Season Six - Whose Fault?

I know we always seem to blame the writers for the quality of the show being a little subpar this season, but here's something to think about.

During the previous seasons, the actors worked five days per week, for three weeks straight, and then took a week off. This past season, the actors didn't work on Mondays. This meant that the first table read of an episode's script wasn't until Tuesday. In the past, the table read would be on Monday, and then the writers would spend a lot of Monday night rewriting the script to make it better after they had seen which jokes weren't going to work, but due to the lack of actors on Monday during the sixth season, the writers had one less rewrite night to improve the script.

Also, the actors recently demanded to be out by 10PM on Friday nights (filming nights). This meant that when jokes bombed with the studio audience, the writers no longer had the unlimited time they needed to rewrite jokes at a filming.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the blame can be cast in other places, too.

Larissa (who thinks these actors are paid pretty damn well for working an average of 12 days per month :)

this is something very interesting. I didn't know the actors demanded to be out by 10. seems to me they're getting to be a little pushy, and I agree, they do get paid very very well considering the amount of work they do, as compared to anyone (especially the writers) who can spend much more time working. Still, with all these excuses, the root of the problem remains the writing. and although the execution of the jokes may have suffered due to these time constraints (as I have noticed- especially LK and MP seem to be a lot less enthusiastic in episodes), we have to admit, most of this season has been plauged by unfunnny material. I can get into exaclty why ( storylines, etc...) but it's not important. BKC's other two shows suck to say the least this year and they may have needed time to help, which gives them some kind of an excuse for their lack of involvement, although Bright directed about 10 episodes this season- so hmmm... I wish we all knew exactly why this season sucked, and I know that at least a few of us wish we could have personally been at stage 24 to help, but hey, each sitcom has to have a downpoint somewhere. Let's just hope season 7, if there is one, can be the kind of show we all used to know and love.

Yep, but there's a reason for that. Maybe last year the writing would have been a lot worse if the writers had one less rewrite per episode, who knows.

BKC's other two shows have always sucked, IMO. :) And Friends has had both good *and* bad seasons while Marta Kauffman and David Crane were working on the other shows. I don't think they worked on season five any more than on season six, and most people loved season five.

Yeah, let's hope. Even though if there is one, some of the best writers left right now will be moving on. :(

Larissa

Just to tweak you for a second, Larissa...

What happened to your mother's theory that the show's writing has dropped because they lost MNL?

They lost Alexa Junge, too. That's a pretty intense talent drain.

LMAO! What about her theory? She probably still believes it, as far as I know. She has a very high opinion of him. It's just that now she also thinks the actors are greedy. Maybe it's a combination of both. Wait, I'll go ask her. Yup!

And just to tweak *you*, Claire, who's the talent drain? Just Alexa Junge or both of them? ;)

Larissa

Two prominent longtime writers in one blow? Both.

am I freak ? I ask myself this.. cos I am loving season six.. of course it is not good as season 5.. for IMO.. season 5 was brilliant but I know tons of other fans who adored season 1 or 2 or 3. My favourite season is season 5.. but I am still enjoying season 6.. it's just there are no long er any episodes that will have my rolling in tears from laughter.. like season 5 got me doing !! the glory days of Ross and the leather trousers.... Joey in the desert.. C+M :P .. Phoebe and the triplets.. Rachel and the bad interview... I loved season 5....

PeachLilli wrote in message ...

This past season, the actors didn't

read of an episode's script

read would be on Monday, and then

rewriting the script to make it

going to work, but due to the

the writers had one less

10PM on Friday nights (filming

the studio audience, the

needed to rewrite jokes at a

If this is true (and I assume it is, Peach doesn't lie), then I think the cast are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats. Maybe the show should end after this season, if they've lost so much interest in doing their *full* part in making this show what it can be at its best.

