Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Harry Shearer Returns To the Simpsons

Posted by Soulskill on from the indeedily-doodily dept.

jones_supa writes: Fans of The Simpsons will find this turn of events nothing short of excellent: seven weeks after saying he was done with Fox's endless animated comedy, Harry Shearer has agreed to rejoin the show. Shearer has now signed the same four-season contract as the other five primary voice actors. He previously tweeted, "I wanted what we've always had: the freedom to do other work." Executive producer Al Jean found that tweet confusing, saying, "Everybody on the show does lots of outside projects. He actually gets to record on the phone and do the [table] reads on the phone. So we've never kept him from doing that stuff."

100 comments

  1. Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    News at 11.

    1. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No, evidently phoning in his lines still didn't allow for enough free time for 'other projects'

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. At one point each of the voice actors was making $450,000 per episode but Fox threatened to drop the show if they couldn't reduce costs. That came in the form of pay cuts down to "only" $300,000 per episode. All of the other actors were fine with that, except for Harry Shearer, who was being a whiny, entitled little bitch. The "project freedom" bullshit was him trying to cover the fact that he's a greedy bastard.

      Oh no, he'll only be able to buy five Ferraris this year instead of six.

    3. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Edis+Krad · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh no, he'll only be able to buy five Ferraris this year instead of six.

      Don't you mean an ivory backscratcher?

    4. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by viperidaenz · · Score: -1, Troll

      You sound like the whiny little bitch, upset that someone with talent make more money than you.

    5. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      That tenuous inference doesn't even make any logical sense. Non sequitur much?

      If that's your game, then here's one for you: You sound like a sycophantic little bitch who is on Harry Shearer's jock because you think he'll "discover" you.

    6. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given how much money The Simpsons make..... Fox can go fuck itself and I hope Shearer screwes them for every penny he can

    7. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obviously that's not going to happen. You know, what with Shearer crawling back to them with his tail between his legs.

    8. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shearer was a greedy bastard but Fox isn't? Shearer threatens to walk for "creative freedom", Fox threatens to cancel the show because they "can't afford" what they were paying before. It's all negotiating tactics, Shearer simply had the leverage and the will to win the negotiation.

      Fox will have to scrounge for that extra 150k per episode out of their 31 billion in revenue this year, but somehow I think they will survive.

    9. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Kester1964 · · Score: 1

      Given the number of different voices he does for the various characters in the Simpsons I would say he is very underpaid then. If you get can $450,000 for doing one voice.

      Here are a few he does: Ned Flanders, Charles Montgomery Burns, Waylon Smithers, Seymour Skinner, Dr. Hibbert, Lenny Leonard, Kent Brockman, Scratchy, Kang, Otto Mann, Rev. Lovejoy, Rainier Wolfcastle /P

    10. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. Shearer didn't win anything, he came back and signed the exact same deal that the others did, $300K per episode.

    11. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still easily replaceable since voice actors are behind the scenes. When Mel Blanc died, nobody really noticed that he wasn't doing the voices any more.

    12. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "News at 11."

      Don't bother, the kids here are too young to get the joke.

    13. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Whiny little bitch"? You sound like you've got the emotional maturity and wit of a 13-year-old.

    14. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he tried and failed.
      Still better than just taking it up the ass without resisting.

    15. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by DrXym · · Score: 3

      YouTube is filled with talented impressionists who can do these voices. I'm sure that if Shearer hadn't been persuaded (with $$$) to stay that Fox could easily have hired replacements whose voices were indistinguishable. It might have resulted in a fan backlash or rancour from the other actors but the voices would be the least of their troubles.

    16. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Not just Bugs, but Mickey Mouse (Goofy, Donald, Minnie, etc.) Shaggy & Scooby Doo, the muppets, Elmo, animated Batman / The Joker, King Julien / Puss in Boots etc.

      Either the original actor dies, or wants to do other things, or is too expensive (especially for TV / videogame spinoffs), or takes the whole tickle-me-elmo a little too far. So sound-a-likes are hired.

