George Eads and Jorja Fox Fired from CSI (2 Viewers)

[Amy Mormino]

I'm hoping that the firings will be temporary, as Patrick hinted. If they re-hire them on the same terms, the network will keep costs down and make it clear that stars can't pull these kinds of shenanigans. I'm not entirely unsympathetic for the stars, though, as many others have pulled such stunts successfully.

I have to admit that I'm one of the female fans who likes the Grissom/Sara dynamic, even if it would be out of character for Grissom to start a relationship with her. I'd really hate for her to leave, though I'm lukewarm on Eads.

 

[Ben Silva]

While I am sad to see George Eads and Jorja Fox go, I hope they take this opportunity to move Emily Proctor over to Las Vegas. She was amazing on West Wing and greta in Miami, but I can't watch David Caruso for five minutes without wanting to wretch so I have to avoid watching CSI Miami.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

Here's more info on what went on. Now I really feel bad for them. They only made a hundred thousand an episode. Sheesh, thats about that I make in 3 years.
Dont feel sorry for them.


LOS ANGELES (thefutoncritic.com) -- In one of the industry's most surprising moves in recent memory, actors George Eads and Jorja Fox have been fired from CBS' top-rated drama "C.S.I.: Crime Scene Investigation" over breach of contract.

The duo was sacked after neither appeared for work yesterday, the first day of production on the show's fifth season. Both Eads and Fox had reportedly been looking for a pay raise from their current estimated salaries of $100,000 per episode. Many actors over the years have attempted to secure a pay raise by not showing up for work, as was the case for "Everybody Loves Raymond's" Brad Garrett last season.

No doubt expecting a similar situation, CBS had requested a letter from all of the show's actors confirming their intent to return to work. Both Fox and Eads were then terminated on Wednesday and Thursday respectively after the Eye didn't receive their letters. Both nevertheless insist theirs letters were sent and are mystified over their terminations. Co-stars Marg Helgenberger and William Petersen also failed to appear for work yesterday but each is said to be missing for legitimate health reasons.

Co-stars Paul Guilfoyle and Gary Dourdan, both of whom are in the same pay range as Eads and Fox, were also said to be looking for raises however each is understood to have accepted modest pay bumps in exchange for more air time this season. Peterson and Helgenberger, who make significantly more than their co-stars, have apparently not made any rumblings about raises, making their absences likely nothing but coincidental. Helgenberger is believed to make $200,000 per episode while Peterson, who also has executive producing duties on the series, pulls down $500,000 per episode.

Each of the show's principal cast members is in the fifth year of the industry standard seven-year contract.

Casting is currently underway for actors to play new characters that will replace Fox and Eads' roles on the show.

No statements have been released from either camp however the news will undoubtedly be a key issue during today's CBS session of the TCA's summer press tour.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

Salaries in the entertainment business are not based on work, but more on popularity. Pretty much any time I see CSI ads or magazine covers and so on, It's almost always Helgenberger & Peterson that have their mugs plastered everywhere. Or you see a group shot of the cast and Peterson and Helgenberger are standing front and center with everyone else behind them. Regardless of screen-time they are packaged and associated as the two "stars" of the show, so yes I do think they are worth double or more of what the rest of the cast makes.

I don't know if Fox & Eads are worth what they wanted, because I don't know the exact dollar amount this show generates when all is said and done. But if they are worth more than 100k then Helgenberger is probably worth more than 200k.

 

[Ken Chan]

Do they have actual market research that shows those two characters are the most popular, now that the show is well-established, or is it more inertia since those two were better known when the show started? I dunno. And the fact that the two are in front may be something that's (ironically) in their contracts, and/or self-fulfilling justification for paying them more.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Facts mean nothing, perception is everything. Mistakenly or not, CBS associates those two as the stars and that's why they make the biggest bucks.

 

[Malcolm R]

Well, there's at least one actor who understands how lucky they have it:



If CSI:NY is a hit, we'll check back in 5 years to see if he's still so humble.

 

[Tony_La]

I agree that Helgenberger & Peterson are the stars of the show. When it first aired, they were the only actors I recognized, the others were all new comers. So what's wrong with paying veterans of the trade more money than rookies?

Also, if I'm not mistaken, CBS has always targeted an older audience, and Helgenberger & Peterson fit that profile, so in CBS' eyes, they are the stars.

In regards to signing a contract, take a look at Michael Jordan. When he first signed with the Bulls, he signed a ridiculously long term contract. After a few years, he was making less money then some of his less talented teammates. Did he not show up to practice and games, no, he stuck with it. He got deals with Nike, Gatorade, Hanes, etc and supplemented his salary. When he became a free agent, the Bulls compensated him according for the last few years.

Fox & Eads signed their contracts and seemingly have gotten pay increases over the years. They could have sought out other sources of income (i.e. movies during the off season - ala Jennifer Garner and Jennifer Aniston; guest appearances on other shows i.e. Matthew Perry on the West Wing; commercials i.e. Kiefer Sutherland; or whatever).

I'll miss Nick & Sara, but I'll still watch the show.

 

[Lee L]

Well, based on them getting periodic raises to 100kand the fact that Helgenberger is at 200k and Petersen at 500k, it sure seems like they were being foolish to hold out for more to me. I'll have to agree that it doesn't seem like the studio is being too greedy here.

 

[JamieD]

I sure hope not. Can't stand to watch her.

 

[Bob-N]

I guess there's one in every crowd. However, I don't want to see her move.

 

[todd s]

I agree with Bob.

 

[John_Lee]

Well, with Jorja having a run on ER, and recently coming off her stint on The West Wing prior to CSI, I recognized her better than Marge at the time. Marge is clearly the star at this point though.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Just heard that Reiko Aylesworth is going to be on CSI: Las Vegas. She was Michelle on "24". Now to track down a good source for the info...

and here's a short link from Variety

 

[Steve Phillips]

I don't feel sorry for them. They gambled and lost.

Valerie Harper was fired from her 80's sitcom for this very reason, and she was the star! The series continued for three and a half seasons without her.

As for CSI, I don't think the show will suffer in the slightest.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/rosen...r-phil19b.html

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

Glad to hear it. I liked her on "24"

 

[Julian Reville]

$100,000 per episode, and that's not enough for these people, 90% of whose talent resides in being pretty ? 'Scuse me, I think I may throw up.

 

[Matt Butler]

My opinions:

Im sad to see them go but hey maybe the new blood will be good too. Ill still watch.

Miami is not that bad, I dont know why all the hate for that show. And yes I do have a crush on Emily Proctor.

Good move moving Reiko Aylesworth (Michelle from 24) to CSI:LV Shes good and I could easily picture her there.

 

[Philip_T]

And lets not forget all the royalties they may get from the DVD's and reruns. I don't know how they ever managed . We should start a fund raiser.