Simpsons Actors on Strike

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. ."

Comments

quote

[matt4077]

"In this production, we obey the laws of capitalism"

Re:quote

[bluelantern]

Let's think about this. Do they? They estimate that Simpsons merchandising and syndication value is 1 billion. They earned 30k per episode for the first ten years and 125k per episode for the last five. That's 660k(10)+2.75m(5)=13.875m+6.6m=20.475m per actor for the last 15 years. At 6 actors, that's around 120m FOX has paid out with these actors having helped generated a billion dollars in value. Say the animation costs and writing costs are double this, which they probably are not since animators and writers are paid relatively poorly, then the total cost of production is 360m for FOX with an asset worth 1 billion. Out of all the players in the production only the voice actors have any bargaining chips. All the other people are even more easily replaceable. The market value of their services is clearly more than they are getting paid, so they should fight for more.

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.

Re:quote

[matt4077]

well, but the 1 billion value is not what fox earned with the simpsons in the past, it's merely its current market value if they were gonna sell it to cnn.
The figure you want to calculate with is (TOTAL REVENUE OF ADVERTISING + 1 BILLION) - (TOTAL COSTS OF PRODUCTION + VALUE OF AIRTIME).

Re:quote

[bluelantern]

I see what you are saying but in this case total revenue of advertising is worth at the least the value of the airtime so those two terms in the equation could cancel out.

Re:quote

[tekunokurato]

Don't ignore the risk premium associated with producing/keeping any show in existence. Though it's my opinion that fox is worse than others, all networks expect a significant percentage of their shows to fail and lose money on a net basis, so they need to make extra returns from their successful shows in order to normalize returns and make their cost of capital.

Also, you have to ask if its the actors who have built the franchise to that value or if they're disposable. I'm guessing that the show wouldn't do as well without them, but you can never tell and IF you're trying to work this out mathematically you should include some expected premium there, too. Hell, MST3K did better than ever after it lost trace beaulieau.

Re:quote

[Golias]

Boo fucking hoo.

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:quote

[Wateshay]

Work at the rate you signed for, or leave.

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).

Re:quote

[quixotic411]

I think it would be really humorous if cnn bought the rights to the simpsons: Homer co-anchors (and slobbers all over) Headline News Tonight with Rudi Bakhtiar (for the obvious reason.)

Anway....

I'm not sure that the simpson's are worth what they're asking for today. The first ten season's - sure, they're worth a lot. But now, they seem like there are no new ideas, no life in them. Let the cadaver rest in peace (or puppet them around in syndication).

Ewwwww.

Re:quote

[Golias]

They can bargain all they like, just don't try to draw any sympathy from me for their miserable plight of only drawing a few million dollars off the fortune the show they have the privilege of acting on has collected.

Re:quote

[God! Awful 2]

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

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

Re:quote

[cehbab]

/me thinks some of these voice actors had better learn a few skills so they can survive in the real world, when there last significant job dries up. you dont win friends with salad.

Re:quote

[nyseal]

I only disagree with one of your statements. Hank Azaria (Moe) has been on many TV sit-coms (Mad about you comes to mind). Yeardly Smith (Lisa) has been in A LOT of sit-coms and movies (Maximum Overdrive off the top of my head) and Julie Kavner was also in sit-coms (Rhoda). I'm sure I could find all of their accomplishments with a Google search, however they were all never just 'voice' actors. I do agree with the rest, though!

Re:quote

[Jackal82277]

Hi I'm Troy Maclure, you might remember me from such movies as " The broke Millionaire " or family favorites like " I'm A Big Greedy Exploitive Network " What I don't understand about all these posts is that we assume the "voice actors" are on strike for more money, just because they skipped a couple of script readings. Maybe you are looking at this wrong, maybe they don't want more money, maybe they want me time off. Its like when you were in high school, If you were the only one who skipped school you would get in trouble, but if you got the whole senior class to skip, what are they going to do, give 2000 kids detention. No, my point is I think that these "voice actors" aren't so worried about loosing their jobs, because if they get replaced with imitators or even computers, then they have that nice golden parachute known as Disney and Pixar !!! These to knuckle heads come out with some new piece of crap "Adult/Kids" movie every week. I'm sure they wouldn't be looking for funny, distinguishable voices for their work. Or, maybe I'm totally off base here, maybe all the "voice actors" pooled their money together and opened a chain of Waffle Houses, and the grand openings just happen to conflict with these script readings. This whole thing could be a huge misunderstanding :-)

Re:quote

[Jackal82277]

Hi I'm Troy Maclure, you might remember me from such movies as " The broke Millionaire " or family favorites like " I'm A Big Greedy Exploitive Network " What I don't understand about all these posts is that we assume the "voice actors" are on strike for more money, just because they skipped a couple of script readings. Maybe you are looking at this wrong, maybe they don't want more money, maybe they want me time off. Its like when you were in high school, If you were the only one who skipped school you would get in trouble, but if you got the whole senior class to skip, what are they going to do, give 2000 kids detention. No, my point is I think that these "voice actors" aren't so worried about loosing their jobs, because if they get replaced with imitators or even computers, then they have that nice golden parachute known as Disney and Pixar !!! These to knuckle heads come out with some new piece of crap "Adult/Kids" movie every week. I'm sure they wouldn't be looking for funny, distinguishable voices for their work. Or, maybe I'm totally off base here, maybe all the "voice actors" pooled their money together and opened a chain of Waffle Houses, and the grand openings just happen to conflict with these script readings. This whole thing could be a huge misunderstanding :-)

Re:quote

[4of12]

they end up destroying their livelihood

With the onset of age and injuries, there's good reason for professional athletes to negotiate high salaries. After age 40 or so, only a few of them can continue making money with endorsements. The rest have to live off interest income generated from what they earned in their short careers.

Acting is a similar "get lucky for a short while" profession. I'd negotiate to the hilt, too, because there's no guarantee of future employment at anywhere near the same rate of pay. The typecasting effect can also strangle the future of TV actors careers (consider Superman).

Most actors, like most athletes and musicians, do not make a good living at it. Those few lucky enough to make to the top should have a chance to get as much as they can while the good times last. It's what any smart person would do under similar circumstances.

Don't die

[chris-johnson]

It would really suck for the Simpsons to disappear, like so many other great cartoons (e.g., Family Guy & Futurama) because of Fox's short-sight

Re:Don't die

[zerv]

There may still be hope for the family guy.

Re:Don't die

[Omega1045]

Why do you say this? The Simpsons, season after season, is a top 20 show. Look at some of the other shows of this caliber, and see what their actors are making. Think about Friends. While that show is usually a top 5 show, I think the two are comparable for the money they make from first run, syndication, products, etc. The 6 friends stars make A LOT more money than the talented cast of the Simpsons.

As far as their market worth goes, I think that Fox can pay them what they are asking. It is still a fraction of what the stars of many other shows are getting.

Re:Don't die

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

Fox's short-sight? Then why don't you pay up and make it continue, slashdot monkey?

This gets modded as Flamebait. I dunno. If the OP wants the show to continue to air THAT bad, then he/she/it needs to open their wallet and see how far it gets them.

I don't think the parent is Flamebait at all; just speaking the truth.

Re:Don't die

[chimpo13]

No, it's Fox being greedy fucks. They lost Maggie Roswell who did Maude Flanders after paying her $6,000 an episode. She wanted a raise and Fox only offered her $150. Eventually she just tried to get Fox to pay her airfare from Denver (her town) to LA and Fox said get bent.

"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 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:Don't die

[timeOday]

Come now. The voice actors are making $125,000 per episode, and demanding $360K. Already, they never have to work again, maybe that's part of the issue.

The voices have an easy, super high-paying job. They don't work harder and are not more talented than the animators and writers who I'm sure make far less money. The voices' role isn't even more visible - they're just less interchangeable at this point. In other words they're cashing in on the mechanics of the situation.

Re:Don't die

[Mostly Harmless]

Yet we still pay exhorbitant amounts of money to go to the movies, or to a baseball game, or to buy Nikes, or.... Just give them the money! The Simpsons' are icons. They give me something to help me forget that Monday's coming around the corner.

Re:Don't die

[chimpo13]

The voice roll is why they're getting screwed. Fox is huge largely because of the Simpsons and this is the 17th year it has been on. Fox makes so much money off that show and the voice talent deserves fair pay. On Friends it was a million an episode, and I don't think the Friends crew ever wrote for the episode. The Simpsons uses lots of stuff from the voice actors.

Re:Don't die

[Necrobruiser]

...they're cashing in on the mechanics of the situation.

You make that sound like it's a bad thing. That's just the way capitalism works. If you have a product or service that only you can provide, then you get to charge whatever you want to for that product or service. If you price yourself out of a job, then that's your own problem, but I don't think thast will be the case in this situation.
If you are a programmer getting paid $20 an hour, and you say, "I want a raise to $30/hour or I quit," that's not unreasonable, especially if you are the only one who has the knowledge and background, etc, to write that particular program. However, if the guy flipping burgers down the street for $5.50/hour came back with your logic and said, "Hey, this guy just sits around in front of a computer all day. It's not a hard job, he's just being greedy, and he already makes a bunch of money," you'd probably take a different view.

Re:Don't die

[Maserati]

I can agree with that. The second season of Family guy was awful and Futurama never had the same kind of biting commentary that The Simpsons did. Both were good shows and above average for television (except that 2nd season of FG), but The Simpsons is just better than just about everything else out there.

Re:Don't die

[Coward, Anonymous]

Think about Friends. While that show is usually a top 5 show, I think the two are comparable for the money they make from first run, syndication, products, etc. The 6 friends stars make A LOT more money than the talented cast of the Simpsons.

Friends and The Simpsons may be comparable in revenues generated, but the Friends cast are a lot less replaceable than the cast of The Simpsons. You can make the argument that janitors are worth millions of dollars per year since nobody would work in an office with trash all over the place, businesses would fold without someone to clean it up, but the problem is that a janitor is easily replaced with another worker so their pay remains relatively low even though their position in the company is a vital one. The cast for The Simpsons can be replaced by other voice actors, so their pay remains relatively low compared to other TV actors. Personally, I reserve my sympathy for people who aren't already making millions of dollars per year.

Re:Don't die

[insensitive claude]

Yes, but (crappy) shows like friends have the luxury of putting the bulk of their production budget into the casting. The Simpsons has huge costs in animation, which is outsourced to Korea to save money, but it's still a major part of the show's expense.

The cast is already making lots of cash from syndication royalties. I don't feel a lot of sympathy for them. Wish I could find a part-time job that supported me so well.

Re:Don't die

[jedrek]

It's only the 15th year.

Re:Don't die

[MurphyZero]

Like other folks have stated, FOX is the one making out like a bandit more so than the actors. Early on, the Simpsons voice talent could have been replaced easily. Now even if the replacement sounds the same, it's bad publicity in a beloved series that's towards the end of its lifetime. Sure FOX may save money, but it would also reduce its value quite a bit. And it could also reduce its syndication value. FOX is better off negotiating with the actors.

Re:Don't die

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of saying the Simpsons characters are underpaid compared to Friends, you could probably more accurately say the Friends characters are grossly overpaid.

Re:Don't die

[squiggleslash]

I think it is flamebait. I mean, how exactly does one pay up with Fox? Fox isn't PBS. It's not like I can just call in ten thousand dollars and save Rupert's network (reference intentional. Of course, I'm not entirely sure I'd want to - does the benefit to the world and to my life that The Simpsons brings/brought me really outwiegh the damage done by that network?)

I do look forward to the day that virtually every show currently limited to television is orderable on DVD or as a download. Then I'll be able to buy the programmes I want to watch, not be limited by some scheduler with his or her own agenda.

Re:Don't die

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just the way capitalism works. If you have a product or service that only you can provide, then you get to charge whatever you want to for that product or service. If you price yourself out of a job, then that's your own problem, but I don't think thast will be the case in this situation.

That doesn't have much to do with capitalism. 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:Don't die

[Omega1045]

While I understand the argument, I don't buy into the idea that you could replace the cast of the Simpsons. I think I would be able to tell the difference. I think of old Bugs Bunny cartoons that were done by Mel Blanc, and newer ones done after he died. I can tell the difference even with some of the talented people they have had doing the voices recently, like Joe Alaskey.

Also, there is something to be said for chemistry. The current cast sure seem to work very well together. I would hate to break that up.

In the end, I think the actors will get some sort of raise since everyone else involved is making more money than god on the show. They can afford to give the actors a bigger share of the pie.

Re:Don't die

[fermion]

The people who do the Simpsons deserve all the money they want. It and a few other shows made the Fox what it is. the Simpson's in particular help other less creative shows (Malcolm, which is on it's last legs) do well.

That said, the end of the show is near. The voice actors know this and are just trying to get a bit of money for retirement. The network knows this and is trying to decide a another season of two will be useful. It is like other shows. The show will be probably be operating at a loss for a while, but that will be made up with past profits and futrue syndication.

The question of who is greedy is irrevelent. It is the greed of Fox that will allow the voice actors to suceed. It is the greed of the actors that keep the Simpsons on the air long after all creative content had expired. I agree with Groeing. Everyone should have the opportunity to be rich and unhappy.

Re:Don't die

[Mister Attack]

On Friends it was a million an episode, and I don't think the Friends crew ever wrote for the episode.
On the other hand, the Friends crew had to actually get in front of a camera and do take after take to "get it right;" the Simpsons voice talent could show up in a bathrobe, and they each work about 1 hour per episode. You really can't make a fair comparison with Friends.

Re:Don't die

[Golias]

Yes, but that stupid Michael Jordan & Bugs movie made millions, proving that voice actors, even the great ones like Mel Blanc, can be replaced without losing any hope of keeping an audience.

Would another Lisa sound exactly like Yardley Smith? No. Could the new actress be as good, or... dare I suggest it... even better!? It's possible.

The strength of the Simpsons has never been the voice cast. It's always been the writing. The seasons when the writing has been week, it has been barely worth watching.

The seasons when the writing was strong, you could replace the entire voice cast with the regulars from Guy Richie's movies, and it would still be entertaining.

