Simpsons Pay Dispute Settled

ackthpt writes "Simpsons voice actors were receiving $125,000 per episode and considering how wildly profitable the show is for FOX, in syndication and merchandising, the actors felt they should get a bigger piece of the pie. The strike is settled with a 4 year contract for the actors, though FOX is mum about further details, so the show will go on. For a bit more on this see this article on BBC News or The Gate."

Comments

Not a show renewal... but stilll good news.

[LostCluster]

Just so everybody's clear on this... a four-year contract with the actors doesn't indicate that the show has been promised four more years. TV actor contracts always are conditional on the show going on. So, what this contract means is that the production studio and the actors have agreed on the pay rate table to be used for the next four years, assuming the show goes on that long. If The Simpsons goes five more years into a 20th season, the actors and studio will need to go back to the table to talk money again.

So, as long as the show keeps going, we can be sure that there's going to be no major cast defections over the next four years.

Re:Not a show renewal... but stilll good news.

[john5211]

But more immidiately, this contract means that we should get to see all of the episodes in this season. The actors were allready on strike, and FOX had suggested that the final few shows this season might not get made if the contract dispute was not settled soon.

Re:Not a show renewal... but stilll good news.

[dinivin]

Not quite... All the episodes for this season had been made. They were saying that they might not be able to make all 22 episodes for next season, so they considered not airing a few episodes this season, to fill in the gap for next season.

Re:Not a show renewal... but stilll good news.

[Rosyna]

All this shows for this season are long done. Some of the finished ones will not show until next season. There is usually a 8-11 month lead time on the show's production. Audio is usually recorded 8-11 months before the show is completely animated unless they need to loop new dialog in. That is why they covered their mouths on the superbowl episode "Sunday, Cruddy Sunday" and no so that they could reuse it the next year.

Re:Not a show renewal... but stilll good news.

[LostCluster]

The cover-up was also done because they wanted to include the names of the teams that were playing in the game that day... which is only a 2-week lead time that the animators couldn't possibly deal with any other way.

Re:Not a show renewal... but stilll good news.

[LostCluster]

Yet since a "season" is whatever Fox makes it to be... they could simply have had an 18-month "season" to accomidate some of the episodes finishing late. Really, this was a threat by Fox to lower the episode count for next season and every season thereafter from the present count of 22 in order to cheapen the overall value of the contract. Shows like Friends, ER and NYPD Blue have started a trend of producing only 16-18 episodes a year of hit shows because hit shows tend to get expensive in their latter years because the talent demands more money.

In that context, 24 can be seen as a groundbreaking show because it forces the network to buy complete seasons of 24 episodes, they can't half-renew or partial renew the show.

Re:Not a show renewal... but stilll good news.

[MrAngryForNoReason]

Shows like Friends, ER and NYPD Blue have started a trend of producing only 16-18 episodes a year of hit shows

Every season of ER has 22 episodes (except the first which had 26 including the pilot) and the only season of Friends with less than 24 episodes is the last one which has 20. NYPD Blue has always had 22 episodes per season the only exceptions being season 8 with 20, and season 9 with 23.

You really should check your facts before posting, oh sorry I forgot this was /.

Oh and yes I know some of the friends eps are two parts, but they air as two seperate episodes so get counted as 2.

Maybe what you are thinking of is the way networks instead of running a new episode per week spread them out throughout the year and fill the gaps with re-runs. This is a very annoying practice which greatly frustrates fans trying to follow storylines from episode to episode. Tricky to do when you have to wait through a 6 week sceduling break for your next fix.

Re:Not a show renewal... but stilll good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was refering to his view that 16-18 episodes a year are HIT episodes while the rest are duds. It's the other way around IMO :)

Re:Not a show renewal... but stilll good news.

[Ab0rtRetryFail]

To quote Homer Simpson: "WOOHOO!" :)

Re:Not a show renewal... but stilll good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they covered the mouths out of necessity, but they also made a joke out of it. Remember after they mentioned the teams, they then covered their mouths about the name of the president and his first lady (even funnier since the joke was that you couldn't necessarily assume that Clinton's wife would be Hillary).

Re:Not a show renewal... but stilll good news.

[gnatman64]

Now that the simpsons have gone to digital animation, the time it takes to create an episode has dropped, I'm not sure by how much, but it is less than 8-11 months now.

Pay Raise

[Anonymous Coward]

More D'oh!

in the words of Homer Simpson:

[cibus]

"Were rich - rich as astronautes!"

Re:in the words of Homer Simpson:

[heliocentric]

In the words of Homer when he didn't have the crayon in his head:

"We're rich... rich like astronauts!"

Re:in the words of Homer Simpson:

[kraker]

*Woohoo*

Re:in the words of Homer Simpson:

[blanks]

"We'll all be rich! Rich as Nazis!"

Why does this get marked as flamebait? This is the origional damn quote by Mr Burns. Astronautes? Whos ass did you pull that out of?

Re:in the words of Homer Simpson:

[cibus]

I pulled that out of my write-quick-to-get-a-earliy-post-even-though-engli sh-is-not-my-native-tounge ass.
My apologies to those offended by my bad english. Tip: try pulling the crayon out of your arses...

Re:in the words of Homer Simpson:

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep going.

I am sick and tired of english speakers coming here and complaining. The vast majority of these people are without an intelligent thing to say and know only one language. The truely sad part of this, is that back in the 80's, the majority of the writing was cryptic (300-1200 baud modems) and nobody complained.

Re:in the words of Homer Simpson:

[RicktheBrick]

My cable company(Charter) will use this as an excuse to raise my cable rates again. Someone has to pay these people more money for one show than alot of us make in 10 years. My cable rates have gone up 50 per cent in the last two years alone(from $30 to $45 a month). Alot of that money goes to expensive actor/actress and sports players. I will watch reruns of old shows until someone can stop these people from robbing us to the poor house.

Thank you, Jeebus!

[Chris Tucker]

Warm, fresh doughnuts to all concernred.

Mmmmmmmmmmm....... Doughnuts!

Radio ad voices

[morcheeba]

I heard the ad for this week's episode and thought that the voices - especially lisa's - sounded off. But, they must have already dubbed that episode, right? Or was Fox just trying to show that they were willing to use other actors by starting with a substitution in the commercial?

Re:Radio ad voices

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's just you not taking your medicine.

Re:Radio ad voices

[LostCluster]

That's likely because whatever radio station you were listening to has some sort of audio processing equipment in the "audio chain" between the studio switchboard and the broadcast tower. Most radio stations adjust things like bass and reverb so that their format of music sounds better than against a flat equalization.

TV stations, even though they have the same equipment available to them, don't do that because talk sounds best with a flat equalization, and that's what they're doing most of the time.

On in the post 9/11/01 days, a lot of music-format radio stations suddenly dumped their regular programming to air network news coverage of the events. A lot of FM music stations got exposed for what they were doing to the music, because there was often an AM talk station that had the same program which could be used as a reference. Several stations toned down their processing so that if they ever have go to flip to news again it would not sound as ugly.

Re:Radio ad voices

[funkyjunkman]

Let's not forget that almost all modern radio stations use computers to do their ID and commercial breaks these days. These computer based audio workstations will compress or expand content slightly to work around changes in the schedule.
For example, let's say an interview goes a little long during a live show. The computer will, over the course of the program, compress pre-recorded content slightly to make up for the overage. It's exactly the same thing that happens on TV. On a lot of daytime syndicated shows like Oprah it is almost indiscernible during the show, but if you watch the credits roll at the end you will notice a little "jump" every few seconds. That's the compressor pulling out a frame of video to squeeze the show. Shorter show... more commercials!

Re:Radio ad voices

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that it sounds better with high bass, it's that many people like it that way, because their weak stereo systems have VERY POOR bass response (especially true of most cars). The radio stations know this, so they kick up the lower frequencies a few dB.

So, in the end, what the radio stations are trying to do is do the equalization for people that don't have the equipment or the know-how to do so for themselves. Ultimately, it's futile (I think), there's too many variables on the consumer side (speakers, processors, amps, and equalizers) all have an affect on the consumer's side.

