Simpsons Pay Dispute Settled

Not a show renewal... but stilll good news. by LostCluster · 2004-05-02 01:49 · Score: 5, Informative

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. by john5211 · 2004-05-02 01:59 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
Help get a liberal
Re:Not a show renewal... but stilll good news. by dinivin · 2004-05-02 02:16 · Score: 5, Informative

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. by Rosyna · 2004-05-02 02:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

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. by MrAngryForNoReason · 2004-05-02 04:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Pay Raise by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-02 01:50 · Score: 5, Funny

More D'oh!

in the words of Homer Simpson: by cibus · 2004-05-02 01:50 · Score: 5, Funny

"Were rich - rich as astronautes!"

Thank you, Jeebus! by Chris+Tucker · 2004-05-02 01:50 · Score: 4, Funny

Warm, fresh doughnuts to all concernred.

Mmmmmmmmmmm....... Doughnuts!

--
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!

Radio ad voices by morcheeba · 2004-05-02 01:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

--
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets

Re:Radio ad voices by LostCluster · 2004-05-02 03:06 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by funkyjunkman · 2004-05-02 04:02 · Score: 3, Informative

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!

Not Enough $$ by krets · 2004-05-02 01:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 $$ by SkunkPussy · 2004-05-02 02:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
SURELY NOT!!!!!
Re:Not Enough $$ by GeekLife.com · 2004-05-02 02:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 $$ by LostCluster · 2004-05-02 02:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

125K per episode is never enough... by merikus · 2004-05-02 01:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

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... by SlamMan · 2004-05-02 02:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Mod point free since 2001
Re:125K per episode is never enough... by mercan01 · 2004-05-02 02:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

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... by beckerie · 2004-05-02 02:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

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... by uberdrums · 2004-05-02 02:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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... by cibus · 2004-05-02 02:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

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... by gl4ss · 2004-05-02 02:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:125K per episode is never enough... by silvaran · 2004-05-02 02:21 · Score: 2, Funny

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... by DrEldarion · 2004-05-02 02:22 · Score: 5, Informative

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... by sweet+cunny+muffin · 2004-05-02 02:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

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... by rjelks · 2004-05-02 02:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--

Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
Re:125K per episode is never enough... by Mr.+Darl+McBride · 2004-05-02 02:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

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... by danielsfca2 · 2004-05-02 07:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

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... by Jardine · 2004-05-02 08:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

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:Is that $125k per character voice per espisode? by kryptKnight · 2004-05-02 02:01 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -Aldous Huxley

Worst...contract negotiation...ever! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-02 02:02 · Score: 2, Funny

-Rupert Murdock

Simpsons Lifecycle Ending by SeinJunkie · 2004-05-02 02:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by dinivin · 2004-05-02 02:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by BigKato · 2004-05-02 07:41 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

Thats it? by 7aco7om · 2004-05-02 02:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

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. .

In the words of Mr. Burns by Beardydog · 2004-05-02 02:07 · Score: 2, Funny

We'll all be rich! Rich as Nazis!

Amazing. by ljavelin · 2004-05-02 02:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

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. by ljavelin · 2004-05-02 02:16 · Score: 3, Informative

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

Sharing the D'oh by LostCluster · 2004-05-02 02:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by LostCluster · 2004-05-02 07:01 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by JazFresh · 2004-05-02 02:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

...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 by dinivin · 2004-05-02 02:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by zhenlin · 2004-05-02 03:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

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:Obligatory Quote by simcop2387 · 2004-05-02 02:30 · Score: 2, Funny

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... by Mr.+Darl+McBride · 2004-05-02 02:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

The most interesting part of this discussion.. by wfberg · 2004-05-02 02:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

... 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 ..

--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty

Yay! More simpsons episodes! by bludstone · 2004-05-02 03:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 :("

--

no .sig

Whether or not you think they deserve their raises by TheABomb · 2004-05-02 03:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.

Re:Is that $125k per character voice per espisode? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-02 03:48 · Score: 2, Informative

..actually it was just "beep".

Actual figure by Matt2k · 2004-05-02 04:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

$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.

If you don't think the actors are worth the money. by ajservo · 2004-05-02 04:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

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...

How much does Matt Groening make per episode? by Animats · 2004-05-02 05:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

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:Much as I love the sompsons by Durandal64 · 2004-05-02 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

I agree: 125K per episode is never enough... by rabs · 2004-05-02 07:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

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:Much as I love the sompsons by BlacKat · 2004-05-02 10:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

" 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. ;)

If they're so concerned about Fox making so much.. by notsoclever · 2004-05-02 13:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--
There are 10 kinds of people: ones who understand ternary, ones who don't, and ones who think this joke is about binary

56 of 223 comments (clear)