Re:Don't die

[Quino]

I do think that the Simpsons is one of the greatest TV shows of our times -- and I do think the actors are worth every penny.

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:Don't die

[timeOday]

You make that sound like it's a bad thing. That's just the way capitalism works. If you have a product or service that only you can provide, then you get to charge whatever you want to for that product or service.

The only thing that the Simpsons voices do, that nobody else can do, is sound like themselves.

To say that they "deserve" whatever they can get only because they are in a position demand it, is purely circular reasoning. Just as the local mechanic "deserves" to char $100 for a fan belt when you happen to break down in some little town where there are no competing garages.

Re:Don't die

[Necrobruiser]

The only thing that the Simpsons voices do, that nobody else can do, is sound like themselves.

Wrong! There are hundreds of people who can do Homer Simpson's voice. They may not do it as well as the voice actors do, but you can't say that nobody else can do it.
An example: Just because Mel Blanc died, doesn't mean that they stopped putting out Bugs Bunny movies. Obviously, it's not the same quality as when Mel was doing the voices, but it shows he was not irreplaceable. The same goes for The Simpsons. The voice actors for The Simpsons are the only one's who can provide the same quality that we have come to expect. It does not mean that they are the only ones who can do the voices.

And, yes, I do believe that they deserve whatever they can get because they are in a position to demand it. Because the other extreme is worse. In your little world, I guess they have to work for free? Or for minimum wage? Or for some arbitrary amount that you decide upon, maybe?

And your hypothetical mechanic? Yes. He gets to charge $100 for a fan belt. If you don't want to pay for it, you can walk to the next town. Or pay the mechanic from the next town to bring you one for $50. Or buy one from the manufacturer and keep it with you in case of emergency, if you don't like the risk of having to pay retail at an inconvenient time. How much extra is your mechanic allowed to charge you for having exactly what you need when and where you need it? And who are you to tell him how much he can charge for the service that he provides?

Re:Don't die

[Necrobruiser]

Fine. My mistake. Strike the word capitalism, and replace it with a free market system.
But they don't have a monopoly. They created a demand for the show they work for, and want to get paid accordingly. And no, they are not using capital, but they are providing a skill. There are other voice actors that can be hired. There is no monopoly on the number of people who can do Homer's "D'oh!"

Re:Don't die

[timeOday]

Wrong! There are hundreds of people who can do Homer Simpson's voice. They may not do it as well as the voice actors do, but you can't say that nobody else can do it.

Only if you define "doing it well" has "doing it exactly like the current guy."

In your little world, I guess they have to work for free? Or for minimum wage? Or for some arbitrary amount that you decide upon, maybe?

In my little world, a show's production costs wouldn't skyrocket just because it became more popular. Instead, the production costs would be spread across the larger consumer base, so less commercials would need to be shown.

Obviously it doesn't work this way for TV programs. The reason capitalism mostly works is because for most products, it does work this way. Ecomonmy of scale doesn't work very well for TV shows, which is why there's a huge pot of money to fight over.

Re:Don't die

[Necrobruiser]

Only if you define "doing it well" has "doing it exactly like the current guy."

In this particular situation, I do define "doing it well" as "doing it exactly like the current guy." And I think that most people think the same way. Otherwise, this would be a non-issue, and someone else would be doing it, for a fraction of what the current actors are getting paid.

Re:Don't die

[Golias]

I'm sick of this Friends comparison! It's not valid!

Like it or not, Friends has been a top-10 show from its opening seasons, and a #1 show which has anchored NBC's Must-See TV Thursday nights for a significant portion of its run. It's arguably the most consistently successful sit-com since The Cosby Show and has been the most important show of the #1 netowork for years.

When the Simpsons began, it seldom got a higher ranking that 50 in the Nielsons, and only got to continue because they were on a new network which didn't have anything better to offer. Stop saying The Simpsons made FOX a successful network, because that dubious honor mostly belongs to Married, With Children and The X-Files.

Even during it's seasons of peak popularity, it was barely a top-20 show, and the popularity of the show has been waning for the last couple of years, due to the quality of writing going downhill. Many of the best writers from its heyday have moved on to work for Late Night With Conan O'Brien and Saturday Night Live.

It was once my favorite show, and the favorite of many geeks like me. It also made a huge impact on popular culture... but it was never the monolith of TV success that Friends was and continues to be.

Also, as has been said everywhere, the charisma of the cast, not the quality of the writing, is what makes Friends successful. Put the cast of The Simpsons in front of the camera with a Friends script and nobody will watch it. Likewise, send the writers of Friends to do a Simpsons episode, and it will suck.

Re:Don't die

[ChrisMaple]

shows of this caliber

Some caliber. The animation rivals Yogi the Bear.

Re:Don't die

[Omega1045]

OK, you had me until Guy Richie. I am sorry, but that is just too far. Snatch is the only decent thing I have seen come out of that guy, and that was mostly because of Jason Statham.

Re:Don't die

[chrisbw]

Instead of saying the Simpsons characters are underpaid compared to Friends, you could probably more accurately say the Friends characters are grossly overpaid.

There is no such thing as 'overpaid.' The market reaches equalibrium, that is the rate of pay. If it is 'overpayment,' then the payer would not pay it.

It might be more than you are willing to pay, but you're not the one paying, are you?

could the fans help

[isbhod]

seeing how fans have help to save Family Guy, even pitched in money to save FarScape (if even for only episode) and even FireFly, might it be possible to "pass the hat around" to give these people who have entertained us so much a little something back?

Re:could the fans help

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? They make how much. That's right they make MILLIONS a year.

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.

Re:could the fans help

[Hamhock]

Please tell me that this is supposed to be funny. These guys make more in a half hour (6-8 hours of real work according to one of the articles) then I do 2 1/2 years. Not to mention the residuals they get from syndication, which I'm sure add up to a pretty penny. I think $125,000 an episode is plenty back.

Re:could the fans help

[TykeClone]

Or Homer could have the Barney Rubble voice change

Re:could the fans help

[Anonymous Coward]

what makes you think $125k an episode is "plenty"?

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

[SweetpeaAeryn]

Fan campaigns work. www.watchfarscape.com is evidence of that. We have a 4 hour mini-series of Farscape on the way, and our show was already completely cancelled when we got it. If Simpsons fans want to save the show from cancellation, I believe they can.

Re:could the fans help

[ScottGant]

So what you're saying is, that even though Fox is making even more millions a year from just advertisements, not to mention syndication and DVD's, marketing of merchandise that the actors that do the voices (many doing multiple voices) should just be making what the average person makes? Sure, that seems fair.

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:could the fans help

[geekoid]

yes, we should help the poor voice ctor who are makin a measly 160k per epsiode.

I swear I saw Castenaletta holding a 'will do voices for food sign'

yes, I butchered the name.

Re:could the fans help

[ninjadroid]

Eh... seems to me he was saying "tain't my job to feed dem fools." But I understand the temptation to construct a straw man of another's argument, it's much easier to foist your own upon the unsuspecting reader that way.

Re:could the fans help

[An Onerous Coward]

While I find it hard to sympathize with either side, I don't see the purpose in calling them "washed up voice actors." I've heard many complaints about the Simpsons going downhill. But the funny thing is, the complaints are never about how Marge's voice has lost its edge, or that Bart doesn't sound like the early Bart. I don't hear complaints about the animation either.

The complaints are always about the writing. Plotting, jokes, comic timing. The stuff that the voice actors don't have much control over.

But it is inspiring the way you want to "feed the poor and hungry or something." Your dedication to the common plight of all humanity is a beacon to us all. Mr. Coward, we salute you!

Re:could the fans help

[Flammon]

I think $125,000 an episode is plenty back.

You're comparing the amount of money that you make to the amount that the actors make. That doesn't make any sense. Instead, compare what the actors make to the amount the show makes and you'll begin to see who the greedy ones really are.

Re:could the fans help

[hng_rval]

You clearly don't understand capitalism.

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).

These people are not getting a government handout. They are earning their money by performing a job. The Simpsons brings in multiple millions every year, and these people deserve their fair share. Why does the average wage in this country have anything to do with what these people earn? Pro atheletes earn millions a year. As do singers/actors and other entertainers. When a person/voice develops their own "brand" they can and should charge more for their services. And about the quality of the show declining, fire the writers, the voices have only improved over time.

Man, I'd rather feed the poor and hungry or something, but that's just me.

Who knows what the actors will do with the money, but it is certainly not in Fox's abilityto donate the money . It would just go to shareholders in the form of a dividend. If they get the pay raise and you don't want your advertising dollars to go to the actors, don't watch the show and spend that time volunteering at a shelter or something, but don't complain about people getting their fair share from a show that brings in a ridiculous amount money.

Re:could the fans help

[David_W]

The complaints are always about the writing. Plotting, jokes, comic timing. The stuff that the voice actors don't have much control over.

It's those lousy writers! They make me madder than a... yak in heat!

Re:could the fans help

[walterbyrd]

Wait a minute. When a studio puts out a new show, it takes a huge risk. Many, maybe most, flop, and end up costing the studio money.

Does somebody who buys a lottery ticket for $1 deserve $1M for his effort?

Re:could the fans help

[PygmySurfer]

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"?

Yes. Unless of course I could go off and make that $10 million/year on my own.

Re:could the fans help

[phillymjs]

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).

So, wait, you're blaming the voice actors for the quality of the writing? And you got modded Insightful for it?

Shit, the Friends cast went from $125K each per episode a few years ago to $1M each per episode-- both shows are the cornerstones of their respective nights for their respective networks, and what the Friends cast is getting makes the raise the Simpsons cast wants look like chump change.

I say, give them what they want. FOX rakes in dump trucks full of money from the Simpsons, and the voice actors' pay should reflect exactly how much they've been making for their employer for the last decade and a half.

~Philly

Re:could the fans help

[MurphyZero]

You are absolutely correct...for the first few seasons. The voice actors pay reflected this for those first seasons. In fact their pay stayed substandard for years longer than it deserved. Finally they forced FOX to pay them more reasonably. FOX had considered replacements that last time as well, and were ready to go to them until a settlement was signed. So if the actors stay firm, expect FOX to hire new actors and the Simpsons to be in their last season. If FOX does pay up, still expect it to be the last season, perhaps even a shortened season.

Re:could the fans help

[plasm4]

what if your boss could not make 10 million without you?

Re:could the fans help

[tsg]

You know, the RIAA uses this same argument to justify paying the musicians squat. It's the studio's job to evaluate the risk and worth of a new series. If they're bad at it, then they should lose money. But don't punish the actors of a sucessful series because your other shows, which they had no involvement with or control over, were crap.

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:could the fans help

[Oligonicella]

*AVERAGE* person? What planet do you live on?

These people just do voices, fer shit's sake.

Re:could the fans help

[PsiPsiStar]

Well, it's not like these guys are striking to make sure that the guys who draw 'The Simpsons' get paid more. Hell, they don't even do that work in America because it would cost too much.

Re:could the fans help

[ScottGant]

So what do you suggest? Everyone everywhere get paid the same no matter what?

You condemn, but you offer no solution. So talent shouldn't be rewarded at all? People that make this claim usually are the ones with no talent.

Are you saying that the advertisers, where most of the money is generated shouldn't be spending money on shows like this? Perhaps just give their money away to everyone? Or perhaps don't advertise at all.

And you can see how selfish everyone has become eh? How are a bunch of voice actors putting their needs above anyone elses? Is the money they're asking for being taken out of someone elses pockets? Are they being so selfish that the money their asking for is actually taking food off of someone elses table? Hardly.

The Simpsons generate close to a billion dollars a year in merchandise and advertising. The Actors are a huge part of that. You may not belive that, but they are. They're not entitled to a slice of that? But I guess not. They should count themselves lucky that they get to make the money they do and be happy in the fact that they're making tons of money for some corporation!

I really don't understand where you're coming from. Are you against people making money for something they can do that you can't? Are you jealous? Why do you care what they make? Are they taking money out of YOUR pocket? They certainly aren't taking any money out of my pocket. I also don't blame others for something that I have control over. I don't blame others because they make more money that I do. If I don't make 100K a year it's MY FAULT! I detest people who blame others for what they don't have.

How much is enough? Who is to say "you make enough money"? How DARE you tell me what I can or cannot or should or should not make.

Get off your high horse.

Re:could the fans help

[bonch]

You know, the RIAA uses this same argument to justify paying the musicians squat.

Then musicians shouldn't be signing those "bad" contracts with the "evil" labels, and if people like you are so concerned, people shouldn't be pirating the hell out of their music so that they'll at least get something back.

By the way, the RIAA doesn't have anything to do with label contracts. It's the record labels that do it--the RIAA is just their public lobbying group. People have lumped the RIAA into being the entire music industry for some reason. Why not name names--Sony, Virgin, etc.

Re:could the fans help

[ScottGant]

Wow!

Decaf man...try some decaf!

And actually, I don't own a TV. I know of the Simpsons, and I know what they do. I read about them. Hard not to. But again, they're not taking any money out of my pocket. Also, in a billion years, none of this will matter at all. So why should it matter now? Enjoy the show! (meaning the show of Life).

But you should lighten up. You speak of karma (in you're spitting out of your hatred in regards to "cosmic justice"), yet you yourself seem to be on your way too. The love you take is equal to the love you make. Do you really belive that your vicious and highly emotional post will help anyone in the long run? Do you really belive that anyone here will read this and say "wow, that guy really knows what's going on". See that it was modded down as a Troll? What's your goal in life? Is this really contributing to mankind?

That last question just ask to yourself. No need to really reply to me. Look inward. Is the response you made really contributing to mankind?

Peace.

Re:could the fans help

[tsg]

people shouldn't be pirating the hell out of their music so that they'll at least get something back.

What, in anything I said, even remotely condoned copyright infringement? For the record, I have downloaded two songs in my entire life and owned the albums for both. I was just too lazy to get them out of my car. That makes me evil, I know.

By the way, the RIAA doesn't have anything to do with label contracts. It's the record labels that do it--the RIAA is just their public lobbying group. People have lumped the RIAA into being the entire music industry for some reason. Why not name names--Sony, Virgin, etc.

