Simpsons Actors on Strike

quote by matt4077 · 2004-04-03 03:18 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Re:quote by bluelantern · 2004-04-03 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by matt4077 · 2004-04-03 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

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).

--
Fleur de Sel
Re:quote by Golias · 2004-04-03 07:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:quote by Wateshay · 2004-04-03 07:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

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).

--

"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
Re:quote by God!+Awful+2 · 2004-04-03 10:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
/. users can't

Don't die by chris-johnson · 2004-04-03 03:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--

<wik>/bin/finger that girl in the back row of machines.

Re:Don't die by zerv · 2004-04-03 03:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

There may still be hope for the family guy.
Re:Don't die by Omega1045 · 2004-04-03 03:46 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
Re:Don't die by chimpo13 · 2004-04-03 04:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
Re:Don't die by chimpo13 · 2004-04-03 04:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
Re:Don't die by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-03 05:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

A thought. by Liselle · 2004-04-03 03:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

Dan Castellaneta is the voice of Homer but he is clearly no mug. Along with his five colleagues he believes the $125,000 he earns for each 30-minute episode does not reflect the true value of the characters.
The six core cast members are now demanding $360,000 (194,000) an episode or $8 million (4.3 million) for a 22-episode season, according to insiders.

*gag*

--
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."

Re:A thought. by (eternal_software) · 2004-04-03 03:28 · Score: 5, Informative

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. by GoofyBoy · 2004-04-03 03:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

>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"?

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:A thought. by Liselle · 2004-04-03 03:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

Is it greed because its a large absolute dollar value or becuase its a large dollar value compaired to what the producers/network make from the Simpsons?
That's a fair question. But if the writers of the Simpsons all went on strike (and let's face it, the writing is the heart and soul a comedy like the Simpsons), you can replace writers. You can't get rid of the voice actors without killing a part of your show. I can't shake the feeling that these people are getting paid a lot solely because they are associated directly with the characters, not because voice talent is hard to come by.

It's not greedy to ask more money if you deserve it. My question, which you answered with four more questions, was whether they deserved the piece of the pie they demanded, or whether they were just using the celebrity of the characters they played to blackmail Fox (note: this is not to suggest Fox is not evil).

--
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
Re:A thought. by MalachiConstant · 2004-04-03 03:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

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. by Richard_at_work · 2004-04-03 04:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
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. by Uruk · 2004-04-03 06:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx

New talent? by aidanjpadden · 2004-04-03 03:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

Re:New talent? by AGTiny · 2004-04-03 03:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

ob Homer quote by GillBates0 · 2004-04-03 03:20 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

--
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam

ObSimpsons quote by Gildor · 2004-04-03 03:21 · Score: 5, Funny

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...

Simpson's are worth it. by pholower · 2004-04-03 03:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
-- johntracy.com, because everybody else is wrong.

Dough! by brejc8 · 2004-04-03 03:26 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego

The Actors by cablepokerface · 2004-04-03 03:27 · Score: 5, Informative

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:could the fans help by Hamhock · 2004-04-03 03:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Two Minus Three Equals Negative Fun -Troy McClure

Unpublished letter from Fox by JoeBaldwin · 2004-04-03 03:31 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
I'm amazing. You aren't. SUCK IT

If they killed Maude Flanders for $1500... by holden+caufield · 2004-04-03 03:37 · Score: 5, Informative

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?

--
I'll create an amusing sig when I have something meaningful to post.

Must we always take the company line?Re:A thought. by sharper56 · 2004-04-03 03:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

Unprofitable? by phpm0nkey · 2004-04-03 03:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
domain combinatorics

They should let the show die... by Hogwash+McFly · 2004-04-03 03:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

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

--
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?

Re:They should let the show die... by EulerX07 · 2004-04-03 05:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

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... by squiggleslash · 2004-04-03 05:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

In all honesty, just over three years ago I was watching every new episode, and enjoyed pretty much every one, and genuinely looked forward to every show. Then they must have switched producer or something because the shows since took on an entirely different tone and were just not funny. They were "crude" (not Family Guy crude, more Mad TV crude - every joke was bored and lifeless. The stories didn't hang together. Insightful observations were replaced with crude political stereotypes - what the hell happened to Lisa? She used to be a bright kid who happened to have humanistic beliefs as a result of her thoughtfulness, now she is just a mindless follower of "left wing" fads)
It's more obvious during the re-runs (Fox here shows them at 6pm) - if the episodes are recent, they suck. If they're not, they're generally pretty good.
It's jumped the shark. It has potential - SNL has made enough come-backs to prove it's possible, but they're going to have to get in some fresh talent - or get back some of the matured talent they've discarded on the way.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Re:Well... by W1BMW · 2004-04-03 04:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Face it, for these actors, this is it. None of them are break-out stars. None have any real expectation of much of a career after this."

Are you serious? Take a look up a few comments to the IMDB links for any of these actors or go search it yourself. While they may not be Tom Cruise or Catherine Zeta Jones's, none of these people are sitting around idle. Hank Azaria & Harry Shearer have done quite well for themselves either writing, producing, or working as character actors, and Dan Castellenta & Nancy Cartwright have been (and still are) prolific voiceover talents. Hell, even Lunch Lady Doris has been working in the industry since the mid 60's.

I'm all for them getting a bigger piece of the pie, but don't try to tell us that 'this is it' for these guys.

I'll wager they can expect much more of a career after this than most /. readers. :)

Re:more money by ljavelin · 2004-04-03 04:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now what I want to know is... by kingrat · 2004-04-03 04:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

Re:Strikes and High Paid individuals... by alphaseven · 2004-04-03 04:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:could the fans help by tsg · 2004-04-03 05:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.

Re:Seems pretty funny by Golias · 2004-04-03 10:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.)

--

Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

Re:Seems pretty funny by TaoJones · 2004-04-03 21:22 · Score: 4, Informative

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 :)

--
"Fear is the rootkit of democracy.." Blarkon

41 of 519 comments (clear)