question of the day: Should the ‘Simpsons’ cast take 45 percent pay cuts so the show can continue?
Here’s something to make your head spin. From BBC News:
US TV network Fox has said it can no longer afford to produce long-running animated comedy The Simpsons without a pay cut for its cast.
Fox wants its cast to give back almost half their salary? What could possibly justify such a demand? The show is a cash cow, earning billions from merchandising and syndication. So this, from Llyod Grove at The Daily Beast, is particularly intriguing... and infuriating:
The pay-cut ultimatum was delivered Monday evening as Fox spurned the actors’ proposal, delivered late last week, to take a cut of around 30 percent in exchange for a tiny percentage of the show’s huge back-end profits—amounting to untold billions—from syndication around the globe and merchandising of Simpsons clothing, lunchboxes, stamps, DVDs, a feature film, and videogames, among other paraphernalia. The series is produced by the 20th Century Fox studio and aired by the Fox network, both News Corp. companies, but the studio reaps the ancillary rewards.
Grove notes that Fox basically cannot lose, even if the show shuts down:
Fox has consistently refused to compensate the main cast members beyond their generous salaries, and once production ends, the studio will continue to reap billions for years to come (with Fox drawing on a valuable archive of around 500 episodes), while the actors will receive little more than their union-mandated residuals.
Yes, the salaries are indeed generous... as they should be, for a series that is hugely profitable for Fox. The voice actors are a key reason why the series has become such a hit, and they deserve to be fairly compensated for that, even if that “fair compensation” seems like a lot of money to us proles. The actors are, quite literally, irreplaceable.
As John Doyle at The Globe and Mail snorts:
Fox issued a statement saying this: “We believe this brilliant series can and should continue, but we cannot produce future seasons under its current financial model. We are hopeful that we can reach an agreement with the voice cast that allows The Simpsons to go on entertaining audiences with original episodes for many years to come.”
Bingo. Are any Fox executives being asked to take a 45 percent pay cut so the show can continue? I didn’t think so.
Should the Simpsons cast take 45 percent pay cuts so the show can continue?
Regardless of what you might think of the quality of the show lately -- I think it’s been off the mark for years now -- that’s sorta beside the point. Should the actors stick to their guns and perhaps see a nice cushy job finish? Or should they give in and keep milking the cash cow, even if their bucket of milk is smaller than it was?
(If you have a suggestion for a QOTD, feel free to email me. Responses to this QOTD sent by email will be ignored; please post your responses here.)
Disqus commentsblog comments powered by Disqus
Wed Oct 05 11, 10:38AM
join the conversation:
talk amongst yourselves
by MaryAnn Johanson
· what he said: John Doyle at ‘The Globe and Mail’...
· question of the day: Which era would you like to see as a setting for a nostalgic soap opera or drama (à la ‘Mad Men’)?
· furries versus bronies... because you were wondering (and other adventures in social networking)
· question of the day: Does it matter if “reality TV” is fake?
· question of the day: Why do Hollywood execs suddenly love Lindsay Lohan again?
· question of the day: Does it matter if Shakespeare wasn’t the author of the Shakespearean plays?
· question of the day: Is there a last-minute guerrilla campaign against ‘The Hurt Locker’?
· question of the day: Why the hell is Harvey Weinstein reviewing movies?
· journalmalism has its price: young Americans now think torture is okay (but only when Americans do it)
· you’re not helping: Hollywood’s rediscovery of nonblond nonbimbos does not a revolution make
London photo of the day: guys dancing at Southbank
Martha Marcy May Marlene (trailer)