The dude that play Frasier Crane in "Frasier" is getting a big stinking raise, well actually, biggest raise in TV history.
2 million big ones every episode. for 48 episodes. (2 season).
I know how capitalism are suppose to be the best and everything, and how "supply and demands" or the "invisible hands" are gonna help out the consumers. But I can't help but wonder that some other professionals deserves way more, and people in Hollywood show biz deserve way less.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Methinks Mr. Grammer deserves such money far more than most bazillionaires.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
96 million dollars?!?!?! *sigh* And so the rich get richer.......
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh my, it's the greatest crime against humanity ever.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
I thought the greatest crime against humanity was the Holocaust. Oh well. I could be wrong....
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Funny, I would have said Stalin's "purges". They killed far more people.
Look, the man makes money for the network. We don't have any idea how much money he makes for them, nor how many network employies live off of that money in the form of their salaries. It was a business decision. We'll see if it was a good or bad one.
Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :
who are you to say how much someone might deserve?
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Oh I can think of so many more people that deserve more...
Teachers in all grades, police, military personals, engineers, scienctists, doctors, and the list just goes on and on.
Mind you although they deserve more, I'm not saying that they're the one that should make 2 millions a month, I'm saying that HOLLYWOOD STARS in general DOES NOT DESERVE that big fat check.
[ June 25, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by Jeff Kardde (Member # 411) on :
Well, ignoring the fact that the government can't afford to pay it's employees that much ... even the President (the highest paid Government employee) doesn't make more than $300,000 per year from the Gov't.
The Gov't gets it money from taxes. You don't see a lot of people running out to pay their taxes three or four times, and you've even got people getting taxes lowered -- so, let's think about this. Incoming money is dropping, and you want to pay teachers etc, what? 1.3 million for each day they teach?
Sounds good to say, but it makes about as much sense as saying "Igol wi!bd eroli qizz!"
Hollywood stars in general do NOT make that much money. Kelsey Grammar is quite unique in his earnings for a TV star.
[ June 25, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff Kardde ]
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Dude man, you didn't read what I said.
I already said that a teacher, one of the professions that I mention, probably does not deserve 2 millions a class.
I'm saying that NO HOLLYWOOD show biz peeps deserve to make more then a teacher, because frankly I think that the achievement of any Hollywood show biz person is jack-shit compare to the achievement of any normal, down to earth teacher.
I blame big business for paying those Hollywood actors/actresses that much, and I blame ordinary people like us for ignoring the fact that we value teacher less significant compre to those who are exposed more to public attention.
Mind you I only said HOLLYWOOD show biz people, because I think some other entertainers are certainly worth the money.
Also, some psychopathic dumbass teachers are excluded from my "normal, down to earth" category.
[ June 25, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Now that I've think about it. Some Hollywood star does achieve a lot more, like volunteer to help out the one in need in some other 3rd world countries.
But those are very few. So my previous statements still stand true for most situtations.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Oh yeah, and I find the fact that some stars get paid more then the President of the United State sad.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
People get paid based upon how much money they make for their employer. It's called "capitalism". Look it up.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
And a society that value everything base on "how much you make" ain't exactly perfect!
If you think that because Hollywood actors/actresses are more important to society compare to that of teachers because they're making more mo, and if everyone have the same thought as you do on this topic, then there is little hope left for humanity.
[ June 26, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I didn't say anything about their import to society, aside from pointing out its irrelevance in a free society.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
To insinuate a capitalist society is an interchangeable term for a free society is the sort of idiocy that caused the United States to be responsible for nearly as many human rights violations as the people they were "fighting" in the Cold War. But I digress, for Omega is largely correct here in pointing out that Grammer getting paid what he's being paid is just capitalism at work. And, when compared to some of the other injustices that capitalism inevitably creates, big raises for reasonably enjoyable entertainers are hardly worth crying over. But hey, there aren't a hell of other workable options for stopping the rich from getting richer without imposing the amount of government economic control that would mess the economy up for everybody. And that's why, I, liberal weenie that I am, have to say that capitalism is currently the best way of spreading at least some economic benefits across the world that we know of. While other economic systems might be a bit more fair, better to have an imperfect system that works than a idealistic system that doesn't, or more accurately works only if there's total maturity on the part of society (ie Roddenberrian utopianism, which is pretty well impossible to try to create in 2001 AD) or a repressive government (ie. Messrs. Mao and Stalin and Pot) which is something that I'd rather not have.
So let Mr. Grammer have his raise. He'll toss a good chunk of it into the hands of the IRS and hopefully help pay for inner-city schools rather than billion-dollar missile shields or tax breaks for oil corporations. And yeah, with what's left over he'll still be far more fantabulously rich than any of us here. But that's the way the world works, so shut up and deal .
Posted by Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
Since this thread started about well paid actors, does anyone have a top ten salary list of hollywood actors? Or perhaps it's on the IMDB?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote: Some Hollywood star does achieve a lot more, like volunteer to help out the one in need in some other 3rd world countries.
Actually, they do very little. Most of us, given the same resources, could do more, since we're used to doing more with less.
Remember the old saying, "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime?"
Hollywood stars and handouts 'give a man a fish.' Teachers 'teach a man to fish.'
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
I see this as more of a reflection of our society's distorted values than anything else. While I am amazed at the discrepency between the salary of say a teacher vs. the salary of a prominent actor, I would hardly blame the actor for the difference. He is merely taking advantage of the system, and in his place I would probably do the same thing. If the money is going to be made anyway, I'd rather see it going to him than to some faceless studio exec whose contribution to the show's success would be less tangible. A few years back I wrote an essay called My Dad vs. Shaq wherein I compared their respective qualifications vs. compensation. It basically came down to my father (a skilled and experienced forensic chemist) would have to work at his county job for, like, six years to earn what Shaq (a remarkably talented and extraordinarily tall basketball player) makes in a single game. It's kind of out of proportion, really. I mean especially considering that Shaq's only like a foot taller.
[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"I'd rather see it going to him than to some faceless studio exec whose contribution to the show's success would be less tangible."
What about the writers?
I know Grammer's an exec producer on Frasier, but I wonder how much the Friends exec producers get compared to the actors.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
"What about the writers?"
That would be fine too. I'm just saying that I'd rather see the money go to someone who is directly involved in the actual production of the show: someone whose creative talents have gone into making the show a success. I really like the idea of everyone earning a scale rate for their given task (grips to producers), and then some percentage of the profits on top of that. Thus rewarding success. (i.e. not giving Leo $25 million for flops like The Beach before production even started.)
Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :
The way I see it, is that these actors and actresses make us happy when we see them preform. Since I belive one's happyness is more important then anyone's, sure, give them the bigger paycheck.
Although -- i do belive that teachers deserve a lot more then what they make now. I've been lucky enough to have some of the best teachers, one even voted the best High School science teacher in the states, and they make around $30k-$40k a year. Its not horrible, but its not good either.
.