Question is, as a lifelong fan, how much a series is Peter Capaldi paying the BBC to play the Doctor? ;-)
The fact he is a life long fan fill's me with confidence that he will put more into the role than a non fan would. David tennant was a life long fan (remember reading in the papers upon his appointment that he'd done a piece of work at school that said when he grew up, he wanted to be the doctor) and as a result was one of the most popular doctor's there has been, so for me, bodes well for capaldi's time
When I saw this thread had been regenerated, or should that be reserected, I thought it was a joke. Now I've read it, I can see that it is indeed a joke.
Do people honestly think that if an actor is offered a role in a TV series, that they have been a fan of, that they would work for free or for a minimum payment. Get real. They are actors, that is there profession, they need money to live. Moffatt - " hello Mr Capaldi I would like you to play the Doctor in Doctor Who and I will pay you £250,000 a year" Capaldi - " Don't be silly Stephen, I love Doctor Who and will happily play the role for £50 a week, just put the rest of the money towards the programme"
Actors on a long running series will get a yearly contract that will include an acting fee and in the case of royalty rights, will include an agreed percentage for use of their image.
In America, when a series takes off, such as Friends or Frasier, then the lead actors will agree an episode fee. Sometimes this is as much as $1,000,000 an episode. Makes what we pay our leading TV actors a joke.
When I saw this thread had been regenerated, or should that be reserected, I thought it was a joke. Now I've read it, I can see that it is indeed a joke.
Do people honestly think that if an actor is offered a role in a TV series, that they have been a fan of, that they would work for free or for a minimum payment. Get real. They are actors, that is there profession, they need money to live. Moffatt - " hello Mr Capaldi I would like you to play the Doctor in Doctor Who and I will pay you £250,000 a year" Capaldi - " Don't be silly Stephen, I love Doctor Who and will happily play the role for £50 a week, just put the rest of the money towards the programme"
Actors on a long running series will get a yearly contract that will include an acting fee and in the case of royalty rights, will include an agreed percentage for use of their image. In America, when a series takes off, such as Friends or Frasier, then the lead actors will agree an episode fee. Sometimes this is as much as $1,000,000 an episode. Makes what we pay our leading TV actors a joke.
But that's only when the actors' original contract expires and the studio has to re-negotiate to keep them on-board a successful show. It's common for American productions to tie actors into multi-year contracts (which expire if the series gets cancelled). In the case of a five-year contract, the big money doesn't start to roll-in until the actors are needed to sign-up for a sixth season.
Kelsey Grammer's famous $700,000-per-episode deal for Frasier wasn't negotiated until 2001. By which time, the show had been on the air for eight of its eleven years.
IIRC, Matt was signed-up for a minimum of three years. He would almost certainly have received a significant pay rise if he had stayed for the next series.
:eek: I honestly had no idea actors were paid so much.
I am now seriously considering discontinuing my TV license. I mean I rarely even watch TV and I don't even like the BBC. Doctor Who is about all I watch, and now I find I am paying six figure salaries just for individual actors in TV shows (let alone all the other actors in all the other shows)?
No disrespect to Matt Smith, who thoroughly earns whatever they pay him, it's not his fault. But I would think the role of The Doctor is reward enough in itself without needing a large salary to "tempt" actors to take on the role? Surely better to pay a small wage for someone who is enthusiastic and into the role? As a performer myself, I can't be the only one who would gladly play the Doctor for minimum wage?
Course you don't have to buy a TV license. Just stop watching live television. I haven't bought a license for years. Doesn't mean you have to stop watching Doctor Who. Just do the same as I do. Buy them on DVD and/or watch them online.
Contrary to popular belief, just because you own a television doesn't mean you automatically have to own a license.
Many, many people are going down this road now. Mainly because money is so tight.
Think about it for a second, as soon as they started playing Dr Who they'd get poached by another broadcaster!
Well, there seems to be a common belief amongst the anti-TVL types that the BBC should merely develop talent for commercial broadcasters to poach. Dear old James Murdoch even gave a speech (more of a tantrum, really) about how he thought the BBC should be forced to sell-off its flagship programmes.
But that's only when the actors' original contract expires and the studio has to re-negotiate to keep them on-board a successful show. It's common for American productions to tie actors into multi-year contracts (which expire if the series gets cancelled). In the case of a five-year contract, the big money doesn't start to roll-in until the actors are needed to sign-up for a sixth season.
