• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

It might be the end of the road for "The Simpsons"

Mark said:
I think it's about proportion. Sure it's easy to knock someone when they're making 8 million and asked to cut down 45%. But how many of us would take a 45% cut? Yes, I understand, a 45% cut at 8 million may not make a difference in lifestyle, while a 45% cut on a $25,000/year job would, but how much does FOX and the creators make?

It really isn't about money or raises, it's about fairness. I worked for a company with record profits, and they tried to sell everyone a line about canceling manager bonuses and not giving everyone a customary cost of living increase, while their CEO and upper levels were making millions in bonuses. It's really about fairness, it's not right to ask someone to take a 45% decrease unless overall everyone else is doing similar cuts.

Of course the answer to that will be, "they were overpaid and now we're getting back on track"

If they are overpaid, hopefully they saved their money and can use it as a negotiating technique. I think it's ridiculous that anyone make that money, but entertainers, sports figures, and high level management probably make much more than realistically they should and historically they did.
"The Simpsons," isn't what it once was, but it's still a lot better than most of what else is on.

Funny you should mention that. Due to the economy, I just took what amounts to a 5% cut - an actual 3% salary cut plus higher contributions to medical. Don't get me wrong - I have a good job and I'm grateful to be keeping it. But it certainly is a matter of proportion.

If I was super-rich like these voice actors, and had been cut from 3 times more money that I could spend in a lifetime to only two times more money than I could spend in a lifetime - I think I would take it, assuming I still enjoyed the work.

They got lucky a few years ago when the got the big raise - the show was still making money, and wouldn't have worked with other voice actors. Remember how odd Bugs Bunny sounded after Mel Blanc died? Or Kermit the Frog, for that matter. A whole new cast of new voices on The Simpsons would have ruined the show. In a sense, they had the producers and Fox over a barrel. But now is not then, and they had a choice to make.
Fox is playing hardball now, and I'm not crying for the voice actors.
 
gregg75 said:
This new deal if for 2 more years.
I guess it is hard for Fox to kill the show that made it.

The Simpsons didn't make Fox, the NFL did.

Still, Fox is a business, and regardless of whether a show "made the network" or not, if it still makes the company more money than another show in that time period would, then they have no choice. I think they were hoping that Seth could take over with Family Guy, but that show has been going downhill FAST, along with the rest of the drivel that Seth is producing these days.

I think it comes down to there also being too many holes in the Fox lineup coming up. It has yet to be seen if House will continue to perform, and without 24, Mondays are currently rebuilding. Tuesday seems to do alright, but based on one show carrying the rest. Friday is DOA, and Saturday is weak as well. No need to add Sunday to the "rebuild" list quite yet, especially when taking such a huge gamble on singing talent shows, which just might finally be losing steam.

I don't think that Fox is looking to become the next NBC, just yet, especially now that ABC has some real momentum building up.
 
I agree "The Simpsons," didn't make FOX, but it kept it afloat and made it a name in the house. Your right the NFL made FOX, but because of "the Simpsons," FOX was around.

Most people forget that FOX nearly folded a year or so before the NFL contract. Mellon Bank called in Murdoch's loan. Had they went through with this, FOX would've been toast. Murdoch should be credited with pulling off a great bluff. He told Mellon Bank if they called in the loan, when it was due, as they rightfully could, he'd go bankrupt and the bank would get nothing and possible go bankrupt too. Mellon Bank then worked with other banks and got Murdoch a deal to keep the loans afloat and give him more money to boot.

Then came the NFL deal and the rest is history.

But had Mellon called Murdoch's he'd have been toast. How many of us have that kind of power over a debt. It's like the old saying, if you owe your creditor a thousand dollars, and can't pay, you have problems. If you owe a creditor a hundred
thousand dollars, and can't pay, your creditor is the one with the problem :)
 
Mark said:
Most people forget that FOX nearly folded a year or so before the NFL contract. Mellon Bank called in Murdoch's loan. Had they went through with this, FOX would've been toast.

If Fox did indeed have folded:

1. We would still be watching Sunday afternoon football on CBS and NBC, and MNF on ABC.

2. Independent stations would still be alive and well.

3. The WB and UPN would have been, at least, a little more successful than they were.

4. No Fox News.
 
Last night Tom Bergeron said he looked like Principal Skinner. Here's an idea ...

They did hire real people for the opening credits that one time.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom