Budget Cuts Reach Actors

CSI Files

CSI Files

Captain
Time does not heal all wounds.<p>It has been exactly one year since the <A class="link" HREF="http://www.wga.org/">Writers Guild of America (WGA)</a> strike <A class="link" HREF="http://www.csifiles.com/news/130208_02.shtml">ended</a>. Despite the time that has passed, the industry is still feeling the long-term effects of the strike. Many primetime shows never fully recovered from the sagging ratings, and CBS and ABC cut 3\%-10\% of the budgets for their scripted series.<p>There is a long-standing tradition in the television industry to renegotiate actor salaries after the second or third season. This tradition is on its way out the door. Another tradition is to include yearly salary increases in multi-year contracts. For the first time, CBS Paramount is looking to tighten series budgets and prevent behind-the-scenes layoffs by asking the actors on most of their dramas to cut out their yearly raise next season.<p>The <I>CSI</I> franchise, as well as <I>NCIS</I> and <I>Numbers</I>, are among the series affected by this pay freeze. If all of the actors agree to the freeze, salaries will remain the same next season as they are right now. On the other hand, if a lead actor refuses to forgo the raise, the studio could choose not to pick up his or her contract option at the end of the season; however, it would be more likely that supporting actors would find their jobs on the line.<p>The original information is from <A class="link" HREF="http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/02/exclusive-cbs.html">Ausiello</a> and <A class="link" HREF="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117999957.html?categoryId=13&cs=1">Variety</a>.<center></center>
 
I don't see what the big deal is - I'm sure the actors on these shows have more-than-decent salaries right now. It's not like they're trying to lower what the actors make. Judging by what I've heard about some of the CSI actors' salaries in the past, they make enough to support several average American families anyway.

(That being said, nothing indicates that any of these actors will refuse the pay freeze - Ausiello and his anonymous contributors are most likely just stirring the pot.)

I wonder if the bigwigs asking the actors to forgo their raises are forgoing raises of their own? You know they make tons more than the actors, but I doubt they're depriving themselves at all. :rolleyes:
 
Faylinn said:
I don't see what the big deal is - I'm sure the actors on these shows have more-than-decent salaries right now. It's not like they're trying to lower what the actors make. Judging by what I've heard about some of the CSI actors' salaries in the past, they make enough to support several average American families anyway.

(That being said, nothing indicates that any of these actors will refuse the pay freeze - Ausiello and his anonymous contributors are most likely just stirring the pot.)

I wonder if the bigwigs asking the actors to forgo their raises are forgoing raises of their own? You know they make tons more than the actors, but I doubt they're depriving themselves at all. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So is it Ausiello who claims if the stars refuse a wage freeze, then one of the supporting actors will have to go? Or is this fact?
 
This is from the original Ausiello page:

But, as many in the business have pointed out, the gambit is likely to create as many problems as it solves. For instance, what happens if a star balks at the idea of maintaining the status quo? "Some [of these TV] leads won't accept a freeze," says a showrunner at a rival network, who adds that while the studio can't fire them outright, they can decide not to pick up their contract option at the end of the season. The likelier scenario, however, is that a cut will be made somewhere else on the show. "The leverage they will use is 'Freeze your already ludicrously high salary, or watch a bunch of your coworkers lose their jobs.'"

In fact, one exec producer at a CBS Paramount drama is already preparing for such a worst-case scenario. "If our lead doesn't accept the freeze, we will have no choice but to let one of our supporting actors go," says the exec. "There's no question that it's the second-tier actors who are most vulnerable."
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine to show that it's unnamed people, and there's no real evidence to support the comments.) So it's all speculatory. I get the feeling it's a case of 'let's freak people out unnecessarily.' Like - just because that CBS exec says they'll have to get rid of someone if the lead refuses to give up his/her raise, that doesn't mean it's even a real possibility (just a worse-case scenario). :)
 
Yeah, I'm sure it's a case of trying to freak people out--as well as putting pressure in the press on the leads to accept those pay freezes.

I imagine the problem the issue is more the precedent it sets than it is doing without the extra bump for a year (though I'm sure no one loves that prospect). Contracts are a tricky thing out in Hollywood, and people are pretty obsessive about sticking to them (for myriad reasons, many of them good).
 
Thanks, I'm never sure when it comes to these stores.

But I hope the lead actors take the freeze, it would be ashamed if they had to let a supporting character go.
 
Whilst I understand it would set a precendent, I think in the current economic climate with millions of people being made redundant, if it comes out that a lead actor has refused the freeze they may experience quite a backlash.
 
It just goes to show you how bad the economy is when actors are not getting salary increases and having to forgo them. They still have all the money in the world, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top