"Simpsons" cast negotiating new deal, production on new season delayed

from variety

'Simpsons' cast close to new deal Production delay means 20-episode season By MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

Last week, Fox announced a fall schedule that included animated staple "The Simpsons" in its normal Sunday timeslot.

The hitch? There's still no deal with the voice talent behind "The Simpsons." And without one, the 20th season of the series could be in jeopardy.

While sources close to both the voice actors and 20th Century Fox TV are optimistic that they're on the road to a new deal, production on the show's 20th season has been on hold for months -- meaning the studio will probably produce just 20, rather than 22, segs next season.

Should a deal not be reached anytime soon, that number could be reduced further. Pacts are already in place with "The Simpsons" scribes and producer Gracie Films.

The key "Simpsons" cast members -- Dan Castellaneta (Homer), Julie Kavner (Marge), Nancy Cartwright (Bart), Yeardley Smith (Lisa), Hank Azaria (Moe) and Harry Shearer (Mr. Burns) -- are believed to make around $360,000 an episode. A new deal could bump that number closer to $500,000, including various bonuses. That's more in line with the paydays of many live-action sitcom stars (with the exception of bigtime leads like "Two and a Half Men's" Charlie Sheen).

The-already increased salaries could be why there doesn't appear to be the kind of angst that has characterized past negotiations between the "Simpsons" voices and 20th.

"Unlike the last negotiations, there hasn't been a lot of anger or frustration," one insider said.

Production was also halted in 2004 when the cast members didn't show up for two table reads. Back then, they were looking to increase their salaries from $125,000 an episode.

In 1998, the thesps (who were then making just $30,000 a seg) asked for a big raise -- and 20th went as far as hiring casting directors in five cities to potentially find replacements.

This time out, insiders said the talent is looking for a "healthy bump," given the show's history as a money-making machine for News Corp. (Coincidentally, the "Simpsons"-themed ride, which features the thesps' voices, opens this weekend at Universal Studios' Hollywood and Orlando locations.)

The voice talent have traditionally argued that they're asking for a relatively small piece of the "Simpsons" pie given its status as a global phenom worth several billions of dollars. Indeed, via syndication, international, licensing and merchandising, among other things, "The Simpsons" has been invaluable to the conglom.

But the fewer fireworks accompanying this round of negotiations may also stem from mutual acknowledgment that "The Simpsons," like everything on TV, hasn't been immune to broadcast's rapid viewership erosion. With ratings down, the show isn't bringing in the same kind of revenues it once did. The talent will likely get their pay increase even as the show becomes less of a cash cow.

If a deal isn't made soon, whatever gains the talent may ultimately secure could be tempered by the fact that fewer episodes are produced.

One optimistic insider said it could all be resolved as soon as this week.

Resign everyone but this wacko.

Well then. we should get rid of all Catholics on TV as well. Think of the goofy shit they believe in! Transubstantiation? That isn't even a word.

Believe me, if there was a Catholic celeb that was giving $10,000,000 to the Pope, I wouldn't be happy either.

Merriam-Webster disagrees:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transubstantiation

<I Googled "dictionary transubstantiation" and got 81,800 hits, so you're really alone in the wilderness on this assertion, of course, you could have posted with tongue firmly in cheek> ;)

Tony Harding wrote:

"Gullible" isn't in the dictionary either.

I am shocked (shocked!) that my tongue's location wasn't obvious.

Is "engram" in the dictionary? ;-)

David wrote:

They haven't recorded any new episodes? Isn't it a little late to do the voice recordings for Treehouse of Horror XIX in time to get it done by November?

Meanwhile, there's also the threat of a SAG strike when that contract runs out at the end of June, and something tells me that the studios are hoping that the actors will cave in rather than put Hollywood through another strike, especially in a bad economy.

Meanwhile, the "semi-regulars" like Pamela Hayden (Milhouse) and Karl Wiedergott probably still get pennies thrown at them (and when was the last time Maggie Roswell did a voice for the show?).

-- Don

IMO, there are already TOO many "Horror" shows. They seem to come up all the time in the syndication rotation.

1)    The economy isn't all that bad.   The unemployment rates aren't
particularly high.  (Seems like many of the workers who lost their jobs in
construction weren't legal.   They will start going home.)

2)   In any case, when things tighten up companies tend to drop advertising
last.    After every recessing there are winners and losers.   The winners
kept up the ad buying budgets and cut back everywhere else.

Don't be surprised if their is another strike.   The unions did pretty well
this last time AND the various unions hung together.   The other unions will
want some paypack for their loyalty.

The negative for the "vocal talent" is that it's just not that big of a gig.

The producers can quite easily go with an entirely new crew without even trying to copy the tone of the original actors. Sure, we will notice, but when you see some early episodes, you notice changes there.

If the voice actors come around, "they" can strip in the "right" voice up to (and even after) the last minute.

Most of us fans want The Simpsons to go on indefinitely.   But, like it or
not, the marginal value of each new episode decreases as the total #
increases.    There just isn't much room for greed on the part of the
actors.

John Gilmer wrote:

That's not what I meant by "put Hollywood through another strike" - I was referring to the businesses that tend to get a lot of patronage from people who work in TV, who suddenly found themselves without much income because none of their usual patrons were working because of the WGA strike.

It's not quite as easy as that. True, "Family Guy" replaced Lacey Chabert with Mila Kunis as Meg, but Meg plays such a small role in the show that not enough people cared. When Maggie Roswell decided not to continue with her Simpsons roles (right after the stars got their last big pay raise - and the "also starring" types didn't), they tried replacing most of her characters (Miss Hoover, Helen Lovejoy, Luann van Houten) with another actress, and although she was close to hitting the mark, I think enough people noticed - Roswell, for whatever reason, returned to the roles.

Besides, with a number of the actors, I doubt you can find one person who can do all of their roles convincingly. It would be a lot easier to replace Yeardley Smith (who pretty much voices just Lisa) or Julie Kavner (Marge, Patty, Selma, and that's about it) than any of the actors who do six or seven regular parts. (I for one believe that if any of Dan Castellaneta, Hank Azaria, or Harry Shearer ever decided to leave, the show would be cancelled then and there.)

-- Don

David wrote:

<snip>

Ironic, isn't it, that Matt Groening's subversive little animation should earn so money for a rightwinger like Murdock?

"Tony Harding" wrote in message news:4835935a$0$15204$[email]...

Subversive? Maybe, on a 3rd grade "Mad Magazine" level. Sure, lines like "women don't want be shot in the face, Dad!" and "nibble through my ball sack" are funny. But the heart of the show is basically old-fashioned family values, sitting on the front porch in a rocker, down-home 3.5 kids + 2 cars Americana.

I'm not sure what would win the "most subversive" award for TV comedy, but I would like to submit "I Love Lucy." Ricky was a night-club singer - he didn't have a regular job - and Lucy was an unapolgetic go-getter who would go against her husband 9 times out of 10. Plus, she got knocked up in front of millions, which is not a big deal now... but my grandmother thought the apocalypse was on us, apparently. (OK, she did not *get* knocked up on TV - now that would be subversive!)

-- R Flowers

And you didn't even mention the "interracial" marriage or the spousal abuse. Heady stuff even by today's standards. Hell, probably even more so!

Although Simpson's is inarguably more subversive than Mad Magazine, which is inarguably more sophisticated than the 3rd grade level (at least when I read it in the '70s).

"R Flowers" wrote in news:[email]:

If she got knocked up on TV, I hope they removed the antenna first.

"R Flowers" wrote

Oh how she would love 'South Park' then...

Paul