They're all so busy worrying about their movie careers, it seems as though they've forgotten what made them household names in the first place. I saw a thing on TV (I think it was ET) about how David E. Kelley won't allow his actors to have time off from his shows in order to film movies because it's a distraction to not just that actor, but the whole production. I think the Friends group could use that kind of thinking.

can be cast in other places,

No pun intended, of course, right Larissa?

damn well for working an

The amount of money they make is incredible compared to all of us working stiffs out here in the real world, but considering the amount the studio and network make from the reruns, I don't have a problem with them asking for more. But they need to be willing to put the work in, or the quality of the show is going to continue to drop.

Let's see how the six of them do in the movie business when they don't have Friends as their cushion to fall back on. (Sorry, but I'm disappointed by this information you've shared with us--it seems as though the show isn't as important to the actors as I thought it was, Kudrow excluded.)

Lauran

Lauran Mitchell wrote:

I remember watching an interview with DS a couple of years ago where he was saying that filming movies on weekends while during Friends taping season was a distraction and hurt the quality of the show. He was pretty adiment about it. I believe the issue came up because one of the women(maybe Jen) was shooting a movie in N.Y on weekends and flying back to L.A during the week. Now, of course, David is filming a movie in another country and not even at the taping of the possible finale. I guess that shows how priorities change. What's important to people changes over time and I think we're seeing that with the cast. Another issue that may soon come up will be CCA possibly wanting to start a family. That is understandable, of course, but it has consequences to the show and it will be interesting how it is handles if it comes up.

(on a side note, does anyone know if the actress who playes Kate on The Drew Carey Show is pregnant? They seem to be hiding her a bit lately.)

I think Kudrow may be the one most in it for the money. From reports that I tend to believe, Kudrow was the one who wanted to stall and start a game of chicken with the studio to get more money whereas the guys wanted to sign on last year. Quite honestly, I think Lisa has been phoning in some of her performances lately, but she also gets very few good storylines so it may be understandable.

Yes it's true, and thank you. :)

That would be good, but you know they'd have to sign contracts saying they couldn't work on movies while doing Friends, and now that they've already been doing movies, the chance that they'd suddenly decide "okay, let's not do movies anymore!" is very unlikely.

Oh, of *course* not. ;)

Sorry to disappoint you - truth hurts, I guess. But I think it's good to know.

Larissa

PeachLilli wrote in message ...

what

actor,

sign contracts saying they

now that they've already been

decide "okay, let's not do movies

Oh, I know. It's the kind of thinking they could have used from the beginning, before Scream, The Opposite of Sex, The Whole Nine Yards, Charlie's Angels, etc. David E. Kelley's actors are still allowed to do films, but only on their time off.

But I think it's good to know.

It is good to know, thanks for sharing. I just thought they cared a little more about performing in such a good show. :(

Lauran

All of which we had no way of knowing. As far as any of us knew, the schedule depicted by MNL was still accurate. I was confused when we were told the filmings were getting out at 7:00, since they used to be around until 2:00 AM. Of course, now I want to know why everybody is getting out at 7:00 if they are allowed to go until 10:00.

This insight was important. Do other sitcoms have this abbreviated a schedule? How did the Friends cast justify it?

i read that they start filiming earlier this season. i think it's in the afternoon, whereas in the previous seasons they would start filiming in the evening, and therefore finish late. so i think the hours spent on the tapings are still the same, but i don't know ok.

claire abraham wrote in message news:[email]...

being a

three

didn't

script

and then

make it

the

less

(filming

the

a

places,

an

claire abraham wrote:

Ya, no doubt.

Randy's hypothesis on why sitcoms start to suck:

I think there's no "fire" in each of the actor/actresses, as well as the writers/directors/producers/etc anymore. Atleast not nearly as much as the early seasons. When you start something new, there's determination, and a desire to make it successful in everyone involved in the activity. There's intent and a deliberateness. Everybody is working hard to make the thing fly. None of the actors/actresses were even on the Hollywood map (except for CCA, I guess). Now they all are. They've attained the status they were hoping to attain when they signed up for Friends before its pilot.