    17. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      I guess you haven't listened to his NPR Radio show. Unless you are die hard hippy level, liberal, who hates all things about Nuclear Power, Fracking, Catholic, Olympics, George Bush Jr. and you really really really hate the Army Core of Engineers.
      Sure between his mindless rantings that are based on one sided facts without any real context, the parody music is OK.

      Normally I need to switch off the radio when he comes on the air. He twists his stuff worse then Fox news.

      And he is the reason why I do not fund my local radio station... Because during a previous fund drive, he got little call in to keep it on the air, so they decided to move him to a different time slot, and he went bitched and complained so they put it back. Listen to their members, my ass.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    18. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, evidently phoning in his lines still didn't allow for enough free time for 'other projects'

      Sigh. Because of the typical boring legal nature of these conflicts, we may well never know the whole story. Perhaps something else he wanted to do conflicted with The Simpsons in some way, and he's just gotten go-ahead to do it, in writing. But because E.P. Al Jean said you should be skeptical, you automatically are. He successfully framed the debate for you to be specifically over time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      I guess you haven't listened to his NPR Radio show. Unless you are die hard hippy level, liberal, who hates all things about Nuclear Power, Fracking, Catholic, Olympics, George Bush Jr. and you really really really hate the Army Core of Engineers.

      Sounds sensible to me. All of those things are cancers. You want to think of the ACE as the good guys, but they build stuff that furthers our war efforts, whether economic or actually blowing shit up. They are there not to make the world a better place, but to make certain people richer, and they compete with non-military labor.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Kester1964 · · Score: 1

      Yes, no one is irreplaceable, but I would like to think that Harry Shearer contributes to the personality of these characters even if the quality of the scripts are not as good as they used to be.

    21. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was mirroring the fact that "whiny, entitled little bitch" was the phrasing the guy he was replying to used to refer to Shearer in the first place.

    22. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Ohh Nooo a Military organization who's job is to support the military! OMG!!!!

      The other things are not Cancers, however they mostly need oversight and controls. Like the rest of the world we have to have tradeoffs.
      Sure sometimes countries get a bit over zealous in their bid to host the Olympics.
      Nuclear Power and Fracking, isn't as Clean, Safe, and reliable as the industry says.
      Yes the Catholic church isn't operated by a bunch of saints.
      Is anyone really that stupid to think otherwise?
      However they are not a set of complete villeins either. Nuclear Power, is a good low carbon pollution power source (Right now Carbon Pollution is a bigger issue then radioactive waste)
      Fracking is one of the safer methods to get Fossil fuels.
      The Catholic church really tries do do good things.

      Creating fear and disgust against such things, prevents from actually trying to work on a better compromise where we can reduce many of the risks, without loosing all the benefits.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    23. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      They are there not to make the world a better place

      Like all tools, the military can be used for good and bad things. If you don't like what the military has done over the last few years, take it up with the guys in charge - but it doesn't necessarily follow that we need shittier tools.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    24. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      His show doesn't bother me so much for his views, which are common (though I agree not very thoughtful - he just parrots tired old arguments). But his delivery is just awful. Long, awkward pauses followed by mouth-smacking into the microphone when he thinks he's said something profound. Nothing even remotely entertaining happens. I switch over to regular radio and listen to mattress commercials.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    25. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think the scripts could be improved immensely with the money they now pay voice actors. The writing is the important part of that show, not the voices.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    26. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well excuse me for thinking that $6,000,000 ($300,000 * 20) per year for talking sounds just a little overpaid. Perhaps you could explain how such a salary is justified? Without resorting to "well the Market says..."?

    27. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he crawl back, or did Fox simply change the terms of the contract to be more agreeable to him? Do you know something we do not, something concrete and not inferred from these tweets?

    28. Re: Harry Shearer wanted more money by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Lemme guess: your judgment is more significant than the judgement of millions of consumers sending their opinion information through price signals?
      *I* happen to think he's very overrated, but then *my* opinion doesn't count for much. Certainly not more than millions of other people.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    29. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Kester1964 · · Score: 1

      I miss the subtle movie references and social/political satire the writers imbued in the programs, as well as the classic lines as in the snake killing episode, "Gentlemen, start your whacking!" Both me and my kids laughed, although for entirely different reasons.

