It looks like Fox may cancel the Simpsons after the current 2011-12 season because they want the voice actors to take a 45% pay cut, and of course the actor's aren't willing to take a cut that steep.
It must suck to be one of those poor actors, they have to work 22 weeks a year for $8 million and now they're facing a downgrade to only $4 million.
It must suck to be one of those poor actors, they have to work 22 weeks a year for $8 million and now they're facing a downgrade to only $4 million.
They also get residuals from syndication, which is probably where the real money is....
That said, why should THEY take a pay cut just so Fox can keep their profits at the same level?
It must suck to be one of those poor actors, they have to work 22 weeks a year for $8 million and now they're facing a downgrade to only $4 million.
They also get residuals from syndication, which is probably where the real money is....
That said, why should THEY take a pay cut just so Fox can keep their profits at the same level?
Why shouldn't they? If viewership continues to dwindle, ad revenue will begin to erode and the show makes less money in first run. That $8 million a year was probably justifiable three or four years ago, but the landscape continues to change considerably.
They, like Fox, will continue to make money after the show ends in first run. But the question the voice actors have to ask themselves is this: if my work income drops to $0, will the residuals continue to support my current lifestyle?
It must suck to be one of those poor actors, they have to work 22 weeks a year for $8 million and now they're facing a downgrade to only $4 million.
They also get residuals from syndication, which is probably where the real money is....
That said, why should THEY take a pay cut just so Fox can keep their profits at the same level?
I assume this is a parody comment.Screw the cast, fire them and get new voice actors, it's not a big deal, people will notice the different voices, but will get used to it after 3 or 4 episodes.
Exactly. I have no sympathy for any argument that says that an actor who receives $8 million a year shouldn't pay higher taxes, but I have no sympathy for any argument that says he shouldn't earn that much in the first place.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.