After awhile, after some measure of success, some people start coasting, or looking around for something else, or becoming bored and disinterested. On Friends, the characters are "less animated" now. I can't remember the last time Rachel did something as animated as running across the room and jumping up on Ross to rip the phone away from his ear, or being dragged off the couch by a PO'd Monica who pummels her with a sock. . . The scenes now are all sedate, walking, sitting, standing, with nothing but the dialogue to carry the episode. Very little animation.

It's as if in the backs of everyone's minds, they're all thinking "OK, we've made it. We're successful. Now what?". It robs them of their determination and motivation to put 100% into what their doing. Also, Friends is no longer "cutting edge". It once was, now it's not, unfortunately. 20 years from now, we'll watch a Friends rerun with the same sort of "corny" indifference that we now view a 3's Company rerun.

Having seen this phenomenon while working at a small computer startup company, it's amazing that it happens to most people at the same time. At first, we all worked very hard and very happily, and nobody could do any wrong. We had big beer bashes and Company Parties in the mountains. After a couple years and a few million in sales, everyone seemed to start wondering "what's next"? Since you know it can't go on forever, you start to doubt the ability of the "current crew" and don't want to be the last one off the boat if things go south. You start to think "been there, done that, bought the tee-shirt", now what's next. . . You become bored with the lack of "newness" and excitement of the activity. . . You lose the "fire in your heart".

Anyway, just my innate ramblings. . .

Friends, the

did

rip the

who pummels

standing, with

Season 5 had plenty. Rachels eye drop thing, TOW everyone finds out at the point where everyone except Ross finds out and they distract him. How can you say thats not animated. Season 6, TOW the Routine, ok it was a bad episode, but half the joke was based on Ross and Monica thinking they could dance and doing it.

Tom Hawley wrote:

Yes, and most people think Season 5 was a very good season. Right? So there's one or 2, or 4 examples in Season 6 (TOW The Routine being one), it's still not anything compared to the first few seasons.

This is just one aspect that I believe is leading to the decline. There are obviously other things contributing also.

Midnight, usually. Though there were those very rare occasions, just ask Lauran. :)

That didn't happen a lot, really. The last episode I was at started extra early because Bruce Willis wanted to get his scenes over with early so he could go off and shoot a movie. That was filmed out of order and over around 8:00. Plus Courteney wasn't even there. And I know the season finale filming ended early, but maybe because of pretaped scenes? If the jokes in pretaped scenes barely get laughs from the studio audience, it's not like they can rewrite right there, because a cast member is missing. I don't think very many of them ended at 7:00 normally.

Well, most sitcom actors do tend to come in on Mondays, so nope.

Do they need to justify it? They're one of the most important sitcom casts out there; they can pretty much get what they want.

Larissa

being a

three

didn't

script

then

it

the

(filming

If these two things are true, this is just the sort of ammo I was looking for in the pay dispute threads. They shouldn't be making these kind of demands, they're the actors, they shouldn't make the schedule, they should be there when required, do their job, and not forget that although they are the reason for some of the shows success theres producers, directors, writers, and even cameramen that probably put in longer hours on the show than they do without making contract demands.

places,

Good to see i'm not alone in that :). Now brace yourselfs for all the "DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW HARD THESE PEOPLE WORK" replies.

I'm not gonna say the crew works less than the cast, cause God knows that's untrue, but they aren't those to be harrassed by paparazzis 24/7, they aren't those who can't go to the local grocery store without being recognized, they aren't those who can't go to the movies without missing half of the film they want to see because of the hundreds autographs they gotta sign. So, yes, the cast is very highly paid, but in a way, I think of their wage as compensation for all the normal stuff they can't do like anyone else. It doesn't replace them, but it kinda makes up for it all.

Adeline.

