"Simpsons" stars in work stoppage (2 Viewers)

[Keith Mickunas]

It's called profit sharing. It's not necessarily that I think their being overpaid, I think their shows are overvalued.

If the Simpsons cast gets what they want, then that will mean in the end they made a fortune off of a ground breaking television show that helped establish a network and they will be set for life. Their contribution was and continues to be huge, and they deserve to be rewarded greatly for it. Hell, I think all of them deserve a portion of Fox's overall profits.

 

[Jaime_Weinman]

You know, while I think the press is probably making more of this than they should (it's just another salary dispute, which will presumably be settled like all the previous salary disputes: they'll settle on a figure somewhere in the middle), I can't help wondering whether the voice actors are really as essential to the show as all that. Part of the reason voice actors get paid less is not only that they work less, but that they do only half the acting (the animators are the visual "actors"). Traditionally voice actors weren't even credited onscreen (Mel Blanc was the first voice actor to get screen credit). In TV animation the voice actor is more important than in theatrical animation because TV cartoons use scripts and table reads and such. But still, if you thange Homer Simpson's voice actor, people will still see Homer Simpson. Find someone who can do a reasonable approximation of the voice -- and there must be people who can do it (Tress MacNeille does such a good Marge that she apparently often does the part at table reads when Julie Kavner's not there) -- and the show can go on as before, whereas if you lose an actor in live-action, it's much harder to replace him without people noticing. (See York, Dick vs. Sargent, Dick.) But, for example, Warners can still do Bugs Bunny without Mel Blanc; Hanna-Barbera can still do Scooby-Doo without Don Messick. And Fox could do The Simpsons with different actors, if they had to.

Of course, the real problem if it came to that (which it won't) would be to find talented actors who were willing to be scabs. I think they could find them, for the right amount of money (see Coy and Vance Duke), but it would be an added difficulty.

Here's the thing, though: the animators are also the "actors" on an animated show; they make Homer Simpson move. Why should the voice people get so much, and the animators so much less? Just a thought.

 

[Keith Mickunas]

I'm not sure exactly how the animation works, but I believe that a good bit of it is farmed out to Asia. It's not like there's just a few artists that sit around and do it. Once the initial character sketches are done, apparently any animator can fill in the frames. It's not like other drawing art skills.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Not so. While the Simpsons look easy to draw, if anything's slightly off the eye picks up on it. Keeping the length and scale and movement right is an immense art. And definitely more time intensive that voice acting, even with an entire room full of animators.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

Yes, but if you listen to the animaters talk, they say that they get a lot of their inspiration from watching the voice actors at the table readings and stuff. From the emotion that they try to convey among other things. I just can't imagine an episode of the Simpsons where the voice of Homer is not provided by Dan Castaleneta. Plus, sure you might find someone that can do a good Homer, but can they also do a good Krusty? What about a Groundskeeper Willie? Barney Gumble? All 4 of those voices are distinct and yet they come from one guy. You might find someone that can do a reasonable Burns, but can they do a Smithers? A rev. Lovejoy? Principal Skinner? Its not like you are just substituting out one voice here, its not going to be easy and I bet that were they to try this they'd end up with a lot more than six actors, and plus after X number of years those actors have made those characters their own. That's why some of the characters have had voice changes over the years, they've become well rounded voices and settled in to something. It would also take time for the newer actors to find their comfort zone so to speak.

The way some in this thread talk makes it sound like voice acting is so easy and that anyone can do it. Sure its not as time demanding as other forms of acting, but just look at the diversity that some of these actors have in terms of their body of work.

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

Just look at that extra on the First Season dvd, the alternate version of the pilot that almost killed the show.

 

[Chris]

I think this is another discussion. But, as a tangent.. yes, the players deserved to be paid well, and most of the mistakes are by ownership, including large, unrealistic contracts.

That having been said, there are lots of people losing in Baseball.. namely taxpayers who front big stadiums that still can't generate revenue (see: Detroit, Pitt) and some teams (remember, the Arizona Diamondbacks had a loan floated to them by MLB, Inc. last year to keep the ballpark from being foreclosed) Some teams make good money; others don't. And it's really ownerships fault because they can't stick together and work out something equitable to save their product.