Excuse me. I misspoke. Change "RIAA" to "every single member of the RIAA". Sorry for the confusion.

Re:could the fans help

[nyseal]

Ahhhhuummm....I don't think that was the intent of his post (although I HATE the AC thing). My interpretation of the post was that the parent was asking the fan base to kick in to possibly help keep the show going and the response was centered around Joe Schmoe (who lives on a 'working' wage) to donate to actors making millions. I don't entirely disagree with that thought. I'm not sure what happened with the Family Guy to bring it back, but I too would have a hard time donating to ANYONE who crys foul and makes 7 figures per year. Oh well, maybe I'm being too simplistic.

A thought.

[Liselle]

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*

Re:A thought.

[(eternal_software)]

And keep in mind, they did this previously. Back in 1998, they thought that $30,000 an episode wasn't enough, so they got raised to $125,000 PER EPISODE.

Apparently, that isn't enough money to get by on these days.

Re:A thought.

[Mr2cents]

he believes the $125,000 he earns for each 30-minute episode does not reflect the true value of the characters.

it only represents the true value of the voice?

Re:A thought.

[czion3]

You forget how much money The Simpsons takes in. The Simpsons is the show that put Fox on the map. The biggest reason why the show is a sucsess is because of the dialog. I DO think the actors are worth 360,000 to Fox.

Re:A thought.

[GoofyBoy]

>I understand about wanting a fair share of the pie, but where does it cross over into greed?

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"?

Re:A thought.

[superdude72]

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.

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:A thought.

[mm0mm]

I understand about wanting a fair share of the pie, but where does it cross over into greed?

I would rather pay for Homer's voice than let producer(s) and/or studio execs buy private jet every time an episode is aired.

[offtopic]Speaking of greed, how much does a pair of Nike cost in the US?[/offtopic]

Re:A thought.

[JordanH]

• The biggest reason why the show is a sucsess is because of the dialog.

I would think the writers have a lot to do with how good the dialog is. I wonder what they get paid.

On the other hand, it's probably easier to find clever writers than it is to replace voice talent and not upset viewers (or should I say listeners?) by the change.

I also wonder what Matt Groening makes per episode. Does he do any of the writing?

Re:A thought.

[Liselle]

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).

Re:A thought.

[MalachiConstant]

I understand about wanting a fair share of the pie, but where does it cross over into greed?

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:A thought.

[Richard_at_work]

Your maths are kind of slightly off:

• USD 1 billion == USD 1000 million
• Cast pay request == USD 8 Million season == USD 48 Million
• Percentage of pay to worth == ( 100/1000 ) * 48 = 4.8%

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?

Re:A thought.

[Queer Boy]

It's greed because it's more than they need.

That's all fine and dandy that they make a lot of money but to demand the salary equivalent to a small country's GNP is absurd. It's one thing to negotiate a raise, it's another to extort it.

Re:A thought.

[sir_cello]

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.

Re:A thought.

[GoofyBoy]

>It's greed because it's more than they need.

But they already made more then they would need during the previous seasons. Should they work for free in the next season(s) because any new money is "more than they will need"?

>That's all fine and dandy that they make a lot of money but to demand the salary equivalent to a small country's GNP is absurd.

But how much does Fox make directly and indirectly ? (The Simpsons is their premeire network show) If you made something continously for $1 and someone resells it for $20, would it be absurd to ask for $5 for the product?

Re:A thought.

[GoofyBoy]

> 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

Why are these two choices exclusive?

To they they think they deserve more of the pie, Fox may or may not think so.

They are using their celbrity status to use a leverage (its not blackmail) to the negotiations.

Either of these choices still have nothing to do with being greedy or not.

Re:A thought.

[jjafuller]

Unfortunately, issues like this are what lead to reality television. The simple fact is that writers, actors, and in this case voice actors are pricing themselves out of the business. Sometimes it seems like a big deal to give out the $1 million dollar bounty at the end of reality TV shows, but that is really chump change. The voice actors are currently making $2.75 million per season. That is $2.75 million for talking into a microphone. Is that honestly justified in itself? Now, if they get their raise that would kick them up to $7.92 million per season. To put this in perspective, the president earns a $400,000 annual salary, with a $50,000 expense account, so effectively $450,000. If you figure the difference between the president's annual salary, and the price of one voice over for the Simpsons, it comes out to $90,000. So, apparently, running the great nation of the United States for a year is only 125% of the difficulty of doing a voice over for one episode of the Simpsons. Think about that. Furthermore, in all likelihood the money actually exists and it is more than likely going into the pockets of network executives. I am in no way stating that this is a great state of affairs either. My point here is the misappropriation of funds in corporate television. I would much rather see the $5.17 million go into better programming. The networks need to take more risks; in the past shows had more than a few episodes to pull in the ratings, they might not have even been any good in the first season, but they were still renewed and allowed to grow. It seems like now, if you do not bring in the big numbers immediately you are cut and usually not even allowed to finish out your first season. Thus, as the actors want more money--and the executives want to keep their pockets well lined--we are stuck in our current state of affairs with such horrors as Survivor, and whatever other reality TV is still floating around. This is just one example of the disturbing trend in the growth of corporate power in the United States. It seems that in the past we have thrived with a powerful consumer driven society, where business tried to please the consumer, and decisions made by the consumers had an impact. Well, that is not longer the case. Now corporations are developing into monopolies, and have entirely too much impact on the government. Thus, if a corporate group does not like the policies of consumers, they will change the laws in their favors to punish consumers for undesirable behavior. In the past business would adjust to the consumers' desires. The disturbing trend appears to stem from the stagnation of our government, and the efficiency of the corporation. If we continue on our current course we will soon abolish government, and be run by corporations in a truly hellish world. In conclusion, I believe that the Simpsons going on strike is a sign of the end of times, so repent, rinse, and repeat.

Re:A thought.

[Queer Boy]

But how much does Fox make directly and indirectly ? (The Simpsons is their premeire network show) If you made something continously for $1 and someone resells it for $20, would it be absurd to ask for $5 for the product?

Ah, only in America can someone justify greed by pointing to someone else's greed.

Re:A thought.

[Dr. Evil]

Greed is a little tough to apply...

It might be greed which prevents the production from offering more money. Or it might be fear of people asking for more after that.

Nothing is really altruistic, and anything which isn't altrustic could be called selfish, which in turn could be attributed to greed.

Ultimately these people are willing to risk their jobs to get a raise. It's unfortunate that it affects their coworkers jobs, but that's life.

Re:A thought.

[ozborn]

>I understand about wanting a fair share of the pie, but where does it cross over into greed?

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?

The real underlying question is on what basis should people be renumerated for the work that they do?

If you believe that renumeration should be based on what the market dictates (I don't), you can't really complain about the salary they make. However if you believe it is more reasonable to pay people for the work they do, then it follows that you ought to be more upset with Rupert Murdoch than the actors. Murdoch owns Fox and does NO WORK FOR THE SHOW (although he profits from it as an owner) whereas at least the actors are working to produce something of value.

Re:A thought.

[Snowspinner]

Actually, American Idol is their premiere network show. 24 also beats The Simpsons in the ratings, as does The OC and That 70s Show. My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance also beat The Simpsons.

Re:A thought.

[Zhari]

50million/1billion is not 21 percent. perhaps 50million*16seasons/1billion, but this wont be a retroactive pay raise, so we're looking at 5 percent of the total worth of the simpsons. Now that sounds like a paltry sum to me...

Re:A thought.

[dubiousmike]

Then we shouldn't pay bands and athletes as much money as they get.

unfortunately, it comes down to the fact that what they are involved with generates a lot of money. What cut of that money are they entitled to? The National Hockey League will likely go on strike next season over money.

Wouldn't it be nice if some charities got more of these proceeds? (In that case, I want to start my own charity)

Re:A thought.

[jedrek]

I'm sorry... but what country has a GNP of $8mln?

Re:A thought.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Uh, much of the cast of Seinfeld made over a million each per episode, the core cast I think made several million an episode by the time the series ended.

Re:A thought.

[espo812]

You can't get rid of the voice actors without killing a part of your show. [...] It's not greedy to ask more money if you deserve it.

If the supply of an acceptable voice is only 1 and the demand is infinate the cost of that voice is going to be very high. Essentially, it's a monopoly (which you call blackmail) for the voices.

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:A thought.

[R-66Y]

Incorrect.

The minimum salary for Major League baseball players this upcoming season will be $300,000. The overwhelming majority of players make this minimum (or more, but short of $1mil in most cases). The players who do make the big bucks, a la Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez, in almost all cases put up brilliant numbers that do, in fact, earn the ballclub money equal to or greater than their salaries (um, hence why they are paid that much).

In any case, A-Rod will earn in the neighborhood of $21mil this season to play 162 games of baseball (not including postseason play, of which the Yankees are almost always participants). $22,000,000.00 / 162 is $135,802.47. The average baseball game length these days is around 3 hours. So A-Rod makes $754.46 every minute, assuming he practices for free. It probably takes him 10 seconds to put the average pair of shoes on, and in 10 seconds he makes $125.74 (not $8mil).

What is striking to me, however, is that when the baseball players threaten to strike (or in 1994, do strike), everyone seems to call foul on them. To understand the situation, you must not look at relative amounts of money of average American salary and average MLB player salary; You must look at how the owners hide profits (by reporting them as expenditures for their others ventures, e.g. George Steinbrenner's new YES network) so that they can justify not paying the players more, etc. The majority of the players, in actuality, are earning the ballclubs much more than $300,000. They do deserve their piece of the pie.

Later,
Patrick

Re:A thought.

[plasm4]

How can you define what deserve means, its totally subjective. And its also totally irrelevant I suppose. People rarely get what they deserve. You get what you can take. Lets use a hypothetical office as an example. Lets say you make 40k programming. (The "you" is hypothetical as well) All your coworkers make 48k doing the exact same thing in the same office. All of you were hired at the same time. The difference is that while all of your coworkers were offered 40k, just like you, they asked for more money and you did not. Bill Gates put himself into a situation where the world depends on him and now he is in a position to squeeze. Good for him.

What if all the voice actors used the extra money to build schools and hospitals in underdeveloped countries? Are they still greedy then? What if they just want to make sure their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren will not have to work? What if they want to make sure that all of their descendants will have complete freedom to choose what they want to do with their lives, without any pressure of having to scratch out a living. What is greedy about that?

Re:A thought.

[Oligonicella]

"You can't get rid of the voice actors without killing a part of your show."

Bullshit. I, myself, can do at least half the voices of the show. Just get some imitators.

Re:A thought.

[Nogami_Saeko]

And as soon as the media got word that the original voice actors were on-strike and got replaced, viewers would stop watching the show immediately... Regardless of how the replacement voices sounded.

Fox has exactly two choices. Pay them what they want, or cancel the show.

N.

Re:A thought.

[Uruk]

The amount of money it takes to get by is irrelevant. These voice actors are essentially partners in a business venture with Fox. Their increasing demands shouldn't be framed as "I need this much money to get by". It's more like this - when actors of any type ask for increases like this, it reflects the fact that they know Fox is making more money than ever on the show, and they'd like to share in the growing wealth that the show produces. I wouldn't be suprised if they modeled what they were asking on based off of a percentage of total revenues from the show.

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:A thought.

[yellowjacket03]

This comparison is so arbitrary to be hilarious. And FYI, it probably costs the taxpayers $50,000 just to make one campaign trip on Air Force One, and that's not even government business. You shouldn't pull numbers out of your keister like that. The President gets a free residence, free food, and countless other perks that don't have a strict monetary value. A better comparison to the President would be a CEO like Rupert Murdoch. The disparity in pay there would apparently drive you to a seizure.

Re:A thought.

[plasm4]

You fucking CONDONE this kind of behaviour? Armageddon, save us..

I see it as a fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Microsoft has been fooling everyone for quite some time now, so yeah, I blame the people (whoever they might be) more than Microsoft.

That's not greedy, but it sure smacks of irresponsibility. It's like saying "here, son, you're better than everyone else simply because daddy squeezed a boatload of money out of the public."

well first off the voice actors are squeezing money out of fox. It is not saying "son you're better than everyone else." It is saying son if you want to spend you're life studying the rain-forest in brazil, go ahead and do it since you don't have to worry about making very little money when you have 50k in student loans. It means someone won't choose going to law school over doing what they really want to do just because what they love to do will lead to are more difficult life financially.

Re:A thought.

[jjafuller]

This comparison is so arbitrary to be hilarious.

That was kind of the point.

The figures I pulled were just bottom lines. I did not account for "perks" and what not. They are real, I did not make any numbers up. They just aren't all the numbers.

Re:A thought.

[Babbster]

Yeah, right. So there are no millionaires or billionaires in other countries? There are no talented people outside of the States who are paid a lot more because their talents have a higher value than others?

You're welcome to your opinion on this particular situation, but implying that greed is unique to America doesn't pass the smell test. The fact that Rupert Murdoch (lord and master of FOX) is an Australian possessed of legendary greed is proof by itself.

Re:A thought.

[br00tus]

All of the work on the show is done by the voice actors, the animators and the writers, and the work to put the show on the air is done by technicians and engineers. So who should get the money the show makes? Rupert Murdoch? The majority owners of News Corporation shares sitting on their lazy, idle class asses? I wish I had the problems of the Paris Hiltons of the world. The voice actors at least have to work to earn their pay.

Re:A thought.

[(eternal_software)]

Sorry, but the voice talent doesn't make the show. The writers make the show.

I'm sure there are enough excellent Simpson's character impersonators out there that it would be hard to tell the difference if they replaced the current voice talent. So how does that make them worth over 300k per episode?

The humor is what makes the show, and the writers are responsible for that.

Re:A thought.

[Mr. Piddle]

These voice actors are essentially partners in a business venture with Fox.

It's a cartoon that's been on for over a decade. There are so many episodes, Fox could probably fire all the voice actors and just splice together snippets from earlier episodes to make up a complete dialog. Seriously, Homer has about a dozen-word vocabulary; any teenage audio hacker can make do.

Re:A thought.

