On Sat, 05 May 2007 11:28:42 -0700, Mickey
<mickey_and_edith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Sharpe Fan wrote:
>
>> "Karen" <karenrath@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:1178378727.665518.161830@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>On May 4, 11:33 pm, Cory <onyx...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here, with GG, the show isn't shutting down because one of the main
>>>>characters suddenly up and left, a la 7H. It's shutting down because
>>>>the network doesn't want to pay some of its cast what they are truly
>>>>worth (Yeah, I'm still pissed...). Nobody left early. I personally
>>>>believe nobody WANTED to leave the show. I just think everyone wanted
>>>>to be paid what they are worth and the network didn't feel like
>>>>negotiating in good faith.
>>>
>>>I read the discussion here recently about whether or not tv actors
>>>should receive such high salaries, and I am now adding my opinion that
>>>absolutely NO ONE ***EVER*** deserves the obscene amounts that some
>>>actors make per episode. I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for
>>>LG and AB if they are now sorry their show is canceled because the CW
>>>refused to give them still more than the huge amount they made. Such
>>>blatantly greedly people are so lacking in character that I can only
>>>feel that there is some justice in canceling the show. Unfortunately,
>>>many others, including lower paid guest actors and crew, and anyone
>>>who is not paid too much, will suffer because of the greed and
>>>arrogance of these women who have such big egos that they can't be
>>>grateful for the wealth they already have.
>>>
>>>Karen
>>>
>>
>>
>> Since the network and the studio receive large amounts for the show via
>> advertising, DVD sales and licensing fees why aren't the actors (and
writers
>> and directors, etc.) not entitled to a large share of that? This does
mean
>> that the stars of a successful TV series will earn a lot of money, but
why
>> not them instead of the network/studio. I do acknowledge the network
and
>> studio also have to make enough money to make their investments and
expenses
>> worthwhile, given the risks.
>
>Part of where the money goes is into failed shows. I don't know what the
>ratio is now, but it used to be about one profitable film for every 5
>unprofitable films. This is figured by real bookkeeping standards not
>the traditional Hollywood, "there's never any net profit" bookkeeping.
>
>I would also point out that residuals from and royalties for DVDs of
>successful shows often amount to considerably more than the base salary.
That's residuals for syndication. Residuals for DVD are a point of
contention for SAG as even lead actors are generally paid peanuts in
residuals -- I think right now the residuals for DVD sets of a
broadcast network show are the same as residuals for *syndication* of
a basic cable series -- and there's very little residuals in
syndication of a pay cable series. IIRC it's something like a dime
per disc, literally. For leads. Some actors do not sign DVDs of
their work for that reason.
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.
|