For example, I have my car speaker system tuned pretty well. Of course, I have a sound pressure level meter, a decent 12 band equalizer, and a CD with test tones, and I know how to use them (whereas most people don't, don't and don't).

The result is that most clear channel stations (who like to pump the bass redicliously high) sound like shit. They even do this to the voice programs. I like the local morning DJs on 103.5 (KRFX-Denver), but to listen to them I've got to turn down the bass--they sound like giants (with really long voice boxes). Otherwise I'll get a fucking migrane. I've met them in person, and they don't have abnormally deep voices, but their engineers like to make them sound that way. It's very aggrivating.

NPR, and the local classic channel sound absolutely perfect on my system, because their engineers have some sense. That some engineers are willing to accomidate people with squak boxes is silly, it makes their stations sound like shit on pretty much everything (even the el cheapo radios they're trying to make sound better).

Re:Radio ad voices

[Anonymous Coward]

I also thought Lisa sounded off in that episode.

Is that $125k per character voice per espisode?

[matthewcharlesgoeden]

Is that $125k per character voice per espisode? Last time I heard, many "voices" on Simpsons come from the same person. Don't you think those people deserve more cash.

Personally, I think they should get paid by word. But this poses some more unique problems like --> does the voice of Homer get paid for each time says "duh?" And, what if it is an extended "duuuuuuuhhhhhhh?" And what about Maggie's sucking sound?

Re:Is that $125k per character voice per espisode?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I think they should get paid by word. But this poses some more unique problems...

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

Re:Is that $125k per character voice per espisode?

[kryptKnight]

Maggies sucking noise was only reorded once, just like road runner's beep beep. ;)

Re:Is that $125k per character voice per espisode?

[Doogzee]

Maggies sucking sound was recorded once by Groening himself. It's replayed on a synthesizer.

Re:Is that $125k per character voice per espisode?

[Anonymous Coward]

..actually it was just "beep".

Re:Is that $125k per character voice per espisode?

[Anonymous Coward]

..actually, according to the commentary on the Looney Tunes Gold Collection DVD it was really "meep".

Re:Is that $125k per character voice per espisode?

[Wolfrider]

--No, I truly DON'T think they deserve more cash!

--I'll prolly be flamed for this, but I think the Simpsons voice actors acted like greedy bastards. $125,000 PER EPISODE is more than **four years** of my (old) salary. And WTF are they doing, exactly, to "merit" that much cash? SPEAKING. They're not even doing it for 8 hours a day, or 40 hours a week - they meet at the studio for a couple of hours, and then go their own way!!

--Maybe I'm just bitter because of not having a job for so d--n long, but this whole "strike" business has really soured me on the Simpsons - especially since they're not as funny as they used to be.

--Personally I prefer Futurama these days; but that's just me.

Re:Is that $125k per character voice per espisode?

[pboulang]

Point is that if they don't get the cash, then the cash ends up going to people who are even *less* involved in the creation of the product.

Re:Is that $125k per character voice per espisode?

[Wolfrider]

--What I'd *like* to see, is the cash going to the animators. Because I can pretty much guarantee you, right now they make about as much as a Nike shoe factory worker in Zamibia.

Not Enough $$

[krets]

So making a couple million a year is not enough money? These people must be crazy. Well atleast now they can continue making more money in a year than I would need for the rest of my life, and they can do so for the next four years.

Good for them.

Re:Not Enough $$

[SkunkPussy]

yeah but if fox is making loads of money off me, regardless of how happy I am with my wage I would prefer that fox didn't gouge me.

Re:Not Enough $$

[Anonymous Coward]

But they deserve to make more money than you because their voices sound so much more like The Simpsons' characters than yours does. I personally hope the money for the pay-rise is taken out of the script-writters christmas bonus, it's not as if the success of the show is anything to do with the quality of the writing, it's just the funny voices!
( troll-hunters please note : ....

Re:Not Enough $$

[GeekLife.com]

So the executives at Fox aren't making enough money by keeping all but $125k/episode/actor? They must be crazy.

The money is pouring in already. It's simply a matter of who gets the gains, and I think the voice actors have a pretty strong point to stand on that they are partially responsible for that money flood.

Re:Not Enough $$

[LostCluster]

These people already have enough money to retire and not need to work again while living nicely... so their personal comfort is no longer any incentive to work.

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

That's their reason to hold out... they want their fair cut of the profits, because even though all of them are rich beyond their wildest dreams, that still doesn't make getting taken advantage of feel any better.

Re:Not Enough $$

[Anonymous Coward]

It's simply a matter of who gets the gains, and I think the voice actors have a pretty strong point to stand on that they are partially responsible for that money flood.

There are, literally, thousands of underemployed actors out there who could do as good a job. The Simpsons depends about 60% on its scripts, maybe 40% on its drawing/animation and the remaining 0.1% on the voices. (Numbers do not add up to 100% because of rounding.)

Re:Not Enough $$

[dinivin]

That's your opinion. Obviously FOX disagrees since they did, in fact, decide to give the actors a raise.

Re:Not Enough $$

[Anonymous Coward]

What an excellently greedy thing to say.

You are on a contract for a service... you should stick with it. They are talking into a mike. They spend a week (just a conservative number IMO) on an episode, and make $30,000 (I read that elsewhere). That is some bucks.

Excluding if this was renewing a contract (which I think it was except for one). If so, more power to them. Fox would be dumb to let them slide. How many Simpson's fans would BITCH here on /. if they weren't resigned... man, the mind boggles.

Re:Not Enough $$

[d2ksla]

So making a couple million a year is not enough money? These people must be crazy. Well atleast now they can continue making more money in a year than I would need for the rest of my life, and they can do so for the next four years.

I'm sure the same can be said about your salary (>$50k?) by someone making $500 a year.

Good for you.

Re:Not Enough $$

[krets]

Definately a good point, but you are referencing a completely different standard of living in a different place in the world. We all likely live in an economy similar to that of which the Simpsons voice actors are living in.

If you want to refer to money this way just as simply (and effectively) made a point to say that the common $20,000USD/year earnings of many mid/low income people in the United States would have been a Kings ransom in the 19th century.

I wanted to mostly point out that these people are sharing the same city as I (and/or a similar city for most /. folks) and earning plenty.

I guess the Simpsons would not be the same if they were gone, but I still have 12 seasons to catch up on, I don't know that I need more.

..

Re:Not Enough $$

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

You definitely need more. It's one of the good things on television.

There are two other long-term comedies going off the air in the next two weeks. One I haven't watched since it's first three years when it spun off from another show I watched, the other I've never watched. I don't care. Those are shows it's OK to not care about.

Re:Not Enough $$

[Easy2RememberNick]

If they move to Canada they can double their money!

Re:Not Enough $$

[Anonymous Coward]

I guarantee you that if they put in different actors whose voices sounded like knockoffs, the show would die very quickly regardless of the writing.

Re:Not Enough $$

[jedrek]

Or come to Europe and halve it.

125K per episode is never enough...

[merikus]

Not that I have any problem with sucking Fox's coffers dry, but why the hell do these people think that 125 K an episode isn't enough? Hell, if I was the star of one of the most successful TV shows of all time and pulling in more than most people make a year each week, I think I'd just be thankful that my life had worked out so well.

To think that these voice actors would consider destroying a brilliant show which they had benefited so much from because they couldn't live on 125 K a week just makes me sick. The Simpsons could easily be considered a work of art, and I always think the destruction of art for greed is sad. All I know is whatever respect I had for what work they're doing just dropped about 50x.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[cibus]

Agreed. But as mr.Burns would put it:
"What good is money if it can't inspire terror in your fellow man?"

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[SlamMan]

Well,first, they don't necessarily get paid each week. They get paid per episode. Difference.

When was the last time you got a raise? Did you feel bad because somebody in a third world country could live on that amount for a year? What you get paid isn't a direct relation between what you need to live on, its of what your work is worth. Their work, since it makes Fox a metric crap load of money, is worth more than yours, which doesn't make a people a crap load of money.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[mercan01]

For better or for worse, this is basically the same arguement that Baseball players used in the 1994 strike. It's not that they don't they're getting paid enough to live, it's that they see Fox making millions and millions of dollars. When a business is successful, you usually reward employee's with raises.

