Plus it’s not like there’s a law that requires them to ONLY make money from acting. There were documentaries about Dana Plato from Diff’rent Strokes and an interview with the former child star who played the daughter who went upstairs and never came back down on Family Matters in which it was said they HAD to do porn (soft core in Plato’s case, hard core in the other one’s) just to make ends meet, or that Corey Haim and other former child stars were reduced to beggin, and I remember thinking “Bullshit!” Unless somebody put a gun to their head, and there’s no allegation anybody did, they didn’t have to do porn or beg: there’s no shortage of broke actors and actresses and broke people from all other professions who clearly didn’t feel they HAD to do porn- for most it isn’t even an option- and neither do most beg. They get jobs outside of the acting field. There’s not just more dignity in being a waitress or a hostess, there’s more money in it (porn doesn’t pay much when you’re an up and… ahem… comer, especially for women, and it slashes future earning potential). Or, crazy thought but… how about college? Become a teacher- the fact you’re a former child star might even help you land a gig as a drama teacher at some school where you’ll have a paycheck, benefits, summers off to try and revive your career, and any money you make from long ago projects can be your vacation money or go into a retirement account. When you haven’t worked in your field in years it ain’t your field no more and you need to accept that and move on.
Aside from their contracts, there may be the issue of misappropriation of the likeness. No one can use a picture of you for commercial purposes without your permission AFAIK.
Whether the actors need the money or not is irrelevant.
If the network is still making money off the show, why shouldn’t the cast? At least the cast was actually involved in creating the show. The network that currently owns Happy Days isn’t even the network that originally aired it. Why should anyone there get more money off this property than the people who were in front of the camera?
I mean, if you want to turn this into a debate that copyrights should expire after twenty years or something, fine, but singling out the actors for making pennies on the dollar, as compared to the network, seems backwards.
How much money do you think they were making? I couldn’t find the salaries for Moran, Most, Ross and Williams but Henry Winkler was paid $750 an episode.
$750 a week for Fonzie? That must have been the first season when he was only a part-time character. Happy Days was the #1 show for years. I’d guess the major roles easily paid 30 grand an episode. Smaller roles maybe 10 grand? That’s just a guess. Happy Days didn’t end until what? 1983? By then tv stars were getting good money.
I recall hearing somewhere, that today bit players on a successful series makes a minimum of 2 or 3 grand an episode. I’m pretty sure the major roles get at least 60 grand and up. There was an article about Seinfield. IIRC the total salaries ran over a million an episode for that rather small cast of actors. That’s one reason series rarely run more than 5 seasons. The cast salaries makes it almost impossible to keep a show on much longer than that. They keep climbing higher and higher every season a show lasts.
I don’t mind the salaries these people make.
My only point was actor, musicians are the only people I know that make residuals. Everyone else in this world busts their ass working for their employer. They get a paycheck, benefits and that’s it. As I mentioned earlier, try asking an old boss for compensation twenty years after your job ends. He’ll laugh you out of his office.
Henry Winkler was the highest paid actor on television by the final seasons. I remember a blip in TV guide when Ron Howard returned to the show for a single episode that he had to be paid $1 more for the guest appearance because of the terms of his contract which somehow was still in force even though he’d been gone for years, and that was then over $100,000 per episode. (The “$1 more than anyone else” clause is apparently a standard negotiating feature; Paul Reiser had the $1 more than Helen Hunt clause in his contract which is why he earned almost a million dollars per episode for the final season of Mad About You.)
Yeah, they made lots of money. I remember reading a feature about Anson Williams (Potsie) during the show’s run and he had a really nice home in the hills with a beautiful pool and furnishings. It would easily be worth several million these days.
I don’t know about “Happy Days” but on the “Combat” TV show which ran from 1962-1967, in the second season co stars Rick Jason and Vic Morrow got raises to $3,500 a show and in the fifth year it went to $10,000 an episode. Actually Morrow pushed and got the raises and Jason was given them because his contract called to get what Morrow got. There are some comments on the DVDs that it was the stunt men who were the second (third highest) because they would be filmed as American soldiers in the firefights filmed in the morning and then dress as Germans for the afternoon filming. A few years earlier James Garner was making about $1,250 an episode for “Maverick”.
I think TV actors were paid a lot less back then. Max Baer Jr has talked about how he made $17,000 a year playing Jethro on “Beverly Hillbillies”. I guess nowadays actors and their agents are more savvy about how much a series can make on reruns, home video, merchandising,etc. Plus now you will get residuals on reruns when before the mid70s it was good for only 5 showings at most.
So I can believe the “Happy Days” actors got paid poorly, especially for the first few years with the contracts studios offer and “if you don’t like this, there are a lot of actors who will sign”.