[Mr. Piddle]

The humor is what makes the show, and the writers are responsible for that.

Including sight gags?

Re:A thought.

[Endive4Ever]

Why do you say this. Are we all going to turn off our TV sets and sing 'Solidary Forever' for some overpaid hollywood voice actors?

Yeah, right.

The show might very well be just as funny with a different set of voice actors. Remember, they're just actors, acting a part.

Re:A thought.

[Endive4Ever]

Actually no, not greedy. Just tremendously overpaid.

Re:A thought.

[nyseal]

I totally agree and it's not like Fox is utilizing their profits from this show for better programming. Generally, the only reason I ever even tune into Fox is for the Simpsons.

Re:A thought.

[nyseal]

Humor is not always objective. For example...write down a joke on a piece of paper and have several people read it aloud. The delivery and visualizations are generally the deciding factor on its success. The current cast have developed their respective characters into well known and loved 'people' with their very own characterizations. I agree they could find someone who SOUNDS like Homer, however they can never replace the character.

New talent?

[aidanjpadden]

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 ;)

Re:New talent?

[AGTiny]

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.

Re:New talent?

[amabbi]

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?

When the voice actor that played Maude Flanders, Edna Krabappel, et al. quit the show, for a few episodes there was a replacement that played both. You could definitely tell the difference, and for hard-core fans was quite distracting! Soon enough they ended up killing off Maude. (I think she came back to work this season)

Re:New talent?

[whopis]

Maude Flanders and Edna Krabappel are (were) performed by different actresses. Marcia Wallace does the voice of Edna.

Re:New talent?

[Hogwash McFly]

My suggestions:

Homer : Jon DiMaggio
Bart : Billy West
Grandpa : Billy West
Marge : Katey Sagal
Lisa : Lauren Tom
Everyone else : Tress Macneille

Anyone else see where I'm taking this?

Re:New talent?

[Zalgon 26 McGee]

My Suggestion: Replace all the cast with Rick Miller. He does a one-man show called "MacHomer" where Shakespeare comes to Springfield, and he does all the voices. (His take on Les Mis with the Simpsons cast is a lesser work, IMHO)

Re:New talent?

[mrscorpio]

It should be noted that foreign versions of the Simpsons don't have subtitles, they have different voice actors speaking the native languagues. At least, German is one of them like this, I watched the German Simpsons while I was over there, just wasn't the same.

Chris

Re:New talent?

[Disco Stu]

If the Simpsons go to India, I hope someone puts in a good word for Old Gil. The Simpsons is all I got!

-- Old Gil

They each want $330,000 per episode

[Trespass]

That's just ridiculous. I'm surprised they don't just get replacements for a fraction of that. I don't know how much longer the Simpsons will keep creaking along, but this seems like a pretty stupid time to go on strike.

Re:They each want $330,000 per episode

[gl4ss]

maybe it doesn't matter to them?

you see, when they've already had enough money to be 'set for life', maybe they don't really want to do it anyways. when in that kind of position they can play hardball without the risk of being exactly poor for the rest of their lives.

besides, the money made from simpsons goes somewhere as well..

Re:They each want $330,000 per episode

[Kick the Donkey]

No more ridiculous than the Friends actors wanting $1,000,000 an episode. I agree that these performers are paid way more than their contribution to society would seem to warrent, but that is what the market is willing to pay them (any conservitive capitalist care to mention the Law of Supply and Demand, or as I call it: The Law of Fear and Greed?).

I would say the voice actors are being underpaid now, in relation to the rest of the market. But, they need to understand they are only about half the talent (okay, maybe 60%). They are not doing the physical performance. Only the voice. Maybe they should get half of what an actor gets paid in a show thats been on for 15 years.

Oh, wait, there haven't been any sitcoms on for 15 years.

ob Homer quote

[GillBates0]

Homer: Lisa, if you don't like your job you don't strike. You just go in every day and do it really half-assed. That's the American way. If you really want something in life you have to work for it. Now quiet, they're about to announce the lottery numbers.

ObSimpsons quote

[Gildor]

Burns: Smithers, get me some strike breakers. The kind they had in the thirties.

(Smithers brings in Grampa Simpson)

Abe: We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. (grumbles of acknolwedgement from the strike breakers) One trick is to tell them stories that don't go anywhere. Like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them! "Gimme five bees for a quarter," you'd say. Now, where was I? Oh yes. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. We didn't have white onions, because of The War. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

actually...

[nomadic]

More like 12 great seasons. After seeing the recent episodes I really don't care too much if the show ends.

Re:actually...

[Kick the Donkey]

Personally, the Simpsons still cranks out some great episodes. Yeah, they don't do as much witty commentary any more, but its still good.

After all, what would you expect from the Americal Idol and Survivor generation?

Re:actually...

[nomadic]

I really haven't seen any recently. A lot of them start out funny but sort of just get weird and inane after the first 5 minutes.

Re:actually...

[ArmyOfFun]

I agree. I used to be a die hard Simpsons fan. I was so die hard that when I slowly stopped watching new episodes, I actually felt guilty. Like I was giving up on an old friend. But now, I just don't care, the show has lost almost all of the subtle humor that made it great (in my eyes).

Re:actually...

[Kick the Donkey]

But that's part of the formula:

First 5 minutes: Completely unpredictable setup for main plot

Next 16 minutes: Main plot.

Last 5 minutes: Plot resolution.

Its a proven formula!

Re:actually...

[nomadic]

Well yeah the problem is the unpredictable setup is funnier than the main plot. Like that episode with the George Lucas-like guy was hilarious until we realized the main plot was just a recycled alcoholism thing. Now the Simpsons was better when instead of doing that they just had two plots, one main and one backup extending through the episode.

I'm sorry but...

[alman]

Just give them the Do'h

Re:I'm sorry but...

[black mariah]

Wow. That's the worst fucking joke I have ever heard. Keep up the good work! ;-)

Scientology connection?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the voice actors on "The Simpsons" are members of record of The Church of Scientology international's organization (IAS, International Association of Scientologists).

Could this association have a "unionizing" effect? After all, there aren't any other visible strikes ongoing in the voice actors industry - where's the solidarity?

Or could Scientology be behind the strike? They are ruthlessly money-hungry and push their members to donate evermore through the use of authoritative (command) hypnosis (see The Anderson Report of Victoria Australia). They've used front groups and union-style pressure tactics in the past. (see Reed Slatkin controversy)

Re:Scientology connection?

[roll_w.it]

Other than Nancy Cartwright - who else is a Scientologist?

Re:Scientology connection?

[Hogwash McFly]

What I find interesting, is that this episode ever aired, as it seems to poke fun (in that subtle, Simpsonesque way) at sham cults like Scientology (if you look at the link, Scientology is listed in the references). If Nancy Cartwright is a Scientologist, how on earth did she ever agree to do the voice acting for that episode? It's like a Christian voice actor willingly working on an episode that, through humour, implys God doesn't exist and those that believe in Him are idiots.

Anyone ever thought about this?

more money

[Mr2cents]

Each cast member wants around 360,000 dollars per episode, or eight million dollars for the 22-episode season. That is up from the 125,000 dollars per episode each they have earned for the past three years, Variety said.

They only get 125000$ per episode? How can you expect those people to live a decent life with that little money?!

Re:more money

[Lxy]

while that's a lot more than you or I make, $125K is low for the standard of quality they represent.

The Friends cast made $1 million per episode in this, their last season (and that's what, 8-9 seasons?). For being on the air for 14 seasons, and vieing for the longest running sitcom in history, $125K is cheating them. I can see their point.

Re:more money

[mariox19]

Really! At 22 episodes a season, they're just 21 paychecks away from being the "working stiffs" Jack Valenti is always talking about.

Re:more money

[ljavelin]

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.

Re:more money

[Hogwash McFly]

Comparing live actors to voice-actors is a tricky thing. Sure, the Friends cast made a ton 'o cash per episode in contrast to the Simpsons crew, but think about the different levels of work involved. Live actors do everything voice actors do, that is speaking into a mic, plus quite a lot more. They actually have to be presentable for the screen - make up, wardrobe, hair - doing that every time you go to the studio is gonna get annoying. Harry Shearer could turn up to work looking like a bum, go into the studio, talk, and then leave when he's performed his lines. While I have no evidence for this, I speculate that live action is gonna have a lot more takes than voice acting. I'd expect voice actors to be able to nail the correct tone of speech within only a few takes (probably a lot less now that the characters are well established and the actors well practiced). When you have a set, props, extras and six main actors in a shot, I'd expect a lot of scenes to go into double figure takes.

There's also the fact that voice actors' material can be recycled to a certain degree. I wonder how many different kinds of "D'ohs", "Eeeeexcellents" and "Eat my shortses" are on file to be used over and over. Probably not that many. I doubt that any of the trademark sayings have been recorded for many years now. Granted, each episode is not entirely made up of such material, but the point still stands.

I'm not saying that a million greenbacks per episode is necessarily well deserved, but in my opinion, voice acting should be relatively lower paid compared to live acting.

Re:more money

[ImpTech]

And you gotta remember who your audience is...

Few tech jobs last for decades, particularly these days.

Benefits? Okay, but you get less and less of that every year it seems. Half of Americans already don't have health insurance, and those that do likely lose a big chunk of their paycheck over it.

Pension? Who gets a pension plan anymore? You get 401k, and thats it.

Absolutely they can ask for more money. They can strike if they want to. But that doesn't mean we should feel bad for the "poor starving artists".

Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys claim that $350,000 per episode isn't enough and THEN they'll complain about Bush's tax breaks because they "benefit the rich". Stupid, foolish hypocrites. The Simpsons peaked in 1992 anyway, does anybody really still watch it?

Re:Idiots

[Snowspinner]

10 million people last Sunday, actually.

Re:Idiots

[Boglin]

Hypocrisy occurs when someone's touted beliefs do not match their actions.

Touted Belief: Rich people should pay heavier taxes than poor people.

Action: Attempts to become rich.

These aren't necessarily contradictory. They never said that they were against people being rich; they simply said that those who are should pay higher taxes. To be hypocrites, they must be rich and then attempt to pay less in taxes. Now, if you've got evidence of them doing this, I will completely agree with you. However, trying to become rich does not, by itself, make them hypocrites.

Oh, and you're right about them peaking in '92.

Simpson's are worth it.

[pholower]

A lot of folks on the ole /. seem to think replacements and less money is okay. I would usually tend to agree. But the simple fact that there are so many people that know the simpsons and so many people that can hear the voice of the characters in their head when somebody says a famous line, to me, is all the more reason to pay these guys more.

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:Simpson's are worth it.

[SlamMan]

Yeah, but how much of that is because of the voice actors? Its the WRITERS that should be getting paid hand over fist.

Re:Simpson's are worth it.

[pholower]

I agree with you on that, however, if the writer is good, they can land a job at another production. Voice actors are usually only good for one production. After that it is retirement. if you were one of the voice actors on the simpsons wouldn't you want as much money as you could get before the show went off air and you had to live off that money for the rest of your life?

Re:Simpson's are worth it.

[Hatta]

Are you kidding me? The show today is a travesty of the comic genius it once was. Remember when Homer had a soul? When he was a man with emotions one could identify with, if only in caricature. Today he's as shallow as any contestant on reality tv. He exists only to engage in wacky antics and spout catch phrases.

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:Simpson's are worth it.

[I Be Hatin']

Voice actors are usually only good for one production. After that it is retirement.

What the fuck are you talking about? Don't you realize that the main stars have had long careers already ?

Re:Simpson's are worth it.

[metamatic]

A lot of folks on the ole /. seem to think replacements and less money is okay.

I'm waiting for the right-wing libertarians to explain to us all that FOX should outsource the voice acting to India, so that the US actors can move on to a more highly-skilled position.

Hell, they already have Apu on the show.

Dough!

[brejc8]

Five different British news papers with reporters all over the world all starying the story with "Dough!".

Re:Dough!

[JoeBaldwin]

Not really 5. You counted the Scotsman three times.

I actually have that copy of The Independent somewhere...

Re:Dough!

[Hogwash McFly]

I think to both the poster and anyone of an average or higher intelligence the pun is acknowledged, I just think he was pointing out the fact that a lot of different newspapers were using exactly the same headline. The most memorable headlines are always in a play-on-words style but there's usually a lot of variation between the different rags, from my newspaper reading experience.

Re:Dough!

[amembleton]

If you cannot catch the play on words between "doh" and "dough" in a story related to a wage increase, then perhaps sir you need to watch more television.

I think he did catch the play on words. I think he was just pointing out how strange it was that several newspapers used the same play on words as the start of their headline.

Re:Dough!

[sharkey]

all starying the story

Whatever that is.

Strike yes, over pay no

[fr0dicus]

They should strike to bring back futurama!

*8D~

DOH!

[Joecuba]

Should they not be on a percentage of the gross? Or is that too easy?

The Actors

[cablepokerface]

Cast overview, first billed only:
Dan Castellaneta .... Homer Simpson/Grampa/Barney Gumble/Krusty the Klown/Groundskeeper Willie/Mayor Quimby/Hans Moleman/Sideshow Mel/Others (voice)
Julie Kavner .... Marge Simpson/Patty Selma Bouvier/Others (voice)
Nancy Cartwright .... Bart Simpson/Nelson Muntz/Todd Flanders/Ralph Wiggum/Kearney/Others (voice)
Yeardley Smith .... Lisa Simpson (voice)
Hank Azaria .... Moe Szyslak/Chief Wiggum/Apu/Comic Book Guy/Cletus/Prof. Frink/Others (voice)
Harry Shearer .... Montgomery Burns/Waylon Smithers/Ned Flanders/Kent Brockman/Rev. Lovejoy/Principal Skinner/Dr. Hibbert/Rainer Wolfcastle/Others (voice)
Marcia Wallace .... Edna Krabappel (1990-) (voice)
Phil Hartman .... Lionel Hutz/Troy McClure (1991-1998) (voice)
Tress MacNeille .... Jimbo Jones/Agnes Skinner/Others (voice)
Pamela Hayden .... Milhouse Van Houten/Rod Flanders/Others (voice)
Maggie Roswell .... Maude Flanders/Helen Lovejoy/Others (1990-1999, 2002-) (voice)
Russi Taylor .... Martin Prince/Others (1990-) (voice)
Doris Grau .... Lunchlady Doris (1989-1996) (voice)
Karl Wiedergott .... Additional Voices (1998-) (voice)
Marcia Mitzman Gaven .... Maude Flanders/Helen Lovejoy/Others (1999-2002) (voice)

Re:The Actors

[rokzy]

dump Yeardley and spread her paycheck around. she's only doing one voice and it's Lisa, who is incredibly annoying.

