×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Big Bang Actors To Earn $1M Per Episode

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the starving-grad-students dept.

Television 442

Cludge (981852) writes with a snippet from the BBC: "And rich they will be: With The Big Bang Theory commissioned until 2017, the show's three biggest names, Jim Parsons (Sheldon), Johnny Galecki (Leonard) and Kaley Cuoco (Penny) are guaranteed to earn $72m (£42.6m) each over the next three seasons. Unsurprisingly, the cost of producing the sitcom has spiraled." I wonder what that works out per line?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They are the rich (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47608865)

But they will continue to make stories acting like they are not and speaking against rich as evil bastards

Re:They are the rich (3, Interesting)

mythosaz (572040) | about 4 months ago | (#47608891)

They've made quite clear that Sheldon is paid well by the university, and that he's got piles of un-cashed checks laying around.

Only Penny is ever in need of cash.

Re:They are the rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609069)

They've made quite clear that Sheldon is paid well by the university, and that he's got piles of un-cashed checks laying around.

Only Penny is ever in need of cash.

Why the HELL doesn't Sheldon just set up autodeposit?!?

Re:They are the rich (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 months ago | (#47609135)

You never know. He might have and those are just pay stubs. It all could just be a colossal misunderstanding on this part.

A fictional character can be as much of a dufus as the rest of us.

Is this /. or is this variety ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609185)

I mean, what has this gotta do with /. ??

It's not that much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47608877)

considering Miami Vice was pulling these kinds of numbers in the '80s. Granted, it was only for one actor, but still.

Re:It's not that much (3, Interesting)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 4 months ago | (#47608995)

considering Miami Vice was pulling these kinds of numbers in the '80s. Granted, it was only for one actor, but still.

Yes, and if you remember, the other lead actor was paid less well because he was rather less white, and he was rather pissed off about it, understandably.

These star actors cost a lot, yes, but they also brought in a lot of money. So I suppose it was, and still is a sound investment.

Re:It's not that much (3)

edawstwin (242027) | about 4 months ago | (#47609221)

Yes, and if you remember, the other lead actor was paid less well because he was rather less white

If you think PMT was less-well-paid because he wasn't white, then you don't understand anything about TV. If people tuned in to watch PMT more than Don Johnson, he would have been paid more than Don Johnson. The truth is, Don Johnson and hot girls in bikinis were about the only reasons to tune into that show. Just about any decent actor (white or not) could have played Tubbs, and we wouldn't have cared.

Re:It's not that much (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#47609317)

Don Johnson had actually been on one good movie. 'A Boy and His Dog'.

So he rated more.

Re:It's not that much (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#47609323)

Yes, and if you remember, the other lead actor was paid less well because he was rather less white, and he was rather pissed off about it, understandably.

Which is why I find it interesting that Simon Helberg and Kunal Nayyar's names were conspicuously absent from the list of million-dollar-an-episode actors. You know, appearances and all.

Re:It's not that much (1)

doug (926) | about 4 months ago | (#47609023)

considering Miami Vice was pulling these kinds of numbers in the '80s. Granted, it was only for one actor, but still.

I think all 6 stars of Friends were pulling in $1M/episode at the end of its run. What was once outrageous is now common place. I guess that is progress of sorts.

Re:It's not that much (1)

Tiger4 (840741) | about 4 months ago | (#47609107)

The Simpsons cast has been pulling this down (and more, now) for quite some time. And the main cast of Friends did too, for a shorter time, but still. the main thing they both had going for them was they stuck together. It is an ensemble cast, and the cast negotiated as a unit. "Take all six of us, and pay us all he big bux, or we all six walk".

Re:It's not that much (1)

Ziggitz (2637281) | about 4 months ago | (#47609241)

The 6 main characters in Friends were also making a million an episode before the turn of the century.

Nerd Blackface (5, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | about 4 months ago | (#47608879)

The argument against is that BBT is, essentially, Nerd Blackface.

The argument for BBT is that the material and situations are relateable, especially with the mainstreaming of geek culture (Dr. Who, BSG, Marvel films).

Meh. It's funny. I watch. I read the vanity card at the end. I think they're all good actors - at least within the scope of the show.

Re:Nerd Blackface (-1, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#47608921)

I like that hen the are called on their blackface they respond:
I know people like that!

