web
counter
 

25 Years Later, "The Simpsons" May Finally Bow Out Gracefully

By Rob Payne | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (14)



pajibasimpsons25seasons.jpg

Clearly heeding at least half of my advice, Fox and the creative staff behind “The Simpsons” have agreed to renew the series for two more years, leading up to a historical 25th season after a week of tense contract negotiations. A roundabout far tenser than the one Simpsons patriarch Homer had in his brain between “Dental Plan” and “Lisa Needs Braces.” As per Deadline, the voice actors behind the population of Springfield, U.S.A. rescinded their deal for a 30% pay cut with a dip in the back-end honeypot, and simply took the 30% cut, meaning Fox capitulated ever so slightly in spite of their previous “45% cut or no deal” ultimatum. No word, yet, on whether or not the 25th season of “The Simpsons,” which would conclude with a remarkable 559 episodes in 2014, will be the last for the longest running scripted sitcom of all time.

Cast member Harry Shearer took to his Facebook account late last week to issue a statement, which said, among other things, that he and his cast mates “are engaged in what will probably be our last contract negotiation with Fox.” He went so far as to say that his representatives asked how low his salary had to go in order to get to a back-end deal, and that Fox apparently balked by saying no number would ever be low enough. If that’s true, and season 25 truly is the end, then the voice cast that made Fox and its parent company, Newscorp., billions of dollars in merchandising will never see a dime of that money. Which means that in the final two years of the groundbreaking series, the cast won’t even be getting their highest salary, and will likely never be able to afford their collective dream of owning solid gold mansions and a fleet of rocket cars.

But, really, the woes of millionaires and billionaires are trite and shallow in the midst of economic turmoil around the planet. Especially when the millionaires in question never had any legal rights to those extra riches, anyway. Of course, Fox’s continuing refusal to recognize how much they owe their network’s success to this particular cast on this specific show is greed, plain and simple. When the talent’s only demand boils down to participating in the brand’s lucrative ancillaries, a brand they helped to define and solidify, the issue of fairness does rear its yellow, overbit head. Was the cast also greedy? Maybe, but they settled for far less than they felt they were due. And we all want to be fairly compensated for our contributions to the corporations that ride atop our shoulders, don’t we?

In the end, the only good news to come from all this is that the plug will finally, hopefully, be pulled on “The Simpsons.” The greatest television show ever will be put to rest with a record appropriate for its contributions to the world (“Simpsons did it!”), and one that will probably never be broken. Once again, Homer defies the odds.

Rob Payne also writes the indie comic The Unstoppable Force and tweets on the Twitter @RobOfWar. He also creates and sells art, paper plate art.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Riding Rockets by Mike Mullane | "Breaking Bad" -- "Face Off": A Wall of Fire About Me, I've Nothing Now to Fear









Comments

RobP I agree with much of what you say, The Simpsons was a great show and it certainly defied the odds and changed television. I do not think however it will be universally recognized as the greatest TV show ever. Time will tell on that title.

Fox's idea of bowing out gracefully seems to be milking the cow until the nipples are bloody then ripping them off out of spite. But that seems kind of fitting for The Simpsons.

Posted by: logan at October 10, 2011 11:44 AM

These voice actors, which having done great work, aren't the creators of the show by a longshot. And have only been as good as the writing, directing and the producing allow.

The writers - the true creators of many of the signature moments and catchphrases that people quote and remember and lead them to buy merchandise - don't get these illustrious back-end deals, or the merchandise sharing that the cast members already see.

At this point, many reputable voice actors can do these voices.

The writers who created your favorite moments are easily replaceable, and have been, since day one.

Actors do get back end deals - they're called residuals.

And for them to want to share in the profits, then by their logic, everything they've ever been a part of that has ever failed, they should refund their salaries to, and kick in extra to help cover the loses. (I always maintained this with the casts of Friends and Seinfeld as well - who, if they believe they deserve so much more due to their contributions, all have a lot to give back for their many failures before and after those shows)

These actors are more than compensated for a job where they don't have to shower or dress a certain way for work, they don't have to memorize lines, they're told exactly how to say what they're saying so it matches animation already in the process of being...um...animated, etc etc.

They're more than compensated.

Maybe they'll give some of that salary to the droves of animators in Korea who see next to nothing for all of their labor.

Posted by: robert raymond at October 10, 2011 12:36 PM

"who have been doing great work", I meant to say. Not "which have".

