Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > TV
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-27-2016, 05:28 AM
 
31,626 posts, read 26,469,080 times
Reputation: 24455

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah View Post
A classic of that situation is the one where Bugs ends up in the middle of a feud. In a matter of seconds, things are so edited to where the Hatfields and the McCoys have joined sides and doesn't know what Bugs did to achieve this. Another one of similar editing is "The Rabbit of Seville" where Bugs, in drag, pops up his cotton tail and the next thing we see is Elmer slammed back into the barber chair.......what powers that tail must have.



This pretty well covers it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday-morning_cartoon

It is for similar reasons of that to why I keep on hand various children movies in my library though admittedly, I may be quite out of date to what children watch these days......................and would have to do a serious clean up job for such a visit.

One thing I might be able to do, though, is show them Bugs Bunny when he had his own show on Saturday morning with all those great commercials. You know the ones with the stop photography clay feeders of the dog and fire hydrant saying, "After these messages, we'll be right back!".

T'was part of my second kidhood in the late 80s and 90s, to tape the Bugs Bunny Show......and now it's in the data library.....somewhere.


Never gets old, but would likely drive many up the wall today!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLdKU4JCYqg


Another non PC but darn funny BB cartoon.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMZfCar-Ks8
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-27-2016, 05:41 AM
 
31,626 posts, read 26,469,080 times
Reputation: 24455
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah View Post
A classic of that situation is the one where Bugs ends up in the middle of a feud. In a matter of seconds, things are so edited to where the Hatfields and the McCoys have joined sides and doesn't know what Bugs did to achieve this. Another one of similar editing is "The Rabbit of Seville" where Bugs, in drag, pops up his cotton tail and the next thing we see is Elmer slammed back into the barber chair.......what powers that tail must have.



This pretty well covers it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday-morning_cartoon

It is for similar reasons of that to why I keep on hand various children movies in my library though admittedly, I may be quite out of date to what children watch these days......................and would have to do a serious clean up job for such a visit.

One thing I might be able to do, though, is show them Bugs Bunny when he had his own show on Saturday morning with all those great commercials. You know the ones with the stop photography clay feeders of the dog and fire hydrant saying, "After these messages, we'll be right back!".

T'was part of my second kidhood in the late 80s and 90s, to tape the Bugs Bunny Show......and now it's in the data library.....somewhere.

In "Hillbilly Hare" the two hillbillies are brothers Curt and Pumpkinhead Martin. Curt is the first one to encounter Bugs (with the dark hair/beard) and gets what is coming to him. Pumpkinhead is next after telling Bugs he saw what the rabbit did to his brother.


Warner Brothers like others strictly enforces copyright so it can be difficult to find uncut versions of some cartoons on Youtube. However they often are in their original form/unedited on the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection" series.


Happily still have a VCR and a television that accepts, so in addition to a vast library of tapes pick up LT (often NIB) for dirt cheap. Whenever feeling blue or had a bad day pop one in and settle down for some laughs. Hasn't failed me yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2016, 09:00 AM
 
9,784 posts, read 7,044,450 times
Reputation: 11378
Quote:
Originally Posted by xray731 View Post
What upsets me most is the length of the seasons. The new fall shows premiered right after labor day in the good old days and many were live. As someone else said - you'd wait all summer for them after seeing the promos. They'd actually run until the Christmas holiday with most having a Xmas show and then they'd take 3-4 weeks off - come back and run again it seemed until the end of May or middle of June. Most of the programs now run for - 8 - 10 weeks and take a break - come back with a few more episodes and are done by the beginning of May. When they start back up - I forgot what happened the previous season!
Simple answer - cost. Dick Van Dyke was paid $1,500 an episode for his show - about $11,000 today. The stars of Big Bang Theory make $1 million. Van Dyke made $66,000 for 44 episodes - Parsons gets $22 million for 22 episode. The difference is Van Dyke has an ownership stake and still gets paid today. Parsons doesn't own the show.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2016, 03:47 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,087 posts, read 9,777,537 times
Reputation: 6650
Quote:
Originally Posted by robr2 View Post
Simple answer - cost. Dick Van Dyke was paid $1,500 an episode for his show - about $11,000 today. The stars of Big Bang Theory make $1 million. Van Dyke made $66,000 for 44 episodes - Parsons gets $22 million for 22 episode. The difference is Van Dyke has an ownership stake and still gets paid today. Parsons doesn't own the show.
Good point. I wonder when selected TV actor salaries increased to the level far beyond previous usage.