Imagine if they where making fun of black culture and the defense is 'I know black people!'

Sickening.

Re:Nerd Blackface (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47608967)

get over yourself. world full of crybabies.

Re:Nerd Blackface (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 4 months ago | (#47609033)

Well, the "I know black people!" thing happens all the time, but I see your point. OTOH, "nerds" have pretty damned good prospects after high school, so crying oppression is a bit incredible.

Re:Nerd Blackface (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 4 months ago | (#47609175)

Making fun of someone is still making fun of someone. Just because they can get a good job later on doesn't make it better.

Re:Nerd Blackface (3, Insightful)

retchdog (1319261) | about 4 months ago | (#47609271)

Maybe. But it ends, is my point. It ends, and one is rewarded relatively richly afterward (relative to one's intrinsic ability, of course, and subject to the vagaries of fortune).

The discrimination against blacks (to whatever extent it is, and for whatever reason) is much more persistent.

Re:Nerd Blackface (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609337)

Making fun of someone is still making fun of someone. Just because they can get a good job later on doesn't make it better.

Yes, actually it does.

Re:Nerd Blackface (2)

SQLGuru (980662) | about 4 months ago | (#47608931)

Even early on, I recognized a very real effort to make the science real (and there have been articles stating as much). For this, I can tolerate the sharks they have jumped (such as introducing the girls and allowing Raj to speak to girls and what not). It became less nerdy and turned mainstream once it became popular -- it's very much a more traditional sitcom these days......but it's one of the more scientifically accurate shows on TV these days. Especially over the more "scientific" dramas that we love to lambaste (the CSI franchise and the like).

Re:Nerd Blackface (2, Insightful)

RobinH (124750) | about 4 months ago | (#47608989)

Pullleeeze. To even suggest that is to suggest that the persecution of nerds is equivalent to the persecution of African American minorities in the United States. Certainly nerds are persecuted, particularly in high school, but they are in no way equivalent. Besides, it's not like the show doesn't make fun of people who are "smart and good looking".

Re:Nerd Blackface (1, Insightful)

Enry (630) | about 4 months ago | (#47609067)

No, GP is right about how the characters are treated. I've only watched a few episodes, but it looks like the main character (Sheldon) has some serious issues that need to be addressed with medication or counseling. To use it as a form of entertainment for others is just insulting to those who have those kinds of problems, and those that are supposed to have those kinds of problems and don't.

Re:Nerd Blackface (5, Insightful)

E-Rock (84950) | about 4 months ago | (#47609121)

We're talking about a fictional example, but Sheldon is highly successful, and seems quite happy with his life. He doesn't need to be medicated just because he doesn't meet stereotypical norms.

Re:Nerd Blackface (1)

onepoint (301486) | about 4 months ago | (#47609289)

In reading this dialog, E-Rock points out the facts; if a person is happy, causing no harm to himself or others, then why should we change that person to our own liking.

What I think frightens most people about the Character Sheldon is his bluntness, his desire to be as perfect as possible, and I think, his ability to like himself entirely without shame (I think that ability is the hardest for most people to achieve).

And don't forget that Sheldon is very selfish in a very perfect way, a good example of this is in the episode where rocket fuel explodes, he did it so as not to get killed and secured a qualified paying renter and in case it's needed, he can rat out the other for blowing up the elevator.

Re:Nerd Blackface (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609305)

Sounds like those ron paul/republican idiots that slobber at the bit about how the average negro was perfectly happy, better off even, under slavery.

Re:Nerd Blackface (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609365)

I think mainly Democrats say that.

Re:Nerd Blackface (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609151)

This.
It's pretty clear that all the major characters need counseling and Sheldon probably needs medication.
Raj has psychological issues that physically prevent him from talking to women.
Leonard has an Oedipus complex.
Sheldon has some form of OCD and probably asperger syndrome.
Howard has an inferiority complex that causes him to hang out with people who belittle him constantly.

Re:Nerd Blackface (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609301)

No, GP is right about how the characters are treated. I've only watched a few episodes, but it looks like the main character (Sheldon) has some serious issues that need to be addressed with medication or counseling. To use it as a form of entertainment for others is just insulting to those who have those kinds of problems,

Then you won't be reading slashdot any more either, right? Because the Sheldon Cooper characterizes epitomizes a significant fraction of the posts here - myopic, minimal empathy and a retreat to 'logic' that is really just selfish rationalization.