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

However, the money values are so extreme in this case that I agree it's it seems almost pointless to us.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[beckerie]

Look at how popular The Simpsons is. It has become rooted within a generation of people who have watched it for most of their lives. Fox are obligated to give what the actors want because ultimately, they can't afford to lose the actors. They would be better off financially to give the actors what they want than to stop airing the show.
If it stopped airing, it would mean a dramatic change in way people watch TV, and people don't like change.
It is sad how money seems has become as important as it has. It's no longer about providing people with entertainment. But with the influence that the actors have, they have the power to get what they want.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[juglugs]

No, that's not $125K per week - that's per episode. Each episode takes approximately 6 months to make, so that's $250K per year - that's not a whole lot for TV stars...

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[TylerL82]

By that logic, Fox should run The Simpsons nearly commercial-free.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[uberdrums]

As far as I can tell, they aren't complaining that $125K isn't enough money. Their point is that Fox makes so much money off them that they deserve a more fairly cut slice of the pie. Seinfeld made in the millions per episode for his show. Same reasoning...

This goes along with people saying actors aren't worth the $20 Million or so to put them in a film. Well, they may not be $20 Million talented, but if their face brings in $250 Million in profits then I would say it's a good investment.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[cibus]

So youre saying they don't make episodes simultaneous?
300+ shows have aired... gee - they must have started making the simpsons quite some time ago ;)

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Compared to what the Seinfeld actors made, $125k is a paltry sum. It is the same with nearly any other top twenty TV show.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[gl4ss]

huh? easy to say now.

but when you're on that sound room, dubbing something that will get millions for the suit who is playing golf I'd bet that you'd start having different ideas. call it corruption of mind if you will.. you're on that table with your lawyer making a point that SOMEBODY gets that money and if you're really moralistic about it you can always argue to yourself that you'll do more good with the money(ie. spend it instantly - put it back to circulation, donate it or whatever, you can't donate the money from foxs account but from yours you certainly can).

Who the money should go to then? fox for owning the franchise or the guys actually doing the show? the show makes gazillions of money, it goes to somebody and sometimes you have play hardball in negotiations. I'm happier that the money goes to them than to some research assholes fox has guessing what we wish to see. this way maybe they even have enough money to do whatever they please(even artistic things) after they're done with simpsons which is way overdue already.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[silvaran]

No, that's not $125K per week - that's per episode. Each episode takes approximately 6 months to make, so that's $250K per year - that's not a whole lot for TV stars...

Yeah you're probably right. I remember back in 1847 when they started making episodes of the Simpsons (~313 episodes). Matt Groening is quite a prophet... and $250K per year was a lot of money back then.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[DrEldarion]

In the TV world, 125K per episode is NOTHING for such a popular show. Ray Romano gets 16 times that much (around $2,000,000) per episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond".

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

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[ChrisMaple]

I have a good idea of what I think I'm worth. About 6 years ago, when I finally started being paid a bit more than I thought I was worth (after years of getting 2/3 or less) I said so. (It didn't result in my raise being reduced.) I didn't give a darn that someone far away got paid little, but I did care that some of my co-workers might not be getting what they deserved. I want justice for myself and those I deal with. I don't particularly care if my company makes small or large heaps of money, as long as it's profitable. I doubt very much that the Simpsons voicers have any such scruples.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[sweet cunny muffin]

You sir, are an idiot.

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

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

They produce episodes at the rate of one a week, but the total time for production is six months.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[rjelks]

Do voice actors get paid royalties like normal actors do? If a normal actor had a hit show, they would probably have lots of work in the future. I'm not sure these voice actors could make nearly as much with follow-up work. I'm not saying that $125 per ep isn't a lot...but why shouldn't they negotiate like all the other actors do? I think TV salaries on some shows are kind of crazy, but it's not like they have regular work for the rest of their lives. The Simpsons have had a great run, but most of them probably have a ways to go for retirement. I say they should fight for as much as they can. I wish I was a voice actor on the Simpsons.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the money should go to then? fox for owning the franchise or the guys actually doing the show?

How about the WRITERS who actually create the ideas that make the show worth watching?

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[gl4ss]

huh, who said that the money is off from the writers pool?

like, the writers get all the money that's left after voices? hell, they don't. obviously.

-

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[Mr. Darl McBride]

In the TV world, 125K per episode is NOTHING for such a popular show. Ray Romano gets 16 times that much (around $2,000,000) per episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond".

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

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

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

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

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[bskin]

Remember that many successful sitcom stars make well over a million an episode. The fact that they've been working on the show for so long, and it's been so successful, and yet they're making a pittance compared to sitcom actors on similarly successful shows. And why? Because they're doing a cartoon, not a live action sitcom. Maybe there's also an element of wanting to set a precedent. If the simpsons voice actors can't get respected at the same level as other successful tv stars, then what voice actor can?

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[Rainbird98]

Big paychecks are common in both the TV and movie business. The new Shrek 2 movie has Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy and Cameron Diaz getting 10 million dollars EACH for the movie.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[Deadstick]

and pulling in more than most people make a year each week

...and about one-tenth as much as the principals in other top-level shows who stand in front of the camera.

In this household, we obey the laws of economics.

rj

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't make FOX a crap load of money. It was the writers and producers that created the simpson characters. Just because they got staffed at the beggining of the Simpsons doesn't mean we wouldn't be laughing at another voice if someone else was staffed.
They should be thankful that FOX create those characters and allowed them to be part of it.... They're lucky ... they make a lot of money and their job does not take a lot of talent.
I'd rather see the money go towards the producers of the show so they can make new shows with new characters ... who knows maybe those voice actors can be a part of another great show if they're not too gready..... but frankly I wouldn't hire any of them after this.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

"big diffeence"

no kinding

Ray Romano writes for his show .... The voice actors don't write and don't act .... comparing them to actors/writers such as Ray Romano and Seinfeld is like comparing a guy who sold you your car to the guys who designed your car. There is a reason Ray Romano make a lot more than the voice actors on the simpsons.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[Lacota]

A THIRD WORLD country!? Jeeze, you could live off half that in canada... hey.. wait a minute..

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[theancient2]

So, in other words, "you're not really being greedy if someone else is greedier than you."

I understand the argument, but it's still... weird.

Where would those profits go, otherwise? Shareholders? New shows? Who really benefits from it?

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[MrChuck]

(I hate raymond.)

Romano has to show up. Shoot for a week per episode for each show.

Voice actors will spend a day or day and a half per episode.

More: voice actors will do most of their work in a bit over a month with some callbacks and be available for other work.

And when the voices are done, you don't have an episode. You've paid a lot to animators (the folks who design and plan the details of what you see and do key frames), a lot less to outsourced artists in Bangladesh or something making all the other art.

Now, I love the simpsons. My GirlF 20 years ago bought all the Life In Hell books and we were delighted when Matt got together with Tracy Ullman's group and did the shorts. I like the voice actors. But lets keep some perspective:
The show would suffer FAR FAR FAR more from losing the real "talent" of the show which are the writers and artists doing the design. The voiceovers are not the folks who do the 2001 Tip Of the Hat when Homer gets in the massage chair, the guys who came up with the little Chase-Across-The-Country sequence last week, the guys who hit week after week with a depth of visual humor and layers upon layers. Watch an old episode and you'll notice all sorts of details that you missed the first time.

If only Fox had one other show that had subtly and depth like this. They cancel Wonderfalls; they give us drech like ALL of their "reality TV" crap (low cost, high spectacle).

One of my rules on a new TV was that if it cost more than $1000, then half that money (over $1k) must be used for a fund to do a Tanya Harding on TV Executives.
"You're the guy who came up with 'The Bachelor'?"
er, yeah.
Bang Ow! My knees!

I dunno who's worse: Spammers or TV Execs. maybe the movie execs who have that 1969 TV Guide and are using that for inspiration (lets make a josie and the pussie cats movie!).