I used to read TV Guide faithfully as a kid in the 70s and do not recall any item regarding salaries. Stopped watching the 3 network tv channels for the most part after the mid-1980s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2016, 04:17 PM
 
31,626 posts, read 26,469,080 times
Reputation: 24455
Quote:
Originally Posted by robr2 View Post
Simple answer - cost. Dick Van Dyke was paid $1,500 an episode for his show - about $11,000 today. The stars of Big Bang Theory make $1 million. Van Dyke made $66,000 for 44 episodes - Parsons gets $22 million for 22 episode. The difference is Van Dyke has an ownership stake and still gets paid today. Parsons doesn't own the show.

Yes, but at 22m for even one year let alone several, Mr. Parsons and his husband will be streets ahead of Mr. Van Dyke ownership or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2016, 04:38 PM
 
31,626 posts, read 26,469,080 times
Reputation: 24455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
Good point. I wonder when selected TV actor salaries increased to the level far beyond previous usage.

I used to read TV Guide faithfully as a kid in the 70s and do not recall any item regarding salaries. Stopped watching the 3 network tv channels for the most part after the mid-1980s.

It became all about serious ratings and the vast sums that translates into for advertising dollars. This is especially true for the prime target demographics such as 18-49.


As to when am going to say probably by the 1990's and certainly early 2000's, that is when you begin to see these "outrageous" sums. IIRC it really took hold if not began with the sitcoms "Friends" "Everybody Loves Raymond" and of course "Frasier". NBC dominated ratings for the time slots for those two programs and usually the ones directly before and after. At the height of their popularity both shows drew huge ratings and thus were *VERY* popular with advertisers seeking to reach a particular target market.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...levision_stars


'Friends' creator: Those $1 million cast salaries were 'ridiculous' | EW.com




Game changer came when the cast of "Friends" actually were going out on strike to demand higher wages:


Friends' Cast Bands Together To Demand a Salary Increase - NYTimes.com


'Friends' Deal Will Pay Each Of Its 6 Stars $22 Million - NYTimes.com


It all is really a numbers game and a bit of smoke and mirrors. Wages paid to actors and other costs of producing these shows are deductible for tax purposes. Meanwhile the networks and production companies are making big money from these hit series.


Finally the real big game now is all about syndication. If a show lasts long and is popular enough to carry it into that, everyone stands to make money for years if not decades to come. Giving Mr. Parsons a million per episode now with perhaps no part of the syndication pot could very well be small beer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2016, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,087 posts, read 9,777,537 times
Reputation: 6650
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
It became all about serious ratings and the vast sums that translates into for advertising dollars. This is especially true for the prime target demographics such as 18-49.


As to when am going to say probably by the 1990's and certainly early 2000's, that is when you begin to see these "outrageous" sums. IIRC it really took hold if not began with the sitcoms "Friends" "Everybody Loves Raymond" and of course "Frasier". NBC dominated ratings for the time slots for those two programs and usually the ones directly before and after. At the height of their popularity both shows drew huge ratings and thus were *VERY* popular with advertisers seeking to reach a particular target market.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...levision_stars


'Friends' creator: Those $1 million cast salaries were 'ridiculous' | EW.com




Game changer came when the cast of "Friends" actually were going out on strike to demand higher wages:


Friends' Cast Bands Together To Demand a Salary Increase - NYTimes.com


'Friends' Deal Will Pay Each Of Its 6 Stars $22 Million - NYTimes.com


It all is really a numbers game and a bit of smoke and mirrors. Wages paid to actors and other costs of producing these shows are deductible for tax purposes. Meanwhile the networks and production companies are making big money from these hit series.


