Simpsons might be cancelled by Fox

[the G-man]

Of course he is within his rights. The right of parties to contract (or reject contracts) is one of the fundamental rights of civilization.

And, therefore, Fox is well within its rights to reject his offer.

But let's say Fox wants to offer merchandising rights. It's pretty obvious that, for example, for every Burns or Flanders t-shirt sold, probably a hundred (or more) Bart or Homer t-shirts were sold. Burns, Flanders and the rest of his characters are secondary characters. They aren't the merchandising cash cow that, for example "Bart Simpson Underachiever" or "Mmmm Beer" stuff is.

Therefore, there's little incentive for the studio to cut Shearer in on the merchandising. His characters and, therefore, his participation, adds relatively little value to that merchandising.

 

[Amaris]

Of course he is within his rights. The right of parties to contract (or reject contracts) is one of the fundamental rights of civilization.

And, therefore, Fox is well within its rights to reject his offer.

But let's say Fox wants to offer merchandising rights. It's pretty obvious that, for example, for every Burns or Flanders t-shirt sold, probably a hundred (or more) Bart or Homer t-shirts were sold. Burns, Flanders and the rest of his characters are secondary characters. They aren't the merchandising cash cow that, for example "Bart Simpson Underachiever" or "Mmmm Beer" stuff is.

Therefore, there's little incentive for the studio to cut Shearer in on the merchandising. His characters and, therefore, his participation, adds relatively little value to that merchandising.

I disagree. The characters of Mr. Burns and Ned Flanders, while secondary, are integral to the series. They even appear in the very first episode, the Simpsons Christmas Special, and appear in nearly every episode since. That doesn't include Rev. Lovejoy, Doctor Hibbert, or Otto, all instantly recognizable characters, all appearing in the first season and continuing from there throughout many to most episodes of each season, including major plot points, like the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" cliffhanger at the end of Season Six. Shearer has been there from the very beginning and has a large and active role in the series. He has the heft to make his request representative of the group at large.

 

[the G-man]

So, I assume Marcia Wallace should get the same merchandising deal as Shearer, given how important Mrs. Krabappel was to so many of the classic episodes?

 

[Amaris]

So, I assume Marcia Wallace should get the same merchandising deal as Shearer, given how important Mrs. Krabappel was to so many of the classic episodes?

Certainly, just as Yeardley Smith should.

 

[the G-man]

Why would you mention Yeardley Smith? She's one of the big four. I would assume she'd be higher paid than the supporting actors.

Or are you saying that Harry Shearer and Marcia Wallace should be as well compensated as Yeardley Smith, Dan Castellanetta, Julie Kavner and Nancy Cartwright?

 

[Amaris]

Why would you mention Yeardley Smith? She's one of the big four. I would assume she'd be higher paid than the supporting actors.

Or are you saying that Harry Shearer and Marcia Wallace should be as well compensated as Yeardley Smith, Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner and Nancy Cartwright?

I mentioned her because she voices one character: Lisa Simpson. Yeardley Smith makes $400,000 per episode. Harry Shearer receives $400,000 per episode. The same as Dan Castellaneta, also known as the voice of "Homer", among others. I have watched every episode available on DVD, and listened to all of the commentaries dozens of times over. Shearer is considered one of the Big Players, by not only the actors, but by Matt Groening and Al Jean.

You do realize that the voices I mentioned are still only a handful of Shearer's contributions to the show, correct? Just so you know, you're debating this with a hardcore Simpsons knowledge...guy. Shearer makes his statements with the full weight of the showrunners behind the Simpsons. They all stand together. An example of that was the 2008 salary negotiations.

 

[the G-man]

I understand he does a lot of voices and the writers appreciate his skills. But that doesn't mean he sells the same amount of merchandise as the big four.

Furthermore, I think it's possible he could be replaced tomorrow and hurt the show very little. If they can replace Jim Henson as the voice of Kermit and Mel Blanc as the voice of half the characters in animation, Shearer is hardly indispensible.