Re:The Actors

[Jim Hall]

I think Fox can take Phil Hartman off their payrolls, since he died in 1998.

Re:The Actors

[Lord of Ironhand]

Nancy Cartwright .... Bart Simpson/Nelson Muntz/Todd Flanders/Ralph Wiggum/Kearney/Others (voice)

Who, incidentally, is also a member of Scientology. Which, as you might know, is not a very nice organisation. If she gets paid more, it's not unthinkable that a significant portion of that will go to Scientology; so I'd say she makes more than enough already :-\

Re:The Actors

[CrazyTalk]

There hasn't been an episode with Lunch Lady Doris since 1996??? That can't be right! Or did the find someone else to do the voice?

Replace the Writers

[OS24Ever]

They need to replace the writers. This season as been pretty lackluster. I think it's jumped the shark at this point. Pretty disappointing. I've found myself shutting it off midway through most episodes this season which is sad really.

I don't know if it was just the ads but the recent one for the re-run of Marge writing the romance novel had homer's bare ass fuzzed out. Hope that's not a boobie-gate reaction

Re:Replace the Writers

[Lxy]

It's been mentioned once before, but the Simpsons has not jumped the shark. The reason being that a lot of the humor in the episode is very subtle, and usually hard to catch the first time you see it.

Take, for instance, the Angry Dad episode. That thing sucked. For whatever reaosn, I ended up watching it on a rerun last night. I laughed my ass off. I missed a lot of the jokes the first time around, and it was pretty funny.

So, wait til the new season is on reruns, and you too will agree that it's still funny as hell.

Re:Replace the Writers

[theblacksun]

The show has been going downhill for awhile now. They need to replace the writers or retire the series. Every "The Simpsons go to Another Nation" episode is like another spike through my soul.

Re:Replace the Writers

[protohiro1]

Oh its alright.

Re:Replace the Writers

[Have Blue]

I think it jumped the shark when Homer got assraped by a giant panda.

Re:Replace the Writers

[Dun Malg]

They need to replace the writers.

Every season, the writers say "Forget it; we can't write anything else; it's all used up" but then they dump more money on them and they say "fine, one more season". They've been doing this since 1997. Also, they do get new writers. They just don't get new ones all at once. They come and go one at a time. New writers aren't really the answer anyway. It's a matter of coming up with compelling storylines that don't replicate what they've already done. They've already got all the "low hanging fruit" story-wise-- hell, they picked that the first 5 years-- and every season gets harder.

Re:Replace the Writers

[Lars T.]

The Simpson jumped the shark when they jumped the shark in the Couch Gag for the second time.

Re:Replace the Writers

[UserGoogol]

Don't worry, the persons responsible for that scene have been sacked.

Re:Replace the Writers

[JonMartin]

For me they jumped the shark with "Who Shot Monty Burns". Yes, that long ago.

Maybe I set my TV standards too high...

<turns on TV>

Nope.

Strikes and High Paid individuals...

[mschiller]

It never ceases to amaze me that we allow people who are paid millions to collectively strike. I mean come on your being paid for 1 day of work (ok maybe it even takes a month to prepare, but still) more then I get paid in a year... Maybe us high tech workers should start unionizing.. Oh wait, if that happened in our industry they'd probably just fire us and get new people or just go out of business. I've never figured out why out society is willing to pay huge amounts of money on entertainment. Sports stars, actors, etc. I mean are pro baseball games that much better then your local college or high school game? But those criminals (well some of them anyway), get paid millions and who pays for it? The average Joe and his family end up paying $300 to see the game (ok it can be done cheaper but think of the cost of those beers and hot dogs)... One of my pet peeves... There goes my Karma

Re:Strikes and High Paid individuals...

[JoeBaldwin]

TROLL!?

He makes a very valid point. Why the fuck should Fox suck up to these fucktards who demand ever more money for a few hours work?

Re:Strikes and High Paid individuals...

[alphaseven]

But those criminals (well some of them anyway), get paid millions and who pays for it? The average Joe and his family end up paying $300 to see the game

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:Strikes and High Paid individuals...

[mschiller]

Well frankly that doesn't make it any better. The Simpsons and 95% of what is on TV these days is an utter waste of time. It's bad enough that people watch that crap, but they pay good money for T-Shirts Toys, etc. Let see what is the number one influence Simpsons has on society... Adding the word DOH! to the English language.. Great, just what we need... More mind numbing stupidfying media... The isn't to say that Simpsons isn't amusing, but it's crude humor depicting a dysfunctional family is what draws in the crowds, not it's cultural references which actually make the show halfway worthwhile for those of us that use our brains. I wouldn't mind Simpsons so much if it wasn't that they throw into so much crudity for the 5 minutes or so of worthwileness.. Sheesh.... Sure the actors themselves perhaps aren't at fault for wanting their own fair share, but the industry as a whole as let things get out of hand. The result? The little guy with no real bargaining power in the industry pays the price. The average Joe actually, for reasons beyond me, enjoy the crude humor and thus like the show, but they are at the mercy of the Media source since it's not like there is a large number of similar products on the market. (Simpsons is rather unique, although Futurama and King of the Hill fall in the same Genre, those I believe are ALSO FOX shows.) The result? The Average Joe, enjoying the general show content, is at the mercy of the Media. They like the show, they want the clothes, toys, etc so must pay the price.... The fundamental problem here is that we as a society has become addicted to Television. Then greed has led to the current state of affairs. Just my 2 cents...

Re:Strikes and High Paid individuals...

[mschiller]

Actually the logic here works the other way.. If the Average Joe rejected the cult nature of Pro Sports (also applies to Movies etc) and refused to pay the high ticket prices, the sports teams would be forced to charge less for tickets.. WIth less money available to the owners the players would be paid less... The media has made Sports and certain other media formats to be Cult-Like. People pay outrageous amounts of money because it's the "in" thing to do... What would happen if people rejected paying $12 dollars to see a movie and instead only saw the movies in the discount second run theatre for $3.50?

Re:Strikes and High Paid individuals...

[mschiller]

Yeah Yeah.. Something about typing in a Web broswer makes my English Skills drop..... Sue Me...

Re:Strikes and High Paid individuals...

[ImpTech]

Games cost $300 because of scarcity mostly. No box office ticket costs anywheres near that much. Its all the aftermarket stuff (ebay, etc) where the price gets up there, at least for baseball. For something like football its because there's 8 total games and thats what people will pay. And they gouge you for refreshments pretty much at any event, even college games. And nobody's holding a gun to your head and demanding you buy 6 beers either.

Oh, the reason a tech union doesn't work whereas pro-sports or entertainment industry does? Well, obviously... people have this whole deal where they want to see the celebrities, the stars they know and love, which of course gives said celebrities a de-facto monopoly and makes their bargaining position that much more secure. It sucks, sure, but who's going to watch the Yankees if they don't have A-Rod, Jeter, Giambi, Mussina, Brown, Sheffield, and all their other stars? More on topic, who's going to watch the Simpsons without Azaria, Smith, Shearer, Castellaneta, Kavner, etc?

Unpublished letter from Fox

[JoeBaldwin]

Dear Actors,

FUCK OFF. We can find cheaper people who'll do the job half-assed for less money. What do you think this is, India? Nobody keeps their jobs here!

Once again, fuck off.

Your good friend and former employer
Rupert Murdoch

Re:Unpublished letter from Fox

[ameoba]

Briliant idea! Outsource the voice tallent to India and make the entire season around Apu's flashbacks to growing up as a lovable troublemaking boy (very much like Bart) in Bombay.

Re:Unpublished letter from Fox

[efextra]

They have already outsourced to India. Its called Singhsons now!

Replacement could be in the work

[Mr. Arbusto]

Agree'd, when I read this I thought...

"Simpsons canceled, Family Guy takes time slot"

It's true! I don't spell check

The Simpson's Episode that was Never Telecast

[amigoro]

Bart:Dad! dad! Our voice-over guys are on strike!
Homer: Damn voice-over guys! Why those little ....
Lisa:But dad!, they have their rights too. You can't expect them to work so hard and get paid only $125,000 per episode.
Marge:She's right honey. These people have hungry mouths to feed, and it's not easy nowadays with $125,000
Maggie:gpbtd gpbtd

Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

Only in America

[Anonymous Coward]

More than 300000$ per episode? are you kidding?
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...

[rijrunner]

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.

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:Well...

[SlamMan]

You might want to rethink that comment with Hank Azeria in there.

Re:Well...

[NeoSkandranon]

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?

at 125 grand an episode, they make about 3 times PER EP what my parents make in a YEAR. That in and of itself I have no problem with. Thems the breaks or whatever.

But to make it sound like on that salary its impossible to save enough money to live on for a while is ridiculous.

Re:Well...

[W1BMW]

"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:Well...

[Junta]

I'm sorry, I can't be too sympathetic when they *currently* make $2.75 Million a season. I don't know how long they've been at that rate, but I can guarantee they have each already made more twice than I could ever hope to in my entire life.

However, they are quite possibly on the side of right, as everything is relative. If the executives at FOX pocket millions per episode for themselves, for example, it seems hardly fair that the voice talent is disproportionately paid.

As an aside, anyone know what the artists make with the Simpsons?

Re:Well...

[godzillion]

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?

Sounds a lot like software engineering, except that limited show lifetimes are replaced by high programmer burnout rate. Good thing it's never too late to change one's occupation.

Re:Well...

[Snowspinner]

Lunch Lady Doris's recent appearances, however, have been rather curtailed by her death in 1996. =/

Re:Well...

[Oligonicella]

"executives at FOX"

No. Probably not. Fox itself might, but Fox has overhead the actors don't.

Re:Well...

[rijrunner]

Heck, I make 5-6 times the salary my father pulled down at the factory where he worked from just being a white color worker instead of a blue color one.

It's the nature of the beast. Some jobs pay more. The question here is simple: Are they paid accurately for the value to the show?

In relative terms, Cameron Diaz just got paid $10 *million* for one days work on Shrek 2. And it will gross a fraction of what The Simpsons have pulled in overt the years.

Good voice over talent gets paid about the same as comp science. You're talking about shows and ratings a fraction of what the Simpsons manages.

I know. Let's just outsource this to India rather than pay the people relative to what their market share is.

Re:Well...

[W1BMW]

Yeah, I was on a roll....:)

Apocalypse

[hot_Karls_bad_cavern]

i'm pretty damn sure this is one of the signs!!!

REPENT!!!! The end times are near!!!"

Let's not forget

[solarwolf]

Almost half of that $360,000 is for taxes! So the actors aren't REALLY being greedy - they are obviously just compensating for inflation. Seriously, I think the Simpsons have been done for awhile. I would prefer FOX bring back Futurama, which I feel has much better content. Then again, it hasn't run for 15 seasons.

If they killed Maude Flanders for $1500...

[holden caufield]

Remember the last time there was a dispute over voice talend money? Maude Flanders paid dearly for it.

http://www.snpp.com/other/articles/actordisputes .h tml

And that was over plane tickets...who knows what Fox might do now?

Comic Book Guy

[Advan]

Another strike over money. This is why I lost respect for the MLB. In the words of Comic Book Guy: "Worst...strike...ever..."

Ob Simpsons

[Hogwash McFly]

Homer: You're thinking of all the other years. This year's shows are classic. There's "The Laughter Family" -- that's animated. Networks like animation 'cause they don't have to pay the actors squat!

Ned: [voice slightly off] Plus, they can replace them, and no one can tell the diddley-ifference!

MOD PARENT UP!

[hot_Karls_bad_cavern]

Fox is notorious for doing stupid things like killing good programming and maniac, from-the-hip sensational "journalism".

It really makes you wonder what world the people who call the shots live in.

Must we always take the company line?Re:A thought.

[sharper56]

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.

Slightly on topic

[antizeus]

Harry Shearer has a radio program on either KPFK or KCRW (don't remember which), and it's always a trip to hear Principal Skinner talk about current events not related to Springfield Elementary. He doesn't have to change his voice much for that particular role.

Don't let the door hit you in your ass....

[Rick Zeman]

According to the Hollywood trade paper Variety, the dispute centres on a demand by each of the actors that they be paid $360,000 (194,000) an episode instead of their current $125,000.

The increase would see each of them receive $8m a series. The actors work an average of six to seven hours each per episode.

To hell with them. Outsource their voices to India if they can't get by on a measly $20k/hour--I'm sure plenty of people could do Apu!

Unprofitable?

[phpm0nkey]

Troy McClure: Yes, the Simpsons have come a long way since an old drunk made humans out of his rabbit characters to pay off his gambling debts. Who knows what adventures they'll have between now and the time the show becomes unprofitable?

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 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:Unprofitable?

[Cyno01]

I think the sunday night lineup is the best its been in years, not that its all as great as family guy or simpsons in its heyday, but they're all better than fox's tv for the lowest common denominator of society that they run the 5 other nights a week. Also on that note Arrested Development is one of the funniest shows the be on in years and it certanly has its place on sunday night, but i think Family Guy would do well at the 8:30/7:30 central slot they have a repeat simpsons in now.

Re:Unprofitable?

[lysium]

I think their viewers are ready for the kind of edgy, creative humor that The Simpsons just hasn't provided in years.

If by edgy you mean sophomoric? Cleverness is diminished when you constantly reach for the lowest common denominator. The Simpsons gets bad whenever its writers think that way, too. Family Guy is on Adult Swim because it simply does not have a wide appeal; subtle humor, like polite conversation, is a much better way to make a point.

===---===

Re:Unprofitable?