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[danielsfca2]

Parent is absolutely right. What the whiny slashdot crowd who keeps screaming "Greed!" is forgetting is: What happens to the excess money if they just take whatever amount Fox is willing to give? Let's do an example:
Let's say Fox makes $1 million in profit per actor per episode, after paying everyone but the actors. If Fox pays the actors $125,000 a piece, that is $875,000 per actor in pure profit into the News Corp's wallet. That's several million dollars per episode to finance Fox News Channel propaganda and generally make a few very rich men even richer and more powerful.

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

Being willing to let others profit off you and only get a tiny portion of compensation is not a virtue, it's stupidity and it only leads to exploitation by the most corrupt element of society (such as News Corp).

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[Jardine]

When a business is successful, you usually reward employee's with raises.

Really? I thought when a business was successful, you were supposed to lay off a bunch of workers to drive up your stock price for the short term, cash in on your stock options, and move to a tax shelter island.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[starphish]

I hate it when people make this argument. Especially in sports. How much are the actors making the company? That's the issue.

Here's an exaggerated example. If I was solely responsible making FOX 100 million dollars per episode, and I got $125,000 of that, I'd be pretty pissed.

If I was a salesman who made his company $100,000,000 per year, I would be pretty pissed if I made as much money as the guy who made the company $1,000,000 per year.

The same goes for athletes. Does a certain athletes presence make the owner filthy rich? Who cares how good he is? That shouldn't be the factor. If people are coming to see him, and buying merchandise because of him, he is worth more than the other players. He is the one that is making the team money.

The Simpsons actors are just looking for a fair cut relative to how much money they make FOX.

If they took a season off, we'd then see how much less money FOX would make. THAT'S their true worth.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[Vellmont]

Wow, you're a serious Simpsons fanatic. You really think the voice talent of the simpsons should just agree to make less money so they'll make more Simpsons episodes? Are episodes of the Simpsons some kind of public good like curing cancer? Repeat after me, "it's just a television show, it's just a television show". It's not "integral" to American culture. Life will go on after it's canceled.

As far as "substantially" increading the cost of producing each episode, try to realize that it costs about 7 million to pay the cast of Friends PER EPISODE. The rest of the cost production of the Simpsons is substantially lower than other TV shows since you don't have to pay an entire crew of people. The animation is all outsourced to another country I believe, so those costs are low as well. That's the main reason why The Simpsons has gone on for so long.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[jesterzog]

To think that these voice actors would consider destroying a brilliant show which they had benefited so much from because they couldn't live on 125 K a week just makes me sick.

I'm sorry, but I just disagree with the tone of what you've posted.

Most if not all of these people have been working in this job for sixteen years! That's sixteen years of their life that they've been required to set aside their time to go and do voice acting for the same show with the same characters over and over again. I don't think it's at all fair to blame them if they'd rather be elsewhere doing other things. If Fox told them to get bent and fired them, it'd free up their time! Chances are they'd be more than happy to do other work and be paid much less. It'd certainly be more interesting for them.

But Fox doesn't want them to go and do other things. Fox would much rather they kept their jobs doing voice acting for a show that rakes in lots and lots of money for Fox. The voice actors are not like animators, who Fox can easily replace if they leave.

The contract negotiations are simply part of the process. The actors are simply setting a price. If they receive it they'll feel compensated in the face of what they'd much rather be doing. If Fox won't meet that then the voice actors leave and get to spend their time on other things that are more interesting.

But if you have a problem with this, then don't place the burden on the actors for "blackmailing" poor, defenceless Fox and the viewing public. They've been sticking with the show for long enough already, and they don't have any obligation to anyone to keep going if they're sick of it.

If you have to place a blame on anyone, then it should be on Fox for agreeing to pay so much for them. But even then, you can bet that Fox has budgeted it out and decided that the expected return from the high salaries is worth it. This whole thing is just part of the process. The alternative is to kick the show, and the voice actors will quite possibly be just as happy, if not much happier.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[nyseal]

Personally, I'm surprised that they can come up with new content for new episodes...they should get a cut.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[fermion]

The brilliant show was way destrouyed before the strike.

It is not the responsibility of the employee to work for the current rate of pay any more than it is the responsibility for the employer to continue to retain the employee. In a competative environment, both strive to maximize thier position. The fact tht they got the money means that the understanding was justified. And we can thank the greed of the producers for that. If it weren't for greed, they would have shut down production.

OTOH, my understanding is that if most of them work like 50 days and gross like a a couple million.

In the end, however, the voice actors are just trying to get a retirement nest egg. Just like the cast of any other hit show, they have worked for years building a product. Now that the end is in sight they want to get a bit of the value they helped create. They don't neccesarily deserve it, but they are smart to ask. The studio claimed that the voice actors were irrrelevent and could be replaced like they did with the Power Rangers kids. The studio was wrong.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

When a business is successful, you usually reward employee's with raises.

Please. Spare me this business about "the employees."

I'm sure the writers, the animators, the technicians, etc. don't get paid more than five percent of what the voice actors are already getting.

This is not about employees getting ripped off by Fox. This is about the fact that the voice actors for a show this popular are irreplaceable. They can ask for whatever they want, and Fox will do a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether to give the actors what they want, or to cancel the show (which is always a possibility).

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[Wolfrider]

Parent +1 Insightful

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[16K Ram Pack]

I hate to be a defender of Fox and Murdoch but...

You might not like Fox for making the money, but they gave you the show, a show that is (or at least was) brilliantly made. They took a risk on a show that I imagine was quite hard to sell.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[16K Ram Pack]

The difference is that Ray Romano, Jennifer Aniston or Seinfeld are visual and could take their talents elsewhere and do other shows, and people would pay for them. Their person is part of the selling point. People in other networks would pay for them to be in a show.

Julie Kavner, Dan Castellaneta et al have got lucky here, quite frankly. Would Dan be able to go to the people on Kim Possible or Cow and Chicken and demand this? No. It's because he's the voice of Homer. Kinda like a monopoly really.

Re:125K per episode is never enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to go offtopic, but is a metric crapload larger or smaller than an imperial crapload? I can never keep those straight.

Worst...contract negotiation...ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

-Rupert Murdock

synchronisation makes me used to it

[just-a-stone]

i think this argue was exaggerated. i'm used to synchronised movies & series and heard more than 5 different sean connery voices while edward norton is the same speaker as gauron in lord of the rings. it's not the sound of simpsons that makes me a fan , i'd really be disappointed if they ran out of yellow color ;-)

Simpsons Lifecycle Ending

[SeinJunkie]

It seems to me that it's highly improbable that the Simpsons will continue 5 more years. Many of the series fans indicate that the newest seasons' writing tends to be watered down. I'll admit that I liked the writing better around seasons 3-7. I think Fox wants to hold onto the franchise until it is no longer profitable or until they make the movie.

Re:Simpsons Lifecycle Ending

[dinivin]

Actually, most fans that I know (including myself) consider 9-13 to be really weak, but think that the past two seasons have been quite impressive.

Adam

Re:Simpsons Lifecycle Ending

[tommyboyprime]

OK, it MAY BE a little watered down recently, but, it is still on of the few things I still watch on regular TV. IE I watched 2 episodes of "Friends" and gave up.

Re:Simpsons Lifecycle Ending

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the last few seasons weren't the best but I've noticed a steady improvement in the last 2 seasons with the current season being pretty good.

Re:Simpsons Lifecycle Ending

[LostCluster]

In the Futurama Universe, the Simpsons was still on Fox in new episodes in the year 3000. The original cast was most likely still able to do the voices from their jars.

Re:Simpsons Lifecycle Ending

[Some Dumbass...]

Many of the series fans indicate that the newest seasons' writing tends to be watered down. I'll admit that I liked the writing better around seasons 3-7.

See, the problem is that "the fans" have been saying that the show was on the downslide since season 7 (Or even season 6 if you're hard-core enough :). They're on, what, season 15 now?

Needless to say, fans' opinions mean nothing.

