Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

shifuimam · Jul 17, 2009, 10:20 PM

...unless Fox can afford to meet the original voice actors' salary demands.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...f140dbc42e7419

I don't know about you, but this is total bullshit. I doubt anyone would have a clue who Billy West is if it weren't for his casting as the voice of Fry. Unless their salary demands were like $50k a year and Fox couldn't pony up the cash, I'm guessing they wanted way more than they need or deserve.

It's going to suck if Futurama comes back with none of its original voice actors.

Brien · Jul 17, 2009, 10:22 PM

That's ridiculous.

SpaceMonkey · Jul 17, 2009, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

I don't know about you, but this is total bullshit. I doubt anyone would have a clue who Billy West is if it weren't for his casting as the voice of Fry. Unless their salary demands were like $50k a year and Fox couldn't pony up the cash, I'm guessing they wanted way more than they need or deserve.

Um, but I bet people who are going to watch Futurama know damn well what his voice sounds like. That's the point. I say, good for Billy West.

Chuckit · Jul 17, 2009, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

I don't know about you, but this is total bullshit. I doubt anyone would have a clue who Billy West is if it weren't for his casting as the voice of Fry.

Dude, Fry isn't even West's biggest role.

cjrivera · Jul 17, 2009, 11:43 PM

Bad news, everyone!

Dakar V · Jul 18, 2009, 01:21 AM

This is payback for Fox jerking them around.

SpaceMonkey · Jul 18, 2009, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Dude, Fry isn't even West's biggest role.

Yeah, I loved him as Batman.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 18, 2009, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

...unless Fox can afford...

Unless their salary demands were like $50k a year and Fox couldn't pony up the cash...

Sorry, but whaaaaaaaaat?

Just because these things are cartoons doesn't mean some serious money isn't involved. Prime time animated shows are among the most profitable things on TV. There's a reason Seth MacFarlane is the highest paid producer in TV- Family Guy generates 5 BILLION a year for Fox. Yes Virginia, they can afford to cut him his $100,000,000 checks.

For a little perspective, Simpsons voice actors pull down $400,000 PER EPISODE, plus royalties. It may sound like a lot, but it's a tiny fraction of the gargantuan sum of money the show generates- the voice actors deserve every penny and more, because no one else involved is making a friggen dime without them.

Futurama also generates gargantuan sums of money in its own right, (and new episodes certainly will continue that) so the voice actors would be insane not to demand a fair share of it. Unless these people are insane, we're talking at least $100k PER, probably two or three times that.

The idea of Fox not being able to 'afford' to pay actors for properties that literally generate billions of dollars for them, is laughable.

Teronzhul · Jul 18, 2009, 04:06 AM

This Wired article says they were looking for $75k per episode.

Fox Ditching Futurama’s Voice Actors? (Updated) | Underwire | Wired.com

Futurama was never as popular as the simpsons or family guy though. I know it has a decent following, enough to bring it back from death at least.

I would imagine this is just a negotiating tactic for fox, and a silly one at that.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 18, 2009, 04:24 AM

They did the same thing when the Simpson's actors first looked around, saw everyone else swimming in piles of money and went "Waiiiiiiit a friggen minute..." and demanded some real money for their work, while every other TV actor on far lesser shows was making way more than they were working on a mega-hit. Fox threatened to fire them all and bring in other actors- then ended up quadrupling their pay, which is telling in how much they were willingly ripping them off beforehand.

$75k per is still peanuts. Even as a 'lesser' profitable animated show, it will generate as much or more money as most live action shows- the actors deserve their cut. They've probably just calculated that they can pretend to hardball the actors (knowing full well they'll pay them whatever), while making sure all this generates more interest in the show- the same tactic they originally pulled with the Simpsons.

mac redneck · Jul 18, 2009, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Dude, Fry isn't even West's biggest role.

I agree. Stimpy rules!

shifuimam · 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

They did the same thing when the Simpson's actors first looked around, saw everyone else swimming in piles of money and went "Waiiiiiiit a friggen minute..." and demanded some real money for their work, while every other TV actor on far lesser shows was making way more than they were working on a mega-hit. Fox threatened to fire them all and bring in other actors- then ended up quadrupling their pay, which is telling in how much they were willingly ripping them off beforehand.

$75k per is still peanuts. Even as a 'lesser' profitable animated show, it will generate as much or more money as most live action shows- the actors deserve their cut. They've probably just calculated that they can pretend to hardball the actors (knowing full well they'll pay them whatever), while making sure all this generates more interest in the show- the same tactic they originally pulled with the Simpsons.