[mhifoe]

I have to disagree.

In the UK Family Guy is shown during the day.
This means it is heavily edited to make it suitable for showing at this time. Scenes end abruptly and jokes have important bits missing, making the episodes seems less coherent.

That's why I bought the DVD's. The episodes make much more sense (comparatively speaking) without huge chunks missing.

Re:Unprofitable?

[Agent Green]

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but holding up Family Guy to The Simpsons is not an equal comparison.

The magic of The Simpsons is that in it, there's at least one character in the series that someone can relate to. For me, it's Homer. For my wife, it's Lisa. I think Family Guy is a bit more of a dysfunctional family that doesn't appeal to such a wide crowd. FG just doesn't have appeal across more than one generation. Friends also has a similar narrow audience. My parents and grandparents watch The Simpsons.

The reason Family Guy's DVD sales boom is because its syndication is limited, whereas I get three episodes of the Simpsons every weekday on my TiVo. If the Simpsons were to suddenly go off the air, I'd run out and load up.

Changing voice actors is like changing the lead singer of a band...and more often than not, it just doesn't work out...though some success may be limited: Van Halen, Motley Crue, Savatage, Iron Maiden...I'm sure the readership can come up with others. Sound is a tricky thing that just can't be replaced on a whim.

Fox should take a lesson from the X-Files on this one. While I liked all 7 seasons, there was something missing when they tried to replace Duchovny's Fox Mulder. I'm glad they didn't go on to an eighth season. If a compromise can't be reached, then the show should just be allowed to die...especially since it's going to take a lot more than 6 actors to effectively do all the voices in the cast.

I've seen mentions of Futurama brought up in this series of comments. Fox killed off Futurama because it could get more ratings with another show...not for the lack of Futurama fans out there. Nothing for nothing, but Simpsons is the only wholesome family show on Fox that doesn't get stale. Granted, some episodes run flat, but overall, I find it enjoyable...especially since the writing keeps the character development limited from episode to episode...something you can't do in a live-action sitcom.

Re:Unprofitable?

[plasm4]

except they did go on to an eighth season. Then they did a ninth season. There were actually some great episodes in those two seasons. Check it out.

Re:Unprofitable?

[elpapacito]

Well if you consider the number of countries in which Simpsons are aired (all the rich western countries at least) , the hefty check that surely is demanded for each episode airing rights (which probably includes some re-airing rights as well), the sizable number of episodes that can be resold for a number of years ...the fact that advertisers probably pay premium for being aired near Simpsons...

basically Simpsons is a goldmine

Apparently the voices are now getting $125k per episode, which of course is already an hell a lot of money for the majority of the population, but their request of $360k is just a negotiation request that will probably be reduce to around somewhere between $200-250k. If I was in their position I'd try getting some more from Murdoch rich coffers.

What is laughable is not that they're asking $$ for working, the laughable fact is that such request could be met and all this money is around a cartoon, even a successful one.

I mean Jesus all this kind of money around a cartoon and still no cure for diseases ? What a fucked up system.

Re:Unprofitable?

[Scudsucker]

Fox killed off Futurama because it could get more ratings with another show...

Its kind of hard to build an audience when your timeslot keeps getting changed around and you keep getting pre-empted. My theory is that FOX couldn't care less about building long running successful series like the Simpsons or X-Files, when they can just do reality TV, which can be as profitable and is CHEAP to produce.

Re:Unprofitable?

[Feanturi]

Fox should take a lesson from the X-Files on this one. While I liked all 7 seasons, there was something missing when they tried to replace Duchovny's Fox Mulder. I'm glad they didn't go on to an eighth season.

To me, the 'something' missing when Mulder left WAS the X-Files. No Mulder, no X-Files. Had there been an 8th season, I wouldn't have watched that either.

Re:Unprofitable?

[Herkum01]

It's time for FOX to take a chance,

THATS RIGHT! It is about time that Fox take a chance and finally announces a new hit series, "When [_____] Attack!"

[ ] Bears
[ ] Wild Animals
[ ] Criminals
[ ] Police
[ ] Naked Women
[ ] Politicians
[ ] Tonya Harding

It will good to finally get some quality television again!

Pull the plug on the series

[advocate_one]

and milk the syndication for ever... with all those episodes already in the can then there's no need to keep making them... The Beeb did it to the tellytubbies...

Re:Pull the plug on the series

[N0decam]

Yeah, but unlike most Tellytubbies viewers, Simpson's viewers are capable of speaking complete words, and might say "Hey!" if they've seen that one a thousand times before.

Plus, no sane person will watch the Tellytubbies consistently for more than a few years before they grow out of being amused by the phrase "Again!" The Simpson's has kept people interested for well over a decade.

They should let the show die...

[Hogwash McFly]

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'?

Re:They should let the show die...

[EulerX07]

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.

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:They should let the show die...

[moonsammy]

How about a spin-off? Not likely any of those they used in the spin-off episode (though Wiggum P.I. wouldn't be too bad), but they have strong enough minor characters to come up with something. Maybe Moe's ala Cheers? Or Shatner's Angels - the three nerds go on missions dictated to them by their commander, William Shatner (hell, he could play himself - Comic Book Guy might suffice if the Shat is busy). If you just had to follow the spinoff cliche of having occasional characters from the original series Homer could easily fit into scripts for either.
I can't help but wonder if the Simpsons actors are trying to kill off the show... I know I'd probably be bored playing the same character(s) for 15+ years!

Re:They should let the show die...

[Tablizer]

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)

Set in India, no doubt.

Seriously, it is not that hard to find voice replacements. A few with good ears might notice the difference, but the vast majority will not. Find maybe 3 people who can do any one voice, and rotate through them. If someone is no longer available/willing, then find a backup for them also to keep 3 ready.

If you rotate them, then people will be less likely to notice specific differences or changes anyhow. Popeye got away with it (although in some of the earlier "episodes" producers had trouble deciding on the kind of voice they wanted.)

Re:They should let the show die...

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:They should let the show die...

[taco8982]

The problem with spin-offs is that many of the minor characters are voiced by the same people who are wanting the pay bump. For instance, Hank Azaria does the voices of Apu, Moe, Chief Wiggum, Carl, Comic Book Guy, Dr. Nick Riviera, Prof. Frink, Cletus and more.

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:They should let the show die...

[Ryan Amos]

Or just let it die gracefully and bring back Futurama. Yes, I'm still bitter.

Re:They should let the show die...

[PsiPsiStar]

So just like the Simpsons... but not the Simpsons.

You can do more with a well developed cast of characters than you can with an undeveloped cast.

Unless you have a major scene change (a la Futurama) I don't exactly see the point of 'the next Simpsons.' Just introduce new characters into the current show. Or if it's going to die, making 'the next Simpsons' isn't going to save it.

Commentary on current events will be funny as long as you have good writers. If the writers fail, sequels won't save the show. It's not the name that makes things funny, after all.

Re:They should let the show die...

[drwiii]

"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)"

It was called Family Guy.

Re:They should let the show die...

[DreadfulGrape]

...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

Umm... there's a difference?

Re:They should let the show die...

[SocietyoftheFist]

I agree with your comments on the future except that it's more of a regular middle not they'd be going out on. The best seasons, imho, were 2-7 and it's been sliding ever since. You can only rely on recycled stories and the pop culture star of the moment guest star so many times. Compare the story development in the earlier episodes to the current ones and there is no comparison. Season 3 was pure genius. Maybe if Conan O'Brien started writing again it would improve.

Re:They should let the show die...

[ImpTech]

Yeah sure, over the last 10 years there have been tons of great episodes. Over the last 3? You get one, maybe two a season. And even those two aren't, as you mention, sideshow bob quality (including the last few sideshow bob episodes, which were dumb). Hell, these days they're reduced to repeating themselves as often as not, and even stealing plot ideas from Family Guy (death, anyone?), which is especially sad considering so much of Family Guy is ripped off the Simpsons to begin with. The show's just marginally watchable these days. I'd be shocked if their ratings aren't slipping horribly already.

Re:They should let the show die...

[Ubernurd]

The vast majority of those who voted believe that the Simpsons has yet to jump the shark.

Re:They should let the show die...

[Hatta]

Nonsense. I've been watching season 3 from beginning to end. Not one episode is as bad as the best episode from season 14, which is the last one I watched. Gave up after that. Would you care to point out a few of these "countless great episodes"?

Re:They should let the show die...

[UserGoogol]

They did switch producers. Blame is usually attributed to Mike Scully (Executive Producer seasons 9-12) and Ian Maxtone-Graham. They have both since left the show, and I persoanlly think that the Simpsons is gradually getting back to a good place again, although different from the classic years of the earlier seasons.

Incidentally, Mike Scully, after leaving the Simpsons, created on the horribly failed series "The Pitts," which might show what sort of stuff he brought to The Simpsons.

Re:They should let the show die...

[Golias]

I agree it has not been as good. But all the lousy episodes were worth putting up with for the single "Frank Grimes" episode. That one was a masterpiece. I still laugh thinking of some of the lines.

Re:They should let the show die...

[Golias]

Blasphemy! The Frank Grimes episode was probably the funniest episode they managed to cobble together in years, and certainly the only funny one of its season.

Re:They should let the show die...

[Golias]

Just for the record, I consider the Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger guest appearance to be the beginning of the end... and Marge & Homer's public nudity fettish episode to be the one where the show finally strapped on the water skis and gave a thumbs-up to the camera on the way to its death-defying-stunt-cliffhanger.

Re:They should let the show die...

[Golias]

How about a spin-off? ... Or Shatner's Angels - the three nerds go on missions dictated to them by their commander, William Shatner

Good Lord! Have you forgotten the unholy abomination against nature which was The Lone Gunmen?

Quirky supporting characters should never get their own show.

Re:They should let the show die...

[moonsammy]

Well, on a show like xfiles where there is a "main plot" that runs through the whole series a spinoff is generally crap, but it isn't like the simpsons has any continuity or great depth to worry about. I think it could be done, but it wouldn't necessarily be easy.

HA! (do one episode at least)

[rocketsled]

It would be hilarious to watch at least one episode with all the voice talent replaced with "distictive" character/voiceover actors all mis-cast into the classic roles.

I see it now Michael Dorn as Homer..

Not the smartest move...

[Channard]

Not just because Fox have cancelled series at the drop of a hat, either. They've also got enough Simpsons episodes to keep them in repeats for years. Sky One shows a new episode on average once every two months. Plus, they had no qualms about dealing with the woman who played Maude Simpsons after she made too many demands. Granted, it's unlikely they'd off the characters - The Flanders Show, anyone - but it shows they're not going to put up with nor do they need to put up with these tactics.

Audio editing, baby!

[FattMattP]

There's so much Simpson's vocals recorded that you could make the entire new season just by editing the appropriate vocal parts of the other seasons together. An experienced and talented editor can make it unnoticable.

Send it to India

[Easy2RememberNick]

Why don't they just just get actors in India to do the voices? Everything else is going over there. They have Bollywood too so they have the facilities to do voice-overs.

Re:Send it to India

[BobWeiner]

Imagine all the people in India casting for Apu. I think it'd be hilarious to see an 'outsourcing voice talent' episode. Bring it on, baby!

Timeline?

[dancingmad]

"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 you mean 6 and a half seasons of the greatest prime-time TV around?

Or as we lovingly refer to it, the Pax Simpsona.

Perspective

[igrp]

You make a good point.

$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:Perspective

[PantyChewer]

Voice actors are different than normal actors though. They don't have to keep in shape or worry about their looks since they aren't seen. They don't even have to memorize their lines, because they read the damn script. All they have to do is show up and read out loud for a few hours and they are saying $125,000 isn't enough for that. Seems like greed to me.

Re:Perspective

[The_Steel_General]

Hmmm...My understanding was that this sort of money-losing deal was on the production side (Warner Brothers) not the broadcaster (NBC). The production company owns the characters, the episodes, rights to duplicate in other media, etc. (That might not be the company that actually, technically, produced it: Film Roman produces The Simpsons episodes, but Fox owns everything, AFAIK.)

The broadcaster has exclusive rights to broadcast new episodes for as long as it wishes to purchase those rights. It does that until it determines that the cost is greater than the money it will earn back. (As noted elsewhere, this is primarily advertising revenue, but there can be strategic benefits e.g. by having a strong series to anchor Sunday or Thursday nights.) Once the broadcaster doesn't want the series any more, the production company can either stop production (as usually happens) or sell new episodes to a different broadcaster (as with Buffy and B5).

Through all this, the production company may not be making any money, and may in fact be losing it. Again, that's NOT the broadcaster that loses out -- they get as much as they can manage from advertising. It's also not the writers, actors, production staff, or company executives -- they get paid as required by their contracts. (This is what is being renegotiated by the Simpons voice talent.) The company may go millions of dollars in the hole, however, over the course of the initial broadcast run.

Once there are enough episodes, though, the production company can syndicate the series. Generally, "Enough" is 100 episodes (about five seasons), which is one reason why series usually make a big deal about that milestone. (Exceptions exist, of course: Star Trek (TOS) had only three seasons produced, but it was, no kidding, extremely successful in syndication.) ALL of this money goes to the producers of the series. DVDs, merchandising, movie rights, Saturday Morning cartoons - all this belongs to the producers. The more episodes there are, the more the producers can sell, and the more money they get. Whatever syndication earns, it's enough for this sort of deficit financing to be worth the risk.

Since Warner Brothers and NBC are owned by separate media conglomerates (Time Warner and GE, respectively) I don't believe that NBC is losing money on Friends in order to recoup on syndication, since I doubt they see any of that. They do seem to be concerned about losing Must See TV Thursdays, since there has been no mention of what will be the new 8:00 anchor there. (Can you believe that NBC has dominated the same night for TWENTY YEARS?) But I'm willing to be educated.

The Simpsons are owned and broadcast by the same company, which changes the dynamic a bit. The production side and the broadcast side will have different views on what they're willing to pay, and there is probably some form of financial chicanery^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hoversight to ensure that News Corp's profit is maximized. (For example, there is no reason to stop production as long as Fox Network breaks even on broadcasts, since syndication turns new episodes into free money.) But I, too, agree that Cartwright and all should push for as much as they can get.