Perhaps you haven't watched many sitcoms but the standard sitcom character is a stereotype that is greatly exaggerated for comedic effect. If they didn't do that with the characters it wouldn't be a situational comedy as all humor is rooted the misfortune of others.

Re:Nerd Blackface (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609085)

Pullleeeze. To even suggest that is to suggest that the persecution of nerds is equivalent to the persecution of African American minorities in the United States. Certainly nerds are persecuted, particularly in high school, but they are in no way equivalent. Besides, it's not like the show doesn't make fun of people who are "smart and good looking".

Tell that to the parents of any "nerd" that has committed suicide due to the bullying. Go on. Straight to their face.

Re:Nerd Blackface (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609137)

People are bullied and teased over everything and nothing. Suicide is a choice. You and I haven't chosen it.

Re:Nerd Blackface (-1, Flamebait)

retchdog (1319261) | about 4 months ago | (#47609223)

Yes, I happily would. The life of the mind is, frankly, a perilous one. If the minimal rigors of (gasp) public education are enough to convince one to put an end to it, then they are probably better off leaving this world. Sorry, but that's just how it is. It could be better, and a lot of it is really silly, and a lot of us are working on fixing that, but my sympathy is limited, having gone through much of the same.

Re:Nerd Blackface (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#47609429)

If the minimal rigors of (gasp) public education are enough to convince one to put an end to it, then they are probably better off leaving this world.

Dude - people don't kill themselves because "learning is hard," they do it because of the way other people have treated them. Or a chemical imbalance.

Sometimes it amazes me how ignorant the educated can be.

Re:Nerd Blackface (2)

Dins (2538550) | about 4 months ago | (#47609117)

As a self professed nerd/geek, the "Nerd Blackface" doesn't offend me, and I certainly don't feel "persecuted" by it. But I can't stand it in a TV show, and so I pretty much stopped watching after half an episode. That, and after many modern examples of sitcoms and half hour comedy shows without laugh tracks, I absolutely cannot stand shows with laugh tracks anymore.

Re:Nerd Blackface (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609071)

One comment I've read sums it all: "Arrested Development was a smart show about dumb people. BBT is a dumb show about smart people".

Re:Nerd Blackface (5, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | about 4 months ago | (#47609165)

The argument against is that BBT is, essentially, Nerd Blackface.

That wouldn't be my argument against it. My argument is that it's not a good show. I don't find the characters relateable. I don't think it's particularly funny. It seems like someone took a very bland, unoriginal sitcom and attached a geek gimmick to try to make it interesting, but in my mind it fails. It's not interesting, and the geek gimmick doesn't really work.

If you wanted to talk about it's problem with relation to "geek culture", I don't feel like it's right to say it's like "nerd blackface". I would argue the problem is more like, if you had a bunch of kids thinking that they understand urban black culture because they're listening to rap music, but the rap music they're listening to is Vanilla Ice.

Sorry, no, you don't understand geeks and nerds and "geek culture" from watching Big Bang Theory. You don't understand comic books and Doctor Who from learning the references that the show uses. From the episodes that I've seen, the characters don't seem like authentic geeks and nerds. Not really. It mostly seems like a crappy "Friends" ripoff where the characters are all wearing nerd costumes and talking in nasal voices. I don't think it's mainstreaming geek culture, but more like jumping on the bandwagon of geek culture that has managed to mainstream itself.

That's my take. I don't require that anyone else agrees.

Re:Nerd Blackface (3)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#47609395)

I would argue the problem is more like, if you had a bunch of kids thinking that they understand urban black culture because they're listening to rap music, but the rap music they're listening to is Vanilla Ice.

Well most people would see that as satire and not that the elements of geekdom are to be taken literally as 100% true. There is a category for shows like that: documentaries. I would argue most TV shows does not follow subjects faithfully. Since you mentioned "Friends", I don't think people really believe that New Yorkers spend all of their time hanging out in a coffee shop. Chuck probably does not represent a true government agent any more than Will Smith was your average Bellaire teen.