Posted by: robert raymond at October 10, 2011 12:37 PM

These voice actors, [who have been doing great work], aren't the creators of the show by a longshot. And have only been as good as the writing, directing and the producing allow.

I get where you're coming from with the rest of your comment (though I don't agree with a lot of it), but claiming (as I believe you are) that the voice actors didn't bring a great deal to the show is not something I can get behind. As with any TV show, movie, play, or anything with live actors, the actors most definitely bring something. They can destroy great material with a poor performance and elevate lesser material with a great performance.

Also, are you certain that the animation is done before the voice recordings?

Posted by: pissant at October 10, 2011 12:50 PM

At this point, many reputable voice actors can do these voices.

Completely, thoroughly, utterly disagree.

Posted by: Anna von Beav at October 10, 2011 12:58 PM

Agreed AvB. Anyone who's heard Kermit the Frog in the past 21 years knows that voice acting can be imitated, but completely reproducing it is much more difficult.

pissant covered the creative contributions of actors.

Now as far as profit sharing, I get where you're coming from, but I can't say I agree. For one, studios have the money to run a lot of shows trying to find that big hit, while actors (and the other creative people) can only really concentrate on a few at a time at most. Secondly, there are just so many more points of failure that are out of the hands of the actors at the beginning of a show than there are in the middle or end. The marketing could be poor, the concept could just not work, it gets put in a rough timeslot (though this could be the result of the studio not liking the quality of the show). That's just what immediately comes to mind. Once the show is established, this stuff is simplified or its importance is greatly reduced and the longevity of the show is now based on the quality put out by the creative people, including the actors.

That's just my reading of the ways things are though...

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at October 10, 2011 1:22 PM

At this point, even the original actors can't do the voices.

Posted by: Steph at October 10, 2011 1:41 PM

And through all this, nobody still remembers Tracey Ullman.


(Actually, I did reference "The Tracy Ullman Show" in my previous post on the subject. /lawyer'd -RobP)

Posted by: Jerry at October 10, 2011 1:49 PM

Again the bad outweighs the good. The Simpsons officially became a bad show a good while ago.

Posted by: googergieger at October 10, 2011 2:08 PM

Pissant, I'm not saying the actors don't bring a lot to the show. I'm a huge fan of theirs, actually.

I'm simply saying that there are others who have brought just as much - if not more - to the show who don't benefit nearly as much as they do.

I'm not saying they don't deserve what they get...Just saying plenty of others associated with the show do, as well.

Posted by: robert raymond at October 10, 2011 2:45 PM

robert raymond: The animators and writes are obviously a major part of the show's success, but as you stated, they were and are "easily" replaceable. The voice cast, or any major cast member on any show, is considerably less so without really effecting the audience's appreciation of the art. "Futurama" wouldn't have been anticipated nearly as hotly upon its return if Comedy Central had replaced that cast like they were threatening to do over salaries, as well.

How soon we all forget about the Darrins on "Bewitched."

Posted by: RobP at October 10, 2011 4:22 PM

I'm with the voice actors all the way. The creators of the show bowed out a long time ago -- and they will be receiving some kickbacks while the actors are receiving figurative peanuts in comparison. It should be an equal deal: the voice actors wouldn't have anything without the creators, but it's also vice versa. However, I'm not really all that surprised at Fox for completely bumbling a process that's intended to allow all to float away gracefully from this situation like they're Miss America contenders.

Posted by: duckandcover at October 11, 2011 7:27 AM

I've noted from time to time my irritation with animated movies that enlist big-name voice actors, when I doubt the 8-year-olds for whom the movies are targeted give a shit whether that's Tom Hanks as the talking toadstool, and when I imagine there are hundreds if not thousands of lesser- or no-name actors who could use a paycheck rather than padding Tom Hanks' bank account.

That does not apply to the situation at hand, where a specific voice actor, over the course of dozens or hundreds of episodes, becomes SO indentified with the character that a different voice coming from the same character would be highly irritating (besides Kermit, see for example Barney Rubble).

That said, I tend to agree with robert raymond that when the voice actor starts to believe him- or herself irreplaceable at a job you could almost literally phone in while sitting in your jammies, maybe it's time to draw a hardline.

Posted by: , at October 11, 2011 10:20 AM

..and will likely never be able to afford their collective dream of owning solid gold mansions and a fleet of rocket cars.

Nice callback.

Posted by: csb at October 12, 2011 7:42 AM