Fox Won't Share Simpsons Profits With Actors

[Snake Plissken]

Um... you are aware of the fact that Whedon was hired by Fox to write that script and basically had to bow to their demands, right? That movie was dreadful, even Whedon admitted that.

Because other people made a movie he had no control over with a bastardized version of a script he wrote?

Yeah, yeah, I know. It's been nearly 15 years and I'm still bitter about it.

Then again, I haven't seen his original script, but if ANY of it ended up in the film, it was probably still pretty awful.

You may find my point may be moot, though, because I am one of the few that actually ENJOY the current seasons of the Simpsons. I would be sad to see it go.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Please let this degenerate until they have no choice but to end the show. There would be literally no downside.

Hate to break it to ya buddy, but they signed the contract. They took the pay cut, and are still returning for another season.

Know their logic? After 23 years of making fuckloads of money, they decided instead of letting pride get in their way and being greedy, thay they'd continue to make a fuckload of money - just less of a fuckload. Under normal circumstances, I would say Fox would probably get sued for violating its contract. However, the cast of that show has made their money, and are just in the business for the fun of it.

They took a 30% pay cut, as apposed to the proposed 45%. What the Escapists sensationalist reporting "FORGOT" to mention to you was that the 45% was the absolutely bottom of the barrel, "we aren't even serious" kinda offer that was made just so the two parties could negotioate into the 20-30% range. Thats how business is done. When its all said and done, Fox also pays its employees that its contracted to...

Anyways, to you and everyone that has been trashtalking The Simpsons, have you been watching the new episodes? And I mean seriously, not in the context of the internet where you have to show how Alpha Male you are? Yeah, the 90's version was amazing - but it was different back then. Different team, different script writers (<3 Conan), etc. The recent two seasons have been pretty decent. Furthermore, a vast majority of people who rag on the Simpsons and say the new seasons suck, don't actually watch it. And to them I say fuck off - who are they to be loud and obnoxious over something other people like just because "Its been on for 23 years, it can't be funny". Yeah, I realize the show had a dark period. And if you abandoned it, then fine. But don't give your opinion on the matter unless your current and have seen a good chunk of the episodes - and not just the old ones. Otherwise, I'm chalking this one up to nestalgia.

End of Rant.

Aww, a Simpsons fanboy, how cute. I didn't think you guys were still around. Still, don't let your pet show being an irredeemable piece of shit stop you from taking every attack on it as a personal offence, more power to you.

The fact that you have a bunch of prepackaged strawman arguments and ad-hominems for anybody who dislikes it shows you give so much more of a shit than anybody insulting the Simpsons. It didn't even occur to me that pointing out that the Simpsons is crap was even a big enough deal to be considered "acting alpha male" any more.

If you didn't think it was alpha male to bash Simpsons then why are you responding to this post in such a manner? It can only be because you're using it as an ego trip, therefore doing exactly what he predicted someone would do.
So by responding to tell him he has a strawman argument, you've proved he doesn't have a strawman argument by showing everyone he's right. I find that amusing

Why did I respond to a rude post rudely?

You're right. It must be an ego thing.

If you were just trying to prove him wrong then you would have used facts instead of just shouting at him, and wouldn't have been rude. You were trying to put him in his place, which makes it an ego thing. You're also replying to me, which shows you want the last word. Also an ego thing.
So yeah, I am right. It's an ego thing

 

[The Lugz]

The actors should just say "Nope!" and go on without Fox.

here comes the Simpsons radio show!

that would be much better, i could listen to the Simpsons and do other things at the same time

'hawt damn, that radiojigger's gunna be useful again!'

oh well, i digress.
honestly i wish everyone would just turn backs to fox and ignore them until they die a slow painful death

 

[Coffinshaker]

This is my little comic reply to the situation... enjoy! >D

[http://coffin-comics.jesterbrand.com/2011/10/10/getting-foxed-over/]

(click to go to read the post on this or to check out the rest of my site)

 

[Dooly95]

It's odd they want to make them take a pay cut, stating it's too expensive to continue making the show as it, but will deny them taking an even larger pay cut and sharing in profits. This of course tells us that their profits are large enough that can currently pay them while maintaining profits.

Well, you can think that, but then again, there are other shows on Fox.

Who might think, hey, those guys doing the Simpsons gets a cut of the pie, why can't we?

And soon, Fox has to divvy up all its profits across all its shows.

It's not a smart business move.

Also, someone said this yesterday, but say... oh, never mind, I found it.

Doesn?t anyone understand? Taking a small percentage of the show?s reported profits would be a HUGE RAISE for any of these actors!!! Of course Fox doesn?t want to give them a small percentage of the show?s profits! The actors would start sucking way more money off of them! Think about it.

Let?s say Harry Shearer makes about $4,000,000 a season, and say he takes a huge pay cut of 70%, leaving 30% left. 4,000,000 x .3 = 1,200,000 left of his yearly salary, that?s some major change. Now let?s say that per year, and this is probably a conservative estimate, FOX makes around 2 Billion off the show, and Harry wants only .25 of a percentage point! 2,000,000,000 x .0025 = 5,000,000!!!! So in fact, what he is saying is that he actually wants a RAISE of 2,200,000 for a total yearly salary of $6,200,000!!

Now, that is not to say I don?t agree with it, because those Simpson?s voice actors are some of the most talented and funny people in the world.(sic)

 

[kaizen2468]

It's odd they want to make them take a pay cut, stating it's too expensive to continue making the show as it, but will deny them taking an even larger pay cut and sharing in profits. This of course tells us that their profits are large enough that can currently pay them while maintaining profits.

Well, you can think that, but then again, there are other shows on Fox.

Who might think, hey, those guys doing the Simpsons gets a cut of the pie, why can't we?

And soon, Fox has to divvy up all its profits across all its shows.

It's not a smart business move.

Also, someone said this yesterday, but say... oh, never mind, I found it.

Doesn?t anyone understand? Taking a small percentage of the show?s reported profits would be a HUGE RAISE for any of these actors!!! Of course Fox doesn?t want to give them a small percentage of the show?s profits! The actors would start sucking way more money off of them! Think about it.

Let?s say Harry Shearer makes about $4,000,000 a season, and say he takes a huge pay cut of 70%, leaving 30% left. 4,000,000 x .3 = 1,200,000 left of his yearly salary, that?s some major change. Now let?s say that per year, and this is probably a conservative estimate, FOX makes around 2 Billion off the show, and Harry wants only .25 of a percentage point! 2,000,000,000 x .0025 = 5,000,000!!!! So in fact, what he is saying is that he actually wants a RAISE of 2,200,000 for a total yearly salary of $6,200,000!!

Now, that is not to say I don?t agree with it, because those Simpson?s voice actors are some of the most talented and funny people in the world.(sic)

What I wanna know is if they're making such large profits that they don't want to let them share in them, why do they need to take a paycut in the first place?