===== "Your timing couldn't be better, I'm puttin' out fires all over the place." ~Joey Tribbianni, "Friends"

"I'm right! I'm right! Am...I...right??" ~Chandler Bing, "Friends"

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Rom1 doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Sorry - I'm one of the big "Their line of work is a lot harder than a lot of other people's" protesters, but even I think the actors are getting ridiculous here. I mean, come on, they're working four-day weeks, demanding that they *HAVE* to be out by 10.00pm when they should be ready and willing to work over if needed, AND they want at least a 150% pay rise, or whatever it is they're asking for this week! I think it's safe to say that they're probably no longer in it solely for the fact that they love their jobs, but more for the money and the status the show brings them... trust me folks, if I don't want to be doing something I am the world's biggest procrastinator (hell, I'm doing it right now with something else), I know exactly how these games work. And speaking both as an actress and a fan of the show, if that *is* the case, I don't want another season. Forget closure, I realised back in January we were never going to get it. Forget sentimental value - the only sentiment I have for a TV show is Friends in the first four seasons, not the Mondler And Friends show of the last two seasons. And forget even just having it around because there's nothing else on TV - there's more to life than TV, and even if you absolutely can't live without it, there's shows around which are even better, it's just a matter of looking for them (hey, if I can do it, so can you). If these people can't remain 100% committed to making the show just because they're now famous (and I bet that's what it is - 10 years ago I bet they would have gladly worked the hours needed to make the show as good as it could possibly be), then they can't expect people to remain 100% committed to watching it.

Sorry, I don't particuarly like badmouthing anything (as hard as that may seem), but you guys know what I'm like - I call it like I see it, and sometimes I see it very bluntly.

mmmm.... I totally agree.

Rapha

Tina escreveu na mensagem ...

that's

they

of

In article , ermintrude@**boyakasha**loveable.com (Tina) usenetted:

Of course, ten years ago they didn't have kids (Kudrow), spouses, and other things in their lives. People's circumstances change.

wg

that's

of

Thats pure crap. The two things have nothing to do with each other. They choose to be famous by being in Friends. You're saying they put up with it cos they get a lot of money, but 4 years ago each of them would have earned enough money to live really well for the rest of their lives.

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tom Hawley doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

I'm in full agreement here. If they're not pulling their weight (and it's sounding increasingly likely that they're not), they don't deserve the money. It seems pretty clear that they appear to have forgotten that they're supposed to be doing the job because they love it - and that's not the way an actor should be looking at things.

To go back to a conversation Larissa and I had on ICQ last night...

Now, this does not apply to Matthew or Courteney, but if I were a cast member of Friends, I'd be losing enthusiasm these days, too. Joey is a one joke character, Rachel's stories are sparse and dull, Ross has become erratic and unsympathetic, and Phoebe has virtually nothing to do at all. Why, pray tell, would Lisa Kudrow want to stand on the outside of the "Chandler and Monica Show featuring Ross and Rachel Every Once In Awhile" for another year? I find it stunningly interesting that it is Lisa - the Emmy winner who has good movies under her belt - who is most grossly underutilized and is the ringleader of this current rebellion. The actors are losing interest because the project is no longer interesting. And there are a number of people on this board who are making some pretty rash snap judgements without getting all the facts.

1. If missing the table read is so important, and I am going to believe that it is, then why did the producers OK such a strange request? Did the cast demand it, kicking and screaming, or did they ask nicely so they could get in some movie work and the producers said it was OK without a struggle? And which cast members demanded it? They are loyal to each other and present a united front, but they *are* individual people and some may be bigger brats than others. It may be true that the cast through a tantrum to get this odd concession, but if it isn't, then the producers bear some blame for OKing it. I'd really like to know more about why this foolish decision was made. Larissa did not know the answer to this question.

2. The Friday taping is not actually any shorter than it used to be. It begins earler in the day than it used to, and ends before 10:00 at night rather than 12:00. They are not really rushing feverishly and sloppily through a taping. And while the writers no longer have "infinite" time to tinker with jokes, the jokes are not at the heart of the writing problems this year. The jokes still seem to work. It's the characterization and bad ideas for subplots that are causing the problem. They could have tinkered with Monica's headcold seduction for weeks and that sucker would still have made me nauseous.

The cast is beginning to sound a little petulant to me, too, and 800,000 an episode per person...cough...areyouguysgonnawriteittoo...cough...but before we make such rabid judgements, and go off half-cocked with pontifications about their motivations, we might do well to know exactly what's going on.