There's a big problem with this whole argument - how in the hell is $75k per episode peanuts? Is it because voice actors on other shows get paid more? Should those voice actors be getting paid as much as they do?

The entertainment industry is an extremely lucrative one. Personally, I think it's taken "lucrative" to an insane extreme. In 2003, Ray Romano was making $1.9 million an episode. Does anyone see this as completely batty? I don't think I'll ever see $1.9 million in one lump sum at any point in my life, outside of, possibly, my retirement.

There were 18 episodes in the last aired season of Futurama. At $75k an ep, that's $1.35 million. I don't understand why this suddenly isn't enough. I'm not saying that the show isn't popular or that it's not going to get a ton of viewership when it comes back on the air - the bigger problem is the simple fact that people in entertainment are paid far, far, far more for their work than they really should be. There's just something wrong with our society when a million dollars a year salary "isn't enough".

As far as The Simpsons is concerned, apparently its voice actors got a salary bump to $400,000 an episode. That's nearly $9,000,000 per season at 22 episodes, kids. Ballmer doesn't even make that much in a year, nor do any of Apple's executives. Because, you know, speaking into a microphone using funny voices is a hell of a lot harder than running a freaking company.

At any rate, I would have thought that the voice actors from Futurama would care more about the show and its cult following than demanding another mil out of Fox. Shame.

SpaceMonkey · Jul 18, 2009, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

The entertainment industry is an extremely lucrative one. Personally, I think it's taken "lucrative" to an insane extreme. In 2003, Ray Romano was making $1.9 million an episode. Does anyone see this as completely batty? I don't think I'll ever see $1.9 million in one lump sum at any point in my life, outside of, possibly, my retirement.

$1.9 million isn't "peanuts" but it was probably a fair salary given what "Everybody Loves Raymond" was worth as a whole to CBS. Is there another Ray Romano out back that the producers could have hired instead once the show got too popular to pay Romano what he's worth to them? The actors are just trying to get the best deal they can. It's not such a bad thing.

shifuimam · Jul 18, 2009, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

$1.9 million isn't "peanuts" but it was probably a fair salary given what "Everybody Loves Raymond" was worth as a whole to CBS. Is there another Ray Romano out back that the producers could have hired instead once the show got too popular to pay Romano what he's worth to them? The actors are just trying to get the best deal they can. It's not such a bad thing.

...

Yeah, because it would have just been cruel to pay Romano a piddly $500k an episode, right? I mean, how can he possibly be asked to live on a measly $10mil a year?! That's just sadistic!

When you're to that point, all you care about is making as much money as possible so that you too can have a fifty thousand square foot house in Beverly Hills. I'd have a lot more respect for the Futurama cast if they indicated they were more interested in making a great show for their huge fan base than insisting that a million dollars a year just ain't cutting it.

Everyone here thinks Jobs is the greatest guy ever for taking only a dollar a year salary from Apple - why is that? Don't you think that it's an indicator (a PR move, but still) that he cares more about providing a great product to his cultic customer base than making another ten million a year? Wouldn't it be far nicer if the voice actors on Futurama took the salary Fox offered, in a movement to show that they care more about the fans and the integrity of the show than trying to match up to Yeardley Smith's annual salary?

jokell82 · Jul 18, 2009, 09:38 AM

So if a show brings in $1 billion in revenue for a network, do you think that actors salaries should be limited? Where would you want the rest of the money to go? Just to the execs?

SpaceMonkey · Jul 18, 2009, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

...

Yeah, because it would have just been cruel to pay Romano a piddly $500k an episode, right? I mean, how can he possibly be asked to live on a measly $10mil a year?! That's just sadistic!

When you're to that point, all you care about is making as much money as possible so that you too can have a fifty thousand square foot house in Beverly Hills. I'd have a lot more respect for the Futurama cast if they indicated they were more interested in making a great show for their huge fan base than insisting that a million dollars a year just ain't cutting it.

We have no idea what Fox offered them, so we don't know yet what they thought wasn't "cutting it." But more to your point: where do you draw the line? If they wanted $75K per episode and Fox was only prepared to give them $25K should they suck it up and take it just to make the fans happy? What about $1K? After all, it's a public service, right?

Everyone here thinks Jobs is the greatest guy ever for taking only a dollar a year salary from Apple - why is that? Don't you think that it's an indicator (a PR move, but still) that he cares more about providing a great product to his cultic customer base than making another ten million a year?

