renewal. Fox is raking more money off the canned shows with no new expenditure than on new shows and it's just a matter of time before the Simpson's gets axed for "Who Wants to Marry and American Idol Millionare on Temptation Island".
In terms of greed, I put them a lot further down any list than a lot of people I knew in San Jose in 1997. And, these guys actually are producing something of value.
Re:actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
Unprofitable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Forty-eight million dollars a season, for six voice actors? Give me a break. Their entire work-week is driving to a studio, and talking for three hours on a Saturday afternoon. Given the quality of today's episodes, $360,000 each is just unreasonable.
It's time for FOX to take a chance, and let another cartoon step up to the coveted 8PM Sunday night timeslot. My vote would be for Family Guy. They shafted it last time by moving it to a bad timeslot, and now, with The X-Files gone and The Simpsons waning, FOX's prime real estate is opening up again.
Currently, the 22 new episodes in production [businesswire.com] are set to run only on Adult Swim. If Family Guy DVD sales are any indication, this is a poor move for FOX. I think their viewers are ready for the kind of edgy, creative humor that The Simpsons just hasn't provided in years.
Re:A thought. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why don't you ask Rupert Murdoch how much he makes from the Simpsons for every hour of work he puts into it?
The show has earned over $1 billion for Fox. It will continue to run in syndication for god knows how long, earning billions more. The voice actors are simply exercising their market power, just as Fox does or WalMart does. I wish more workers were in as good a negotiating position.
Re:could the fans help (Score:1, Insightful)
if you thought you were making your boss $10 million a year, would you be satisfied being paid $200k a year just because $200k is "plenty"?
Re:could the fans help (Score:4, Insightful)
I was going to ask you how much money you donate of your income to feed the poor and hungry...but since you decided to hide behind an Anonymous Coward post, I couldn't.
Re:A thought. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is how I felt about sports celebrities and movie actors until I thought about it. They still may be greedy bastards, but maybe not.
The increase would raise each actor's pay to $US8 million a series. The actors work an average of six to seven hours each episode. However, the cartoon is thought to be worth $US1 billion to its owner, Rupert Murdoch's 20th Century Fox.
So the cartoon is worth $1 Billion and the actors want $48 Million a season, that's about 21% of the "worth" of the cartoon. That leaves 79% for the writing, production, profit, and all the other costs.
I don't know if they're asking too much, but they don't sound so much like jerks when you see how much the executives at Fox are making off their talent.
Re:Don't die (Score:5, Insightful)
"I was part of the backbone of 'The Simpsons,' and I didn't think [the requested raise] was exorbitant," Roswell said. "I wasn't asking for what the other cast members make. I was just trying to recoup all the costs I had in travel. If they'd flown me in, I'd still be working."
I also blame Groening for being a greedy fuck and not sticking up for the voice actors. But that's mostly because of him suing Bunnyhop [illegal-art.org] for having a cover of Binky, Groenings one-eared bunny from Life in Hell punching out the Trix Rabbit. It's nothing that the Simpsons don't do in every episode.
But I still watch the Simpsons.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Face it, for these actors, this is it. None of them are break-out stars. None have any real expectation of much of a career after this."
Are you serious? Take a look up a few comments to the IMDB links for any of these actors or go search it yourself. While they may not be Tom Cruise or Catherine Zeta Jones's, none of these people are sitting around idle. Hank Azaria & Harry Shearer have done quite well for themselves either writing, producing, or working as character actors, and Dan Castellenta & Nancy Cartwright have been (and still are) prolific voiceover talents. Hell, even Lunch Lady Doris has been working in the industry since the mid 60's.
I'm all for them getting a bigger piece of the pie, but don't try to tell us that 'this is it' for these guys.
I'll wager they can expect much more of a career after this than most /. readers. :)
Re:A thought. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your maths are kind of slightly off:
Now to me, for a USD Billion value TV show, spending 4.8% on the actors doesnt seem excessive. How much would the show be valued at without these actors?
Timeline? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you mean 6 and a half seasons of the greatest prime-time TV around?
Or as we lovingly refer to it, the Pax Simpsona.
Re:A thought. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not really greed though: the series is so successful that it makes a lot of money: if the money doesn't go back to the actors, then where does it go - to the producers/owners ? Even though the figures are extremely high, it's fair that the actors get their fair cut rather than the money going into the fat pockets of execs. Let the actors use that money to do something else: they may pursue some beneficial creative activity as a result.
Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
$125k does sound like a pretty sweet deal, even if you take into consideration that it takes about two weeks to dub an episode (and that's not even considering the time to read the script, practice, etc.).
However, if you really look at this from a different perspective, it's not really that much money, after all.
Each one of the Friend's cast makes $1 million an episode (one season consists of 22-24 eps). On top of that, they retain certain marketing rights, are allowed to do ads and have been signed for a full-time motion picture.