I remember some business savvy musician, Frank Zappa or Robert Fripp, once advising musicians to always demand an audit of the record company. “Vry often you will find they are under paying what they owe you. You will never find that they are overpaying you”.
Interesting story about The Honeymooners. The four principal cast members were negotiating their contracts. Jackie Gleason, Art Carney, and Joyce Randolph all had experienced entertainment lawyers. But Audrey Meadows used her brothers, who were lawyers but had no experience in show business.
So the lawyers for the first three focused on negotiating to get as high a salary per episode as they could. Meadows’ brothers were also trying to get her a good salary but at some point in the negotiation they made an offer to back down on a salary issue for something else - perpetual residuals.
Now this was back in the fifties. Most television shows were broadcast once and never seen again. There were a few rare cases where an episode might be broadcast a second time as a filler during the summer. So the studio thought they were putting one over on Meadows when they agreed to pay her every time an episode of The Honeymooners was broadcast.
From the CNN article: “Bluetooth headsets”…
Really? Anyone need a Happy Days thing hanging on your head?
[quote=“Jim_s_Son, post:28, topic:578989”]
I think TV actors were paid a lot less back then. Max Baer Jr has talked about how he made $17,000 a year playing Jethro on “Beverly Hillbillies”./QUOTE] It’s hard to imagine now, but that was damn good money in the early Sixties.
The actor who played Doc Baker on Little House on the Prairie was very bitter in his last years over how he felt Michael Landon had screwed him and some other actors out of residuals by never making them regulars, only contract players, even though they were in most of the episodes. He said in an interview that he received around $8,000 per year in residuals under SAG requirements for contract players but it would have been many times that for regulars. Of course I don’t think he spoke to the issue that $8,000 per year is a lot more than most people get for something they did 30 years ago and that at the time he was making way more than most Americans- basically if you have to be screwed by somebody there are worse ways.
I didn’t realize that Al Molinaro is still alive. He’s 92. At one point he and Anson Williams were investors in a small chain of “BIG AL’s” diners in the midwest based on the diner in HAPPY DAYS, but no idea if they still exist.
Just checked on Erin Moran’s pics. Wow, I would bang here at her age.
Isn’t it really about going back in time to make a better contract?
They didn’t know it’d be so big, they didn’t know it’d run so long, they didn’t realize it’d be merchandized. Huh? They had representation that got them a deal they were happy with at the time. Now they want to change it so it pays more to them, because they overlooked a couple of things? Shouldn’t they be suing their legal representation who so failed them?
I don’t see how, the people who made/own the show, and have found a way, to continue to profit from it, should have to pay them anything.
If I sell you my good idea, for $100, thinking I’m doing well, and you find a way to make a million off of it, I can’t come back and sue you because I’m losing my house.
Lots of actors lost out on unrealized income when syndication was introduced. Their contracts didn’t cover it because it hadn’t existed before. Newer actors made sure it was included. Sucks to be them, but I don’t see a legal leg to stand on.
Should candle makers have sued for loss of income when the electric light came along? No, of course not. Things change, sometimes it’s not in a good way, for you. Doesn’t mean you can sue someone for it.
Not according to the article in question. The article says that, according to the cast members in question, they aren’t getting paid in accordance with the terms in the existing contract.
Ever heard of stock options?
Why do you care about the details of someone else’s contract? If you want residuals from your job, negotiate for them. And if you don’t have the leverage to negotiate for residuals, maybe you need a good union to do the negotiating for you.
It’s free enterprise in action. The question isn’t “What do actors deserve to get paid?” it’s “What level of pay can the actors get written into their contracts?” If the studio didn’t want to be paying residuals decades later, they should have thought about that back in the 70’s.
Of course the promise of residuals goes hand-in-hand with lower pay up front. “We’ll pay you less right now … but give you the option of making more on the back end if the show turns out to be a hit.” The studio, of course, wants it both ways: the lower salaries that were negotiated with the hope of residuals, without actually having to pay the residuals.
It is not in the house builders contract to get repaid. It is for the actors. Actors and athletes get paid a lot of money, true. But who signs those paychecks? How much money must they have to be able to pay those actors and athletes?
While I am one of the first to jump on some atheletes/actors/famous people making obscene amounts of money bandwagon I’ve always wondered why residuals don’t play a bigger part (than I think they do).
If I was making a tv show/series/movie my preference (and I would think the investors preference too) would to be to pay everybody as little as possible with up front money. If everybody works hard and good and we get lucky and strike it big, much mula for everyone. Share the wealth. If not, thats the breaks.
CBS now owns Paramount, the studio which originally made the show.
Ironically, this means CBS now owns Star Trek, a show they turned down in favor of Lost in Space.