TSG

Bet they get off-shored ....

[Jack Auf]

to india. Hmmm, Homer seems to have a slight Delhi accent now.

You have to be joking

[mao che minh]

"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"

For $125,000 a day, 22 days a year, I'll take my chances.

I live and work in Virginia. In my 24 years I have a attained computer science degree, attended various degrees of training in Windows 2003, HP-UX, Cisco network design and security, earned about 8 certifications, and I managed a business (a restraunt) when I was 18-19. I barely make $70,000 a year when all is said and done. These bastards talk into a microphone for $125,000 a day. Why the hell should I feel sorry for them?

napo...

[katanan]

nah...simpsons comes off as pretty lacking these days sad, i loved it around seasons 3-8 but alas, family guys and southpark have proven much more robust

Re:Must we always take the company line?Re:A thoug

[Jim Starx]

I think voice talent getting half of the profits is a bit unfair. There are writers, producers, artists, all of which deserve a piece of that pie in addition to the fact that fox needs to show signifigant profit for it to be worth promoting. Voice talent in a cartoon is signifigantly less of a contribution to the final product then say acting on a TV series. That's just based on your numbers though. Often the publically released numbers can be somewhat misleading as to the actuall size and direction of cashflow. I would have to see more numbers before I decided if I really thought this was unfair or not.

Re:"Open source" voices

[HimajinX]

Would it be just nice to find a repository of voice "donors" that would do the job for free?

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?

Now what I want to know is...

[kingrat]

...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?

I hate that argument

[Kjella]

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?

Every time that argument comes up, it sounds like they're going to be 100% invalid after that decade. Same argument goes for vastly overpaid sports stars and such.

When their own career is over, they end up as coaches, sports commentators, journalists, workiing for the club and whatnot. And if not, they seem to get quite alright, normal jobs making a good living.

If it was a choice between getting a pay raise and donate to charity, it'd be greed. The only question I think is worth asking is if it's better than the alternative. Is the greed of the TV network and their shareholders any less, would then be any better spent there? No. So then it's ok.

Kjella

Re:What are these actors thinking?

[Hogwash McFly]

I need that new diamond encrusted cutlery set.

Yacht Plan!

I need that new diamond encrusted cutlery set.

Yacht Plan!

I need that new diamond encrusted cutlery set.

Yacht Plan! ...

(btw I did get the original reference, worthy of a +5 funny if you ask me)

Re:Must we always take the company line?Re:A thoug

[Dun Malg]

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.

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:Must we always take the company line?Re:A thoug

[amembleton]

On top of that you need to take into account merchandise and the sale of 'The Simpsons' around the world.

Am I the only one here...

[ninjadroid]

...who doesn't even own a TV? While puzzling over whether rich actors demanding more money from their richer bosses is "right" or "wrong" might be interesting to the budding moral philosopher (read: wankster), I can't bring myself to care. TV == shit. All other opinions are false. My fair and balanced assessment of the situation is clearly spot-on, don't bother to dispute it.

Re:"Open source" voices

[bigredmed]

I thought this way too. Until my son became a recording engineer and spent an afternoon with the phone lady recording numbers. They spent 2 hours on 2 numbers. The numbers had to be the right volume, right pitch, right inflection, and the correct number of miliseconds in order for the information system to sound right.

Most voice talent earn their money. The Simpsons cast are more than adequately paid and as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the show is starting to fail. Its a bad time to get demanding. Its also a bad time for fans. Usually the arc of a show is failing and the first clear sign is when the talent makes these kind of demands. They know their show is sinking and they are trying to scoop it up with both hands while they can.

Time to switch animation addiction to "This Just In".

What the fuvk?

[Snaller]

The link in the article is to Googles news section, and the first link there is back to slashdot!

*grumble*

Capitalism is all about greed.

[Snaller]

They want $US360,000 pr episode! And the people making it could probably pay that because they are also greedy fucks. Damn, its a rotten world.

And I dont watch the Simpsons.

Harry Shearer Interview Quote

[BlightThePower]

March 2004 (on working for Rupert Murdoch) in Empire Magazine:

"He's got people trying to out-Rupert him all the way down the line and their public disrespect for talent is pretty palpable. I mean, there was a Fox execuitve - name available on request - who said to The New Yorker 'We can get people off any high school campus in the country to do these voices'".

Seems like its been on the cards for some time.

Jonathan Green....

[Hogwash McFly]

...is that you?

Interesting timing...

[ndogg]

Nancy Cartwright is coming to my college next week. Hopefully I'll be able to ask her about this.

Where else would the money go?

[satsujin]

So, let's say Fox makes $5 million per episode, gross. After they've paid everyone, there's say, $2 million left. Who does that go to? Usually as bonuses to the executives, who, in most cases, are already making more than the Simpsons voice talent group. So, if the money is there anyway, I'd rather see it go to the actual talent, rather than some souless suits in LA. Face it, the additional profit isn't going to feed the poor or build new schools..

Re:Where else would the money go?

[DisKurzion]

Agreed. In fact, giving the voice actors more money will probably result in more charitable donations than giving it back to execs.

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:Where else would the money go?

[neurojab]

>you could have the greatest plot in the world, but if your actors suck, your movie will suck

The converse is also true

you could have the greatest actors in the world, but if your writing sucks, your movie will suck.

I think this is what causes 70-80% of movies and TV out there unwatchable, and why I have a hard time watching the Simpsons today. I'd argue that good writing is MUCH harder to come by than good acting, or there might be a couple of shows still worth watching on TV.

Does anyone find it odd that

[gotr00t]

The linked article is to google news, and that the first link on there is to this article on /. ?

"Simpsons Actors on Strike
Slashdot - 1 hour ago
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 ... "

Fox shits on good shows

[bangular]

I swear, Fox doesn't know good shows if they spanked 'em on their asses. Fox constantly pre-empts the Simpsons for all kinds of crap. It's gotten to the point where only about 1/2 of the time I turn to Fox on a Sunday night a 8 I'm actually going to see the Simpsons. Yet the midget wedding show was right on time; and all their other wedding crap shows right on time. If Fox doesn't want the simpsons, they should sell it. From the way they treat it, it would seem they don't want it.

Well...

[File Tree]

"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. 6.5hrs * roughly 22 episodes = ~143hrs per year 143hrs/24hrs= ~6 days $125,000 * 22 episodes/year = $2,750,000/year "If you don't like your job, you don't strike. You just go in every day and do it really half-assed. That's the American way." This does not apply. How could these actors do their job half-assed? Not make their voices goofy enough, misread their script, they could always start showing up to work late! These actors have ~359 days out of the year to pursue other ventures. They also have a great deal of capital for investment. After all, the money is only as good as the hands it is in. Inversely, the its not the money that matters, its who you become while making the money. I wonder how many hours of work Rupert Murdoch had to do / does each year to earn his salary... -J

Only affects English-speaking nations

[floorten]

Don't forget this only affects the English dubs of the show. Fox could go on making the show for all the other countries which have their own native-speaking alternatives. Simpsons can be seen in almost every country in the world!
For the English market, some accurate mimics would be quite good enough. They all sounded different in the early series anyway!

Notice the Date?

[Shaper of Myths]

Are we sure this isn't a hoax? Most of the Google News links point to the story on the 1st...

This story is utterly baseless

[agrippa_cash]

My understanding is that the castmembers do want more money, but I spoke with a friend of mine who has a peripheral association with the Simpsons and he informed me that the actors have not missed any table readings or tapings. Therefore this is not a strike, period.

Additionally he said that the reports that one of the castmembers had inked a separate deal were also untrue, and in his opinion designed to cause dissention among the cast. He believes that FOX is dropping the story to preemptively determine how much fan leverage the cast muster. Of course a castmember could have leaked the story for the same reason.

Consider both sides

[mst76]

Many people have posted that the Simpsons made Fox gazillions per year, so it's only fair that they get a share of the pie. That the Simpsons essentially saved Fox and that they were (at least partially) responsible for that. But also consider that Fox and the Simpsons are what made them stars in the first place. If the other posters are right, they would have made at least $10M in the last five years. If they didn't make too many stupid decisions, they can retire anytime they like. Where would they have been without Fox and the Simpsons?

"The Simpsons" outsourced

[kalimotxo]

I'm not as traumatized by the prospect of a Simpson-less world but it is interesting to see the various reactions to the labor issues and the attitudes they reflect. Some of the animation is already source to a Korean company and this discussion Another (bad) Analogy for Outsourcing uses it to fuel some contstrutive thinking...

But for fun, let's pretend that the voices can be outsourced and while you formulate your analagous retort enjoy this spoof.

'The Next Simpsons'

[efextra]

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

Singhsons

Did Homer hack Slashdot?

[Mobster]

This seems like something Homer would post. I was doing some show prep for my show this afternoon and click on the link for this story on Google News. When I clicked on the link for this story here on /. it took me back to Google News.

D'oh!!!

Let me ask you a question

[Syncdata]

Ten years from now, when the show is over, and FOX is selling DVD's, animation cells, hell, not ten years from now, now, how much of that does Dan Castellaneta get? I'm guessing anywhere from a middling ammount to squat.
The success of the simpsons is mainly based on Cartwright, Castellaneta, Yeardly Smith, and the late great Phil Hartmann. The writers, and the actors kept the show afloat till it took off in the third/fourth season.
The writers can't grandstand, because they can be replaced, and noone will know. Try replacing homer with another voice actor. It would kill the show.
This speaks to the same "Why should baseball players get paid so much when teachers don't?" question. They get paid so much, because they create even more wealth. So Pity the common man, but don't begrudge these guys their payday. They earned it.

Re:Let me ask you a question

[StillAnonymous]

"This speaks to the same "Why should baseball players get paid so much when teachers don't?" question. They get paid so much, because they create even more wealth."

This is such misguided horseshit and the reason it continues to occur is because so many people fall prey to it, like you did.

How the hell can you put a dollar value on the outcome of a child's education and upbringing? You can't. Teachers are with children for close to half of their pre-adult years and as such are responsible for a good portion of their upbringing. However, teachers are treated like shit by the kids, accused of everything under the sun by the parents, paid like crap, and can lose their career in an instant should some slanderous allegation ever be cast upon them. But someone who plays baseball deserves tens of millions of dollars per season simply because the companies can jack ballpark, food, and merchandise rates astronomically high? What kind of backward-ass society do we live in?

The worst thing about this situation is the people who just accept it, never question it, and in fact perpetuate it.

Re:Let me ask you a question

[cehbab]

You can take away the actors, the entertainment and the sports men and women and the world keeps on revolving.. Take away our teachers and society crumbles into disarray.. Which do YOU think is more worthwhile, and who truely deserves to be rewarded within society..

Re:Must we always take the company line?Re:A thoug

[randomwalker]

This type of analysis is a bit misleading. The financial viability of a show needs to look at more factors.

The primary consideration that network will be thinking about is not the fair disribution of gross money to those involved, but whether a show makes more profit than the other choices it has.

There are a lot of costs associated with making any tv show (cartoon or not), each show has massive staff, and there are distribution costs, infrastructure costs, advertising costs, and so on. Likewise the value of a show is a very subjective things, which includes intangibles such as the effects on other shows, rerun revenues, etc.

If the total costs of a show become too high so that other shows will make more profit, then it is the end of that show.
There is no way for use a few simple numbers (like advertising rates) to tell how profitable a show is. The actors can ask for as much as they like, but fox will be looking at ROI. Simpsons is not the only show that can make money.

April Fool's Day

[SabrStryk]

This really feels like an April Fool's joke out of hand. Why? First, Fox knows that they can't change the actors. That'll just piss off the fans more than they usually are. Second, as a corrolary to the first, Fox just cancels shows instead of fixing them. It's the NewsCorp way! Third, this story first appeared in the April 1 edition of Variety.

Always check your sources first.

heh

[silicon1]

this comic represents the simpsons last few seasons of the simpsons: http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20021213l. gif

If you're in a cult...

[Kjella]

...you're not in a cult. So whatever they're poking fun at with cults, it's not you nor your religious companions. It's those wacky cults, see? Because your own is neither a fraud, nor a cult. Really it isn't.

It's the one and only true path to God, happiness and enlightenment. It is the Truth, and they ridicule those that have not "seen the Light", whether normal people or followers of a false cult.

Ever notice how the arguments often go that
a) They're sorry for you, because you haven't found the truth.
b) They lay it out as if ateism is a religion too, without facts.
c) That you're somehow a fool for not realizing the obvious truth.
d) God simply is, even if you choose to deny him or not.
e) Without God there is no meaning, he is hope and salvation
f) When you grow up or come in a crisis, you will find the truth.
g) Last resort: You'll be burning in hell, I'm sorry for you.

I think a Scientologist will look at that history and laugh at it. Probably just as much or more so than normal people over these fools, and how it is obviously false. And all the other fools in false cults and religions around the world that have failed to realize the Truth(TM).

Kjella

Or they could let it keep living

[mixtape5]

Why let it die? They have the ability to keep it going. It would be stupid to end it now just because they dont want to pay the actors more. There doesn't always need to be new ideas, just putting a twist on the old episode ideas can do the same thing. If FOX were to make a new show "mirroring" the simpons like you suggested they would most certainly have to use some of the ideas that the simpsons have already used. Why not stick with a show and cast that is already hugely popular? If not they would be back at square one and might not see "Simpsons" size profits for quite a while into the "new" series.

Time to wind up the series.

[The Sith Lord]

I'm probably one of the biggest simpsons fans out there, but I honestly believe that they've been floggins a dead horse the past few series.
The show has been going downhill since about series 10. They had a good run from series 3 to 10, but recently, the jokes have been forced, the character's have changed, the plots have been unoriginal, and more and more "special" guests have been appearing, and not contributing much at all.
To the creators: Let it go, you had a GREAT run! But its time for something else to get the limelight. The Simpsons will never be forgotten, but end the series on a high.

BTW: Futurama in my opinion, is as good as the Simpsons of old, perhaps its time to put more energy there .....

