I’m with Gangster Octopus. The show can survive just fine with new faces for the subsidiary cast members. I’m not saying they deserved to be axed (who knows?) but I doubt they will prove essential to the success of the show. Personally, I’m just glad it wasn’t Helgenburger.
The one difference, at least from my point of view, is that I could name you all four stars of “Friends.” The only one on CSI that I can name is David Caruso, because he quit NYPD Blue to go Hollywood.
The “Friends” stars have penetrated much deeper into popular culture than Fox and Eads. They’re identified with the show in a way that Fox and Eads are not. Take them out of the show, and “Friends” would have collapsed. That won’t happen with CSI.
Finding two good looking actors to replaced George Eads and Jorja Fox will take about twenty minutes. Fox is a terrible actress anyway, and Eads is hardly a theatrical genius.
Cough Ummm… pesch… errrr… ummmm…
There were six “Friends”.
Ok, move along. Nothing to see here…
I agree that the cast of Friends’ negotiation tactics were what got them the money – my point however was that the money was THERE for them to get. The ad revenues supported an outlay of $6 million to the regulars IN EVERY EPISODE. Undoubtedly because it was a #1 rated show – like CSI is now. I doubt if Eads and Fox were asking $1 mil per ep or anything close to it. I think the producers were dog-stupid here – risking a loss in popularity for the show for very tiny amounts of money. I’m sure someone’s gonna say “It’s the principle of the thing” but most of the time when execs negotiate about money, the only principle at stake is “Mine is bigger than yours!”
I think it’s awfully damn dumb to mess with the cast of a #1 rated show for what, in terms of ad revenues, is chump change. You just think the show will do fine without Eads and Fox, you don’t know and neither do the CSI execs. They’re gambling here. Perhaps the risk is small, but the potential downside is huge: perhaps Eads and Fox do in fact contribute something to the show’s chemistry that makes it fun to watch in a subtle way. They’re gone, ratings slide, and suddenly CSI isn’t a Top Ten show any more. Pretty big risk to tape for chump change. But then I guess that’s why they call it “chump change.”
Breaking news from Variety, via Yahoo! News. It looks like Jorja is back.
Body count’s unclear at Eye’s "CSI"
In short, the actors’ version of events finally gets press. The fact that neither Fox nor Eads released a statement before now was a big fat clue that negotiations were ongoing, never mind Moonves’s bluster.
Now I have a question (rhetorical, as this isn’t the Pit) for certain posters upthread: if the “spoiled greed-heads” or even just that “terrible actress” return, will you stop watching the show?
I must be in the minority because I’ve never thought Jorja Fox was a terrible actor. I’ve enjoyed her performance as Sara. I’d be more inclined to tune out if she and Eads weren’t going to return. Though to be honest, I think last season wasn’t very good…the show got tiresome to watch and I didn’t totally mind the fact that due to work and school I couldn’t catch every single first-run episode.
Personally, I think the characters do make the show. Sara’s had her share of long-term story arcs, and the 4th season had her quite prominently featured (not terribly to my liking, I don’t like weird, alcoholic Sara, though I do like workaholic morose Sara, so it’s a fine line). Nick’s effiminate sensitivity has been carried through since Season 1 and it recently landed him a promotion.
If forensic science were the star, then CSI: Miami and CSI: New York would be equally as successful as the parent. They’re not. Now, certainly, Grissom’s the main draw here, and Nick and Sara are the weakest of the ensemble. I wouldn’t stop watching if they left, but I don’t want to see them go.
I think Brad Garrett’s dispute with Everybody Loves Raymond opened my eyes to how ‘stardom’ works. I respect him for being hard-nosed about the vast pay disparities there, and I’m willing to give Jorja and George a break, as long as the cow when the network calls their bluff, because they are not Brad Garrett, and they will not get work elsewhere. Brad Garrett’s salary was shameful.
The Friends cooperative negotiations were so rare that they were newsworthy. David Caruso, Denise Crosby, and Michael Shanks have shown more accurate results.
originally posted by plankter
No, but I won’t buy anything advertised on it. 
I watch for the stories, not the characters. Although I wish CSI:M would fire Caruso, as his speech patterns and mannerisms really get on my nerves.
I’m a big fan of the show, and I have to say that I wasn’t too upset to hear that Nick and Sara might have gotten the ax. To be frank, the character of Sara has bugged the hell out of me for the last season, and I won’t be terribly sorry to see her go. The only characters I would actually miss are Greg and Doc Robbins. As long as they’re around, I think everybody’s replaceable. CSI, as stated above, isn’t a character-driven show, I don’t really care who solves the crime, as long as they do some sort of experiment with a dummy. 