 

[Rick Salt]

Its time to drop the weekly show and maybe do a halloween special every year. It stopped being funny about 4 or 5 years ago

 

[Scott Weinberg]

My 2 cents:

Ray Romano gets nearly 2 million an episode.

Matthew Perry makes a million an episode.

Adam Sandler makes over $20 million a movie.

Baseball players with a lifetime batting average around .255 earn $14 million a season.

And you're telling me HOMER SIMPSON doesn't deserve $360,000 an episode? C'monnnnn....

These are amazingly talented performers, and when you stop to consider how much pure profit The Simpsons brings in for Fox each season...I think it's a big wet slap in the face to one of finest ensembles on TV.

This is all about greed. Fox's greed.

 

[Christ Reynolds]

and i love how so many people can't understand basic economics. these athletes and movie stars get paid because they, indirectly, pay the companies they work for. the more money you bring in to your employer, the more money you get paid. i'm sure your dad works very hard for his money, mine does too. but the simple fact is, NOBODY is going to pay to see your dad work. millions of people pay to see baseball, same with movies and television. it may not be fair, but it is the way of the entertainment business. some people get paid a lot for the amount of work they do, and some dont. my time is better spent doing anything else besides worrying about these things.

CJ

 

[EricW]

the question here is not how valuable voice actors are to the show, but how replaceable are they. if (and this is a big if) another voice actor could come along and do the same job for half the cost, and viewers would not tell the difference unless they read the credits or read messageboards, then the voice actors' stock would drop considerably. unfortunately there's no real way of knowing it unless the powers-that-be let things get out of hand. what if Fox aired clips of the show with alternate actors? what if it sucked, or what if it was the same?

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

I noticed in the TV Guide listing for last Sunday that there was supposed to be a new episode shown that night at 8, but instead there was a rerun. Was this because of the work stoppage?

 

[nolesrule]

Voice actors are a tight-knit group. Take a look at some of the special features on the "Comic Book: The Movie" DVD. Would FOX even be able to find quality replacements that are willing to stab their buddies in the back?

And this hold out is really trying to get paid in the future for work already done that you feel you were not compensated properly for.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Unlikely; they're recording stuff for next season right now. I think it's more likely they realized that they have nothing for the 8:30 slot for May sweeps and want to have enough episodes to double-pump the show. (Sure, they could just move Bernie Mac back there and put Wonderfalls on Mondays at 8pm, but Fox has evidently decided that Wonderfalls, Cracking Up, and Playing It Straight are sunk costs which won't do as well as reruns; sad thing is, they're probably right)

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

I realized that the episode had been recorded long ago. I thought maybe they were saving the rest of the episodes for next season or something (like they always used to do with Futurama).

 

[Craig: Mclaren]

To quote Goodfella's.

"GIVE EM THE FUCKIN MONEY"

Thank you ladies and gentlemen I'll be here all week.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Here's a recap article:

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/eo/20040420/108250110000.html



C'mon Fox. Pay 'em what they deserve. Your network is already known as poison for new shows. At least take care of the series that's been your bread and butter since day one.

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

I agree. They're worth it and it makes smart financial sense, IMHO. Moreover, I think they'd more hard pressed than they realize to find replacements. Sure, they might find someone who does a decent Homer impression, but could anyone really replace Dan Castellaneta and what he brings to the show? I think not.

 

[MarkHastings]

This reminds me of a story my marketing teacher told me...He said that he had a consultant friend who did some work for this business to save them money. He was there for 3 hours and charged over $300,000 for his services.

When my teacher found out about this, he was shocked! He asked "How can you charge $100,000 per HOUR!!!!"????? and then guy responded: "Sure, it sounds like a lot of money for 3 hours, but in those three hours, I just saved the company from losing over 4 million dollars"

 

[Malcolm R]

That's how a lot of professional services fees are set. They're charged as a percentage of the value of the project, not necessarily a strict accounting of hours worked x hourly rate.