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, claire abraham doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

If that's the case, then why aren't they pushing the writers harder to make it more interesting for themselves? Especially Lisa, who by your own admission is the one with the Emmy and the good movies (though I've yet to see any of her movies, so I can't comment). They should be trying to get the storylines improved so that it *is* still interesting to them, rather than just letting it slide but then deciding that they'd rather work four-day weeks. They could very well be holding out on signing new contracts because they want better storylines, but at this *VERY* late stage I think it'd be pretty safe to say it's probably more about the money than anything. If they're not happy but are just taking it while working less, instead of working harder to get the storylines they want, then they can't be held blameless, because how on earth are the writers supposed to know they're not happy otherwise?!

I think the blame can probably be found on both sides of the fence for this one. I would have thought, if their enthusiasm hadn't waned, that they'd be going in for the Monday table read regardless of whether or not it was their day off, but if the producers okayed it then obviously some of the blame lies with them. One thing that appears obvious, though, is that neither party seem to have properly thought through what it would mean for the quality of the show.

Actually, I think jokes *are* part of the problem. If it was funny, then I'd have no real problem, but as it stands, I can go through an entire episode this season and *not* laugh (actually, I've gone through most of the *season* so far and only laughed very occasionally).

Being the MTV junkie that I am, I caught a little bit of an interview with an artist earlier on, and she made a very good point - the business of show is such that you *have* to put 110% in constantly, and if you don't absolutely love it then you shouldn't be doing it. Now, watch an S6 episode, then go watch an S1 episode... their enthusiasm in the latter is *so* much more evident than it is now. To put it bluntly, they don't seem to have a great deal of enthusiasm anymore... they're not putting the 110% in anymore. And like I said before, if they don't want to be doing it, I don't want to be watching it.

Tina wrote:

Exactly what I was saying! It appears as if the show is "resting on it's laurels" (ok, not sure if the spelling is correct there). Like they are coasting, using up the momentum they built up in the early years. Eventually, they'll run out, which means there will be a mass exodus of Friends followers.

If Season 6 were the debut season of Friends, would any of you watch it regularly? Would you religiously tape the episodes, and discuss all the details online regularly? I would be curious to see another episode, but I certainly wouldn't be as upset when I missed one as I was when I missed watching one of the original first few seasons when they aired.

In article , Randy Hinds wrote:

I started watching Friends because it had CC in it, I carried on because it made me laugh. It still makes me laugh, and now we have, err, CCA...

I agree with Claire about some of the plots though, esp Mon's headcold.

Tennant

On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:03:35 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:

I don't know why I started watching Friends but I absolutely love it still and even though we're up to about epsiode 6 of Season 6 here in Australia I look forward to it every week! It's nice to come home and relax from all the stress of work and just watch and have some laughs.

I also can't help but go and read the episode transcripts so I can find out what happens in the episodes to come. I'm the kind of person who reads the end of the book - sometimes...

Cha :-)

In article , Cha Cullen wrote:

Beware that *some* of the people who read ahead have posted on ATF saying how much they were dreading the episode, and then when they actually saw it played out they were surprised by how much they enjoyed it.

Tennant

No, and I would probably dislike Ross rather than search endlessly for glimmers of the character I used to adore. In fact, I don't really think I like any of these people except Chandler and Joey anymore. I dislike all the women, and Ross is in a very weird, ambivalent place.

Would you religiously tape the episodes, and discuss all the

Not a chance.

snipped

Tina replied to Claire below:

800,000

exactly

I agree with you Tina. The reason, as far as I'm concerned, as to why the enthusiasm has waned is to do with the fame factor.

Who had heard of Schwimmer, Aniston, Kudrow, Le Blanc or Perry before the show started? I certainly hadn't. I knew of Cox because of Ace Ventura (and she was the reason I started watching in the 1st place.)

Back in the early days the cast had names to make for themselves - their futures depended on it. Granted, Schwimmer was perhaps more interested in behind the camera projects, but thanks to the success of the show he's had that interest consumated by directed an episode, which I'm sure he hopes will lead to bigger things.