Kelsey Grammer's famous $700,000-per-episode deal for Frasier wasn't negotiated until 2001. By which time, the show had been on the air for eight of its eleven years.
IIRC, Matt was signed-up for a minimum of three years. He would almost certainly have received a significant pay rise if he had stayed for the next series.
Quite true. The Star Trek Next Gen Film franchise was abandoned as most of the actors were on a per-film contract. When you have two of the principal cast members demanding such a huge sum it makes the film break even after paramount write them cheques for 10million each plus points, it's easy to see when companies try to tie in actors on a long term contact.
Glee is another one, the cast were paid a fixed/indexed sum but tied into multi year contract. Now most are up for renewal they are demanding huge increases.
I'm sure you'd gladly play the Doctor for a pittance. But excuse me for being presumptuous but I'm assuming you're not quite as talented as Matt Smith. Of course I could be wrong. Doubt it.
Well, it's not my place to talk about my own abilities. Though I would say it is a little presumptuous of you to speculate! You really do not know who you are talking to
What I can tell you without any risk of boasting is that there are certainly a lot of "amateurs" who could give Matt Smith a run for his money. I have worked with many incredibly talented actors on the amateur scene and they represent just a small portion of those around the country. People like us pay expensive membership fees and give hours and hours of our free time (often all our free time) in order to put on plays for free, just for the love of performing and entertaining. I have absolutely no doubt in saying that the BBC could find an outstanding Doctor who would work for minimum wage.
I'm not saying "minimum wage" is realistic, fitting or fair for such a prestigious and demanding role. Far from it. But a six-figure salary seems ridiculous and unnecessary, given that theoretically you could pay the Doctor next to nothing.
Some people on this thread showing remarkable and admirable honourable intentions claiming they would reject a big pay cheque to act in the show.
Perhaps others said this, but that is not what I said. I wasn't saying I would reject a large fee (why would I?), only that I would not reject a small fee. I just can't see any sense in the BBC offering so much money.
just because you own a television doesn't mean you automatically have to own a license.
I have been seriously considering ditching the license fee lately since Doctor Who is the only BBC show I watch and I really do not want to give any more of my money to the BBC. I really don't like them any more.
I have been seriously considering ditching the license fee lately since Doctor Who is the only BBC show I watch and I really do not want to give any more of my money to the BBC. I really don't like them any more.
Related to that rant thread, out of curiosity, which shows have you ditched in the last year or so for you turn on the BBC and want to ditch the LF? They must have been some pretty serious mistakes for this line of questioning.
Related to that rant thread, out of curiosity, which shows have you ditched in the last year or so for you turn on the BBC and want to ditch the LF? They must have been some pretty serious mistakes for this line of questioning.
Not to mention that I'm sure the Beeb would be breaking some rule of other if they didn't pay actors, and the fine would cost more than the salary in the first place....
I believe, regarding the licence fee, that if you have a television set in your abode, that is capabale of receiving a tv signal, then you have to have a licence. You would have to physicaly disable or remove the bit inside your set that is capable of receiving a transmission.
Having said that, wasn't it recently reported that TV detector vans are nowhere near as accurate as the BBC would have you believe. Also don't forget, if people stop getting a licence then that will downsize the amount of money the BBC will recieve and that in turn will lead to shows being cancelled and/or having their budgets cut, so by not paying for a licence you will be effecting your favourite programme in one way or another.
On a seperate note, was that Steven Moffatt that Sherlock punched in the bar fight scene in episode two last week ?
When I was a child, I used to actually wonder whether the kids that appear in toy adverts had to accept money or whether they could just take the toy home. At the time, I favoured the latter.
As for Matt, I reckon they dig out old David cheques and cross off the last few zeroes?
In real life, I'll wager that he has a contract that promises him £x in however many instalments over however much time (completely unlinked from shooting and broadcast schedules) and some sort of royalties agreement in place for merchandising and rebroadcast/DVD/etc profits.
I did adverts as a kid. On one I got to keep some toys but I got paid wages for the ads, or rather my parents did. They put it into an account for me and I used the money when I went to Uni.
As for Matt, it really depends on the terms his agent negotiated. Actor friends mine often get an advance percentage and the rest on completion, some do the work then get paid afterwards.
:eek: I honestly had no idea actors were paid so much.
I am now seriously considering discontinuing my TV license. I mean I rarely even watch TV and I don't even like the BBC. Doctor Who is about all I watch, and now I find I am paying six figure salaries just for individual actors in TV shows (let alone all the other actors in all the other shows)?