In fact, I think canning him might be one of the best things that could happen to show. Part of the problem with "zombie Simpsons" is the over-reliance on the same tertiary characters over and over again (to the point of putting them in scenes where it makes no sense for them to be there) instead of coming up with something new. Getting rid of Shearer--and his characters--to make room for new concepts might be just the kick in the pants the show needs. It certainly would be worth a try instead of the 100th variation on a "Burns does something mean and hangs out with Homer for no discernable reason" gag or a "Hi diddley [fill in the blank]" Flanders bit.

 

[Amaris]

I understand he does a lot of voices and the writers appreciate his skills. But that doesn't mean he sells the same amount of merchandise as the big four.

Furthermore, I think it's possible he could be replaced tomorrow and hurt the show very little. If they can replace Jim Henson as the voice of Kermit and Mel Blanc as the voice of half the characters in animation, Shearer is hardly indispensible.

In fact, I think canning him might be one of the best things that could happen to show. Part of the problem with "zombie Simpsons" is the over-reliance on the same tertiary characters over and over again (to the point of putting them in scenes where it makes no sense for them to be there) instead of coming up with something new. Getting rid of Shearer--and his characters--to make room for new concepts might be just the kick in the pants the show needs. It certainly would be worth a try instead of the 100th variation on a "Burns does something mean and hangs out with Homer for no discernable reason" gag or a "Hi diddley [fill in the blank]" Flanders bit.

Which has nothing to do with his contributions to the show and his authority to make the request he made.

 

[J.T.B.]

Why would you mention Yeardley Smith? She's one of the big four. I would assume she'd be higher paid than the supporting actors.

Or are you saying that Harry Shearer and Marcia Wallace should be as well compensated as Yeardley Smith, Dan Castellanetta, Julie Kavner and Nancy Cartwright?

It's not the big four, it's the big six: Azaria, Cartwright, Castellaneta, Kavner, Shearer and Smith. They were chosen as the starring cast, have the same contracts and in the past have chosen to negotiate as a group. The question of who does more voices or has more lines doesn't have anything to do with it.

As for profit-participation, it's not just merchandising, the syndication deals will be huge, and I think Shearer's and Azaria's contributions to the show's popularity give them a more than reasonable claim to the same share as the "family" cast.



Justin

 

[the G-man]

I understand he does a lot of voices and the writers appreciate his skills. But that doesn't mean he sells the same amount of merchandise as the big four.

Furthermore, I think it's possible he could be replaced tomorrow and hurt the show very little. If they can replace Jim Henson as the voice of Kermit and Mel Blanc as the voice of half the characters in animation, Shearer is hardly indispensible.

In fact, I think canning him might be one of the best things that could happen to show. Part of the problem with "zombie Simpsons" is the over-reliance on the same tertiary characters over and over again (to the point of putting them in scenes where it makes no sense for them to be there) instead of coming up with something new. Getting rid of Shearer--and his characters--to make room for new concepts might be just the kick in the pants the show needs. It certainly would be worth a try instead of the 100th variation on a "Burns does something mean and hangs out with Homer for no discernable reason" gag or a "Hi diddley [fill in the blank]" Flanders bit.

Which has nothing to do with his contributions to the show and his authority to make the request he made.

I've already acknowledged he has a right to ask for anything he wants in contract negotiations, just as any other actor does.

Beyond that, my post directly addresses what his contribution to show is or is not. You seem to think he's practically the show's Fonzie. I'd say he's more like Coach Ernie Pantusso.

 

[Amaris]

I've already acknowledged he has a right to ask for anything he wants in contract negotiations, just as any other actor does.

Beyond that, my post directly addresses what his contribution to show is or is not. You seem to think he's practically the show's Fonzie. I'd say he's more like Coach Ernie Pantusso.

You would be wrong. Also, J.T.B. is right on the money. You're thinking "the big 4" because you're thinking of Homer, Marge, Bart and Lisa as principle characters rather than the actual voice actors behind the scenes. All in all, Shearer has a huge workload and is integral to the show, as he has provided over a hundred different voices for the series, with many of them as major secondary characters.

