Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Media The Almighty Buck

Simpsons Pay Dispute Settled 223

ackthpt writes "Simpsons voice actors were receiving $125,000 per episode and considering how wildly profitable the show is for FOX, in syndication and merchandising, the actors felt they should get a bigger piece of the pie. The strike is settled with a 4 year contract for the actors, though FOX is mum about further details, so the show will go on. For a bit more on this see this article on BBC News or The Gate."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Simpsons Pay Dispute Settled

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Not Enough $$ (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SkunkPussy ( 85271 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @10:00AM (#9033382) Journal
    yeah but if fox is making loads of money off me, regardless of how happy I am with my wage I would prefer that fox didn't gouge me.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, 2004 @10:01AM (#9033385)
    Personally, I think they should get paid by word. But this poses some more unique problems...

    Actually, they could just be paid by the hour for their time. :-)

  • Thats it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 7aco7om ( 647266 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @10:05AM (#9033398)
    The cast of Friends have been paid an average of 1M USD per episode for the last few seasons until the show finally ended after 10 seasons.

    With the Simpsons having been around for 16 seasons, I think it sounds reasonable that the voice actors should be given a raise from 125k. .
  • by SlamMan ( 221834 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @10:07AM (#9033408)
    Well,first, they don't necessarily get paid each week. They get paid per episode. Difference.

    When was the last time you got a raise? Did you feel bad because somebody in a third world country could live on that amount for a year? What you get paid isn't a direct relation between what you need to live on, its of what your work is worth. Their work, since it makes Fox a metric crap load of money, is worth more than yours, which doesn't make a people a crap load of money.
  • by mercan01 ( 458876 ) <mercan01 AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday May 02, 2004 @10:07AM (#9033410) Journal
    For better or for worse, this is basically the same arguement that Baseball players used in the 1994 strike. It's not that they don't they're getting paid enough to live, it's that they see Fox making millions and millions of dollars. When a business is successful, you usually reward employee's with raises.

    It's the same thing any /. would do if their amazing new fangled program started making a company a boatload of profit.

    However, the money values are so extreme in this case that I agree it's it seems almost pointless to us.
  • by beckerie ( 775211 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @10:10AM (#9033420)
    Look at how popular The Simpsons is. It has become rooted within a generation of people who have watched it for most of their lives. Fox are obligated to give what the actors want because ultimately, they can't afford to lose the actors. They would be better off financially to give the actors what they want than to stop airing the show.
    If it stopped airing, it would mean a dramatic change in way people watch TV, and people don't like change.
    It is sad how money seems has become as important as it has. It's no longer about providing people with entertainment. But with the influence that the actors have, they have the power to get what they want.
  • by uberdrums ( 598896 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @10:12AM (#9033431)
    As far as I can tell, they aren't complaining that $125K isn't enough money. Their point is that Fox makes so much money off them that they deserve a more fairly cut slice of the pie. Seinfeld made in the millions per episode for his show. Same reasoning...

    This goes along with people saying actors aren't worth the $20 Million or so to put them in a film. Well, they may not be $20 Million talented, but if their face brings in $250 Million in profits then I would say it's a good investment.
  • by cibus ( 670787 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @10:13AM (#9033439)
    So youre saying they don't make episodes simultaneous?
    300+ shows have aired... gee - they must have started making the simpsons quite some time ago ;)
  • Re:Not Enough $$ (Score:2, Insightful)

    by GeekLife.com ( 84577 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @10:26AM (#9033488) Homepage
    So the executives at Fox aren't making enough money by keeping all but $125k/episode/actor? They must be crazy.

    The money is pouring in already. It's simply a matter of who gets the gains, and I think the voice actors have a pretty strong point to stand on that they are partially responsible for that money flood.
  • Re:Not Enough $$ (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Sunday May 02, 2004 @10:26AM (#9033489)
    These people already have enough money to retire and not need to work again while living nicely... so their personal comfort is no longer any incentive to work.

    However, they're still accumulating money for the future of their family... and they're also well aware that News Corp.'s money making machine from The Simpsons would start slowing down if all of them were not to come back to the show.

    That's their reason to hold out... they want their fair cut of the profits, because even though all of them are rich beyond their wildest dreams, that still doesn't make getting taken advantage of feel any better.
  • by sweet cunny muffin ( 771671 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @10:26AM (#9033492)
    You sir, are an idiot.

    If they only made two episodes a year, as you have said (you said they're paid 250k a year, 125k per episode, so two episodes a year), and there have been 329 episodes, that must mean that they have been making episodes for 164 years, or since 1840.

    Do you accept you have made a mistake and that you are an idiot?

    They produce episodes at the rate of one a week, but the total time for production is six months.
  • Re:All's fair (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dinivin ( 444905 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @10:30AM (#9033515)

    Here's the thing:

    If they're that hard to replace, they obviously crucial to the shows success and deserve the raise. If the writers, animators, technicians, and other staff want a raise, they have every right to hold out for one. And if they're as valuable to the show, I'm sure they'll get that raise.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, 2004 @10:36AM (#9033542)
    Who the money should go to then? fox for owning the franchise or the guys actually doing the show?

    How about the WRITERS who actually create the ideas that make the show worth watching?
  • Re:All's fair (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, 2004 @10:39AM (#9033559)
    Or are the actors just extortionists, knowing that they're hard to replace?