Personally I thought one of the funniest episodes was "The Alien Parasite Hypothesis" where Howard and Raj decide to settle a dispute by wrestling. In real life, two people angry at each other would have actually wrestled regardless of lack of skill instead of the hilarity of two nerds circling each other endlessly.

Neck Beard Face (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609373)

Nerd Blackface.. I read that as NeckBeardFace....

Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47608883)

Why should the producers be making all the money?
Although it would be nice if the writers got paid as well.

Re:Good for them (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 4 months ago | (#47609007)

Chuck Lorre has $600,000,000 already. (back in 2011 anyway, probably more now)
I imagine Bill Prady is pretty rich too

Not unheard of (2)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 months ago | (#47608895)

Seinfeld was in the $600,000 to $1,000,000 range (depending on the actor) back in the late 90's

Re:Not unheard of (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 4 months ago | (#47608971)

The friends cast was paid that much too, then they wanted more so they cancelled the show.

Re:Not unheard of (1)

edawstwin (242027) | about 4 months ago | (#47609087)

...they wanted more so they cancelled the show.

That's untrue. They only reason that there was a tenth season is that they got the $1M per ep they asked for (a ridiculous sum at the time, of course, and one I don't think they expected to get). Schwimmer and Kudrow said they wanted season nine to be the last season, but that amount of money is hard for anyone to turn down.

Re:Not unheard of (0)

Servaas (1050156) | about 4 months ago | (#47609017)

Don't forget Friends, they were all making a million a pop at the end. Ridicules to be honest. And charity drivers come to my door! This world will always be a sad and unequal place as long as millionaires become richer millionaires.

Re:Not unheard of (1)

agm (467017) | about 4 months ago | (#47609387)

What's sad about people making a lot of money? Just because one person makes lots of money doesn't mean anyone else should be sad as a result. Envious maybe. Perhaps even jealous. Unequality is not a bad thing - it's natural.

Re:Not unheard of (2)

ark1 (873448) | about 4 months ago | (#47609039)

Jerry apparently turned down $5 millions/episode for 22 episode to continue for a 10th season. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Not unheard of (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609051)

$1 million in 1998 (last year of Seinfeld) equals ~$1.4 million in today's dollars.

Re:Not unheard of (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 4 months ago | (#47609119)

Seinfeld was in the $600,000 to $1,000,000 range (depending on the actor) back in the late 90's

The cast of Friends was making $1M/episode as well.

Disgusting Amount of Money (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47608901)

I cannot believe that these jokers were left alone by the OWS crowd. 1% indeed!

that's some expensive laughtrack (1, Interesting)

Rob Bos (3399) | about 4 months ago | (#47608909)

Given that a 21 minute show is something like 90 seconds of laughtrack, they aren't getting a great deal for their buck. :)

Re:that's some expensive laughtrack (2)

E-Rock (84950) | about 4 months ago | (#47609127)

I assumed it was a laugh track too, but they film in front of a live audience.

Re:that's some expensive laughtrack (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609159)

I assumed it was a laugh track too, but they film in front of a live audience.

Of which no one in the audience is laughing hence the laugh track. They need to cancel TBBT and bring back Community. Six seasons and a movie.

Re:that's some expensive laughtrack (1)

dugancent (2616577) | about 4 months ago | (#47609341)

I've seen the show in person, there are indeed people there laughing. It's no secret there are paid people mixed into the crowd to get them going. Very few sitcoms use laugh tracks, they use professional audience members.

Re:that's some expensive laughtrack (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609149)

As far as I know, the show is recorded in front of a live studio audience. They're not using a laugh track.

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47608919)

I hate being underpaid as much as anyone!

No.6

Over paid (1, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#47608929)

for what they do. VASTLY overpaid.

Re:Over paid (1)

dave562 (969951) | about 4 months ago | (#47608969)

For an interesting thought project, work backwards to how much the advertisers must be paying the networks to support those kinds of salaries for the actors. Do not forget to factor in production costs, everyone working below the line, etc.

Re:Over paid (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 4 months ago | (#47609143)

So $3m/episode for the main stars. The other stars aren't making anywhere near that, and factoring in production costs, say we double the amount to $6m. Average show has 8 minutes of commercials and presuming 30-second ads, that's $375k/commercial (or probably less)

Coincidentally, ads were $326k last fall [businessinsider.com] so my $6m/episode may not be that outlandish.