I think there is some greed and ego working here. They thought that they were more important to the show than they are. “$100,000 per episode isn’t enough and I’m not going to work for my contract amount. Neah-Neah!”
Please. “I woke up 3.5 hours late. Whoops!” Maybe he should pay attention to his alarm when he is asking for a raise. I know that when I am trying to convince someone to give me more money I don’t get less responsible. :rolleyes:
I’ll keep watching whether or not they are there.
Both are marginal actors in terms of actual acting talent. Sara’s “acting” is flat and wooden. Eads’ work is better, but it isn’t that much better. They may be comfortable eye candy props for the show, but as another poster indicated they can be replaced in a flash.
I’m glad that they aren’t being fired and are just in negotiations. Jorja Fox was GREAT eye candy… yummm
I agree with you about Miami, but you must be channelling Miss Cleo if you can say that a show is unsuccessful before it’s even aired.
In television terms, CSI: Miami is almost as successful as the original series. It has consistently been a top 10 show this season, and was the #2 program of the week last week, right behind CSI. No, I don’t watch the show, and I don’t know anyone who likes it, but from CBS’s perspective it’s hard to argue with the formula.
The Law & Order franchise has proved that for procedural dramas, the cast just isn’t important enough to merit outrageous salaries.
For these actors it’s $100K an episode. At CSI’s standard schedule of 23 episodes a season, that’s $2.3 million a year. Whatever the particular circumstances in this case (and there do seem to be a lot of odd discrepancies), it makes perfect sense for the producers of these types of shows to hold the line against ever increasing salaries for actors.
Yeah, I agree to some extent. No-one really knows what makes a hit show a hit (remember William Goldman’s famous dictum: ‘Nobody Knows Anything’), and even though I don’t think much of either Eads or Fox, and my enjoyment of the show might actually be enhanced by their absence, it’s possible that only when they’re gone will I realise how much they contributed. Possible, but in my view unlikely.
I’m also not very impressed by the greed of the actors concerned. $100 thousand per episode isn’t enough? Spoiler Virgin has done part of the math, but let’s not forget that there are 5 or 6 recurring cast characters, so per each 50 minute episode Eads or Fox would be the focus of the action for something like 10 minutes or less (on average) for each episode. It’s not as if the show was named after (e.g.) Fox’s character and she was carrying the story each week.
I know it will be pointed out that the network executives are often the ‘greedy’ ones and perhaps their sins are even more egregious than those of the actors. I just know that if someone were paying me 100k per week for what amounts to around 10 minutes of screen time, I’d be just smart enough to smile, do my job to the best of my ability, shut up and thank every deity in the universe that I live such a privileged life.
Anyway, it all seems moot now as it could all turn out to have been negotiation posturing and media speculation.
I have to agree with Izzybella that things were off last season. I didn’t start watching CSI until the second season, and immediately became addicted. I worked to rearrange my school schedule so that I’d be able to catch the show on Thursday evenings (and I’m not the type of person who usually does that). However, last season I was disappointed more often than not.
That being said, I would be sorry to see Eads and Fox go. I’d like to see what their characters will become.
I’m also glad Eric Szmanda has a bigger part. Rorwll!
Well I just happened to flip through one of those E online shows (I swear I ws just flipping through) :P, and apparently the whole thing was a big misunderstanding. The girl is back on the cast, but no dice for the dude. According to him, he overslept by 3 hrs, and by the time he called in to explain, they told him not to bother to come in. He insists he wasnt holding out for more money
so there is my update
There was. As originally envisaged, Sam Seaborn was going to be the star of the show; Leo would be a voice from on high and the President would rarely be seen. Lowe was being paid accordingly for this eminence. Then they decided they really liked Martin Sheen and upped the Presidential presence, thus making Bartlet and Leo the main characters. When contract renegotiation came around, they raised the wages of Alison Janney, Richard Schiff and Bradley Whitford (I don’t know about Dule Hill) to the same level Lowe was already at, but because Lowe was already being paid more than the others they left his wage static. Lowe felt that as the only significant movie actor other than Sheen in the production, he deserved at least co-star wages and possibly the same wage as Sheen.
The network disagreed.
Regarding CSI and greed: bear in mind that for the whole of S4 Fox and Eads have been pretty much carrying the show. Petersen is still doing his job, but Helgenberger has frequently had no more than five minutes screen time in an episode. For this, she receives three times the money Eads and Fox are paid and they do three times as much work. I, too, would consider this to be a little unfair.