The rest of the cast (including most successfully Cox) have dipped their toes in the big screen pool, and have no doubt enjoyed the chance to be playing other characters, and earn huge sums of money during their break from their 'day' job on Friends.

Would they have gotten the chance to participate in these movies if it hadn't been for their fame derived through Friends? Anybody's guess. However, they've been given that chance. And in no small way is it thanks to their international exposure on the small screen in Friends.

If now after six years, though, of Friends paying the bills and getting them noticed (and high profile boyfriends - Pitt), they feel they have the right to perhaps slacken off in their commitment to the show, (a show to which they're tied to until the end of this season) work fewer hours, even allow the writers to hand them shoddy plots to act out, while standing by and letting the characters that made them famous be reduced to ugly cartoons by these same writers, then I say shame on you.

Think back, please, to the days before Friends. The hungry years, perhaps. Try and grab onto the hunger you had for success back then. And at least have the good grace to see out the end of your contracts in style, rather than treading water until you're cut loose to seek greater fame and even more outrageous fortune elsewhere.

You owe to us, the diehard fans.

You owe it Rachel, Monica, Pheobe, Joey, Chandler and Ross.

You owe it to yourselves.

<rant over. Thank you...>

the

Ventura

Oddly enough I hadn't heard of her, but I had seen at least 2 films with Matthew Perry in, and thought he was pretty good.

Jac, a River Phoenix fan (so there's one of the films for you (and the other had Christina Applegate in but I can't remember its name))

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

MP & RP were in "A Night in the Life of Jimmy Reardon", while MP & CA were in "Dance 'Til Dawn", both films premming in 1998.

Tennant :)

Tennant Stuart wrote

the

Would you like to amend that to 1988?

Is that your final answer? You can phone a friend...

Jac

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

Yes. Yes I would. (blush)

If was ever on WWTBAM, I know *exactly* who I would call...

Tennant :):)

They have this in england too?

~Act

It started here, dear. We sold it to you and the rest of the world.

Jac

Yep. It's all your fault. Please spare us next time. :-)

It makes a change from the dross we get from the US.... (I'm thinking of the soaps here, not a certain sextet we know and love.) Besides, we send you a perfectly reasonable show and you turn it into a mutant that bears no resemblance to the original (Men Behaving Slightly Naughtily, Bill Cosby Is Bill Cosby And Not Victor Meldrew, Absolutely Dreadful...) :)

Jac, commiserating with Claire about the atrocious Regis Philbin. Chris Tarrant is much less irritating (and our questions are harder, anyway)

Yes but we like to win more money :o) SO this is a GOOD thing.

~Act

Unfortunately, you get taxed on winnings. We don't. A �500,000 winner (i.e. 2nd prize, not the top �1m) here takes home more cash than a $1m winner in the USA, thanks to taxes and the exchange rate.

Jac

Yes, but since the questions are easier, more people win money. Plus, the taxes benefit them in other ways, as it does the rest of the Americans.

~Act

winner

$1m

That doesn't follow: if the questions are easier then you will have maybe one or two contestants per show winning money, as they continue up the ladder. When the questions are harder, you have 3 or 4 people per show, each winning less, but only then do "more people win money". Raven, can you explain that in more mathematical terms?

Jac

Not so much, because as you climb up the ladder the dominations greatly increase. For example if 5 people were to win $500 that would be $2500 but if one person were to win $100,000 than that is 4 times as much money..

~Act

Plus,

up

per

More money is won, but by fewer people (1 person instead of 5). What you said is "more people win money". It's one or the other, it can't be both. :)

(Think of it this way, you can get $10 from 9 people, or $100 from one person. *More people* gave you money the first way, but you get *more money* the second way. Either is good, but you do need to make it clear which you are saying.)

Jac

I was thinking more in the way of taxes... The taxes go towards everyone, who wants to be a millionaire is then giving the government, which then in turn gives us things, more money..

~Act

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Activia doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

It *came* from here!

Yes but you dont watch the same show with Regis right?

OHH, my bad. Ok getting ready for the prom tonight, so I'm off.

