Stupid "Friends" stars want $100 grand per episode.

In Time magazine this week it is reported that all 6 cast members of Friends now want a big raise of $100,000 per episode up from an undisclosed figure probably around $40,000 from last season. When I read this I was sickened! These losers don't diserve this kind of money! They aren't worth it. I guess they think they are "big" stars now so they need a huge raise. Do these people diserve $100 thousand times 25 episodes? The shows ratings have dropped big time. Sure it's summer, but look at Sienfeld, they are at the top of the ratings every week, no wonder NBC is concerned. NBC can't pay the stars this kind of money anyway, the show costs big bucks to produce, and the advertisments are no more than $600 per episode at the most. I really hope the Friends cast lose big time in Hollywood, I hope their show is cancelled by winter. Thanks, Justin Tribble [email]

remember such movies as ed and the pallbearer? no one else does either. the sweetest one will be when jennifer aniston's movies bomb. she's beautiful, but i am really sick of seeing that face everywhere.

oh, and elaine's hips could be smaller.

This repeated Friends-bashing is not only boring, but gets suspicious after a while. Maybe someone has a big crush on Jennifer Aniston?

1) The Friends cast will get what the market can afford. For better or
   worse that's capitalism.
2) Where did you get the $600 figure?
3) I wouldn't trust Time magazine if they told me Tuesday came after
   Monday.

I'm not a huge "Friends" cheerleader, but as for the huge amount of money let's look at it like this:

-Each show in syndication will garner 4 million dollars;

-There are 25 episodes in a season and will take from August until April to shoot (approx. 9 months) Now consider that long shooting schedule to a motion picture, where shooting will take 2-3 months. Many movie stars are making a minimum of 2 million dollars. for a third of the shooting time of a television series.

Now conventional math will illustrate that a TV star of a hit TV show is vastly underpaid in reference a) the amount of time spent working and b) the amount of income garnered from your work in addition to your coworkers.

If you worked for a company that made that much of a profit, and you were only paid $60,000 commission on each product (show) you sold, knowing that by your sale, the company received $4 million in return, you would want a better piece of the action too.

Oh, by the way, a TV show isn't THAT expensive to make.

Just comments,

David Tate wrote:

Sadly, people don't get paid according to who's worked the hardest. There are people out there who, for no reason at all, are jsut luckier than most of us.

It's thanks to Seifeld that they are where they are. Nobody would have watched if they werent paired up with Seinfeld. BTW,Give Jennifer Anniston the raise, NBC.. :)

wrote:

money

April

schedule to a

stars are

time of

show is

and b)

skill, even

training than a

assume

mechanic

have

Anniston

Now, Watch after a couple of years Brooke Shields Demanding $100,000 a week to...all thanks to Seinfeld.

[email] (Colin Rosenthal) wrote:

I'm guessing, but I assume that Justin meant $600,000--getting that sum by multiplying 6 actors X $100,00.

Jerry

wrote:

it's

every

of

or

Ads for Seinfeld are $500,000. I'm sure Friends is cheaper.

I'm guessing that Justin meant $600,000--getting that sum by multiplying 6 actors X $100,000.

Jerry

In article , [email] wrote:

Is it disgusting? Yeah... Do they deserve the money? Yeah to that as well. I mean, like it or not, Friends has made a ton of money for everyone involved, so the actors deserve a fair cut of the action. As for the money, you're forgetting how much they're getting for the syndication rights -- I don't recall the figure, but it's in the high millions, so why not let the cast share in the loot? I know you don't like the show, but this is like saying the Beatles shouldn't have made so much money, because you don't like the Beatles. If the show were dead last in the ratings and the cast asked for $100,000, it would be ludicrous, but as long as it's a popular show and the network is getting what it wants (ratings, ad revenue, etc.), why shouldn't the actors be rewarded? What are you, a Communist? :-)

To the cast of Friends, I have only one thing to say:

"David Caruso"

yours in jesus christ,

the free man

It's greed, pure and simple.

I dont know if this amount they are claiming is reasonable, however, please don't dismiss everything using stereotype response.

If you contributed to a project eventually making a lot of money for your employer, and in your heart you know that this could very well be a once in a lifetime opportunity, would you like to be compensated fairly?

NBC should tell the "Friends" that they would pay them $99,999 per show, but since they want $100,000...

I remember that the stars of "The Dukes of Hazzard" asked for "too much" money and were replaced. The ratings went down and the original boys came back, and I assume their demands were met.