This also doesn't factor in any other money they make from merchandise sales, syndication ($1.5m/episode several years ago), and "goodwill" for other shows that BBT attract viewers too.

Re:Over paid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47608987)

They are not overpaid.
The studio could have said it's too much and canceled the show.
The fact that they accepted shows that they think they can still make money.

Re:Over paid (1)

morcego (260031) | about 4 months ago | (#47608993)

I both agree and disagree with you.
On other hand, they are making the production company and NBC a ton of money.
On the other hand, the writers are getting much less than the actors, and I think that at least 60% of the money being made by the show is because of the actors.
The rationale, however, is that the writers are (in theory) easier to replace than the actor, because the public don't see them.

Re:Over paid (2)

edawstwin (242027) | about 4 months ago | (#47609003)

How are they overpaid? The production company and the network make millions off of this show. The actors are (obviously) an integral part of the success of the show, and therefore the revenue, so why not pay them whatever they can negotiate?

Re:Over paid (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#47609045)

Do you think the production company dips into their own pocket, or that the price of advertising goes up to make the difference?
Consumers pay those bills. Every time you buy something, you are paying those outrages salaries.

It's not life risking, it's not overly hard, they are off a great deal of the year.

If it was actually funny they wouldn't need that laugh track to tell you when the joke is.

Compared to almost every other job on the planet, they are ridiculously over paid.

Re:Over paid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609145)

Is this a troll?

The only way consumers can pay for the increased salary is if advertising goes up. If advertising doesn't go up, as you state, then consumers are not paying for the increase.

Re:Over paid (1)

edawstwin (242027) | about 4 months ago | (#47609161)

Do you think the production company dips into their own pocket, or that the price of advertising goes up to make the difference? Consumers pay those bills. Every time you buy something, you are paying those outrages salaries.

It's not life risking, it's not overly hard, they are off a great deal of the year.

If it was actually funny they wouldn't need that laugh track to tell you when the joke is.

Compared to almost every other job on the planet, they are ridiculously over paid.

The price of advertising is already at its maximum. If the network could charge one dollar more for a 30-second spot, they would. The advertisers won't pay more just because the stars now get paid more.

I don't think you understand the concept of value. No one is arguing that what they do is "life risking", but that's not the point (and what "life risking" profession gets paid millions?). What they do is get millions of people to watch a TV show 24 times a year, and that is extremely valuable. If the network/production company (I'm not sure how the finances/responsibility is split between the two) would lose money by giving these actors that much money, then they wouldn't do the deal, so this obviously (well, maybe not to you) makes great sense for all parties involved.

And as to your "it's not overly hard" claim: Have you tried acting/making people laugh week after week for years? It is incredibly difficult, and a big reason why actors millions enjoy watching get paid so much.

Re:Over paid (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#47609311)

"The advertisers won't pay more just because the stars now get paid more."
false.

"I don't think you understand the concept of value."
I actually do.

"so this obviously (well, maybe not to you) makes great sense for all parties involved."
except the consumer. Anyone who buys a product, regardless if the watch the show, pays and gets no say.

" Have you tried acting/making people laugh week after week for years?"
No, but there are 100,000 of actors that do. Those actors are not special.

" It is incredibly difficult"
More difficult then running into a burning building? more difficult the writing? more difficult the building aircraft? more difficult then teaching kids ear after year for decades?

No, it's not that difficult.
say what they are told to say? stand where they are told to stand?
Yes, acting takes skill. I just thing it's not worth millions of dollars a year.

Re:Over paid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609009)

for what they do. VASTLY overpaid.

Do I think it is wrong that you can make $72m for three years of work on TV? Absolutely.
Is it wrong for them to ask for the money? No. Quite the contrary.

Given how much their corporate masters are making off of each episode, I can't really fault the Actors for demanding a slice of the pie.

Re:Over paid (2)

timeOday (582209) | about 4 months ago | (#47609019)

Just accept on faith that the market valuation is infallible by definition, it makes everything so much simpler that way.