~Act

they invented it. You should see the tool that hosts the program.

Tennant Stuart wrote

I was wondering if perhaps River had come back spiritually to enrich our lives..

DO NOT TALK TO ME ABOUT THAT BLOODY PROGRAMME.

Jac

In article , "Jacqui" wrote:

Oops, sorry hon - I'll say no more.

Tennant :):)

Gee, Claire, why do you have to always be so damn objective? I was just starting to get ticked off at these guys so I could be ready to say goodbye to my favorite show!

Lauran

Exactly. In my mind the mention of any pay demand, even their current one makes me want to write posts like this. Soap actors work daily for less. I would gladly work 12 hour days for 1/10th of what they earn. They seem to want 12 week years at x10 what they earn. (note, 12 week year used for point making value, they probably work a few more weeks than that overall).

I will say one thing: It doesn't look good when your cast is starting to put limits on the work on behalf of outside interests. Maybe it is inevitable, but I question the continued enthusiasm for the show. And depending on how this all played out, the word "insubordination" is not entirely out of the question, though it is likely that the Monday-off and other stuff was worked out amicably.

I'm just getting hints here that if there is a season 7, their hearts are not quite going to be in it.

That being said, I think some perspective is needed here. Claire provided some, let me try to provide some more.

This show is in its twilight years. All 6 cast members were relatively poor before this gig came along. Sure, they get to make a LOT of money, but for a very SHORT span of years - 7 most likely, if not 6. Sort of like the average NFL career. Some of them have movie careers, but every actor is one or two steps away from the 90% (?) poverty group. Frankly, if anyone has the right to be upset about the salary demands ALONG with the alleged demands of less work, it might be the 90% who are like Joey, scrapping for any part that might come there way. But us? No. I don't see it. Especially people like me - Computer Science majors - but even people with other skills people are always in need of, and for 20, 30, 40 years out of your life. I will most likely retire from Boeing with a good 40 years or so. Matt LeBlanc might very well have a good 7 year career and that's it.

If that were me, you better believe I would get as much as I could during those 7 years, and with no apologies whatsoever. Of course, I'd also suck it up and put in the effort required to produce a good product, no questions asked, or I'd expect to be fired. But again, like Claire said, if the cast are such ingrates, how come TPTB so easily gave them what they asked for? I don't mean the money, I mean the time off.

Furthermore, if it were easy, we'd all be doing it. How many of us work 12 hour days? Not me, that's for sure. Tom, if you'd gladly work 12 hour days for 1/10th of what they earn, then I presume you will quit your day job and enter acting school immediately? Hollywood is just waiting for you. Me, I'll keep my day job, thank you very much, and I will continue to marvel at people who can bear to display their talents and emotions in front of billions of people on a weekly basis. I wouldn't trade places with them in a million years, because I have no such talent or desire. I like my relatively quiet job, and I like my privacy.

I'm sorry but thats ridiculous. None of them are within any potential reach of the poverty group. They all have enough money to retire right now.

and

Yes but he will end it a multi-millionairre that can spend the remaining 50 years of his life doing whatever he pleases. You however, will have to put serious money towards later life, work for a lot longer and harder just so you can get by when you retire.

Yes but is there really not a point where enough is enough?

I have no idea which side you're fighting anymore :)

12

to

Me too, in all respects. So, you can see what comes with the job, you say thats just the way it is, that its fair enough, they should expect it, but you don't think I should add to their "pain" by questioning their pay demands? Its not like they'd care what I think anyway, but it doesn't change my perception that they are getting greedy.

Well, that's an assumption. Perhaps they *should*, but do you really think they live that frugally? Would you?

Nonetheless, using the word "poverty" probably did weaken my argument a bit. I should have used the word "unemployment" instead. 90% of actors at any one time are unemployed.

All the same, I love to see what would happen if someone threw their kind of money at you for 7 years. Remember all the fame and noteriety and schmoozing and parties and popularity, etc., that comes along with it. If you have 90% (based on your 1/10th figure) of that socked away for retirement at the end of 7 years, I'll eat my hat. If you have 40% socked away I'll eat my hat.

