Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Simpsons Actors on Strike

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the but-we-need-them-to-live dept.

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. ."

10 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. A thought. by Liselle · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I wish I had their problems, only earning enough money to buy a small house every time I did a voice-over for a single episode. This strikes me in the same way that it did when I heard about the lead in The Sopranos grousing for more money, too. I understand about wanting a fair share of the pie, but where does it cross over into greed?

    Dan Castellaneta is the voice of Homer but he is clearly no mug. Along with his five colleagues he believes the $125,000 he earns for each 30-minute episode does not reflect the true value of the characters.
    The six core cast members are now demanding $360,000 (194,000) an episode or $8 million (4.3 million) for a 22-episode season, according to insiders.
    *gag*
    --
    Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    1. Re:A thought. by Liselle · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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?
      That's a fair question. But if the writers of the Simpsons all went on strike (and let's face it, the writing is the heart and soul a comedy like the Simpsons), you can replace writers. You can't get rid of the voice actors without killing a part of your show. I can't shake the feeling that these people are getting paid a lot solely because they are associated directly with the characters, not because voice talent is hard to come by.

      It's not greedy to ask more money if you deserve it. My question, which you answered with four more questions, was whether they deserved the piece of the pie they demanded, or whether they were just using the celebrity of the characters they played to blackmail Fox (note: this is not to suggest Fox is not evil).
      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
  2. New talent? by aidanjpadden · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OK, there are loads of people out there who can do good impressions of the Simpsons' characters and they threatened to use these last time - is it finally time they'll get rid of everyone and get new talent in there?

    I wish I could get this much cash for an hours work but being a male gigolo doesn't pay this well ;)

    1. Re:New talent? by AGTiny · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh my god I can't even begin to imagine how painful something like that would be to watch. Better to just kill the show than replace all the voice talent.

  3. Re:Don't die by zerv · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There may still be hope for the family guy.

  4. Must we always take the company line?Re:A thought. by sharper56 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ad Age says "The Simpsons" in 2003 earns FOX $296,440 per 30-sec ad or typical show will make Fox $3.5M (12 commerical slots 4 network slots). For the year that puts FOX at $77M. Forking over $48M to the voice talent may be a high percentage but FOX is still making a killing on it.

    Note: This back-of-the-napkin estimate doesn't include the gravitas that "The Simpsons" gives the network to slot the rest of it's Sunday lineup. Each of the follows shows should really be kicking 50% of their ads back to "The Simpsons" 'cause the lead-in is so huge.

  5. They should let the show die... by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's face it, The Simpsons is not what it used to be and I can not see it going anywhere but down in the future. You just can't keep thinking up episode ideas forever. Groening should let the show die on a mid-high note, I mean, it has had a pretty long innings after all.

    What I would love to see is a present day alternative to The Simpsons - new town, new characters, new voice actors (that would be willing to work for a 'paltry' salary per episode) As an extra project for Groening, Futurama was/is abosultely great, it's a shame it was a bit too hardcore for the mainstream audience. A new animated show could feature a similar family or maybe focus around something else, like a group of work colleagues or room mates. Retain the trademark animation styles - yellow skin et al - and you have a clean slate to work with. Obviously, it might take a while for people to warm to it, but The Simpsons was not exactly a multi million dollar franchise overnight.

    Any budding writers got any ideas for 'The Next Simpsons'?

    --
    Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    1. Re:They should let the show die... by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Interesting
      In all honesty, just over three years ago I was watching every new episode, and enjoyed pretty much every one, and genuinely looked forward to every show. Then they must have switched producer or something because the shows since took on an entirely different tone and were just not funny. They were "crude" (not Family Guy crude, more Mad TV crude - every joke was bored and lifeless. The stories didn't hang together. Insightful observations were replaced with crude political stereotypes - what the hell happened to Lisa? She used to be a bright kid who happened to have humanistic beliefs as a result of her thoughtfulness, now she is just a mindless follower of "left wing" fads)

      It's more obvious during the re-runs (Fox here shows them at 6pm) - if the episodes are recent, they suck. If they're not, they're generally pretty good.

      It's jumped the shark. It has potential - SNL has made enough come-backs to prove it's possible, but they're going to have to get in some fresh talent - or get back some of the matured talent they've discarded on the way.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  6. Re:more money by ljavelin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You gotta remember that the life of an actor (and especially voice talent) is a little different than a corporate job.

    In a corporate job, you usually have a position that lasts for many years - even decades. When work dries up, you can move to another corporate job. You receive benefits - health case, pension, etc.

    In the world of acting, the job is a lot more, um, chaotic. You can go without work for many years, and the years where you do work, you might make very little - certainly not enough to live on without taking a job as a waiter or something.

    If and when you do make it big, that can last from 2 months to a couple years tops. If you're super lucky, you might get a gig that pays well for 10 years - but that's very very rare.

    During those good times, you have to make enough to cover all the bad times. Plus, stuff like pensions and insurance is often something you have to cover yourself.

    Are they earning a lot of money? Yep. But they SHOULD be able to ask for more money. This is America, not the Middle East.

  7. Now what I want to know is... by kingrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...how much _profit_ does a popular show like this generate for a network? (not counting syndication or merchandising - just first run shows and repeats on the network) Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions? Or is it one of those "lets take a loss on this show, and make more moola off a less popular show"

    Someone here mentioned that if all the actors were paid what they are asking for, its to the tune of ~$48 mil. Is that enough to hurt Fox or are they just tightwads?