    And the alternative is to commoditize yourself by making yourself just like everyone else?
  • by Mr. Darl McBride ( 704524 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @10:50AM (#9033600)
    In the TV world, 125K per episode is NOTHING for such a popular show. Ray Romano gets 16 times that much (around $2,000,000) per episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond".

    I know there's a big difference between live actors and voice actors, but if you're going to be complaining about people making too much, don't complain about these guys.

    Okay, but the longer a show remains in syndication, the less each new episode is worth. You come to a point where having 1001 shows in syndication isn't worth much more than 1000, and syndication is where shows like The Simpsons make the bulk of their money.

    These guys are substantially increasing the cost of producing a new episode (assuming they didn't also push residuals upward), which means the show is going to get to that cost:returns balance point that much sooner. Two or three years down the line when they lower the new episode count and finally produce the great grand last episode of The Simpsons, and it's all reruns after, will you still be making excuses for these guys? The show could run much longer if everybody weren't holding it hostage to milk it for as much cash as they can. That other folks do it to doesn't make it any less slimy.

    Seriously, $125,000 per episode is some REALLY good pay. In their shoes, that kind of mad cash and knowing I was producing something so integral to American culture would be enough.

  • by TheABomb ( 180342 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @11:40AM (#9033822)
    when the series reaches its end, few of the actors will ever be able to find work again. Well, Harry Shearer can always go back to Spinal Tap or The Folksmen. But Yeardley Smith or Julie Cavner are never going to find another job. They damned well ought to milk as much money from this cash cow as possible.
  • Re:All's fair (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zhenlin ( 722930 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @11:49AM (#9033874)
    And here's the worst part:

    The average person probably won't notice a change in plot style, minor style changes or anything that would result in those staff being replaced. But they would recognise the change in voices. Likewise for live-action movies/shows: they would probably not realise the change in writing/plot style, nor style, nor special effects, but changing the actor would stick out like a sore thumb.

    Then again, Dumbledore in Harry Potter was replaced recently, we'll see how people react to that...
  • by ajservo ( 708572 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @12:45PM (#9034158)
    Just be forewarned, FOX could have easily spent this money on developing even MORE crappy reality TV shows... All the development costs go to a six pack of beer and a half crazed development exec, who thinks up all their reality programming.

    With the sole exceptions of Simpsons, 24, and Bernie Mac, FOX hates it's viewers... (The Littlest Groom, When Animals Attack, World's Deadliest _______?, Who wants to Marry a Millionaire, The Mask, Return to Eden..., etc...)

    Do ANY of you want the Swan to return?

    I didn't think so...
  • by Durandal64 ( 658649 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @01:42PM (#9034536)
    And baseball players couldn't solve a differential equation to save their lives, something which is infinitely more useful to society than being able to throw a ~100 mph fast ball. Baseball players make a shitload of money because people idolize and adore them, and they bring in massive amounts of money because of it. Possessing a rare skill or talent isn't a guarantee of wealth. Players in Major League Soccer in the US make about $100,000 per year, while in the European leagues, players make such stupendous amounts of money that would make baseball players' salaries seem reasonable.

    Athletes are entertainers. If tomorrow, the world stopped giving a shit about baseball, baseball players wouldn't make money.
  • by danielsfca2 ( 696792 ) * on Sunday May 02, 2004 @03:20PM (#9035093) Journal
    Parent is absolutely right. What the whiny slashdot crowd who keeps screaming "Greed!" is forgetting is: What happens to the excess money if they just take whatever amount Fox is willing to give? Let's do an example:
    Let's say Fox makes $1 million in profit per actor per episode, after paying everyone but the actors. If Fox pays the actors $125,000 a piece, that is $875,000 per actor in pure profit into the News Corp's wallet. That's several million dollars per episode to finance Fox News Channel propaganda and generally make a few very rich men even richer and more powerful.

    I think, if the Simpsons actors feel they are making less than their fair market value from Fox they are morally obligated to negotiate a higher salary and perhaps donate the balance to a good cause, or even just do anything with the money that's not evil. That would be better than the alternative of letting News Corp keep it.

    Being willing to let others profit off you and only get a tiny portion of compensation is not a virtue, it's stupidity and it only leads to exploitation by the most corrupt element of society (such as News Corp).
  • by Jardine ( 398197 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @04:14PM (#9035415) Homepage
    When a business is successful, you usually reward employee's with raises.

    Really? I thought when a business was successful, you were supposed to lay off a bunch of workers to drive up your stock price for the short term, cash in on your stock options, and move to a tax shelter island.
  • by BlacKat ( 114545 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @06:31PM (#9036198)
    " If tomorrow, the world stopped giving a shit about baseball, baseball players wouldn't make money."

    It's a pity the world didn't actually wake up and realise that spending MILLIOS of dollars just to pay people to play A GAME instead of putting that money into things like social programs or education is insanity at best...

    Ah well, maybe one day, but I'm not holding my breath, and yes I am feeling a bit cynical, and no I don't care about sports much at all. ;)
  • by notsoclever ( 748131 ) on Sunday May 02, 2004 @09:14PM (#9037105) Journal
    maybe they should have gone on strike for the benefit of the animators, who have an exceedingly difficult and thankless job.

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Working...