Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

George Eads and Jorja Fox Fired from CSI


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
119 replies to this topic

#1 of 120 Don Black

Don Black

    Screenwriter

  • 1,485 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 1998

Posted July 15 2004 - 12:26 PM

"Both actors were in the fifth year of seven-year pacts. A search has already begun for new actors to join the show. It's unclear if their parts will be recast or if creators will come up with new characters."

#2 of 120 todd s

todd s

    Lead Actor

  • 6,857 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 08 1999

Posted July 15 2004 - 12:38 PM

This stinks. I really like George Eads. Jorja Fox's character was getting on my nerves. But, I am not thrilled she was fired either. According to Variety George Eads failed to show up for the first taping because he wanted more money. I assume the same happened with Jorja Fox. Les Moonves took the hardline and fired them both.

ps-I wonder how William Peterson will react to this?
Bring back John Doe! Or at least resolve the cliff-hanger with a 2hr movie or as an extra on a dvd release.

#3 of 120 Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul

  • 37,625 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted July 15 2004 - 12:50 PM

Yes, Variety's bit cites breach of contract for the firing, so not showing up for work would be breach of contract. Wow.

http://www.variety.c....goryID=14&cs=1

What's funny is that Jorja's character Sarah's last scene is with Grissom picking her up after getting picked up for drunk driving (or being in some drunken state, but I think it was drunk driving). Nice easy way to write her out of the show on that one.

And to write out Nick, just say that he was disgusted with how his promotion was snatched away from him (due to Greg getting the call up to the Majors), and he got a better job offer somewhere else.
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#4 of 120 Don Black

Don Black

    Screenwriter

  • 1,485 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 1998

Posted July 15 2004 - 02:11 PM

I didn't really care for Jorja either. George was good. As long as Peterson sticks around, the show will remain relatively stable. Let's see what his salary demands are in two years! Posted Image

#5 of 120 Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul

  • 37,625 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted July 15 2004 - 02:20 PM

It might become "C.S.Who?"
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#6 of 120 Kwang Suh

Kwang Suh

    Supporting Actor

  • 849 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 04 1999

Posted July 15 2004 - 02:47 PM

Whoa. I'm disappointed. I thought everyone on the show had some real chemistry together. Shucks.

#7 of 120 Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer

  • 11,507 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • LocationVermont

Posted July 15 2004 - 02:59 PM

Well I'm glad someone finally had the cojones to stand up to these actors who sign contracts then turn around and breach them.

What's the point in even having a contract if one side doesn't honor it and the other doesn't enforce it?
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#8 of 120 Michael St. Clair

Michael St. Clair

    Producer

  • 6,009 posts
  • Join Date: May 03 1999

Posted July 15 2004 - 03:27 PM

Well, shit, I liked the cast the way it was.

#9 of 120 DavidJ

DavidJ

    Screenwriter

  • 2,438 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 23 2001
  • Real Name:David

Posted July 15 2004 - 03:50 PM

I think this is bad news. I really liked George's character. I've never been a big fan of Jorga, but I don't want to see her go either.

I am not sure that them holding out for better salaries was a bad thing. If it was a seven year contract that they signed initially, they were getting the the shaft and the producers took advantage of them. Granted the producers took the risk, but it is just as greedy on their part to lock them into a seven year deal. Now that the show is the biggest thing on TV and is in reruns and on DVD, I do not blame the actors for wanting a bigger share and a deal that is based on the current economics of the show.

#10 of 120 Lee Jamilkowski

Lee Jamilkowski

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 235 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 15 2001

Posted July 15 2004 - 04:14 PM

Well, CBS has essentially told the cast by way of this action that they won't put up with any future "sick outs." Now, I'm going to go to CSIFiles.com and look at the season premiere episode description and try to put blanks in all the spots referring to Sara and Nick.
Go to see the film An Inconvenient Truth - one of the most important films of a generation.

Watch the I've Got Munchies podcast.

#11 of 120 Keith I

Keith I

    Screenwriter

  • 1,000 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2004
  • Real Name:Keith Ishihara
  • LocationFive-Oh!

Posted July 15 2004 - 04:18 PM

Quote:
I wonder how William Peterson will react to this?


Weren't there reports that he was already upset at the two other CSI shows and that none of them can compare to his crew? I also recall reports or rumors that he was going to leave the show after this new season. Talk about the snowball effect. Regardless of how I feel for any of the actors/characters, this crew had chemistry and it's sad when things like this happen (e.g., crew gets split up).

What about other higher-profile actors who reportedly staged a sick-out? Were their intentions not definitely proven? Were those actors their own boss so they could not be fired? Was this CSI case too obvious as an intent for more money?

I'm just imagining what it would be like if some of those high-profile actors from those hit shows who were reportedly staging sick-outs were fired, too. That would have been the death blow. But to get rid of "secondary" actors Fox and Eads, CSI can still go on. That's what I think.