    30. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that advice based on your prison experience?

    31. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Hey, it's Hollywood. The whole story is as ad campaign. For all I know he's giving Quaaludes to Principal Skinner's mom to have his way with her.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    32. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      animated Batman / The Joker

      Bad example.
      1) To the best of my knowledge, no one else has mimicked Kevin Conroy's take on Batman.
      2) Troy Baker, while an acceptable replacement in Assault on Arkham, still sounded subtly different from Mark Hamill.

    33. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, the truth isn't that.

      His contract with Fox and the Simpsons states he's to get 5 weeks off guaranteed. He's always been allowed to pursue other projects on his on and off time, and he's actually fairly rich as it is (and old - so more money just means more inheritances).

      What happened was last season, Shearer was on his contract-given break when Al Jean wanted him to do some quick voice work, and that was what broke the camel's back.

      His wanting more time to pursue other things was probably a veiled attempt at explaining this - while he was free to do it during his contracted time, the Simpsons would always be first priority (so he would have to drop everything, do whatever The Simpsons wanted, then return back). So his options were limited and he really only 5 weeks where he could go and do other things where the Simpsons were not his priority.

      So Al Jean wanting to impinge on that time (which to be honest, probably Jean thought it was a minor thing, like a one-liner or something and he'd be in and out in an hour) sent him over the edge to tell Fox to screw it.

      And that's how it is - he's free to moonlight and provide talent all year, but when he's "on Simpsons time" he's required to put that first ahead of his other work he's pursuing. When he's off, he can do what the f*ck he wants, even the Simpsons can't stop him.

      The layman version is - he gets 5 weeks of vacation a year. He got screwed because his boss wanted him to come in to do a quick something or other. He blew his top.

    34. Re: Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lemme guess: your judgment is more significant than the judgement of millions of consumers sending their opinion information through price signals?
      *I* happen to think he's very overrated, but then *my* opinion doesn't count for much. Certainly not more than millions of other people.

      So what you're saying is that you cannot explain it either.
      OK

    35. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    36. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by jbrown.za · · Score: 2

      The Simpsons franchise generates massive revenue and returns for Fox. This is in no small part because of the "relationship" that viewers from across the globe have developed with the Simpsons characters, which are highly reliant on the well known voices. Harry Shearer does some very distinct voices for characters like Mr. Burns and Ned Flanders. His services are therefore involved in far more than mere talking as you suggest. He adds an immense amount of value and deserves to be well compensated.

      This is the same reason other actors, professional sports people, famous musicians etc. make the kind of money they do. They add value ... Besides, $6,000,000 is a lot less than many people at the top of their profession in the corporate world make.

      I'm not saying he's a good/bad guy or that he should be paid less/more. All I'm saying is that I would expect someone who is as central to the value creation of the Simpsons to be extremely well paid and think it is entirely justified.

    37. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      "Wacking Day" is one of the best things that ever happened on television. Also, gay steel mills.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    38. Re: Harry Shearer wanted more money by Xenx · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's quite easily explained. They even hinted at it. Millions of people watch the show, which brings in TONS of money for Fox. In exchange for that, the voice actors get paid lots of money. It's all pretty standard.

    39. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      In short, he was just trolling to elicit a response, whereas the the parent most likely had a valid point. Harry Shearer comes across an an angry/whiny old man to me, I've seen him on Graham Norton. Anyway, we known for a fact that anonymous trolls are over this place, and love to stir up discord. I asked a few point blank last year, who admitted they troll, but they wouldn't explain exactly why they do it; but it seemed like there was more to it than just kicks for a 14 year old.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    40. Re: Harry Shearer wanted more money by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Give it up - anyone that won't accept a market based explanation of why people get the salaries they get is hopeless.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    41. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      He finally accepted the same contract as everyone else. When he realized Fox would do the show without him, suddenly $300k an episode for a few hours of voice work seemed worth not losing.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    42. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      It's not about the quantity of voices, it's about how much air time each voice gets. All of those characters are secondary, and all of them combined usually do not amount to what Homer or Bart says in any given episode. Dan Castellaneta does just as many voices, including Homer, and took the $300k deal, because no matter how much money you have or make, you don't walk away from $300k for a day or two of voice work times 22 (or so) episodes a year.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    43. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by FacePlant · · Score: 1