He will end it as someone looking for work, who has bought a house it would take me a lifetime to afford, driving a car and a motorcycle, either one of which costs as much as the last 3 cars I owned combined. Trust me, the more you earn the more you spend. It's sort of like every time you upgrade your hard drive to a greater capacity it doesn't take very long before you use up all that extra space and need even more.

Now, I'm not trying to say that Matt LeBlanc is as stupid as Joey is, but he's probably not going to live like a mizer either. If you think M.B. could retire after 7 years with Friends, then let's just see what he does after Friends, how much he asks to be paid. If he gets a movie deal, it's going to be as good as he can make it, monetarily speaking. Do you think actors and athletes ask for all that money just because it's there (like it's the principle of the thing) and that's it? You don't think they spend money on things to the same proportion you and I do? Yeah, you and I have a stereo, they have a 52" screen hooked up practically to the equivalent of recording studio, but proportionally it's the same principle. Sure they save. So do I. And they can put away more than I can, but they have a more up-scale life style than I do, so whatever they are saving for is going to last them just as long as what I'm saving for. The difference is: M.B. might only have 7 years of this. I'll have 40.

Yeah, and I could easily get along without one of my 2 VCRs, too. How about you?

We *all* spend money on frivilous things. I never said they don't. It's just a bit like the pot calling the kettle black in my opinion.

I have no idea what your question is here.

All I offered was some perspective. I never said you can't express your opinion. As for adding to their pain, I doubt your opinion makes a bit of difference to them, any more than mine does. I never accused you of adding to their pain.

As for greedy, all I'm trying to say is: It takes one to know one. There's the greed of the Haves and then there's the greed of the Have Nots. It's the same greed.

I'm with James on this one. It's not the money its hte principle. The more you have the more you want. It doesnt matter how much you have you will ALWAYS want more, its human nature. Sad, but true. I have a little story that ties right in with this.

This story is about the depression. TRUE STORY(this is not exact, but as close as I can get it)

There was this man who was a billionare. WHich in those times was beyond comprehensible. So he looses all his money in the crash. Then he borrows some money from this guy *$5,000* and wins 10 million soon there after. He then goes into the bathroom puts a gun in his mouth and shoots his head off. He left behind a not and a check for $5,000 + intrest. He said, "whats 10 million if I cant have a billion" in his note......

~Act

On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, claire abraham stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

I think the cast should get more than they do currently though.

After all, if you were working for a company and you know you are directly creating HUGE profits for them, wouldn't you want a bigger slice of the cake?

In business, either they'd pay up, or you'd move to another company that WOULD pay you more, but in TV it's somewhat different, especially with an ensemble cast.

Please excuse me for not knowing the answer to every question... Still, the facts which remain are 1) the writers of season six *did* have less time to figure out what worked and what didn't, and 2) they believed the writing process was affected negatively by the schedule changes. Blame the new schedule. :) The reason for the schedule remains a moot point.

Larissa

That's not a bad thing. It does explain why I think there is a grey area out there.

Still, the

I think we can agree on that.

Well, if the subject title is "Season Six - Whose Fault" and you proceed to explain how an actor's request created problems for the writing staff, then I think it is valid to ask why this dumb request was granted and under what circumstances. If you don't know, well, you still know more than any of us do! :-)

And what would ATF be without arguments? :)

Yeah, I guess... I can totally understand why there's the gray area, though. I'm not allowed to mention everything I've heard, and I'm swinging towards the "it's all the actors' fault" category, just to let you know. (Not that it'll make a difference. :)

Larissa

Well, it does stand to reason that most of your sources are going to side with the writing staff. I suspect that's almost a no-brainer. :-) And I'm not saying the actors are not at fault. I'm saying I lack information to make a judgement. All I've determined is that the Monday concession appears to have been a bad decision. And if you are asked to keep silent, you must at all costs do so, of course.

Yeah, it's called the price of fame. People who want to be actors have to realize that it's going to happen if they're successful.

Larissa