Re:Simpsons Lifecycle Ending

[BigKato]

You're kidding yourself if you think the last two seasons have been impressive. At least seasons 9-13 had the tomacco episode, the Hell's Satans, and Apu's octuplets. Last season's lame Frank Grimes Jr. revenge episode left a bad taste in my mouth and paled in comparison to the original Frank Grimes episode, one of the best episodes ever.

I truly believe South Park is funnier than The Simpsons these days.

Re:Simpsons Lifecycle Ending

[dinivin]

Season 14 had some great episodes, such "I'm Spelling as Fast as I Can," "Large Marge," "The Strong Arms of hte Ma," and "Dude, Where's my Ranch."

In Season 15 we have "My Mother the Carjacker," "Milhouse Doesn't Live Here Any More," "The Ziff Who Came to Dinner," and "The President Wore Pearls."

All of those are, IMHO, much better than Hell's Satans, and the octuplets episode.

Re:Simpsons Lifecycle Ending

[linzeal]

Hopefully Futurama will come back from all us geeks buying the DVD sets.

After sitting and watching through all of them in one weekend with my current flame I realized how similiar our humour was even if she is a dirty hippy who does not like computers. Sigh, oh where are the women that will play with me online and offline?

Re:Simpsons Lifecycle Ending

[crimson_alligator]

I really don't think Fox is going to cancel the series because a bunch of hard-core fanboys complain about the writing. All fans pine for the golden age. With music, some vocal fans generally sour on a band after 3-5 years. Either they've "sold out or stopped innovating." The same goes for the Simpsons. Of course it isn't as fresh as it used to be--but it still makes me laugh. The series is a cash cow and will continue as long as everyone wants to continue making money by producing the show. Bitter complaints from old fans are inevitable and irrelevant.

Re:Simpsons Lifecycle Ending

[monkeyfamily]

Whaaa?????
Sorry, but "Dude, Where's my Ranch" was the Worst. Episode. Ever. Still, the last copule of seasons have had some good points.

Re:Simpsons Lifecycle Ending

[dinivin]

Sorry, but Maggie dancing to "Oops I did it again" is one of the funniest scenes from the last 5 years of TV.

Re:Simpsons Lifecycle Ending

[Anonymous Coward]

You're on fucking crack. The last seasons have been the worst yet.

Re:Simpsons Lifecycle Ending

[SomeGuyFromCA]

If by funniest you mean horribly horribly disturbing and nauseating.

Tickled Blue

[malia8888]

I am so happy to hear the strike has been settled. I am calling up Marge Simpson this week to celebrate. With all that cash we are going to have a real spa day.

Think we are going to get our hair done nice n' blue and puffy!!

Re:Tickled Blue

[Anonymous Coward]

Your stupid fucking comment makes me want to puke on your tits.

Thats it?

[7aco7om]

The cast of Friends have been paid an average of 1M USD per episode for the last few seasons until the show finally ended after 10 seasons.

With the Simpsons having been around for 16 seasons, I think it sounds reasonable that the voice actors should be given a raise from 125k. .

Re:Thats it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately what you don't realise is that for each episode these people only spend 30 minutes in the studio each ... seems like a lot of money for so little time.

Then again it's the simpsons ... i want more so give them whatever they want!

Re:Thats it?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is about 22 episodes per season of the Simpsons.

Re:Thats it?

[Anonymous Coward]

With the Simpsons having been around for 16 seasons, I think it sounds reasonable that the voice actors should be given a raise from 125k. .

Although it is understandable that the Simpsons voices want to get their fair share of the pie, they don't do anywhere near the work that an actor would (I mean real actor, not someone doing voices for a cartoon). Think about the amount of time the cast of Friends must put into each episode compared to the Simpsons.

Re:Thats it?

[nothings]

Maybe the writers and animators deserve raises more, though, than people geting 125K for 30 minutes of work. Of course, they're not "stars", so they don't get press, and they don't have the not-easily-replaceable quality that the voice talent does. So, yes, the voice talent can effectively extort more money, because they're visible; that doesn't mean they deserve it more than the others.

In the words of Mr. Burns

[Beardydog]

We'll all be rich! Rich as Nazis!

Re:In the words of Mr. Burns

[wintermute1974]

We'll all be rich! Rich as Nazis!

This line from good ol' Monty Burns reminds me of a thoughtful essay that you can find on the web that discusses Monty Burns' unhappiness despite his wealth and power.

Would this not have made good reading for the actors and actresses who give voice to the Simpsons?

Re:In the words of Mr. Burns

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that essay SUCKS.

Amazing.

[ljavelin]

The amazing part of it is that FOX executive management decided to forgo $25 million in their own personal salary to keep the show going:

"The Simpsons is so important to the health of FOX, that it was obvious that we'd have to find the money to keep the network going. We'd either have to export animation overseas, or take a paycut. We felt it was best for our viewers, shareholders, and America to take a paycut".

Wow!

Re:Amazing.

[ljavelin]

Oh, sorry, I forgot my tags in that last one.

Re:Amazing.

[Chester K]

We'd either have to export animation overseas

Hasn't The Simpsons' animation been done overseas from the start?

Re:Amazing.

[UserGoogol]

They were, but recently they've switched to computers. Assumably computers which are in the United States.

Re:Amazing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now THAT's karma whoring.

Re:Amazing.

[rat7307]

Assumably computers which are in the United States. Why the U.S??

Groenings other creation, the fabulous FUTURAMA was done by Rough Draft Korea, all digital.

Labour is still cheaper overseas........

Much as I love the sompsons

[Timesprout]

And I think the talent should get their fair share of the money Fox makes but reading a script! What a way to make a shed load of money. Wish I could get a job like that.

Sharing the D'oh

[LostCluster]

The Simpson's money-making machine is an interesting study in how the content industry has re-alligned.

- 20th Century Fox is the production studio.
- The show's new episodes have been purchased by the Fox Network. (Fox was the first US TV network to share common ownership with a movie/TV production studio. The The ABC-Disney Merger, the CBS-Viacom Merger, and the creation of the United Paramount Network and The Warner Bros. Network all came later.)
- The show's syndicated episodes from prior seasons are distributed by 20th Cenutry Fox. (Networks used to be forbidden to participate in the syndication market. During that time, off-network reruns needed to be packaged by a seperate syndication company, or distributed by the production company. This rule was striken before this rule applied to Fox.)
- In most major markets, the show's syndicated reruns are puchased by the Fox Station Group. (In recent years, the laws have changed to allow there to be more such network-owned stations than before because fo a raising of the station ownership limits for a single company.)
- In many places, the syndicated reruns air during the 7:00 hour. (This would have been blocked by Prime Time Access Rule, but the rule never applied to Fox and was striken rather than modifed to include Fox as a network.)

In short... several of the steps in The Simpsons money-making machine would have been illegal in the 1970s. I'm not saying that The Simpsons wouldn't have existed under those rules, but the show would be a whole lot less profitable, and the profits would land in more hands than just the bottom line at News Corp.

Re:Sharing the D'oh

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Were all of these relative coincidences? Did FOX push for (m)any of the rule changes you mention?

Re:Sharing the D'oh

[LostCluster]

News Corp. was definitely part of the sides pushing for the ownership increases, as they were very ready to buy up stations as soon as that was allowed.

News Corp.'s position on the PTAR rule was a funny one... they were fine with it continuing to exist because Fox at the time was not programming enough primetime hours for it to have any impact on them. They just never wanted to see it modified so that it applied to their network, and as it played out it never was.

All's fair

[JazFresh]

...considering how wildly profitable the show is for FOX, in syndication and merchandising, the actors felt they should get a bigger piece of the pie.

So the writers, animators, technicians and other staff will also be getting equivalent raises... right? Or are the actors just extortionists, knowing that they're hard to replace?

Re:All's fair

[dinivin]

Here's the thing:

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

Re:All's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Or are the actors just extortionists, knowing that they're hard to replace?

And the alternative is to commoditize yourself by making yourself just like everyone else?

Re:All's fair

[zhenlin]

And here's the worst part:

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

Then again, Dumbledore in Harry Potter was replaced recently, we'll see how people react to that...