No disrespect to Matt Smith, who thoroughly earns whatever they pay him, it's not his fault. But I would think the role of The Doctor is reward enough in itself without needing a large salary to "tempt" actors to take on the role? Surely better to pay a small wage for someone who is enthusiastic and into the role? As a performer myself, I can't be the only one who would gladly play the Doctor for minimum wage?
Acting is one of the highest paid professions. Anything in the entertainment world is going to be in a different league to the salaries of more mundane jobs anyway.
Obviously actor's wages are going to vary depending on if it's a tiny bit part or a starring role, and whether it's a small production or a big budget one, but I think it's only to be expected that anyone playing such an iconic and globally recognised role as the Doctor is going to be earning a huge salary!
And the TV licence is not just used for actor's salaries, there are many other things it is paying for too. Without the TV licence would we even have Doctor Who at all?
Listening to this argument about the licensing fee for the BBC makes what we have in the USA look almost civilized with our commercials.
So I assume every channel in America must be a commercial one? This has made my wonder: Does any other country in the world have TV or radio stations with the sort of arrangement that the BBC has, or is the idea exclusive to Britain?
I believe, regarding the licence fee, that if you have a television set in your abode, that is capabale of receiving a tv signal, then you have to have a licence. You would have to physicaly disable or remove the bit inside your set that is capable of receiving a transmission.
You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.
I have a TV but not a licence. I use the TV to occasionally watch DVDs, it's not attached to an aerial, dish or cable. When I watch TV (not often!) it's on catch-up.
Its a job pure and simple. No different then mine and yours (the fact people dream about doing it has nothig to do with it)
He will get the going rate for being the main focal of one of the biggest programes on British TV.
Its not a job where he pops into work plays at being the Doctor for a few hour and pops off home. He has to fly to other countries meaning he is restricted to when he can take other jobs, also time away from family etc. He has to deal with the "fans". Its a very tough job and a very demanding one (even in the old days when the pressure was not as great)
People would not go into their managers office at Tesco's and say "I am your best shelf stacker but dont worry I will work for less then everyone else".
The BBC make millions upon millions based to some degree on his talents as a actor and is entitled to some part of that. If he went to the BBC and said "I would work for free" that would not make a difference to how much they spent on the show. They would just take that money and spend it on someother programe.
Acting is one of the highest paid professions. Anything in the entertainment world is going to be in a different league to the salaries of more mundane jobs anyway.
Obviously actor's wages are going to vary depending on if it's a tiny bit part or a starring role, and whether it's a small production or a big budget one, but I think it's only to be expected that anyone playing such an iconic and globally recognised role as the Doctor is going to be earning a huge salary!
And the TV licence is not just used for actor's salaries, there are many other things it is paying for too. Without the TV licence would we even have Doctor Who at all?
BIB An absolute myth. I work in TV and I can assure you that salaries behind the camera in TV are relatively poor. As for the talent in front of the camera, it is a fact that 90% of Equity members would earn more from babysitting than they do from acting.
Comments
Do people honestly think that if an actor is offered a role in a TV series, that they have been a fan of, that they would work for free or for a minimum payment. Get real. They are actors, that is there profession, they need money to live. Moffatt - " hello Mr Capaldi I would like you to play the Doctor in Doctor Who and I will pay you £250,000 a year" Capaldi - " Don't be silly Stephen, I love Doctor Who and will happily play the role for £50 a week, just put the rest of the money towards the programme"
Actors on a long running series will get a yearly contract that will include an acting fee and in the case of royalty rights, will include an agreed percentage for use of their image.
In America, when a series takes off, such as Friends or Frasier, then the lead actors will agree an episode fee. Sometimes this is as much as $1,000,000 an episode. Makes what we pay our leading TV actors a joke.
Kelsey Grammer's famous $700,000-per-episode deal for Frasier wasn't negotiated until 2001. By which time, the show had been on the air for eight of its eleven years.
IIRC, Matt was signed-up for a minimum of three years. He would almost certainly have received a significant pay rise if he had stayed for the next series.
Course you don't have to buy a TV license. Just stop watching live television. I haven't bought a license for years. Doesn't mean you have to stop watching Doctor Who. Just do the same as I do. Buy them on DVD and/or watch them online.
Contrary to popular belief, just because you own a television doesn't mean you automatically have to own a license.
Many, many people are going down this road now. Mainly because money is so tight.
Think about it for a second, as soon as they started playing Dr Who they'd get poached by another broadcaster!