See, you're approaching this from the wrong direction, and so you're coming to an erroneous conclusion, that being one of the principle 4 character voices makes one's contributions greater in terms of marketing, when that just isn't so.

As I've already indicated to you, the major players receive the same salaries. They all negotiate together. They all have the same weight because they are all behind one another. If one cast member speaks, it is representative of the whole group. Therefore, when Harry Shearer speaks, he is speaking with the full weight and endorsement of the principle cast, including Shearer.

Your Pantusso analogy fails for several reasons. One is that Shearer is still a member of the cast after 23 seasons. Two, Coach was a bit player, in that episodes didn't really focus around him. He was the extraneous detail, the one second laugh along. Shearer voices integral characters to the show, including Mr. Burns, Dr. Hibbert, Kent Brockman, Otto the Bus Driver, Waylon Smithers, and others, where entire episodes or story arcs are centered around them. If anything, Shearer would be more like Norm, Cliff or Carla. So your analogy fails on multiple levels.

 

[the G-man]

Ah, so he's Shelley Long on Cheers. Or maybe Sherry Stringfeld on ER. Possibly Suzanne Somers on Three's Company.

 

[Amaris]

Ah, so he's Shelley Long on Cheers. Or maybe Sherry Stringfeld on ER. Possibly Chrissy Snow on Three's Company.

Again, your argument fails because Shearer is still a cast member and is still integral to the show. Please quit using an analogy that has already been proven wrong.

 

[the G-man]

My point was that he could be replaced and the show go on even if he is one of the "stars."

 

[Amaris]

My point was that he could be replaced and the show go on even if he is one of the "stars."

Technically, anyone can be replaced, which makes your point moot in reference to Shearer having any weight with the people at FOX, and if you really felt this way, why compare Shearer to the "Big 4" if you think they're all just as replaceable? That makes no sense.

 

[the G-man]

I said he was replaceable and not really worth giving a merchandising slice to.

You seemed to be arguing why he was irreplaceable and deserving of merchandising money, including by arguing he was an "intergral" part of the show.

As part of your argument that he was integral you said he was, in effect, one of the stars of the show.

I therefore countered that in certain situations even the stars can be replaced and the show still work.

But is everyone replaceable? Probably not.

Cheers worked without Shelley Long (I doubt it could have without Ted Danson, however). ER worked without Sherry Stringfeld. Three's Company worked without Suzanne Somers (though I doubt it could have without John Ritter).

Shearer is, at best, a Shelley Long to Dan Castellanetta's Ted Danson/John Ritter.

 

[Amaris]

I said he was replaceable and not really worth giving a merchandising slice to.

You seemed to be arguing why he was irreplaceable and deserving of merchandising money, including by arguing he was an "intergral" part of the show.

As part of your argument that he was integral you said he was, in effect, one of the stars of the show.

I therefore countered that in certain situations even the stars can be replaced and the show still work.

But is everyone replaceable? Probably not.

Cheers worked without Shelley Long (I doubt it could have without Ted Danson, however). ER worked without Sherry Stringfeld. Three's Company worked without Suzanne Somers (though I doubt it could have without John Ritter).

Shearer is, at best, a Shelley Long to Dan Castellanetta's Ted Danson/John Ritter.

*sigh* Quit using failed analogies. I have already pointed out where your analogy breaks down.

 

[the G-man]

No. All you've done is argue why you think he's irreplaceable despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[Amaris]

No. All you've done is argue why you think he's irreplaceable despite evidence to the contrary.

I've never argued he's irreplaceable. That's something you've brought in after I showed you Shearer earns the same salaries as the rest of the principle cast. You were comparing Castellaneta's salary to Shearer's, at which point I showed you they made the same amount of money, and had the full endorsement of both Matt Groening and showrunner Al Jean.

You then moved on to "everyone's replaceable" and used examples like Mel Blanc, to which I agreed that everyone is replaceable from that point of view, but then you backtracked, saying that not all of them were replaceable. Your posts are very inconsistent.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

All actors are "replaceable" so it's a pointless statement to make.