      Harry's beef with the ACE - at least according to his movie, "The Big Uneasy" - is that they aren't engineers any more, just project managers, it's about how badly they fucked up the New Orleans pumping system, and how they're politically untouchable.

      I think his show is listenable sometimes, but does get unlistenable and unfunny at times too.

      --
      My Heart Is A Flower
    44. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well excuse me for thinking that $6,000,000 ($300,000 * 20) per year for talking sounds just a little overpaid. Perhaps you could explain how such a salary is justified? Without resorting to "well the Market says..."?

      Probably because their voices are recorded, played back and earn MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of dollars in ad revenue because MILLIONS of people adore the writing, voicing, animation, etc.

      Whereas your voice and mine are pretty much ignored, and much of the ad revenue is gone due to ad blockers. If your comments brought in millions, and they decided to pay you, I’d say I’d understand - since you might take your insightful comments elsewhere otherwise. Except in this case, that’s a hypothetical, because your comments are pathetic.

    45. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Never listened to anything on NPR in my life.

      Also never been to USA to have the opportunity.

      Also not a fan of radio on the internet.

    46. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things that are outright good:

      Nuclear Power

      Things that are debatable:

      Olympics

      Things that aren't exactly good, but aren't apropros:

      Catholics -- awfully specific.
      George Bush Jr. -- not a good thing, but that's over. It's done.

      Things I don't know enough about to judge:

      Fracking
      Army Core of Engineers

    47. Re: Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody knows that's why they *get* those salaries. What hasn't been demonstrated is why they *deserve* those salaries. The unexamined assumption here seems to be that you deserve whatever you can legally get.

      This dilemma comes up frequently in mass entertainment like acting and sports, and also in the management of large companies (CEO compensation at fortune 500s). The economics lead to a really strange lottery economy, compared to more personalized services. Compare medical practitioners, which are highly paid, but despite high and inelastic demand and low supply, are not *that* highly paid because it's so individual.

      (things like progressive taxation can take the edge off of perceived unfairness for some people; it enrages others).

    48. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by tehlinux · · Score: 2

      You'd think he'd care more about the writers phoning it in than himself.

      --
      Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
    49. Re: Harry Shearer wanted more money by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      You're being pedantic about it; if Harry Shearer is bringing enough value to Fox for him to paid $300k an episode, then he "deserves" it the same way a star athlete, who generates millions of dollars for his team's franchise, "deserves" the exorbitant salaries they make.

      "Deserves" is really otherwise a very subjective term - and just because you don't think someone "deserves" something doesn't mean they don't, so it's pointless to argue about it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    50. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether or not that's true (*), it doesn't change the fact that it was the OP who came up with the "whiny little bitch" phrasing.

      (*) And you seem to be cutting the OP a lot of slack in calling Shearer a "whiny, entitled little bitch" while not granting anything like the same benefit of the doubt to the person replying to him.

    51. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Copid · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you could explain how such a salary is justified? Without resorting to "well the Market says..."?

      Becuse he's earning his employers shittons more than $6M per year by doing that work? Would the morally correct outcome be for him to cut his salary by, say, $3M so the owners of the company can pocket $3M more?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    52. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You sound like the whiny little bitch, upset that someone with talent make more money than you.

      Some people get all bent out of shape when any Jew makes more money than they do.

    53. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who isn't content with $7+ million per year in pay for a voice acting gig *is* a whiny little bitch. You'll notice that none of the other actors complained, only Shearer.

    54. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as a software developer I've earned companies I've worked at millions, yet I never got paid near that much. Did I whine? Nope, not once because I understand that it is how business operates and I am free to start my own at any time. There is a lot of work that goes into running a company, but your childlike view of the world prevents you from realising this.

