TV execs dish out some tough love
Jul 15, 2004 by Brian RentschlerAlmost as long as TV shows have been on the air, actors have been bound and determined to show those corporate fat cats who’s boss. Time and again, the actors have lost. Ever heard of Suzanne Somers? She’s a classic example of why you shouldn’t fight the suits. But many have, and still do. CBS got hit especially hard this past season with Everybody Loves Raymond, when all the major cast members except Ray Romano (who had just inked a record-breaking deal) stopped showing up to work in an effort to boost their salaries. They all ended up reaching an agreement, but the situation was very tenuous, to say the least.
This year, CBS almost had to go through a similar situation, this time with CSI, also known as one of the top shows on TV. (It often comes in at #1 for the week.) So, given the fact that you’re a star on the #1 show on TV and you want just a few more bucks in your pocket, it shouldn’t be a major problem to justify the raise to the suits, should it? Well, it depends on how you go about it. In the case of George Eads (who plays Nick) and Jorja Fox (who plays Sara), they went about it the wrong way, and they’re both off the show as a result.
I’m a little surprised in several ways. First, I’m surprised that the CBS suits were so quick to fire major cast members from one of their top shows. Second, I’m surprised that the actors were so quick to bite the hand that was feeding them. In their effort to pick up a few extra dimes, they had to ignore the dollars in CBS’s outstretched hand. Then again, they’re reacting just like some of the other cast members. William Petersen, who co-produces and stars in the show, has publicly stated that he’s unhappy with his salary (which is over $5 million per year), as well as the fact that the series has been spun off into CSI: Miami and the upcoming CSI: New York.
I suppose we all need to keep in mind that most actors, whether successful or not, are operating in a vacuum. They assume their problems are the only ones that matter, and that the whole world needs to feel their pain. Well, unfortunately for the actors who were just axed, CSI will not only survive without them, it will endure. Who knows, their replacements may even be more popular than they were. At the risk of sounding insensitive, it’s a little gratifying to see that some of these egotistical actors actually get cut down to size every now and then. I just wish it would happen more often. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who thinks it’s insulting to earn “only” 100 times what the average American family does is having a hard time seeing the forest through all those pesky trees.
Source: E! Online
Brian
Around the web:
Loading ...
Solidarity seems to be the key to these pay raise “negotiations”. If you recall, that’s what worked for the cast of “Friends”.
Everything is relative, I suppose. Once Ted Danson broke the one million per episode mark during “Cheers”, the floodgates were opened.
I’m not a proponent of monster salaries for actors (or athletes… especially athletes) but when one looks at how much these shows earn the network, if the actor does happen to be the primary draw, or the piece of the puzzle that makes the whole thing work, I don’t blame them.
As to the producer, same thing goes. It would be difficult to see an actor on a show that I created and produce making 5 times what I earn.
Of course at that level of income, maybe you’re right… what the hell is the difference between 5 mil and 25 mil? I guess even at those levels people live up to their incomes.
Vic
For some reason, George Lazenby popped into my head when I read this. The first thought was that the actors may feel ‘uncompensated’ for additional responsibilities they took on after agreeing to a sum of money. Lazenby said (on a TV interview a year or two ago) that he was paid less than Sean Connery (per movie) which was actually okay with him since he was an unknown actor (except for his commercial work). His problem, he said, is that he was expected to perform his own stunts whereas Connery had a stuntman. On top of that Lazenby had NO training as a stuntman. Lazenby got bad advice from his agent that more movies were in his future and quit being Bond. No deals materialized but on-set conflicts with other actors and the demand for more money is his legacy.
Regradless of truth, this is how these two actors (Eads/Fox) will be remembered.
However it may sound, I feel Lazenby is the exception and not the norm. Often when a hit-show is certified as the ‘next big-thing’, an actor begins to think that they are the most important cog in the machine while forgetting they are really interchangeable parts.
That’s right, can you say “David Caruso”?
He was extremely lucky in getting a second shot at a hit TV series with CSI: Miami.
Vic
Caruso is another classic example of how you don’t want to play the Hollywood game. His arrogance and stubbornness got him sentenced to B-movie purgatory for almost a decade. Will he learn from his mistakes? Hard to say… Travolta didn’t.
Brian