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.
Looks like I am definitely in the minority here. I realize that for the few who make it well enough to flaunt it there are plenty just getting by. There are certainly some stars in all types of different entertainment who flaunt the excessive wealth.Those I strongly resent. This includes sports stars. I have no problem with the one who live well.
It really just shows where Americans want their money to go or what they place value on. If the people want to give them the $, then they obv think it's okay but I agree with the other posts.. for every actor getting paid 1 million per episode (BigBangTheory) there are many many others getting stock pay or not near that amount.
I happened across an article yesterday about Johnny Depp suing his biz manager co... saying they put him in debt.. they counter sued and actually produced letters that had been sent to Depp that he didn't make enough $$ to be spending the way he was. He was living beyond his means at over 20 mil a month. How in the hell does someone spend over 20 mil a month? Thing was, he wasn't the only one. There was a list of them.
If you believe that CEO's, actors, athletes, authors, and the like are special and unique talents, then you would likely say that they deserve all of the money that they make. If you believe that lots of other people could actually do these jobs just as well, then you probably think they are all overpaid. In either case, being good with whatever money you get is an entirely different discussion.
Lifetime Boycott on Hollywood here but I did work in the industry and grew up around it.. I pulled the plug on tv/dummie box a longtime ago.. I do redbox once a year..
Hollywood is based on who you know not always talent,
and that's at every level in the industry..
Today's content or scripts by and large are pure garbage designed to only generate revenue..
Actors stand on marks and read or say memorized lines
they also research, prepare in various way for a part..
The writers and directors which most are luke warm on my talent scale are where most the talent is..
Lifetime Boycott on Hollywood here but I did work in the industry and grew up around it.. I pulled the plug on tv/dummie box a longtime ago.. I do redbox once a year..
Hollywood is based on who you know not always talent,
and that's at every level in the industry..
Today's content or scripts by and large are pure garbage designed to only generate revenue..
Actors stand on marks and read or say memorized lines
they also research, prepare in various way for a part..
The writers and directors which most are luke warm on my talent scale are where most the talent is..
How can you comment on the current state of talent if you've removed yourself from the medium? I'm not saying that you're right or wrong but you are basing your opinion on the information of yesterday.
How can you comment on the current state of talent if you've removed yourself from the medium? I'm not saying that you're right or wrong but you are basing your opinion on the information of yesterday.
I havmt been there for 7 years,
a nearly 100 year old industry hasn't changed much in the last 7 years,
I havnt seen a movie in 4 years lol
and I dont miss them a bit
they have called me but I aint answering
Lifetime Boycott on Hollywood here but I did work in the industry and grew up around it.. I pulled the plug on tv/dummie box a longtime ago.. I do redbox once a year..
Hollywood is based on who you know not always talent,
and that's at every level in the industry..
Today's content or scripts by and large are pure garbage designed to only generate revenue.. Actors stand on marks and read or say memorized lines
they also research, prepare in various way for a part..
The writers and directors which most are luke warm on my talent scale are where most the talent is..
And, yet, we - the audience - still complain about bad actors and (most) bad shows don't make it long so there is a little more to it than that.
IMO, they are paid what the market allows. If you disagree with what they are paid, don't watch TV, don't pay for cable (or Netflix, Hulu, etc.), and don't buy the products that are advertised on the shows (which is where the revenue comes from).
Let me say first off that I'm not expecting them to be poor or middle class. But it does seem to me that many of our television starts get exorbitant salaries, which is one of the reasons there are so many commercials, and one of the reasons that series end sooner than we may want (decreasing profit margins for the networks).
Take, for example, the "Big Bang Theory". Before you go off on me, it's one of my favorite shows, and Raj is my favorite character; and Kunal Nayaar seems to be a swell guy. But he ears $750,000 per episode. Which means that on last evening's episode he earned $41,666 per sentence of dialog. Wow!
I'm not moaning and groaning and *itching. I'm just wondering what others think about these television actor salaries.
Good question ....is Judge Judy worth getting $47 million a year?
She is very good a being grouchy ....I guess that's worth a lot.
I remember when it was a big deal that each of the "Friends" cast got $ 1 million per episode
for the last season, tenth year a hit show, they earned it
Same with Big Bang Theory...a big hit for 9 years.
Let me say first off that I'm not expecting them to be poor or middle class. But it does seem to me that many of our television starts get exorbitant salaries, which is one of the reasons there are so many commercials, and one of the reasons that series end sooner than we may want (decreasing profit margins for the networks).
Take, for example, the "Big Bang Theory". Before you go off on me, it's one of my favorite shows, and Raj is my favorite character; and Kunal Nayaar seems to be a swell guy. But he ears $750,000 per episode. Which means that on last evening's episode he earned $41,666 per sentence of dialog. Wow!
I'm not moaning and groaning and *itching. I'm just wondering what others think about these television actor salaries.
As William Muny aptly said: "Deserve's got nuthin' to do with it."
Salaries don't drive commercial prices or number of spots. The cost of commercials vary with the number of viewers for a program. As for the number of commercials, that is specifically determined to be hit the sweet spot on the curve, where profits are maximized because of the number of spots that can run without turning too many viewers away.
It's basic economics. CBS pays the salary because they're making money on the program. They could try and pay him less, but maybe he'd walk and go do something else. Then they'd make less money. He could try and make more money, but maybe CBS would balk and replace him and he'd make less money. It's a symbiotic relationship. No one is losing. They're both winning.
NBC offered Jerry Seinfeld $100,000,000 for a 20-episode tenth season of Seinfeld. Seinfeld declined. The network wanted to pay him that much. Why? Because they knew that, even at that price, they would make money. Simple market forces at work.
PS - Talent? LOL... why anything thinks supply and demand has squat to do with talent is beyond me!
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.
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.