    55. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because $300K per episode is really taking it up the ass. He didn't resist anything, he threw a childish temper tantrum, threatened to leave, learned that they'd continue the show without him and came crawling back.

    56. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Black+LED · · Score: 1

      My favourite reference is in the tomacco episode where Homer goes to a general store called "Sneed's Feed & Seed (Formerly Chuck's)".

    57. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      There's also probably a million other people in the world who can do your job.

    58. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As there are a million other people in the world who can do Shearer's job. Talking isn't hard.

    59. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Things that are outright good:

      Nuclear Power

      It's the most expensive power source ever invented by man. Billions to develop, billions to construct, billions to maintain and insure, and thousands of years to store the waste. And that's aside from the risk of another Fukishima/Chernobyl.

    60. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      YouTube is filled with talented impressionists who can do these voices.

      Yeah. Just ask Vance and Coy Duke. Anyone can drive a Charger, anyone at all.

      Or....not. You can find any old impression on Youtube, but it's much harder to find an actual replacement of the real thing. And that's for just one voice....how about for the dozen+ that Harry does?

    61. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Copid · · Score: 1

      If you had gotten paid a larger chunk of that money, would it have been morally wrong somehow?

      Are you sure you deserved your whole salary as a software developer? I bet you'd have done it for less than you were paid, so why did you take that money? What are you really worth, and how do you know?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    62. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Kester1964 · · Score: 1

      "Hot stuff coming through!"

    63. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a base requirement, to keep a roof over my head and food on my table. Beyond that it's all gravy and I'm grateful for it. Perhaps Shearer should be too.

    64. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Copid · · Score: 1

      So if your employer cut you back to that base requirement, you wouldn't consider leaving and using your time some other way? Or at least work fewer hours?

      Imagine you had enough money to live your current standard of living forever without working any more. Would that change your base requirement? You have a set of choices with respect to what to do with your time. One option would be not to work at all and to spend time with friends and family and enriching hobbies. Assuming that was an option to you, would the base pay requirement to get you to give that time up and go to work every day go up, or would it stay the same regardless of whether you needed the money or not?

      I ask because Shearer has tons of money. A paycheck that would rent him a cheap apartment and a daily ration of Top Ramen would not affect his standard of living at all. He wouldn't notice either way. So given that he's probably a normal person with friends and family and hobbies, he'd be crazy to go to work at a job that only pays enough for a cheap apartment and a daily ration of Top Ramen. He's better off enjoying the days he has left doing something more enriching. Being "grateful" that an employer offered him a subsistence wage in exchange for losing that time wouldn't be rational at all.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    65. Re:Harry Shearer wanted more money by Copid · · Score: 1

      Let me step back a bit and rephrase my earlier question. There are two key price points: There's the upper limit, which is the amount of money you make for your employer. They wouldn't pay you a dollar more than that because they'd just be losing a dollar on the net, and they'd be indifferent between hiring you and not hiring you if it equals that amount because the net value to them is $0. Then there's the minimum amount you'd work for. You wouldn't work for less than that, by definition. So now there's a big range between those two numbers.

      The salary you land on in that range reflects a split of that surplus value between you and your employer. You seem to think that you getting some of it while your employer keeps some of it is reasonable. You also seem to think that you getting none of it while your employer keeps all of it is reasonable. But somewhere along the line, you seem to think that you taking "too much" of it becomes unreasonable. I'm wondering what you're basing that on and how you decide when "too much" has happened. Why the asymmetry in favor of the employer, and why the certainty that Shearer crossed it somewhere between $300K and $450K per episode?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  2. Oh won't someone please think of the children? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    And end this show already. It hasn't been funny or even watchable since around Season 10. Let it die already.

    1. Re: Oh won't someone please think of the children? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wholeheartedly agree, would rather watch early season repeats than the lowbrow shit today.

    2. Re:Oh won't someone please think of the children? by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're not forcing you to watch it.
      It it's not watchable, don't watch it.