I think that's part of it. But I also think Jobs realizes that his personal fortune is inextricably linked to the fortune of Apple either way, so forgoing a cash salary in lieu of his stock position in the company is less meaningful in the end.

Wouldn't it be far nicer if the voice actors on Futurama took the salary Fox offered, in a movement to show that they care more about the fans and the integrity of the show than trying to match up to Yeardley Smith's annual salary?

Maybe they have better things to do with their time.

jokell82 · Jul 18, 2009, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

Everyone here thinks Jobs is the greatest guy ever for taking only a dollar a year salary from Apple - why is that? Don't you think that it's an indicator (a PR move, but still) that he cares more about providing a great product to his cultic customer base than making another ten million a year?

Yeah that's not how it works. In 2007 he had a $1 salary but he also exercised $14.6 million in stock options. He doesn't actually work for $1.

Chuckit · Jul 18, 2009, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

Yeah, because it would have just been cruel to pay Romano a piddly $500k an episode, right? I mean, how can he possibly be asked to live on a measly $10mil a year?! That's just sadistic!

You seem to be confusing a business with a charity. How much I'm willing to pay you has no relation to how much you need. If your work isn't that valuable to me, it may be less than you need to live. If your work is extremely valuable and makes me huge piles of cash, it might be $10 million a year.

Similarly, I'm sure there are people at other jobs in other countries who make a lot less than you, but you would probably not be willing to take a pay cut to their level — nor should you be asked to.

subego · Jul 18, 2009, 01:23 PM

Call me crazy, but I think they should be paid what the market will bear.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 18, 2009, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

There's a big problem with this whole argument - how in the hell is $75k per episode peanuts?

The thing is, it's not really an 'argument'. It's simple business. Your exact reaction happens with everything from sports figures to movie stars, "Isn't blah de blah enough?!! Aren't they greedy to ask for more?!!" No. They'd be stupid to settle for less than what they're actually worth.

What I don't understand is this "poor poor pitiful Fox" attitude. Can they afford to pay the actors massive sums of money from the proceeds of massive hit shows? Woe is them, having to pony up!

Just look at the Simpsons- during the HEIGHT of its profitablity and popularity, the actors were being paid the LEAST. Only now, when the show is probably at it's lowest point, are they being paid nearly half a mil per episode. Why is that? Because poor, poor pitiful "can they afford it?" Fox couldn't have paid them 400k per all along? No. They were more than happy to pay them a pittance so long as the actors didn't wise up and fight for more. The first time they did so, like I said, Fox quadrupled their salaries. Before that, poor poor pitiful Fox was more than happy to pocket 4x more than they were paying out.

Like someone else asked, who do you think deserves the money more? More fatcat execs sitting on their rear ends back in NY, or the actual creative team that makes the shows possible? And before people start in with all the nonsense about "Well why doesn't a Production Assistant make a million every episode- the reality is, your value on a production is based upon how replaceable you are. As Fox would very quickly learn if it ever did up and fire all of its voice actors, they really aren't as replaceable as they'd like to pretend, therefore they can demand- and get- what they're worth because of that.

Is it because voice actors on other shows get paid more?

It's because any actor on any show should be getting paid in accordance with what the show generates. These animated shows generate tons of money- the actors deserve their cut of that.

The entertainment industry is an extremely lucrative one. Personally, I think it's taken "lucrative" to an insane extreme. In 2003, Ray Romano was making $1.9 million an episode. Does anyone see this as completely batty?

What's insane about it? It should tell you something that poor, poor, pitiful CBS had no problem giving him 1.9 million per episode. Now why do you think that is? Perhaps because the show was generating that and more every second it was on the air? Nahh! Couldn't be.

I don't think I'll ever see $1.9 million in one lump sum at any point in my life, outside of, possibly, my retirement.

So what? You also likely won't produce anything that generates $4 BILLION (ELR was one of the highest earning shows of all time) a year for anyone else, either. If you did, you'd damned well want your fair cut of it. It's really easy to pretend otherwise when you're not seeing everyone else around you get stupid rich off your efforts and then sit back and say, "I'd work for $1 a year just to please the fans!' One word: Buuuuulllllllsheeeeeeite.

ApertureValue · Jul 18, 2009, 06:49 PM

If the original voices aren't present, I won't watch. That simple.

64stang06 · Jul 18, 2009, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by ApertureValue

If the original voices aren't present, I won't watch. That simple.