Re:All's fair

[karnal]

Ummm. I believe the actor who played Dumbledore in Harry Potter died.

Slight difference from being "replaced". However, the only reason I know that is because of my girlfriend... (yes, some of us have 'em..)

Re:All's fair

[yellowjacket03]

And I thought Richard Harris was pretty famous. I don't think adults who see the third movie will be thrown at all, but it will be interesting to see if younger children can pick up the fact that it's a different dude. My nephew didn't say anything when he saw the trailer, but that dumb bastard is only four.

Re:All's fair

[evilviper]

Maybe they did hold out for a raise... Maybe that's why every Simpsons episode for the past 2 years has been crap... Perhaps all the writers got thrown out and their jobs outsourced to people that don't understand humor...

Re:All's fair

[danila]

If they're that hard to replace, they obviously crucial to the shows success and deserve the raise.
A logical fallacy. While the first part is correct, the second part doesn't necessarily follow. Their voices are familiar to listeners, but not because of anything these actors have done.

Re:All's fair

[dinivin]

Their voices are familiar to listeners, but not because of anything these actors have done.

Their voices wouldn't be familiar if it weren't for the fact that the actors have spoken with those voices. So, in fact, these actors have done something. If they hadn't, they wouldn't be getting the raise.

Dinivin

Re:All's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, since those other guys aren't going to get raises, the voice actors should forego their own. That way, the producers will spread that money around to the other employees, right?

Oh, they won't? Then what difference does it make?

Re:All's fair

[danila]

Technically you're right. But I meant that they haven't done anything special, they just acted the voices in the show. If you would play one of the characters, Simpsons would be just as popular, but now the public would remember your voice.

Re:All's fair

[nothings]

You don't seem to understand what 'extortion' means. Just because the voice actors have the power to do something doesn't make it right.

Capitalism, of course, is not about "right", it is about having the power to make money, so this outcome is perfectly consistent with capitalism.

Re:All's fair

[16K Ram Pack]

The questions are, would the show have worked with other actors, and if you had to start the series again, would you pick them at the price they want.

They're not being paid this much for their talent. They're being paid this much because they are familiar. That's a huge difference.

Re:Obligatory Quote

[simcop2387]

Troy: 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?

Let's work this out...

[Mr. Darl McBride]

I believe there are four main voice actors. There are about 20 minutes of show after commercials, and 3/4 of the show is spoken. So 20 * 3/4 / 4 is about 3.5 minutes of dialog per actor.

I'm timing myself at about 7 syllables per second, speaking about as quickly as the Simpsons characters do when on a roll.

So $125,000 / 7 / (3.5*60) comes to about $85 per syllable.

Having them read this post would cost me about 168 syllables * $85 is $14,280.

Re:Let's work this out...

[jtnishi]

Yeah, except you realize that for that $85 figure you come up with, you have to take into account the fact that they're trying to dub in sync, which means they are also sitting in the studio for dead air. Also, they are doing re-takes if something isn't quite right. Now, being veterans at this, presumably, the retakes are getting fewer and fewer as the years go on, but it's still probably not going to be perfect on the first take every time.

Besides, consider the fact that the workload is probably not balanced. I'm pretty sure that, for example, Yeardley Smith, who voices exclusively Lisa, probably doesn't have to speak as much, relatively speaking, as maybe Dan Castellaneta, who not only voices Homer, but also Grandpa, Barney, Krusty, Willie, Mayor Quimby, Hans Moleman, Sideshow Mel, and more (thank you IMDB). Once you consider that, the value of the words might AVERAGE $85/syllable by your math, but I don't know if that's much of an indicator as to how much they would be paid to read other lines in their respective voices.

Re:Let's work this out...

[Mr. Darl McBride]

Yeah, except you realize that for that $85 figure you come up with, you have to take into account the fact that they're trying to dub in sync, which means they are also sitting in the studio for dead air. Also, they are doing re-takes if something isn't quite right. Now, being veterans at this, presumably, the retakes are getting fewer and fewer as the years go on, but it's still probably not going to be perfect on the first take every time.

Let's assume it takes them two hours for every minute of dialog. That's still $125,000 for a day's work! If it's a day per minute? They still get Thursday afternoon and Friday off, and $125,000 for the week!

I'm sure their agents get a cut, and they spend a day reading the script on their own, but even if it's $100,000 for a full week (mind, we're still assuming the insanely high day-per-minute ratio here), that's some damned good pay. Especially considering that all of these actors work on other major shows as well. Hell, Harry Sherer (principal Skinner, the Reverand, etc) has enough time for his own weekly national radio show. I wouldn't mind a $20,000/day job that left me that kind of free time, even if it was only for 14 weeks a year.

Re:Let's work this out...

[Anonymous Coward]

you count your own syllables. twat

Re:Let's work this out...

[Ralph Wiggam]

And when you consider that advertisers pay Fox several million dollars to use the 10 minutes that the voice actors are not speaking, $85/syllable seems reasonable.

It's the same argument when people figure out how much a ball player makes each time he swings the bat. They imply that it's not right to make so much for something "easy" like swinging a bat or reading a line off a script. As long as someone else is making millions off of these talented people doing anything, they should make as much as they can negotiate for.

-B

Knowing the doublespeak...

[Kjella]

...they probably regranted themselves the same in stock options or fringe benefits. Like here now, where the politicians have promised to remove the toll ring around the city. Of course, there's something else called road pricing coming, which amounts to exactly the same, only more draconian. Sounds like they're even planning to use the same collection stations, only add some more. But sure, the toll ring is gone, so we keep our promises, we're the good guys, vote for me at next election. Sheesh.

Kjella

The most interesting part of this discussion..

[wfberg]

... is that no-one is saying "Yay! More Simpsons episodes!! Gee golly, I'm sure glad about that, why, that show just keeps on pushing the envelope, it's a miracle they've been around this long and STILL haven't jumped the shark! It sure is better than all those cancelled shows like Family Guy or Futurama and stuff like that.."

Nope, none of that here..

I guess the voice actors asked for a raise realising that whatever they get now is going to be their pension.. .. Worst .. Raise .. Ever ..

Re:The most interesting part of this discussion..

[yellowjacket03]

Yay! More Simpsons episodes! Maybe now, people who don't like watching the Simpsons will figure out how to use the remote control and change the channel, rather than inflicting their subjective, useless opinions on the rest of us!

Re:The most interesting part of this discussion..

[jareds]

I guess the voice actors asked for a raise realising that whatever they get now is going to be their pension.. .. Worst .. Raise .. Ever ..

Yeah, I deeply pity them. I can't imagine how one could afford to retire after making $27.5 million in one year.

Re:The most interesting part of this discussion..

[desikage]

... is that no-one is saying "Yay! More Simpsons episodes!! Gee golly, I'm sure glad about that, why, that show just keeps on pushing the envelope, it's a miracle they've been around this long and STILL haven't jumped the shark! It sure is better than all those cancelled shows like Family Guy or Futurama and stuff like that.."

Yay! More Simpsons episodes!! Gee golly, I'm sure glad about that, why, that show just keeps on pushing the envelope, it's a miracle they've been around this long and STILL haven't jumped the shark! It sure is better than all those cancelled shows like Family Guy or Futurama and stuff like that..

Cheapies

[CPlusPlusOwnsYou]

Only $125,000 per episode? I mean common, How is someone supposed to put food on the table with that measly sum.

Come on, you dead horse!

[Mondain98]

Get up! Get up! *kick*

Yay! More simpsons episodes!

[bludstone]

I happen to still like the show, even the new episodes.

Dont get me wrong, they arnt as good as the earlier seasons, but there have been some REALLY funny episodes lately. Most notably the Henry the 8th one, where lisa tries to grow a penis.

"HRnnnn hrnnn HRNnnn!!... I cant :("

Re:Yay! More simpsons episodes!

[Durandal64]

Then of course, there was Otto ... "I told you I was a dude." CHOP!