Quite true. The Star Trek Next Gen Film franchise was abandoned as most of the actors were on a per-film contract. When you have two of the principal cast members demanding such a huge sum it makes the film break even after paramount write them cheques for 10million each plus points, it's easy to see when companies try to tie in actors on a long term contact.
Glee is another one, the cast were paid a fixed/indexed sum but tied into multi year contract. Now most are up for renewal they are demanding huge increases.
What I can tell you without any risk of boasting is that there are certainly a lot of "amateurs" who could give Matt Smith a run for his money. I have worked with many incredibly talented actors on the amateur scene and they represent just a small portion of those around the country. People like us pay expensive membership fees and give hours and hours of our free time (often all our free time) in order to put on plays for free, just for the love of performing and entertaining. I have absolutely no doubt in saying that the BBC could find an outstanding Doctor who would work for minimum wage.
I'm not saying "minimum wage" is realistic, fitting or fair for such a prestigious and demanding role. Far from it. But a six-figure salary seems ridiculous and unnecessary, given that theoretically you could pay the Doctor next to nothing.
Perhaps others said this, but that is not what I said. I wasn't saying I would reject a large fee (why would I?), only that I would not reject a small fee. I just can't see any sense in the BBC offering so much money.
If I were playing the Doctor for a small wage, and someone offered me more money to stop playing the Doctor, I would not be swayed.
I have been seriously considering ditching the license fee lately since Doctor Who is the only BBC show I watch and I really do not want to give any more of my money to the BBC. I really don't like them any more.
However, I've checked and the licensing law says that if you watch any TV channels then you still need to pay the BBC.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/
Forcing people to pay a broadcaster they do not watch or wish to support is unethical, and I even made a thread about this here.
Related to that rant thread, out of curiosity, which shows have you ditched in the last year or so for you turn on the BBC and want to ditch the LF? They must have been some pretty serious mistakes for this line of questioning.
Already answered there, thanks
Having said that, wasn't it recently reported that TV detector vans are nowhere near as accurate as the BBC would have you believe. Also don't forget, if people stop getting a licence then that will downsize the amount of money the BBC will recieve and that in turn will lead to shows being cancelled and/or having their budgets cut, so by not paying for a licence you will be effecting your favourite programme in one way or another.
On a seperate note, was that Steven Moffatt that Sherlock punched in the bar fight scene in episode two last week ?
I did adverts as a kid. On one I got to keep some toys but I got paid wages for the ads, or rather my parents did. They put it into an account for me and I used the money when I went to Uni.
As for Matt, it really depends on the terms his agent negotiated. Actor friends mine often get an advance percentage and the rest on completion, some do the work then get paid afterwards.
Acting is one of the highest paid professions. Anything in the entertainment world is going to be in a different league to the salaries of more mundane jobs anyway.
Obviously actor's wages are going to vary depending on if it's a tiny bit part or a starring role, and whether it's a small production or a big budget one, but I think it's only to be expected that anyone playing such an iconic and globally recognised role as the Doctor is going to be earning a huge salary!
And the TV licence is not just used for actor's salaries, there are many other things it is paying for too. Without the TV licence would we even have Doctor Who at all?
So I assume every channel in America must be a commercial one? This has made my wonder: Does any other country in the world have TV or radio stations with the sort of arrangement that the BBC has, or is the idea exclusive to Britain?
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/
I have a TV but not a licence. I use the TV to occasionally watch DVDs, it's not attached to an aerial, dish or cable. When I watch TV (not often!) it's on catch-up.
He will get the going rate for being the main focal of one of the biggest programes on British TV.
Its not a job where he pops into work plays at being the Doctor for a few hour and pops off home. He has to fly to other countries meaning he is restricted to when he can take other jobs, also time away from family etc. He has to deal with the "fans". Its a very tough job and a very demanding one (even in the old days when the pressure was not as great)
People would not go into their managers office at Tesco's and say "I am your best shelf stacker but dont worry I will work for less then everyone else".
The BBC make millions upon millions based to some degree on his talents as a actor and is entitled to some part of that. If he went to the BBC and said "I would work for free" that would not make a difference to how much they spent on the show. They would just take that money and spend it on someother programe.
Its called living in the real world
BIB An absolute myth. I work in TV and I can assure you that salaries behind the camera in TV are relatively poor. As for the talent in front of the camera, it is a fact that 90% of Equity members would earn more from babysitting than they do from acting.