What do you guys think? Supposedly they were doing 10 hour days. Anyone know how long their holidays were between seasons and the schedule? Were they developing a season a year before the air date?
I watched a little documentary that lasted a whole ten minutes based on average pay-grade of actors in American tv shows. Now, considering trek was not a majority watched show, but rather a minority watched show, I will keep my answers to the 'average' instead of the upper pay grades. However, I personally believe they would get the lower grades mentioned in the doco. (example: most watched tv shows elad actors usually get 7000 a week average, trek leads would not) Lead actor, as in, the ONE lead actor: between 1500 to 3000 a week Dedicated mains: Between 800 to 2000 a week Additionals (seen in almost every episode but not considered main): between 300 to 1000 a week. Now not every actor got a 10 hour work day for most days of a week, no that's not true. Some wouldn't even work an hour at all in a week depending on the script. So hourly average is hard to get. (but trust me, 10 hour days is no hard task....I used to work 12 hours a day in a metal fabrication company, harder work, harder hours) As for average television show filming times. Guess what, many 20+ episode seasonal shows, only took 90 (average, some go over 100) days of a year, sometimes only 60 to film an entire season, then they go do other projects or jobs until the year after and do another season. So base pay really isn't really that great when you think about it barely being for a third of the year. The money that supports tv actors when not going onto doign other shows, movies or projects is from royalties(if the contract allows), convention appearances and general marketing themselves to fans. TV is not movies....they do rarely make you a millionaire with mansions unless you are constantly in many different tv projects.
are you talking about the original star trek? if so ,i read somewhere that shatner made between 700 and a thousand dollars a week.
Of course, that isn't how it is handled. Signed as a main cast member, you get a contracted amount that is usually over the number of seasons the contract runs (they often want to sign the actor for as many as possible and minimize chances to renegotiate at higher pay, whereas the actors would often go for a shorter commitment to maximize those chances or bail out if they aren't getting enough of the spotlight). That is sometimes further broken down to per-episode in the course of negotiations, but not usually to a greater level of granularity than that.
I remember reading that VOY actors were paid on a sliding scale. IIRC, Kate Mulgrew made around $60K per episode while Garrett Wang hovered at the lower end - $20-30K per episode.
If that were true, they wouldn't need to do Cons. for extra scratch. Plus you have to consider they only worked a steady job for 7 years, most of the time after that they're looking for work. They only really have a short window of time to make money, then factor in their bills, morgage and most have family and children to support. So in the end, they're as broke as you & I.
No way man. Most Americans don't know how to look after their money, but I can assure you the ones that are super wealthy know how to look after it because they hire financial advisers.
Woah, 60k per episode? I guess they would be making 1 episode per week? As if they would be doing television for $1,000 a week. Remember, when you do something on film it lasts forever.
That wouldn't be any of these guys. They've shown John Billingsly's home inside & out on the Home Design Network about two weeks ago. Living large, he is not.
But just because someone has the financial means to afford extravagant lifestyle, doesn't necessarily mean they will actually go for it. Who says that actors appearing at cons and such are using it to scrape in some more money? Sure, the money is an extra bonus, but the primary motivation behind these appearances might be other than money. Point is, we don't know for sure. Not all financially set or rich people are alike, nor do they all think in the same capacity.
If you ask certain ones like Robert Picardo or Ethan Philips, they'll tell you exactly that. Trek isn't shown on any major network, before Voyager they were all on syndicated stations. You're not going to get the pay rate is if you're on NBC or ABC. Even Sarah Michelle Gellar didn't make big bucks doing "Buffy" on the WB, something which she's spoken about in great detail on radio interviews. Even so, check out the cost of living in Southern Cali. Mulgrew might get by but her co-stars aren't. If Garrett Wang bought an apt. in NYC with what he made from Voyager, he would of had to move out of it all these years later because he wouldn't be able to keep up with payments.
Hmmm. $60K per episode for Mulgrew? With 161 episodes over 7 years, that adds up to something over $9.5 million. And, I think she negotiated an increase for the last two seasons. $20K per episode for Wang? Poor thing, he'd only make $3.2 million. All that is before taxes and before their agents got their cuts, of course. And a million isn't what it used to be, so they say. However, I might be able to get by on a salary like that!
I remember reading somewhere that between taxes, agents, "people," etc--they net about half the gross pay. Still not bad money.
You're forgetting the decade since and the next 90 years of residuals till they're dead that effectively they're being... Is there a statute of limitations on residuals, or is it willed and passed on down the family line?
Residuals are a laugh, hence why the current union is so up in arms about what actors should get for internet and DVD showings etc. Unless your like the Friends actors who negotiated a certain level of residuals with their contracts, most actors can't live off of that hence why they are always looking for work or get behind the camera like McNeil and Dawson who are producers/directors now.