Bam.

olePigeon · Jul 19, 2009, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

Ray Romano was making $1.9 million an episode.

I just don't get it. The guy is not funny. At all. Period.

Laminar · Jul 19, 2009, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Call me crazy, but I think they should be paid what the market will bear.

Communist.

Laminar · Jul 19, 2009, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I just don't get it. The guy is not funny. At all. Period.

THANK YOU. allcaps

shifuimam · Jul 19, 2009, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I just don't get it. The guy is not funny. At all. Period.

I never understood the allure of that show. The mother was a shrew, the wife was manipulative...maybe it's just me, but I don't find that kind of dysfunction particularly entertaining.

Spheric Harlot · Jul 19, 2009, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

There's a big problem with this whole argument - how in the hell is $75k per episode peanuts?

Easy: if each episode goes into worldwide syndication for endless re-runs over the next ten or twenty or thirty years, it will make whomever owns the rights tens if not hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars.

See? That's how in the hell $75k per episode is peanuts.

Spheric Harlot · Jul 19, 2009, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Communist.

Er no, he just defined capitalism.

(Not everyone will realize that your joke was aimed at shif.)

Laminar · Jul 19, 2009, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

Er no, he just defined capitalism.

(Not everyone will realize that your joke was aimed at shif.)

It was?

turtle777 · Jul 19, 2009, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

(Not everyone will realize that your joke was lame)

Fixinated.

-t

Spheric Harlot · Jul 19, 2009, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

It was?

Sorry - I gave you too much credit.

I won't be making that mistake again.

ShortcutToMoncton · Jul 19, 2009, 06:45 PM

Hahaha, shifuimam's a communist now?!?!

wtf

- - e r i k - - · Jul 19, 2009, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Hahaha, shifuimam's a communist now?!?!

wtf

My thoughts exactly. She's socially conservative, fiscally liberal. The complete opposite of me. No wonder we don't get along.

subego · 09:14 PM

Edit: too stupid, even for me.

Laminar · Jul 19, 2009, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

Sorry - I gave you too much credit.

I won't be making that mistake again.

turtle777 · Jul 20, 2009, 12:04 AM

Oh, a new one.

-t

Laminar · Jul 20, 2009, 12:14 AM

Yeah, I feel like only the stupidest of people would actually use a joke over and over again until it gets to the point that everyone else is sick of it.

Big Mac · Jul 20, 2009, 12:33 AM

The natural tendency is to look at that 75K per episode figure and think, "hey, they're being greedy. It's just voice acting, right?" But that's also quite wrongheaded. Shif thinks she gets to decide what a reasonable salary is for people to be making. Laughable. I agree that entertainment salaries look excessive, but in this country you get paid what the free market will bear, at least until government comes in and dictates otherwise (which will begin to happen more and more). If Fox wants a half-way decent chance of succeeding with the reestablishment of the show, it has to pay what the talent wants.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 20, 2009, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I just don't get it. The guy is not funny. At all. Period.

4 Billion worth of ad revenue per year said "who gives a damn if you found it funny or not".

Dakar V · Jul 20, 2009, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Yeah, I feel like only the stupidest of people would actually use a joke over and over again until it gets to the point that everyone else is sick of it.

Dakar V · Jul 20, 2009, 10:09 AM

So has anyone directly asked shif whom exactly that extra cash should be going to instead?

jokell82 · Jul 20, 2009, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by jokell82

So if a show brings in $1 billion in revenue for a network, do you think that actors salaries should be limited? Where would you want the rest of the money to go? Just to the execs?

I tried, no response.

voodoo · Jul 20, 2009, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I just don't get it. The guy is not funny. At all. Period.

Ray Romano is perhaps the least funny person ever. Whiny nasal voice and bad acting..

andi*pandi · Jul 20, 2009, 11:43 AM

crazy like a dumb fox.

residentEvil · Jul 20, 2009, 11:48 AM

i'll take Romano over Seinfeld any day.

Laminar · Jul 20, 2009, 11:53 AM

Blasphemy.

residentEvil · Jul 20, 2009, 11:54 AM

nope; just the truth. seinfeld's show and stand up were terrible. not funny. ever.

Dakar V · Jul 20, 2009, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Blasphemy.

Who cares what he thinks. He doesn't even have 5000 posts.

Laminar · Jul 20, 2009, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

Who cares what he thinks. He doesn't even have 5000 posts.

Neither do you, lamer.

Dakar V · Jul 20, 2009, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Neither do you, lamer.

I know you're a whore for technicalities, but no.