Whether or not you think they deserve their raises

[TheABomb]

when the series reaches its end, few of the actors will ever be able to find work again. Well, Harry Shearer can always go back to Spinal Tap or The Folksmen. But Yeardley Smith or Julie Cavner are never going to find another job. They damned well ought to milk as much money from this cash cow as possible.

What do you mean?

[xintegerx]

What do you mean dub in sync? In every animated cartoon, voices are recorded before the drawing are made.

Re:What do you mean?

[gl4ss]

I dare to say not in every animated cartoon. ..and for the dubs for other markets the characters are not drawn again. Makes quite hard to do high quality dubs, but that just translates to expensive, which translates that the only places where you'll see properly done dubbing around here to native language is big budget animated movies(where they work hard to sync their speak to the pre-drawn movie).

Re:What do you mean?

[danila]

In fact there was a recent article (linked here on Slashdot?) about making cartoons. They told about Simpsons in particular and explicitly stated that voice is done first and then very detailed information about what to draw (every move) is sent overseas, where it's actually animated.

Re:What do you mean?

[jtnishi]

Whoops, sorry. Neglected the fact that American cartoons do dub/animation in the opposite order. My mindset was from Japanese Animation, where they do it in the order of animation before dubbing.

In any case, though, errors are still made in dubbing (flubs), just like in any acting.

Somebody has to say this, might as well be me...

[Anonymous Coward]

WHOO HOO!!!

Re:Whether or not you think they deserve their rai

[Anonymous Coward]

But then again, they should have enough money a hundred times over to never have to work again and still live a fabulous lifestyle.

It's like the old atomic weapon debate. How many times over to you need to be able to destroy the world?

Also, declaring that Smith or Kavner will never find work again is a bit of an asshole comment. They already do voice work outside of the Simpsons.

decrease their pay

[stfubye]

These people don't need any more money. Their job requires almost no skill, and they are already rich...

Computer Generation

[NichG]

It should be interesting to see what happens once computer generated voices become good enough to use instead of voice actors for stuff like this. It's not necessarily all that far off, since there are some physically based (modelling the physics of the vocal tract) methods which are just currently too computationally expensive to use on a large scale ('articulatory synthesis', for example http://www.praat.org ) which can do stuff like whispering, creaky voices, etc, and also handle how sounds affect neighboring sounds.

Actual figure

[Matt2k]

$125,000 an episode

What, 23ish episodes per season

Let's estimate and say Federal tax + state tax + social security + medicaid tax is around 50-55% (Someone feel free to correct me)

Now we're talking $68K per episode, or around a million and a half dollars a year. Another poster mentioned that there are four main voice actors. This is chump change for the studio.

Contrast that to how much Fox makes on a season of the Simpsons and it does seem awfully unfair.

Re:Actual figure

[Anonymous Coward]

If you make more than about 80K a year in the US, I'm pretty sure that you do not have to pay medicaid taxes. I read somewhere that some ofthese actors fly to the studio to record voices, if they really wanted to, they could live in a state with no income tax. It would still be about 45% though. Don't forget that these some people have supplementary income, Simpson's Butterfinger commerials(maybe this is in their contract, but I doubt it).

Re:Actual figure

[Politburo]

Even if there are 50-55% taxes taken out, FOX is still paying that money. The voice actors are then paying it to the government. Also, I believe the tax rate works out to somewhere around 33%. It's a little wacky because you pay 10% on the first 10k or so, then ~15% up to 30k or so, etc. The top tax rate was 35% for 2004. That was for income above $319,000 a year. Note that under President Clinton, this tax rate was 38.5%, over $288k. For the purposes of this post, I used the Single brackets. When it comes to medicaid, SS, etc., over ~$88k or so of income, and your SS/MC taxes are capped. That cap is around $5,500 for SS. I couldn't quickly find a good source for the Medicare, but it slightly higher than social security.Source 1 Source 2 Source 3.

Re:Actual figure

[gmhowell]

Why aren't you multiplying the gross pay to get Fox's totals? Who do you think pays that tax to the government? Underpants gnomes? More accurately, take $125k, multiply by about 1.13, then multiply by 22 (I'm not sure, but several other posters reference this figure for number of episodes) to get the cost to Fox. OTOH, consider that the cast will get those benefits back at some point in time.

Also, your figures are a bit off. For the first $68000 per year, the 50% figure is probably about right in that tax bracket. But after $68k per year, you don't pay social security or medicare, just your state, federal, and local income tax.

Re:Actual figure

[jgoemat]

I believe it's 87k, not 68k, but not much difference. when they make more than that for each episode.

Re:Is that $125k per character voice per episode?

[Woogiemonger]

Maggies sucking noise was only reorded once, just like road runner's beep beep. ;)

I wonder if they use some sort of compression algorithm, where they look at the script and reuse some words said by the voice actors for peak efficiency, where it wouldn't hurt the natural flow of speech significantly.

What about the writters?

[fracas]

It's great the voices aren't changing but that's only half of the equation. The words themselves need representation and if the current season is speaking for itself they are in desperate need for a larger budget for the real creative talent.

Obligatory quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Homer: "If you don't like your job, you don't quit. You just go in there every day and do it really half-assed. That's the American way."

Judging by the past five or six years, the writers must dislike their jobs intensely. There have been bright spots, sure, but their dependence on guest voices has gotten the show quite craptacular.

Re:Obligatory Quote

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

How rich is that old drunk now, anyway?

Re:Obligatory Quote

[nyseal]

I think he's dead.

subsidy

[Roger Keith Barrett]

I'm all for this.

This means Harry Shearer can do lots of other work, esp. political satire on N.P.R., and not need to be paid much to do it.

call it a political satire subsidy.

If you don't think the actors are worth the money.

[ajservo]

Just be forewarned, FOX could have easily spent this money on developing even MORE crappy reality TV shows... All the development costs go to a six pack of beer and a half crazed development exec, who thinks up all their reality programming.

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

Do ANY of you want the Swan to return?

I didn't think so...

Re:Much as I love the sompsons

[spooje]

See that's why they make so much money, because you can't do it. If everyone could do it they'd be makeing $5.15 an hour just like kids at McDonalds.

It's like baseball players. Why can they make $25 million a year? Because you can't throw a 98 mile an hour fast ball on the inside corner of the plate with any consistancy.

of course the cast is due more money!

[Anonymous Coward]

they successfully negotiated a bigger contract, didn't they?

whether you thinky the _deserve_ it or not is irrelevant -- Fox clearly thought they did, hence the new contract. The Simpsons would not exist without this cast, and people on /. are bitching about taking money out of Rupert Murdock's coffers? Give me a break....

The voice actors do better than you think.

[thefinite]

Some of the voice actors on the Simpsons have done pretty well as screen actors, the most prominent being Hank Azaria. If you look at the Simpson's IMDB page you can see that most of the others have done a lot of significant voice work on unrelated, but successful stuff.

Not that I don't think the actors are entitled to a bigger share of such a successful show. Voice work of a particular person is never the same when imitated by someone else. I know I really miss Jim Henson. Kermit and the others have never sounded the same.

Re:The voice actors do better than you think.

[rjelks]

Didn't the voice of Homer change after the 1st season or 2? Maybe the actor just started doing it differently when the character changed from mean to stupid. I miss Jim Henson too.

How much does Matt Groening make per episode?

[Animats]

Yes, how much does Matt Groening make per episode? More than the voice actors, I hope.

He supposedly made $18 million in 1997, and made the Forbes list of the top 40 richest entertainers.

Re:How much does Matt Groening make per episode?

[dopaz]

How much does Matt Groening do for each episode? I bet most of his money comes from intellectual property ownership and licensing, not from his work on the show.

Re:Much as I love the sompsons

[Durandal64]

And baseball players couldn't solve a differential equation to save their lives, something which is infinitely more useful to society than being able to throw a ~100 mph fast ball. Baseball players make a shitload of money because people idolize and adore them, and they bring in massive amounts of money because of it. Possessing a rare skill or talent isn't a guarantee of wealth. Players in Major League Soccer in the US make about $100,000 per year, while in the European leagues, players make such stupendous amounts of money that would make baseball players' salaries seem reasonable.