I can't believe those illiterate Brits

[multipartmixed]

..everybody knows it's spelled "Annoyed Grunt".

Re:Jealousy

[plasm4]

it doesn't have anything to do with jealousy, but I suppose its easier for you to think that than to get yourself educated.

to each his own I guess

Good Riddance?

[zubzub]

Personally, I think the death of The Simpsons is long overdue. It *was* a truly wonderful series but in the last couple seasons the writing has been awful and it seems like they're just producing new shows to milk the success of previous seasons. It's a sad death, but good riddance.

Don't give it to 'em

[Enrico Pulatzo]

Here's why: the Simpsons makes a crapload of money for Fox, no question. How many other shows do though? Fox needs to make an exorbitant amount of money from the Simpsons to make up for other financial blunders that they have put on the air. If this raise happens, the executives might not take the chance on the next Family Guy or King of the Hill. I think that this is the best reason to deny a pay raise of this caliber, as other shows won't get the green light when Fox doesn't have the money to (potentially) lose on them.

Self Referential

[Flamesplash]

The first link on the google link in the article just points back to this /. article :) Guess googles on top of things.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Friends comparision faulty?

[Ralconte]

Maybe we're missing something here. It has always been the case that voice actors are paid less then other actors. Except for non-speaking parts, or hand models, etc. I think this is enforced by the Screen Actors Guild. If Fox pays the Simpsons voice actors more, would they, and perhaps the entire industry, be forced to pay regular actors even more? Yeah, I'd rather watch a Simpsons rerun than a first run of Friends anyday. But I think factors beyond my interests have set pay scales.

Funny

[kruczkowski]

Funny I was just thinking about that yesterday. I figured that they would have a few guys that could do his voice.

Says Nelson Muntz,

[drwiii]

"__ __!"

Missing Liability

[MyHair]

Forking over $48M to the voice talent may be a high percentage but FOX is still making a killing on it.

I'm all for the workers in any case getting a fair share, but one point I haven't seen in this thread yet (reading at +4, admittedtly) is that Fox has lots of other shows on air and lots more that never made it. Lots of money in entertainment is thrown away on losers or underperformers, so the hits have to carry all the failures with them or the company goes under and the hits never get made.

I'm not picking a side here, just throwing in a factor not mentioned when all the Simpsons' revenue is mentioned.

Ridiculous

[ddelrio]

Voice actors? Come on. My neighbor can do six of those voices. Most everyone on Slashdot can do that Simpsons comic-book guy without even trying.

baloney

[Scudsucker]

The simple fact is that writers, actors, and in this case voice actors are pricing themselves out of the business.

Sure, just like American factory workers are pricing themselves out of the market by refusing to work 60 hours a week for $10 a day.

That is $2.75 million for talking into a microphone. Is that honestly justified in itself?

Why the hell not? How many BILLIONS is Fox likely to make off the show? Would you think it fair if your company made $500 an hour off your work, but only paid you $10 in return?

Re:baloney

[jjafuller]

Sure, just like American factory workers are pricing themselves out of the market by refusing to work 60 hours a week for $10 a day.

Not exactly. Since factory workers are working to make ends meet. The voice actors are just looking to get some iceing on the cake. But, your point is not lost on me.

Why the hell not? How many BILLIONS is Fox likely to make off the show? Would you think it fair if your company made $500 an hour off your work, but only paid you $10 in return?

Again, not exactly the same, but I get your point. I have actually had a situation similiar to this, thought it dealt with bigger number, essentially, my services allowed a company to save 1,000% of my service fee. And, essentially that is the point of capitalism right: gain money by building on the backs of those lower in the food chain?

;)

bullshit

[Scudsucker]

They want to be paid what they are worth. As Fox will make BILLIONS off the Simpsons, just how in the hell is it greedy to want a slice of the pie? Would you like it if your company made $1000 an hour off your work but only paid you $10 in return, for a job only you could do?

Re:Must we always take the company line?Re:A thoug

[kerrbear]

There are re-runs and endless syndication. They're making a hell of a lot more than $77M a year off the show.

Yes, and don't forget license royalties for all the commerical product tie-ins and all the Simpson merchandise (like the "mmm, beer" bottle opener). It's much more than just a show.

Re:FOX will follow IT industry...

[wavedeform]

Great animation.

Why pay for expensive white american voice actors?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you can get your pick of hundreds and hundreds of superior Indian voice actors for 3 dollars an hour?

How can you compete with that, Simpsons? Your jobs are over.
ha ha ha

My 2

[LooseChanj]

I believe you should cancel a show when you have enough episodes for an all $FOO network.

The Simpons hasn't been funny for years now.

[OwP_Fabricated]

It's amazing how much in denial most of the people here are about how utterly unfunny the Simpsons are now.

Can we please put this nigh-legendary series to bed and find something better before even the diehards start saying it sucks?

Re:The Simpons hasn't been funny for years now.

[josh glaser]

I think it's funny, and I'm certainly not a die-hard fan. In fact, I'm quite the opposite - I've only seen a few episodes to date (although I plan on trying to watch it more). They have all been recent episodes, and I thought they were funny. Maybe they do shadow in comparison to the first seasons...I wouldn't know (unless I buy the DVD sets, which I might). But it's still a funny show, even if it doesn't live up to its apparently legendary beginnings.

Re:The Simpons hasn't been funny for years now.

[Tantrum420]

It's amazing how much in agreement most of the people here are about how utterly unfunny the Simpsons are now.

It's a cartoon.... On TV... On FOX, even...

It's been 15 years. What did you expect, really?

Besides, what else on TV these days is even close to the Simpsons?

Next, people are going to start saying the new Star Wars Series sucks because they're aimed at kids.

Oh, Wait...

Don't you people have any books to read or something?

T

BTW... Get your Simpsons here.

I did.

"Worst Article discussion... Ev-ar!"

Seems pretty funny

[Aexia]

looking at the responses.

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!"

Re:Seems pretty funny

[Golias]

How is this any different than if they were an enourmously succesful rock band?

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:Seems pretty funny

[TaoJones]

Old Alfred was right, actors are cattle.

To clarify a frequent misquote (in his own words no less):

"I didn't say actors are cattle. What I said was, actors should be treated like cattle."
Alfred Hitchcock

More Cocky quotes. In a way it's a shame Cocky will be remembered as a cinematographical genius in the horror genre, and not as a comedic smartass who made scary movies.

Twain, Dahl, Hitchcock, Bierce - what is serious and what is farce?

Talk about...

BaDaBoom boom

Talk about...

Appy-polly-loggies to M on that one :)

Voice actors have lives too

[jesterzog]

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.

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.

April Fools?

[snevig]

Fark ran this on April 1st and I thought it was a joke. Joke's on me I guess; and you too... must be nice to make $125,000 per day. Of course the 200% raise they actors are looking for would be even nicer :P

International income....

[grahamsz]

I've never been to a country where I haven't seen the Simpsons advertised on TV (at least in countries where i could read tv listings).

It's pretty huge in the UK and we probably get somewhere between 4 and 10 episodes per day, every day...

I'm sure fox collects on all of those as well.

Question

[AvantLegion]

How much money does the average Simpsons episode "make"?

Jim Henson

[Mateito]

> You can't get rid of the voice actors without
> killing a part of your show.

Kermit lives, and Jim Henson has been dead for years.

There is enough material that the Simpsons' characters are wells known, and it wouldn't be that hard to find impersonators to replace the voices.

But, spot on, the publicity would do unreconcilable damage to the series and the Simpsons mark.

If nothing else, they could keep flogging the dubbed versions overseas where the voice actors don't mean squat. On that point... how much of the money that Fox is making off the Simpsons is from the English speaking market? I'm guessing still the lions share, but I don't know for sure.

Re:Jim Henson

[tabacco]

...if you call Pizza Hut and Dennys commercials living.

Friends actors

[harmonica]

On Friends it was a million an episode, and I don't think the Friends crew ever wrote for the episode.

There is a lot of changing of the script on the set of Friends and other sitcoms while they're taping it in front of the live audience (taping takes a couple of hours for a 22 min. episode because of all the breaks). Some gags just don't work. Then a bunch of writers are there to make suggestions to improve the particular scene. It seems that quite a few good ideas come from the cast itself, too. So, they do contribute to the script. But usually it's nothing major. David Schwimmer (and maybe others?) have also directed the occasional episode.

Obviously a million bucks is a lot of money. But somebody pays it voluntarily, so I don't see a problem.

Re:Friends actors

[harmonica]

But regardless, it's never voluntary - none of us has a choice to reject the drain on the economy that the advertising industry (and all that it finances) represents.

If you feel that way, don't buy products that are advertised while Friends is running. Or advertised elsewhere.

I'm not from the US, but here we have discounters that do not advertise and are very popular because they have good prices.

If some company does a lot of advertising and can finance it from their overpriced goods and services - fine. I can choose not to participate.

Re:Must we always take the company line?Re:A thoug

[ConceptJunkie]

Don't forget merchandizing, which probably doubles the revenue from ads.

"The Simpsons Hit and Run" was an awesome game and probably made a bundle, and there have been many video games (of varying quality) over the years. Then there's T-shirts, toys, books, Krusty Brand Eyewash... the list is enormous.

They probably made more than the government-financed PBS made on Barney in his heyday, and they aren't even on the government dole.

Look at their per hour earnings...

[El Camino SS]

Those poor bastards-

Today, people said that they worked an average of eight hours to get a half hour episode done.

Well when they make 125k an episode, that only comes out to a measely $15,625 per hour.

What they are asking for? 194k per episode.

That comes down to a pitiful $24,250 per hour.

Think about the extra overtime! That is really going to run ya at time and a half!

Out of Touch

[DarrylKegger]

Awww the poor little starving voice actors. What shall we doooo?! Should they get a) megabucks per show or b) megabucks per show. Why the hell is this being posited like some kind of fricking moral dilemma? Are they greedy, is FOX greedy, is greed bad/good, how does this relate to every special little \. ethical philosphers view of the business world? oooo? Discussing which of the two has the moral high-ground when the parties involved are infintely more powerful than the great majority of \.ers is a scenario both absurd and depressing. Anyone concerned that this may spell the end for the simpsons need not worry. It is well within the interests of both the network and the actors to keep churning out the drivel that the last few seasons have been.

Re:Must we always take the company line?Re:A thoug

[Cylix]

Don't forget syndication sales.

I've seen King Of The Hill in syndication, but I'm not sure if the simpsons has gone onto this particular venue.

Syndication is where a great deal of popular shows actually make real money. Money doesn't stop flowing just because the show is finished its run.

Exactly

[egarland]

The voice actors are not the tallent that keeps the Simpson's going. The writers are. Homer isn't funny because Dan Castellaneta does his voice, he's funny because of what the writers and cartoonists make him do. The only reason he's making $150k per episode rather than $1k is because his replacement would be noticeable to the viewers. Writers are underpaid and undervalued because their replacement, whil it may severely impact the quality of the show, is not immediatly noticeable by the general public. If fox had voice manipulations software in there that make it so anyone could do the voice acting, suddenly what Dan Castellaneta does wouldn't be worth much. It's because he has a virtual monopoly over that work that he makes so much for it.

I agree he should be well compensated but what he get's is more than enough. They are just being greedy.

There's too much money in entertainment these days. Actors, Professional Atheletes, Recording Artists, they all seem to make obscene ammounts of money. This stuff shouldn't be this profitable. What happened to the starving artist?. Why is simple entertainment getting so much more expensive when it's production and delivery is getting cheaper every day?

Residuals?

[silentbozo]

Does anyone know what the residuals level (if any) is for the voice actors on The Simpsons? I'm just curious as to how much all those re-runs are worth to them on a yearly basis, apart from the per-episode payments.

It's ok to replace the actors?

[jdan]

How can any of you slashdotters say that it is ok to replace the Simpsons actors with other voices that sound the same and are cheaper but then complain endlessly that you job was outsourced or sent offshore to someone else that is cheaper but has almost the same quality?

--jdan

Reality adjusts to your perception of it.

Economic ignoramus

[ChrisMaple]

As long as an employer can make a net profit on an employee, that's fine. He has no obligation to pay whatever the employee wants. There must be hundreds of people who can imitate the character voices and who would be willing to work for a fraction of what the present people do. It is the employer's responsibility to make as much money as he honestly can.

Anti-capitalist?

[bonch]

The rants around here strike of anti-capitalism. It's somehow bad for people in a business deal to demand a fair share of something making more money?

If you're ever the voice actor of a show that EXPLODES in popularity for the next 17 years and makes the channel millions of dollars, I'd sure like to see if you don't demand a fair share as well. But for some reason some people around here expect actors to make the same amount of money for 17 years no matter how many millions are going to Fox...

Maude

[bonch]

You can't get rid of the voice actors without killing a part of your show.

Hence the death of Maude Flanders because Fox wouldn't even pay the actress's travel expenses when she decided she shouldn't be paying for it in order to come to work on a show making Fox millions.

Arrested Development

[kaltkalt]

Exactly. The best show they've had since Family Guy is certainly "Arrested Development" and they keep sticking it on at different times, randomly pre-empting it with "Bernie Mac" and stupid shit like that. Chances are it won't be renewed for another season, despite being a brilliant, hilarious show.

Pies

[pipingguy]

My question, which you answered with four more questions, was whether they deserved the piece of the pie they demanded

Floorpie, or the pie that was chosen because they are easier to draw than ice cream cones?

"I, for one,...

[Chris Tucker]

...welcome our newly overpaid voice actors!"

The Wonder of Google

[slaad]

This is great. I follow the link which brings me to a goole search. I then go to the top ranked site it found, slashdot, and once I get there I follow the link to...

Have you gotten a raise?

[Skrape]

People attend college to get a degree, to get a better job, to make more money, etc. The point is that people are paid for what they are WORTH ... or should be at any rate.

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 ... but who am I to judge, I would probably want more too.

Why using Google News is a bad idea

[robolemon]

I think that Google News shouldn't be used as the only story link because after the story gets old and rotates out of Google News after two or so weeks, then the old Slashdot post will not link to any stories and the archives will lose some value.

Just a thought