Because in my imaginary version, every Network and Production Company use their profits the same way, and pay everyone the same money, and it’s a level playing field.
I’m not saying this is a realistic option, or that it would work even if it was attempted, I’m just saying the gigantically huge disparity of paydays for people who really really don’t deserve it* is horrible.
*I love the show, but lets face it, there is very little real talent on display
And yet Jim Parsons has won multiple Emmy awards for his performance and has been nominated for multiple SAG Awards, Critics Choice Awards, etc. So someone thinks there is real talent on display.
What do you think happens to the profit? Chuck Lorre used it to create Mike & Molly and Mom, just as he used the profits from Two and a Half Men to create The Big Bang Theory. Money is not hoarded in Hollywood in a big pit. It’s being used to make more TV shows and more movies than anytime in history. A super popular show like TBBT is used to fund other shows, but only if the actors feel they are getting their fair share. Considering how much it makes for every else involved, I think the trio of new contracts is more than fair.
I really don’t understand the “don’t deserve it” attitude. Those guys went into a profession in which one in a thousand (or less) succeeds, most fail, and the rest manage to subsist, barely. Instead of getting a steady job they committed to a profession where gigs you get are few and far between, and earnings are meager unless you’re the one in a thousand that makes it big. Parsons went through high school theater, graduate school in theater, and auditioned and got small parts here and there for 6 years after graduating before TBBT. Galecki, after the Roseanne gig, he as far as I see just kinda dragged along, getting a minor role in a movie here and there, until getting into TBBT.
Yes, the end result is glamorous and very profitable, for these particular guys. But the path to it is not effortless and extremely risky. So yes, they deserve it, if just for risking utter failure for getting into a profession that rewards very few.
In my idealised version that I am postulating, that is reduced when the profits are distributed more evenly. More opportunities, longer periods of employment, fewer sudden cancellations, etc. It shouldn’t be about getting rich, it should be about having a reliable career.
I’m sorry my disliking a horribly unfair system has upset so many people. Maybe I shouldn’t have brought it up.
In this case it gets given to three actors.
Sure. Like awards mean anything really. He give a decent quirky performance and reads complicated dialogue with aplomb. That sure deserves 30 million dollars a year.
Why? Why should it be about having a “reliable career”? If you want a “reliable career”, become an accountant.
You still don’t get it. Yes, the Hollywood world is famously unreliable. I want a system that makes it more reliable. You seem to be saying “Well that’s just the way it is, accept it.” That’s a very disappointing attitude.
I’m not going to be able to change anything, unfortunately. I can, however, express my dislike of it.
The awards indicate that others in his industry, his fellow actors and the critics believe he has talent.
They just want their own $1m per episode deal.
I still don’t understand why you want that. Yes, you can make it a “reliable” system - and you will kill it. You will kill the creativity, you will kill the innovation, you will kill the motivation, you will kill Hollywood. And that will kill profits as well, so it will be “reliable” but very low-paying.
Are you saying greed promotes creativity? I disagree. Success provides opportunity, which promotes creativity.
Yes. Greed (if that is what you want to call it. I prefer “profits”) provides motivation, which promotes creativity. You’re not going to go out on a limb for $50K/year. Dangle a few mil/year and watch creativity blossom.
Ah but you’re trying to cap the “success”. It is not much of a “success”, when you’re earning as much as a car mechanic.
You earlier suggested $50k per episode. That’s not the same as a car mechanic.
In any case, I meant the success of the show/production company, not of the actor.
The only way you’re going to get the show/production company to limit actors’ salaries is by forming private cartels. Illegal.
If you cap success, you cap creativity and innovation. Maybe that’s your goal, I don’t know. I prefer it uncapped.
The show is predicted to bring in 1 billion dollars for the last 3 seasons. Other than actor salaries, the costs to produce the show haven’t gone up a lot since season 1. But I imagine it didn’t bring in $1,000,000,000.00 USD the first 3 seasons. So they can afford to pay the Golden Trio $1 million per episode. They did the same for Friends, but that was 6 of them and there’s no adjustment for inflation. No one is going to lose money.
If it makes people feel better, Helberg and Nayyar didn’t get the deal they wanted; same pay as the Golden Trio. They got 75 or 80% of the Golden Trio’s salary for seasons 8 & 9 and same as the trio for season 10. And they were told either that or we’ll write your characters out of the series. And all 5 got some points on the back end.
So, with careful money management, after 3 years, the 5 of them will be set for life. Of course, if they hire entourages, start shoving stuff up their noses, into their veins, or getting arrested a lot, that could change.
Chris Rock has a line in one of his routines, that “Shaq is rich; the white man who signs his check is wealthy.”
That says it all and keeps me from hating the ballplayers and actors and suchlike who make millions of dollars for play.
It doesn’t matter how many millions they make. The people who own their asses have ten to a hundred times as much money and the real profits go to them. They just hand out pittances.
Here’s another line: not seeing the forest for the trees. Ragging on the actors who make big money for a year or two is being blinded by the trees. You’re missing the forest entirely. The system may be unfair, but you’re blaming the victims of it. You should stop, because even if the victims are making millions they’re still victims.
Utter nonsense. Who takes the risk to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars to create and produce a pilot, when a tiny fraction ever become series, and a tiny fraction of those ever make the big syndication bucks? Who shells out tens of millions to produce a movie, one of a hundred released each year?
If Parsons, Cuoco and Galecki are victims, sign me up. The bottom line is they have leverage and are using it. That makes them neither noble nor victims, and the same applies to the show’s producers.
The networks, tiny parts of multibillion-dollar behemoths; multinational corporations with production companies; and wealthy investors with millions to risk. That’s who.
The actors try Kickstarter.