    3. Re:Oh won't someone please think of the children? by Andrio · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This type of comment is always inevitable any time Simpsons gets mentioned in an online community.

      No one denies that 3-9 was the golden age of the Simpsons. However 10-12 was the dark age of the simpsons. This was when Mike Scully ran the show; it had become very cartoony and "Family Guy"ish (maybe not so much with the cut-away gags, but in how it will compromise character integrity for the sake of a punch line). Around season 13 Al Jean rejoined the show as the showrunner, and the quality went back up. He was one of the original writers/show runners of the show.

      So yes, Simpsons is not as good as it was in it golden years—I'm not sure if anything on TV is—but I think it's unfair to downright say it's bad now. It's a decent show, and still leagues better than Family Guy, at least. (I'm not sure why I'm suddenly comparing it to Family Guy—maybe it's because I hate Family Guy).

      And before anyone points it out, yes, I'm aware of the irony that my signature comes from a Mike Scully episode of the Simpsons.

      --
      The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
    4. Re: Oh won't someone please think of the children? by mjm1231 · · Score: 1

      Wow, I can't believe two AC comments for this, and both modded down. People post openly their opinions on guns, abortion, and corporate taxation, but apparently saying the Simpsons is not good crosses a line.

      Too bad. I agree with them 100%. I can probably quote nearly every line of dialogue from the first 7-10 seasons of the Simpsons. Everything after that (at least, as far as I have seen) is worse than average TV sitcom.

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    5. Re:Oh won't someone please think of the children? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last few seasons have been pretty good, maybe you should try watching an episode now and then.

  3. Nancy wanted him gone for ridiculing Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The OT VIII voice of Bart Simpson couldn't stand him exercising his free speech on his weekly radio "Le Show". Scientology often appears in his "Apologies of the week" segment whenever they're caught violating human rights.

  4. ridiculous man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    talk about looking gift horses in the mouth. he has no fucking idea how easy he has it.

    1. Re:ridiculous man by gsslay · · Score: 2

      How many millions do you need? If you've got that kind of money, it's amazing just how little you'd value another $1 million. There are things that are much more finite that become more important. Like your time. Or enjoying your life. Or doing work that means something to you.

      He's very lucky to be in that situation. That's why he really doesn't need the gift horse anymore, and it may need him more than he needs it.

    2. Re:ridiculous man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never fell for the whole "eat your dinner because kids in afrika are starving".
      I don't give a crap how shit other people have it.
      If he thinks he's worth more money, or if he thinks the show is a waste of his time that's his decision.
      Just because someone is willing to pay him doesn't mean he is obligated to accept.

    3. Re:ridiculous man by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Then why didn't he walk away? He ended up coming back and taking the same deal they were offering (him and everyone else). I get he has his talk show which, I would presume in his mind, is actually worthwhile compared to doing the Simpsons, so if he just wants to keep busy and have a positive impact, he'd have quit the Simpsons and just done his show. For the record, at 20 episodes, you're talking about the difference between 6 and 9 million (he accepted the $300k an episode, down from $450k). Unless you're a billionaire, you don't walk away from $6M/year for a few weeks worth of voice work.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  5. just a comment by maryjanety3 · · Score: 0

    http://dailymotion.com/pettlep...

  6. Flogging a dead horse. by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    Or milking it to death. Or maybe both.

    1. Re:Flogging a dead horse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or milking a dead horse?

  7. What the hell has this got to do with 'tech'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Why is it on here?

    1. Re:What the hell has this got to do with 'tech'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea this is a who gives a shit story if i ever saw one and does not belong here.

    2. Re:What the hell has this got to do with 'tech'? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Except this isn't exclusively a "tech" site. The old tag line, "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters" clearly defines this article as relavent.

      Plus, stop whining because a specific article doesn't match your individual tastes.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    3. Re:What the hell has this got to do with 'tech'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I fucked your Mom and she was shit.

    4. Re:What the hell has this got to do with 'tech'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Except this isn't exclusively a "tech" site. The old tag line, "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters" clearly defines this article as relavent.

