Options
The Big Bang Theory cast members get $1million an episode?
abecern
Posts: 151 Forum Member
✭
I read somewhere the cast members get a million a show (in dollars); is this true? If it is it's absolutely ridiculous. How in the world can they be worth that? I am sure the company behind the show makes more than all costs associated with show (including salary) but how on earth anyone finds this tripe funny is simply beyond me. I've only ever watched two episodes a couple of years back and it is absolute crap, not remotely funny. I am not even sure it's a real audience because they laugh at anything. Americans may have a different sense of humour but I always find they laugh at just about anything on some of these American comedies imported here. I remember Friends and on that also people would laugh randomly, to the point you could be forgiven for thinking if the studios use fake laughter sound effects, or perhaps there is a director behind the scenes guiding the audience, similar to what they on talk shows when people are asked to applaud or laugh.
0
Comments
They got that deal because they had the upper hand. CBS had already announced the show was renewed through the 2016/17 season, would it be as successful with the three lead characters not there any more? Probably not and the three knew it and negotiated what looks like a cracking deal for themselves.
As for not finding it funny, that's subjective. 15 million people a week in the US do find it funny. And the show is filmed using a live audience but there probably is a laughter track too (as with a lot of sitcoms, UK included).
I'm not sure you can really make an informed decision about how good a show is based on a couple of episodes out of seven full seasons.
It may seem extortionate to you but they are paid in relation to the profit they make the company they work for. Actors have a relatively short career, they should absolutely get as much as possible whilst they are popular enough to do so. If they weren't worth it, the network wouldn't be paying them it. It's quite simple.
Just because you don't like it isms don't think they're worth it t doesn't mean their wages are outrageous. It just means you don't like it.
I'm sure there are shows you like that others wouldn't pay the actors beans for.
I suppose if you found the show hysterical you'd think their pay packets were justified?
Exactly. The OP's original question of 'how can they be worth it?' Is very easily answered, once you have an understanding of the revenues TBBT brings in.
There are lots of successful comedians I don't find funny, but I don't go round questioning why they are successful.
For me it's a combination of actually knowing scientists who are a bit like them in personality, it being daft and serious at the same time is what makes it watchable, interesting and laugh out loud for me. There's a lot of humour that I don't find funny, but I'm sure you do, and I wouldn't criticise it or you for that. Fortunately we don't all like the same humour or even serious programmes and can choose what we watch.
That was years ago as well, maybe not such a good deal?
Actors don't all have a relatively short career and in any case that's irrelevant as they've already earned enough for many many lifetimes.
Whether you feel that that anyone justifies such a high income while others are starving is of course a different topic and not related to anyone's opinion on how funny the show is because in purely financial terms to the production company they are worth it.
They were for the final season.
Charlie Sheen was making $1.8m an Ep on Two and a Half Men at one point.
Well to be fair, the OP did question how they are worth that money.
And if Parsons, Galecki and Cuoco weren't making $1m an episode, those people currently starving would still be starving.
Plus we have a bit of snobbery and xenophobia thrown in to explain away the success as being evidence of Americans' low standards. After all, if people enjoy something which the great abecern has objectively declared to be "not remotely funny", it must be because they're deficient in some way.
The Big Bang Theory is a product that makes millions if not a billion or two worldwide. It is one of the most watched TV shows in the world and reaps a fortune in ad revenue.
Therefore the people involved in making it get a proportional amount of that income.
What kind of amoeba-brained half-wit does someone have to be to not understand that?
With our current economic system yes, if you keep the same economics in place but just take something from a few that makes little difference. That is why I questioned if it is ethical that some people have so much when others are starving.
An amoeba doesn't have a brain.
Going beyond your childish insults it is perfectly valid for people to discuss whether something is ethical or not. Some of us believe in free speech but you it seems would rather live in some king of Stalinist dictatorship where such discussions are banned.
I completely agree with that statement and clearly shows how ignorant some people from Britain can be. A few weeks ago I read on the UK TV forum that Friends was an example of 'typical American bullshit'. Hell, some of the most popular sitcoms from here aren't exactly the greatest masterpieces themselves (The IT Crowd and Little Britain spring to mind).
Although I'm not the biggest fan of The Big Bang Theory I can understand its appeal. It has a quirkiness and light-hearted feel about it that would appeal to large audience. And the fact that it is on the biggest network in the US helps too.
It's also worth noting that The Big Bang Theory is very popular here in the UK.
It was a size comparison, I'm well aware than an amoeba doesn't have a brain. FYI Skyscrapers don't actually scrape against the sky either.
Who's trying to ban your free speech? I think you're being paranoid there.
Yes, I'd love to live in a Stalinist dictatorship. :rolleyes: That's very clear from my post. In fact, it's practically exactly what I was saying.
And you, apparently, would love to live in a world where capitalism and free commerce are banned, given that you find it 'unethical' for people to be proportionally compensated for the profits that their work makes.
I too, don't find it that funny but I get the economics of it. It's just sad, they're not solely being paid on talent merit.
That was definitely the tone of your post so I'm glad I got that right.
I never gave a view about whether I thought their income was justified so you definitely jumped the gun there, you need to read posts more carefully.
Unlike you I can see that capitalism and free commerce doesn't have to be a complete free for all and that there are ways for competition to exist with compassion. There are degrees of most things which is why I put the question out there as to whether people thought their wealth was justified when people are starving.
It was discussed on here at that time.
Which I answered. And if you don't like the tone of my posts, tough shit.