#12 of 120 Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Executive Producer

  • 14,050 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted July 15 2004 - 04:41 PM

Quote:
I am not sure that them holding out for better salaries was a bad thing. If it was a seven year contract that they signed initially, they were getting the the shaft and the producers took advantage of them. Granted the producers took the risk, but it is just as greedy on their part to lock them into a seven year deal.

If it was such a bad deal, the cast shouldn't have signed. The producers were taking a risk in signing them that the show would end and they'd be out on their money. Now that the gamble paid off, why shouldn't the producers reap the profits?

#13 of 120 David_Blackwell

David_Blackwell

    Screenwriter

  • 1,435 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2004

Posted July 15 2004 - 06:46 PM

However, I think they could have payed the two actors more. CSI is making CBS and Paramount tons of money. I never considered Nick and Sara to be secondary characters.
ENTERLINE MEDIA (entertainment articles and DVD/Movie/TV show reviews)

#14 of 120 todd s

todd s

    Lead Actor

  • 6,857 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 08 1999

Posted July 16 2004 - 02:23 AM

I just read an article where it says that Jorja was DEFINITELY fired. But, George was not known yet. I wonder if they are trying to work it out with him?

Here is the quote from the article:

Quote:
Danica Smith, publicist for both Fox and Eads, told The Associated Press that Fox was fired Wednesday but did not have details. Smith could not confirm whether Eads was fired.

Bring back John Doe! Or at least resolve the cliff-hanger with a 2hr movie or as an extra on a dvd release.

#15 of 120 Sven Lorenz

Sven Lorenz

    Supporting Actor

  • 529 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 29 2002

Posted July 16 2004 - 02:45 AM

You have to remember that nobody expected anything from this show when it first came on - a (more or less) scientific crime show with two has-beens and a few unknown young actors.

I'm pretty sure that they weren't paid that much - both Petersen and Helgenberger had already renegotiated and received significant raises last year.

So it's understandable that they tried to get some more money.

Considering the amount of money CBS buries in the least funny sitcom of all time (Everybody love Raymond) they should've given Eads and Fox a raise.

I can live without Fox - but Eads played my favourite character on the show.

I'm not sure I'll start watching C.S.I. again in the fall.

#16 of 120 Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer

  • 11,507 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • LocationVermont

Posted July 16 2004 - 02:49 AM

I'm just imagining what it would be like if some of those high-profile actors from those hit shows who were reportedly staging sick-outs were fired, too. That would have been the death blow. But to get rid of "secondary" actors Fox and Eads, CSI can still go on.


With "CSI: Miami" and the upcoming "CSI: New York," the network has already proven that it's the concept that's drawing people, not necessarily the cast. Cast are expendable, especially second tier players.
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#17 of 120 Will_B

Will_B

    Producer

  • 4,733 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2001

Posted July 16 2004 - 03:36 AM

William Peterson and the rest of the surviving cast should walk out.

I for one won't watch again.

(Easy for me to say, since I'm still catching up on the box sets... but truly, the cast makes this show special. Sure, the clone-versions of the show may be ok, but when the original starts getting treated like it too can be just a clone, a pale imitation... it's time for the cast to stand up and say "no more." I expect a walk out).
"Scientists are saying the future is going to be far more futuristic than they originally predicted." -Krysta Now

#18 of 120 Kevin_Spradley

Kevin_Spradley

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 172 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2000

Posted July 16 2004 - 03:38 AM

I disagree slightly with your statement Malcolm. They have shown that the concept works, but Miami had nowhere near the following Las Vegas did. I think that is due to Peterson and the cast. I heard a lot of people saying that they didn't like Caruso's character traits in Miami. I hope New York does well though, I am a big Sinise fan. I personally ejoyed CSI more than Miami, even though I like Emily Proctor.
Anyway, I think the original will not be as good with Fox and Eads gone, but Peterson and Helgenberger(oh yeah) make the show.

#19 of 120 Mikel_Cooperman

Mikel_Cooperman

    Producer

  • 4,184 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 2001

Posted July 16 2004 - 04:28 AM

I guess they were trying to do a group holdout ala Friends to get what they wanted but it didnt work.
I say, combine all the shows and call it CSI: Arizona.
What I am seeing with all these spinoffs is that they are cookie cutters of themselves. They dont even tweak the element like Law and order but just put new cast members in and assume it will be just as powerful as others.

It's really hard to feel sorry for actors who make, something like 3 times what I do each week.

#20 of 120 Bob-N

Bob-N

    Supporting Actor

  • 915 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 26 2001

Posted July 16 2004 - 04:53 AM

That's too bad. I guess I'm the contrarian and I liked where Sarah's character was going. Lonely and overworked/over-commited to the job. Nick was fine, but I thought he was the generic straight man of the series. The two guys in the lab have more personality than Nick did.

However, I do agree that due to the huge success of the series, all of the lead CSI guys/gals should have gotten a bump in pay and not just the two main leads.





Forum Nav Content I Follow