Finally the real big game now is all about syndication. If a show lasts long and is popular enough to carry it into that, everyone stands to make money for years if not decades to come. Giving Mr. Parsons a million per episode now with perhaps no part of the syndication pot could very well be small beer.
Thanks. I new of course about the ratings as recall even that aspect in TV Guide being repeatedly mentioned.

I recall watching in the tv news about booming salaries regarding Seinfeld but that was the later seasons for that show. Maybe 1,2,3 before it ended. I see it ended in 1998 so that coincides with the Fraser, Friends, etc. mentions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2016, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Sunny South Florida
8,026 posts, read 4,707,460 times
Reputation: 10060
I also recall Larry Hagman threatening to walk in 1980 (while JR Ewing was supposedly lying on the floor dying from gunshot wounds) unless he got a big raise and a piece of the profits. Just like JR, he got his way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2016, 08:02 PM
 
31,626 posts, read 26,469,080 times
Reputation: 24455
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielAvery View Post
I also recall Larry Hagman threatening to walk in 1980 (while JR Ewing was supposedly lying on the floor dying from gunshot wounds) unless he got a big raise and a piece of the profits. Just like JR, he got his way.
Television actors slowly but surely have taken a leaf from those on the big screen; that is realizing or at least assuming what their talent is worth and demanding their cut for said contributions. Was Ashton Kutchner worth $755k per episode for Two and One Half Men?


Once a television show takes off the actors realize now they've got the network/production company by the short and curlies. For ever since Bewitched changed Darrins getting rid of key characters on a successful sitcom usually doesn't go so well (for the record Bewitched with Dick Sargent as Darrin didn't have the same reach as when Dick York was on IIRC). Roseanne later had the same issues when they switched out Becky. For better or worse shows now try and keep the original star/ensemble together at least until and perhaps shortly after the show makes syndication.


In the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's right through to a good part of the 1980's television was considered "second rate" to Hollywood/big screen acting. However once famous film stars who needed work and found few other offers had no choice, from Bette Davis on down. Young and upcoming actors like Robert Redford got their start on television then moved onto the big money of major motion picture acting and directing.


The cast of TBBT make more per season than many Broadway and or Hollywood actors do in a year or perhaps a good part of their career. Jim Parsons need never work again after hanging up "Sheldon" and still be able to leave his heirs (assuming he and the husband have kids) tons of money.


Many of you may have noticed the "British" invasion of actors from the UK on American television series. These are classically trained actors who by and large can act your standard USA "actor" under the table any day of the week. Why? Money, money, money!


British television may have excellent programming and so forth, but it don't pay well, especially when compared to the Untied States. Dan Stevens and a few other actors on Downton Abbey ditched that show for the USA quick as they could. Huge Laurie made a boatload playing Dr. Gregory House: https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...st-us-tv-drama
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2016, 08:05 PM
 
31,626 posts, read 26,469,080 times
Reputation: 24455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
Thanks. I new of course about the ratings as recall even that aspect in TV Guide being repeatedly mentioned.

I recall watching in the tv news about booming salaries regarding Seinfeld but that was the later seasons for that show. Maybe 1,2,3 before it ended. I see it ended in 1998 so that coincides with the Fraser, Friends, etc. mentions.

When NBC coined the phrase "must watch TV", they weren't kidding. While VCR's and perhaps early DVR's were on the market by the 1990's viewer time shifting (recording to watch later) was no where near the levels today. I personally never got "Friends" or "Seinfield" but next day at college classes and or later when working everyone was going on about the previous night's episode.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > TV
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top