Originally Posted by TenoBell
Hollywood is worse than Washington with cronyism. A television show with 15 producers, everyone knows most of those are vanity and political titles. Giving a friend a producer tile, repaying someone for past a favor, lobbying someone for a favor in the future. These behind the scenes politics generally have little or nothing to do with producing this one television show.
Some is cronyism. So take off 1% of the costs for that.
When I was shooting Tv commercials in the early '70's, I had a sound man who did the work, and another who waited around for the first one to drop dead. Other areas have the same problem. Take off another 5%.
Those were (and still are) union rules.
Many shows have several producers. They are called segment producers, because that's the way some shows are done. 60 Minutes is a good example of that. Each story has it's own producer. it must be that way. News programs must be done that way as well. Other programs, have producers for action segments, home segments, etc. It's done that way because there isn't much time to shoot a weekly show. This way they can break the show into several mutually exclusive parts, and shoot them at the same time. Therefore, sometimes they have more than one director as well. They are called "unit" directors. Even movies are done that way. They have producers and directors to take shots of inter-scene background, etc.
Your 15 producers is a bit on the high side though. What show did you see that had so many?
There is no reason why studios have to pay actors ungodly amounts of money. All they need to do is say no. Which they have begun to do.
Sure they do. It's called supply and demand. When new shows with unknown actors become popular, and both viewer-ship and ad revenue go up, prices go up as well. Actors demand higher wages.
Look to sports. Do you really think that those people are worth multiple millions for several months of playing games?
Entertainers are always involved with foolish antics: drugs scandals, prostitution scandals, murder scandals. They generally weather almost any scandal with little damage to their career. I think Tom Cruise's offense was quite a bit less dramatic than any of that.
People love those sexual antics, and other bits of trouble the star they hate to love, and love to hate get into. There is an entire industry built up around this gossip.
But, Cruise went over the top. He was espousing his religious beliefs while making cruel fun of those others have.
We don't tolerate that here in a public forum. What he may say in private is his business, but not in public. People are upset with that. It was over the top.
It was reported in Variety that Paramount and Cruise had already decided to absolve their relationship. Paramount wanted to decrease their obligation to his production company while Tom wanted to increase it. They could not agree on a final deal and decided to go their separate ways.
That was just part of it. If they had felt that his value hadn't been diluted, they would have worked it out.
Paramount officials were surprised when Viacom chief Sumner Redstone announced that they were firing Tom Cruise because of his devotion to scientology. Paramount told Variety that the split was over money and not his religious beliefs.
Paramount is spinning. It wasn't over his religious beliefs. More than a few in the entertainment industry believe in Scientology. They aren't the subject of controversy. He is.
Money comes into it when it's felt that his star value isn't what is once was. in the hinterland of the country where religious conservatives reign, his spouting will lessen the sales of the product.
Even the religious right in this country, for the most part, have no problem with people's odd religions. But when those people make fun of theirs, they become very unhappy. Cruise certainly alienated me, and I'm anything but religious. Think of how that other part of America feels about him.
So, yes, it's money. But, not really for the reasons they gave.