Now, NBC is actually loosing money. That's right - despite the fact that they've been desperately trying to get the cast to do yet another season (twice), been willing to go out of their way (rescheduled shootings, final season is shorter than usual) and that it's their #1 show, they're loosing money. And, this works out for NBC in the end because Friends can be endlessly rerun in syndication (hence, allowing NBC to recoup their losses several times over) and people will still watch it.
I don't have any figures for The Simpsons but since it's been in Fox's prime-time lineup for years now I figure they're getting pretty good ratings. So, in comparision - with the Simpsons being a much-lower cost, yet still very profitable, show asking for a bigger share of the pie isn't all that outrageous, in my humble opinion.
Re:Must we always take the company line?Re:A thoug (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Open source" voices (Score:2, Insightful)
I am a video game localizer for a company in Tokyo, and have often wished that something like this existed. When a game requires voiceover recording, the budget usually only allows for a few professional voice actors (professionals will charge up to $1000 for a few hours work). For this reason we often end up getting amateurs to perform smaller parts. Surprisingly, some of the amateurs do a better job than the professionals when it comes to capturing what the client wants. The reason? Because they're willing to be flexible and spend time getting everything right, unlike professionals who demand extra money for every second they run over their alloted time.
To drag this back into vaguely on-topic territory, I feel that the value some professionals put on their talent is often exaggerated, and when money becomes more important than doing a good job, something is lost.
I'm not saying the Simpsons voice actors are doing a bad job, but when I read about their money demands like this it takes something away from what makes the Simpsons special to me. I feel that the writers for the show are who make it what it is, so perhaps it is time the Simpsons moved out of Springfield, and the Sampsons moved in instead?
Re:Strikes and High Paid individuals... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ticket prices are high because that's what the market will bear. If players made less you'd think they'd lower prices? Hell no, the owners would just pocket the extra profits.
Re:Must we always take the company line?Re:A thoug (Score:4, Insightful)
This calculation is also absurdly low because they show each episode more than just once. You can't just count the commercials run during the first airing of an episode. There are re-runs and endless syndication. They're making a hell of a lot more than $77M a year off the show.
Re:Simpson's are worth it. (Score:3, Insightful)
I will be glad to see the simpsons off the air. Each new episode only serves to dilute the show's legacy as the finest work of comic art of the 20th century.
Re:could the fans help (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Scientology connection? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't die (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:quote (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not an issue of they already get paid enough. If they don't get paid the money, it doesn't stay in the consumer's pocket, it stays in FOX's pocket. FOX by refusing to pay is being just as greedy if not more than the voice-actors.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They should let the show die... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comments like these have been flying around for the last 10 years about the simpsons, and countless great episodes have been made since. Your problem is that you remember the good ones from the early seasons, and not the bad ones. So when you see an average one air you go : "It's not as funny as the first Sideshow Bob episode! Simpsons is dying".
Re:quote (Score:5, Insightful)
The figure you want to calculate with is (TOTAL REVENUE OF ADVERTISING + 1 BILLION) - (TOTAL COSTS OF PRODUCTION + VALUE OF AIRTIME).
Re:Don't die (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They should let the show die... (Score:2, Insightful)
And since I don't forsee the actors saying "oh, it's a new show, then I guess I should be content making less now," it'd be hard to create a solid authentic spin-off.
Re:Where else would the money go? (Score:3, Insightful)
Voice actors deserve a large cut, because they MAKE the show happen. Writers can only do so much to make a hit show. You need good voice actors to give the scripts life. The same outlook can be applied to regular movies: you could have the greatest plot in the world, but if your actors suck, your movie will suck.
Re:A thought. (Score:3, Insightful)
Fox has options: they can pay what the voice actors want (which will lower profits, but keep the show at the same quality and retain viewers) or not pay what the voice actors want and either lose actors or find out the voice actors were bluffing (if no one defects there's no loss for Fox, if some defect the show becomes lower quality and they could lose viewers, if everyone defects they could have no show and have 0 viewers). It's a buisness decision - do they make more money with no show or by paying actors the demanded wages?
Re:Don't die (Score:1, Insightful)
That doesn't have much to do with capitalism [reference.com]. That's just a description of the market system we currently have. I don't see these actors using any captital. They are exploiting a monopoly which is not capitalism by definition.
Re:could the fans help (Score:5, Insightful)
The failure of your other projects in no way lessens the value of the project I'm working on.
That being said, I have no idea what the voice talent of the Simpson's is worth, not being in the business myself. I just want it resolved. Personally, I think it would be funny if, next season, everybody aged 15 years over night.
Re:A thought. (Score:5, Insightful)
To say that these guys shouldn't ask for a raise is like saying that they're simply paid help. They're not. They're the life of the show. If fox manages to shoot the golden goose and refuse their demands, the show will go on with new voice actors, but the show will likely be a shadow of itself.
These actors aren't stupid. They aren't going to ask for a salary that they know would cause Fox to lose money, since if they did so, Fox would be guaranteed to reject their offer. Looks to me like the simpson's overall take has increased, and te actors are just requesting their fair share. I don't see any problem with that.