Athletes are entertainers. If tomorrow, the world stopped giving a shit about baseball, baseball players wouldn't make money.

Estate tax

[danielsfca2]

I don't know why you're modded Flamebait...but anyway:

> That's why you have an estate tax and is also why the Republicans are so keen to do away with it.

I thought they already did do away with it. But I could easily be wrong.

Re:Estate tax

[jareds]

I thought they already did do away with it. But I could easily be wrong.

It's really weird. The estate tax has been decreasing since 2001, when some tax law changes were passed, and will in fact be zero in 2010. However, in 2011 the changes will sunset and the estate tax will return to its original level. So, it hasn't actually been done away with.

Re:Estate tax

[Stray7Xi]

It's really weird. The estate tax has been decreasing since 2001, when some tax law changes were passed, and will in fact be zero in 2010. However, in 2011 the changes will sunset and the estate tax will return to its original level. So, it hasn't actually been done away with.

That's going to be a popular year to die.

But this also gives those 20 yr old women married to rich 80 year old men a reason to want to keep them alive longer. ;)

If you want to do math...

[Kjella]

...try professional boxing. The pay per second can get pretty damn high.

Kjella

Re:If you want to do math...

[Mr. Darl McBride]

Actually, I'd want to see the pay-per-punch. :)

Re:If you want to do math...

[timeOday]

The big difference is that anybody qualified to take on the boxing champ can do it.

High-paid voice actors are lottery winners. Any other reasonable choice of 6 or 7 different voices would have worked just as well, but obviously there's no switching them now.

Why not free TV instead of more money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this line of logic would be a shoe-in here on slashdot. If FOX is making a crapload of money for a show that's really good, and you don't think your share is a large enough piece of that pie, why should your share get larger? Why not make the pie smaller?
Demand that some of the episodes go without copyright. Demand better prices on DVD distribution. Do something to promote the spread of decent programming and fill the gaps where "unscripted TV" is currently mucking things up.

They are all getting paid too much, and we are forced to watch too much crap, and too many ads, and pay too much. The answer should have been less money, not more. We all agree that those actors aren't exactly poor. As for me, I'm a single dad who can't afford cable. Good riddance. I don't watch low definition TV and I won't be watching much HDTV either. Go ahead, up the prices to provide crap in amazing detail. I won't be participating.

-theed.

Good for them!!

[whiteranger99x]

Now they can afford to go out and buy some Cayeneros to drive around :)!

Underpaid crew people?

[failedlogic]

Speaking of overpaid (voice)actors, what about all the people who work on the film crews? Many actors, including the "Friends" cast are making many hundreds of thousands of dollars per television show or movie.

We seldom hear how much the camera, sound, makeup, special effects crew make per hour. I'm sure the lead camera or sound person makes considerable dough. What of the assistants etc who spend equally long hours? Anybody have any ball-point figures for comparison?

Re:Underpaid crew people?

[Anonymous Coward]

they get paid union scale.

if next week the camera man for friends is different their ratings will change exactly 0% as a result. if next week phoebe is replaced by a monkey with guitar their ratings will decline a lot. therefore, phoebe is worth money and cast members are not.

duh.

I agree: 125K per episode is never enough...

[rabs]

To think that these voice actors would consider destroying a brilliant show which they had benefited so much from because they couldn't live on 125 K a week just makes me sick

I totally agree! Whatever happened to the value of your work being determined by your education, training, and the hours you put in?

Most doctors deserve to make a whole lot of money because of their schooling and the immense number of hours they put in every week. Programmers should too, because of their knowledge. A lot of managers I know put in insane hours also! After adjusting for cost of living, shouldn't this be how it is?

I said this in the previous /. article: Unless I hear about 18-hour days, back-breaking labor, or time spent away from family and loved ones, I don't think their pay is justified.

- rabs

Re:I agree: 125K per episode is never enough...

[MrCam]

It's a matter of risk, and talent. I agree that people that put in more time and have more education should get more money, but it doesn't work that way. You also have to consider the risk, many people can be programmers because the work can be learned and there is a huge need for programmers. Actors, sports players and other less needed jobs take a leap of faith that they are good enough to beat out all the other people that want the "easy money" job. Truth is most don't make it because there is a limited market for those fields. If those professions didn't have high pay rates few would take the risk of not having work for years at a time to find a job. Just check out Wil Wheaton's site and look at the shit he had to go through because of his desicion to choose a career that it very hard do find work in even with talent.

My final point.... you could have done the same thing as the Simpson's voice actors...talked funny and get paid big, you just took the path with less risk going for a job that has more demand.

Okay, that's a start

[davidbrit2]

...But now they have to figure out what to pay the other 75% of the voice talent, i.e. the "SPECIAL GUEST STARS!!!"

Thufferin' Thuccotash!

[spun]

What about Looney Tunes? Whoever they got to replace Mel Blanc does their voices perfectly.

Re:Thufferin' Thuccotash!

[Wolfrider]

--What are you, crazy?? Whoever's doing it now is the *worst* Bugs Bunny I've ever heard!
( And just for the record, I think it's Blanc's son. Just goes to show that talent doesn't necessarily run in the family. )

MOD PARENT FLAMEBAIT

[Anonymous Coward]

No talent? You mean like compared to posting on /. in your underwear on the computer in your parent's basement?

You're either an idiot or retarded.

Re:MOD PARENT FLAMEBAIT

[stfubye]

No, I mean compared to other jobs.

wow!

[ocularDeathRay]

JEBUS CHRIST thats a lot of money!

So . . . let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Amble to the sound studio for a couple of hours every once in a blue moon, make repetitive and infantile voices.
2. ???
3. Profit!

Re:Is that $125k per character voice per episode?

[Anonymous Coward]

No offense, but that comment sort of makes it sound like you need to spend more time in the Blue Room. :D

Re:If you don't think the actors are worth the mon

[Chemical]

Let's not forget Wonderfalls and Andy Richter and Firefly and all the other truly great and original shows that Fox was so quick to pull the plug on so.

But it's not really Fox's fault. People didn't watch those shows. They watch shows like World's Scariest Police Shootouts III and Who Wants to Marry a Transvestite Hooker. They don't hate their viewers. They give them exactly what they want. And rating have shown that reality shows about midgets are what people want.

It's simple really. Fox is in the advertising industry. If nobody watches the show, they don't get ad revenue. And if they don't get ad revenue, people get fired. So nobody at Fox is going to keep a show on the air that isn't making them money. If that means airing the trashiest trash imaginable, so be it.

Re:Whether or not you think they deserve their rai

[najay]

Most of them aready have other jobs, voice and otherwise - I think your comments are a little short sighted.

I'm an idiot.

[jareds]

That's $2.75 million a year.

OUtstaying its welcome?

[hamsterdude]

I don't know if anyone agrees with me, but the standard on the Simpsons has really been slipping these past few series, might i suggest that perhaps the show has outstayed its welcome? (please don't hurt me!)

Re:Much as I love the sompsons

[BlacKat]

" If tomorrow, the world stopped giving a shit about baseball, baseball players wouldn't make money."

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

Ah well, maybe one day, but I'm not holding my breath, and yes I am feeling a bit cynical, and no I don't care about sports much at all. ;)

Re:Whether or not you think they deserve their rai

[jesterzog]

You realised that neither of the actors who you mentioned as hopeless are exactly novices in getting work. (Yeardley Smith, Julie Kavner).

Certainly it's been a bit thin lately, but then they've been working on The Simpsons episodes for all of that time.

Maggie Simpson

[sashang]

I'd so love to be the person doing Maggie's voice and get paid loads for gurgling like a baby.

News for nerds? Stuff that matters?

[gumpish]

From the Karma-to-Burn dept.:

What is this story doing on /.?

If they're so concerned about Fox making so much..

[notsoclever]

maybe they should have gone on strike for the benefit of the animators, who have an exceedingly difficult and thankless job.

so this is /. news?

[sosegumu]

It must be a slow news day! Yawnnnn....

Obligatory Simpsons reference...

[jcuervo]

Woohoo! :-)