Masterminded by Lisa Kudrow. And she famously got all six to agree that they should all get paid exactly the same.
Depending on who’s story to believe she have been “asked to resign”. In any event Rick Berman wasn’t exactly sorry to see her go.
Well, I saw the phrase “HUGE salary increases”…
Well, moral issues aside, I simply assumed that nobody else would likely want to take on the risk of it happening again to them by hiring him/her (and again, my hypothetical is about an actor whose casting was truly critical to the success of a show - I think the Friends juggernaut, like MASH, would have survived the loss of any particular cast member…but what about a less ensemble oriented show, say if Carroll O’Connor left All in the Family?)
And what? Can you offer a complete thought?
Has no one ever bern justified a salary increase?
After all, if someone gets a huge salary increase as an actor or an athlete, that means someone has the money to afford it. And if that person thinks that the actor or athlete is valuable enough to agree then is it not deserved?
Really? I always heard it was David Schwimmer’s idea.
If the person considers the increase justified, breach of contract is NOT the way to achieve it. To me that is pennywise and poundfoolish.
And you know this how, exactly? Efficient breach of contract is not exactly a bad thing in our legal system, you know. It might come with penalties, but if you are prepared to pay those penalties, then how are you able to make a blanket statement about whether it’s the best course of action in any particular circumstance?
And what does any of that have to do with “swelled heads”?
What’s the point of a contract if you can just walk away whenever you feel like it? Yes, there are times when someone should, but just being offered more money is a legit reason?
And if someone signs what’s supposed to be a legally binding document with the mindset that they can just scrap it if they ever change their mind, then that person doesn’t seem very trustworthy to me.
Money might be one reason. A better job prospect might be another. But the key is that you are wiling to either force a renegotiation or pay the penalty. The point of a personal services contract is not to bind you like a slave, but to create incentives for you to avoid breach.
The fact about life is that sometimes those incentives can be overridden, and, indeed, sometimes they should be.
This is especially true in the entertainment industry, when performers are often obliged to enter into contracts with very little negotiating strength. If a show like Friends becomes an unexpected hit, then it’s no virtue for them to keep working for the low wages they agreed to when the show was just another new sitcom and the actors were mostly nobodies.
These situations—ones in which an actor suddenly becomes so popular that they can suddenly get significantly higher rates—rarely have anything to do with trustworthiness. They have to do with the hard facts of life and of business.
Performing careers can flame bright and fizzle out fast; an actor might have a very limited window in which to accept the best opportunity he or she is going to get, or maximize his or her lifetime earnings. The vast majority of performers don’t even get near those opportunities. So, if the opportunity happens, then they might as well reach for the brass ring.
In the long run, the corporate studio you have signed a contract with isn’t going to look after your long-term interests. It’s going to squeeze what it can out of you, and, not only that, it can cancel your show at any moment, leaving you in the lurch. You can bet the studio you signed a contract with is not worried about appearing “trustworthy” to you. It’s going to leverage its market power as hard as it can. So if you get some degree of power, you might as well play your best hand.
Plus, there’s a reason why specific performance is rarely a remedy in personal services contracts in particular—because the law really doesn’t want to force someone to do something he or she no longer wants to do. Yes, the law might impose a monetary penalty, but if you are able to accept that penalty, then
I’m talking about two major psychological defects: greed and conceit.
I remember why Detective Elliot Stabler left *Law & Order SVU–*and I don’t believe it was a result of altruism.
If you’re not going to post complete thoughts, I really have little to say.
Yeah, but he didn’t break his contract, he just didn’t renegotiate a new one.
David Cassidy left The Partridge Family, forcing its cancellation, with a year remaining on his contract. He was 17 when he signed his original 5-year contract and used that as his escape excuse. Today, young actors in his position are usually required to be Emancipated Minors.
He wanted to tour and make solo records and whined that he could play guitar like Jimi Hendrix and they show’s producers made him play bubblegum crap. When he left the show and became his own man, he immediately proceeded to… play bubblegum crap.
Mandy Patinkin has done it twice.
Left Chicago Hope during the second season because he didn’t like being away from his wife.
Left Criminal Minds after Season 2 over creative differences.
What do you mean, ‘incomplete thoughts’?
Simply put, they are being petulant and demanding more money.
Well, I’d say it was more than creative differences (in a way that makes me empathize for him):
That sounds really, really shitty. Selfishly it bummed me out, because I loved his Gideon character. But I think that’s a very understandable reason to break contract, especially since he seemed to know and accept the likely ramifications (though it actually hasn’t ended his tv career).
And it’s not too different in character from what Dave Chappelle said when he left his Comedy Central show. He found that the life of a TV star was sapping his soul and he came to believe that his show was actually making the world a worse place by making it acceptable to laugh at racist jokes.
Yep. It’s the problem with ironic racism. He was making fun OF racism; racist assholes laughed WITH the racism.