      Plus, stop whining because a specific article doesn't match your individual tastes.

      The correct spelling is "relevant". Also, although I like the Simpsons, it's not really relevant to this site, which *is* a tech site despite various douchebags' attempts to change that. It should not be flooded with irrelevant trash articles just because it's a "slow news day".

    5. Re:What the hell has this got to do with 'tech'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this isn't exclusively a "tech" site. The old tag line, "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters" clearly defines this article as relavent.

      Plus, stop whining because a specific article doesn't match your individual tastes.

      The correct spelling is "relevant". Also, although I like the Simpsons, it's not really relevant to this site, which *is* a tech site despite various douchebags' attempts to change that. It should not be flooded with irrelevant trash articles just because it's a "slow news day".

      Your reading comprehension is amazingly poor.

    6. Re:What the hell has this got to do with 'tech'? by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      The amount of trash stories we're inundated with since Dice took over is slowly turning Slashdot into a generic infotainment website that has no more relevance to technology and science than Faux News.

      What has generic politics from the US got to do with technology?

      What has an over-the-hill cartoon got to do with technology?

      What does the situation in Greece have to do with technology?

      It's all turning into one grand flogging of clickbait instead of content, and I'm disgusted by it.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    7. Re:What the hell has this got to do with 'tech'? by the+phantom · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because Slashdot never, ever covered general politics, popular culture, or economic issues prior to the Dice takeover.

      --
      Rhapsody in Numbers
    8. Re:What the hell has this got to do with 'tech'? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Once again, the site is "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" not "All Tech, All the Time". I'm sure you would like the site to be all tech but I've been reading the site since the 90's and it has never been as such

      In fact, a simple search of the site for "Simpsons" yields multiple articles speculating on a Simpson movie since at least 2000 (I didn't go back farther), an announcement about Simpsons season 1 being released on DVD and many more posts about the show. This latest article is completely in keeping with what Slashdot has always done

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  8. steeples fingers by ihtoit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Excellent.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:steeples fingers by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Now Shearer won't have to release the hounds.

  9. Re:Nancy wanted him gone for ridiculing Scientolog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not bad, a guy who's constantly ragging on Scientology hasn't been destroyed by the Scientology hate machine.

  10. I thought he just wanted out by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    With all that talk about not being able to do other projects being debunked by the show's producers as soon as it first came out, I thought that maybe Shearer just wanted out of the job and he was afraid to admit it and have the fans nut out over it. In that scenario, claiming to not have time for other projects would be a good cover story as it can't be disproven and it would get him off the show. I really didn't think it was over money because it seemed illogical to me that he could realistically expect the entire cast to sign for the same deal and him get something better. He's 71 now, so I just figured he'd had enough and wanted to do something else at this point in his life. Now that I read that he re-signed I really have no idea what this was all about unless maybe it really was an attempt to get more money that failed.

    1. Re:I thought he just wanted out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where was this debunked?

  11. Too bad by ITRambo · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was really looking forward to the first new episode where all of his voiced characters were caught in a nuclear/chemical smog that changed their voices. That might have been funny as hell.

  12. Wait, he was literally phoning it in? by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1

    My God, why would he even think about giving up a gig like that? I guess the network rightly called his bluff.

    I just wish the voice of Bart Simpson wasn't giving all those millions to Scientology.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    1. Re:Wait, he was literally phoning it in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The man is 71 years old!

    2. Re:Wait, he was literally phoning it in? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why people keep repeating this... so what? My dad is 85 and still runs his own accounting business. Some people are perfectly capable at that age, some aren't; Shearer obviously is.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  13. He saw the Ted Cruz audition .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He saw the Ted Cruz audition and decided that he couldn't let it happen ....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K0sRkvX4KE

  14. Typical by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Hold out til the last minute. I was done with that show YEARS ago. Funny and entertaining (in a morbid stupid way) for a couple years, then I was done with it. Same as South Park...I mean, how many times can you kill Kenny before it just becomes stupid/boring?