Re:quote (Score:5, Insightful)
How much did the writers, the real geniuses behind all 15 years of laughs, get paid over that same 15 years. Apart from Matt Groening himself, I bet it was a hell of a lot less than $20 Million dollars each.
The core cast of the Simpsons are just homely-looking actors who were capable of doing funny voices. They are a remarkably talented voice cast, but that's all they are. They don't even ever appear on camera.
Did you know that, for large chucks of The Muppet Show and the associated movies, Kermit was actually being voiced by Jim Henson's understudy? If nobody could tell the difference then, what makes you think these people are so damned impossible to replace? Watch season 1 again and then watch a new episode. The Simpsons already sound different from how they originally sounded, especially Marge and Homer, even without changing cast members.
They signed the contracts they signed. Work at the rate you signed for, or leave. It pisses me off when millionaire entertainers and athletes say they are going on "strike." News flash guys: You are not exploited steel workers. You are pampered millionaires. Get over yourselves.
Re:Don't die (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I was just wondering: how much of that 1 billion is from the US and how much from the rest of the world? Because the voices are dubbed in the rest of the world (at least, certainly in the non-English speaking countries), and a change of actors in the US would have zero impact in those places -- unlike the impact of changing the actors in Friends, which would be obvious even to TV viewers in Italy, watching dubbed episodes.
I'd say that the amount of money FOX is risking is certainly much less than the whole 1 billion bucks.
Re:quote (Score:5, Insightful)
They have worked at the rate they signed for. Now it's time to sign again, and they've decided they want more money. I don't want to see the Simpsons go off the air any more than you do, but they still have the right to negotiate for more money when it comes time to sign a new contract. It pisses me off when people that entertainers or athletes make so much money that they no longer have the right to bargain with their employers (who, in many cases, make a whole lot more money than the actor or athlete). Sometimes, entertainers or athletes who go on strike are being stupid, because they end up destroying their livelihood in the process of trying to get more money. In this case, though, I think the Simpsons voice actors see a show that may not last too much longer, and they're just trying to get what they can before it goes away (remember, for a lot of them, this may be the last significant job they ever have).
Seems pretty funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Typically, readers will be complaining about how the members of the RIAA rarely pay its fair share to music artists.
How is this any different than if they were an enourmously succesful rock band? If band members wanted more than just a small percentage of what their publisher was making, would slashdotters tell them to "Get over it!" and "Get used to it!"
Voice actors have lives too (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of me is inclined to agree, but then the other part of me realises that they've been doing this for more than 15 years. It's quite possibly a lot more of a tedious chore than it is interesting.
They've identified a figure for which they'll be satisfied to put up with the job in future times, no matter how boring or frustrating it gets. The alternative is that Fox may decide it's too much --- the show will end, and the voice actors can go and spend their time doing something that they find much more interesting. It's quite possible that they may be more than happy to go and do another show for much less, simply because it's different.
I suppose that just because the show is popular doesn't mean that the voice actors should be required to do it forever at a wage set by the studio. The raise is what they're claiming will be needed in order to keep them satisfied to continue doing it... perhaps they won't get it and they will no longer work on the show, but I'm sure they won't mind.
Re:Seems pretty funny (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that most of the top rock acts are the actual creators of the work. In the case of the Simpsons cast, we are talking about people who stand in a sound-proof room and read scripts. The real creators are the writers. I say, get the best writers you can find, and give the millions to them.
Old Alfred was right, actors are cattle.
I don't watch "The Simpsons" for the magnificent voice acting of Nancy Cartwright. She's just some chick who could sound like a young boy who was available cheap when "The Tracy Ullman Show" was looking for somebody cheap to voice their interstitial cartoons.
After all, the best voice actor on the whole show has been dead for several years now. (Rest in peace, Phil. Rest in peace.)
Re:quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it pisses me off when atheletes get together and decide that they deserve so much money that half the teams in the league will go bankrupt. Remember, this is collective bargaining, not pure capitalism.
Likewise, with the Simpsons. Not all the voice actors are worth the same amount of money, and any one of them could probably be replaced (how many people out there can do Simpsons impressions). But if they all hold out at the same time and ask for the same amount of money then the show is probably toast.
remember, for a lot of them, this may be the last significant job they ever have
Yeah right. No one's every going to hire Hank Azaria again. Poor, poor millionaires.
-a
Have you gotten a raise? (Score:2, Insightful)
If I made my company billions, I would probably feel justified in asking for a raise.
I would also like to quote an instructor of mine, "If you were offered $20 million, would you only take $1 million? People always want more. Thats why Bill Gates is still active with Microsoft. He will never want for anything due to a lack of money but he still wants more."
This is not to say that Bill Gates is a bad person (I will refrain from any opinions about Microsoft, good or bad) but only that he is a person. Just like the actors that do the voices of the Simpsons characters I grew up watching. I do not have that kind of money at my disposal so there is a certain amount of disgust in the thought that an amount of money that large is not enough for any person