Re:Over paid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609027)

What they do is bring in a lot of eyeballs that advertisers are willing pay to have access to. Those ads have a specific value, arrived at via pretty simple market processes. Who else, exactly, should the value of those ads go to? I assume the writers and studio are negotiating for their cut as well.

Re:Over paid (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 4 months ago | (#47609109)

yeah, most of us are if you think about it.

"... and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, and I know not that. No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main... And therefore never [ask] for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

How about REAL scientists (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47608935)

That money a bunch of fake scientists received is fit for annual endowment of a decent university!

Re:How about REAL scientists (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 4 months ago | (#47609283)

I agree. Absolutely.

And we need *REAL* policemen playing the parts on those detective shows. And we should have *REAL* secret agents on programs like Marvel's Agents of Shield... Oh, and we need *REAL* aliens on shows like Doctor Who...

<eyeroll />

Re:How about REAL scientists (1)

bigfinger76 (2923613) | about 4 months ago | (#47609375)

Whoosh?

Thanks (0)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 4 months ago | (#47608959)

I heard about this yesterday on the radio

Re:Thanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47608991)

I heard about this yesterday on the radio

And immediately started masturbating?

"There's not anything to keep up with" (1)

morcego (260031) | about 4 months ago | (#47608961)

"People have so many choices on TV now, so no one's asking for you to marry us. You can enjoy our show without a weekly appointment."

And that, my friends, and part of the reason people keep turning on to watch it.

Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47608979)

I've stopped watching the show around season 3 or 4 when they started recycling the jokes

Re:Good for them (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 4 months ago | (#47609053)

I think you mean episode 3 or 4.

Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609013)

When a show hits that point, it's so bloated, that any tiny little slip is going to mean it's just cancelled. I can't wait.

Wow! What stupidity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609015)

Yes, yes, I know I'll get flamed for this, but this is stupid. Capitalism really sucks when there are billions of starving people around the world, and some simple acting gets someone a million per episode. Really. That kind of money should be spent on ridding the world of hunger, killing capitalistic for-profit medicine, and generally making the world a better place.

More and more, I really do find Holloywood repugnant. How can you live like a prince and then champion the cause of people so far below your lifestyle? Why not take the money you earn and make the world a better place. How many bedrooms do you need? You can only be in one room at a time. How many stupid, rich cars do you need, you narcissistic, ruinous people?

I really do dislike capitalism more and more...

Uncoceivable (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 4 months ago | (#47609021)

no TV actors have EVER [cnn.com] been paid that much b4! [nytimes.com]

Is this considered /. news because the show portrays "nerds" and nerds in this sites tag line?

Re:Uncoceivable (2)

Hadlock (143607) | about 4 months ago | (#47609171)

This is the first time I've seen (and hopefully the last) BBT discussed on /.

Less Than Friends (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609029)

They're still earning less than the actors on Friends earned at the end. If I remember correctly, they were each earning g $2 million per episode.

And good for them.

Shouldn't they be starving to death? (4, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | about 4 months ago | (#47609031)

After all... it's a show about and for people and culture who promote file sharing. Sorry, piracy.

Checking Piratebay it is obvious that it is heavily shared, with thousands of seeds.
Why isn't this show being canceled due to everyone involved with making of it dying from starvation?
I was told that sharing... sorry, pirating of video directly hurts people who make these shows.
I demand that someone does something about it!

Like... take them all behind the shed and shoot them in the head.

Re:Shouldn't they be starving to death? (1)

Livius (318358) | about 4 months ago | (#47609239)

It's not a show about people who promote file sharing.

In fact except Penny all the main characters have exceptionally well-paying jobs.

Re:Shouldn't they be starving to death? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609369)

Not that I think the show is about file sharing either, but I don't understand your argument. What does the income of the characters on the show have to do with whether or not the show is about file sharing?

(GP was talking about heavy piracy of the Big Bang Theory, which should (according to some theories) cause the makers and actors involved with the Big Bang Theory to have their incomes damaged, not the incomes of the characters.)

Or maybe you're making a joke, and I just got whooshed......

Not keeping up with inflation (1)

ayesnymous (3665205) | about 4 months ago | (#47609047)

I heard the whole cast of Friends each made $1 million per episode, and that was over 10 years ago.

who do they think they are (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609081)

charlie sheen?

I'd love to be wrong, but ... (4, Insightful)

xfizik (3491039) | about 4 months ago | (#47609103)

Given that the show is going into season 8, I wouldn't be too surprised if it went downhill from here, like it usually happens to long running sitcoms. It's not like money will reflect the quality of acting.

Re:I'd love to be wrong, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609291)

Given that the show is going into season 8, I wouldn't be too surprised if it went downhill from here, ...

We are at least three seasons past that point.

Re:I'd love to be wrong, but ... (1)

jijitus (1478465) | about 4 months ago | (#47609385)

The show has been downhill for the entire season 7. It is so different than the very good episodes from seasons 2-4 that almost makes me cry. These guys struck an incredibly good deal considering that.

I wonder what that works out per line? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609113)

I wonder what that works out per line?

Sheldon: Oh dear Penny. I'm afraid you have no idea about the value of Exxon mobile and their worth to society.
Penny: Whatever, Max Factor.

$1 million per episode (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609177)

Works out to $2 million per joke.

Yawn (5, Insightful)

wcrowe (94389) | about 4 months ago | (#47609187)

I don't get the controversy. I like the show. It makes me laugh. I don't care what the actors get paid. It's none of my business. I think the comparisons to "black face" are in error. Poking fun at people because of their behavior is not the same as poking fun at people because of their skin color. It's just a sitcom. They come and go. It hasn't jumped the shark yet (not for me, anyway). When it does I'll probably stop watching. And if CBS should cancel it tomorrow, I won't care. My life does not revolve around characters on a tv show, nor does it revolve around the actors and writers. They're getting $1million per show... yawn.

Re:Yawn (1)

mvdwege (243851) | about 4 months ago | (#47609275)

I do get the controversy.

I like the show; when it takes its character and setting seriously, it brings some good humour to the table, and some interesting plotlines.

Of course, there's a "however..." in this. Too many episodes focus on the outside view of geek culture, making it more a case of laughing at geeks instead of laughing with the characters about things that are relatable.

And then there is their wildly inconsistent characterisation. Especially Penny swings from 'willing to accept Leonard's idiosyncracies', to the mainstream standard 'grow up and throw your toys away' attiturde.

Conclusion: flawed in places, but still fun.

Re:Yawn (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 months ago | (#47609315)

Especially Penny swings from 'willing to accept Leonard's idiosyncracies', to the mainstream standard 'grow up and throw your toys away' attiturde.

Wildly inconsistent perhaps; but that's women for you. Show nails it. (*ducks*)

In all seriousness, people aren't that rigid and conflicting emotions are common -- what bubbles to the surface today may not be the same as tomorrow. For example I usually tolerate my kids rooms being messy until the days I don't, and then make them clean them up thoroughly - dusting, vacuuming, nothing loose under the bed, even the closet.

Is my "characterisation of a real person inconsistent and flawed" or am I just a real person, who is somewhat inconsistent and flawed? :)

Re:Yawn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609371)

Especially Penny swings from 'willing to accept Leonard's idiosyncracies', to the mainstream standard 'grow up and throw your toys away' attiturde.

If you think women IRL don't exhibit such swings in attitudes, you need to get a girlfriend.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609407)

And then there is their wildly inconsistent characterisation. Especially Penny swings from 'willing to accept Leonard's idiosyncracies', to the mainstream standard 'grow up and throw your toys away' attiturde.

Datapoint: I've dated women like that and married one of them. So have many of my friends... Seems like a recurring theme with women that marry nerds. Today they seem to be okay that I've seen every episode of TOS about 15 times, the next day they want to throw away comic books that haven't been read for a while... Women, sometimes you can live with them, and well, other times you can't live without them (did I say that right?) ;^&

Anyhow it's just a TV show.

Great show, sadly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47609207)

they fuck it up in the forth or fifth season, once Penny fucked Rajesh, it all went to hell. I ended up having the first three seasons in DVD and then stopped watching the show.

P.S.: Why is this on /.?

Pay scale (1)

Livius (318358) | about 4 months ago | (#47609215)

Incredible! Think how much the writers will be making, seeing as their talent is the real reason for the show's success.

Normal for a successful sitcom (1)

Jumunquo (2988827) | about 4 months ago | (#47609419)

Which is why networks love reality shows.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?