'Big Bang Theory' in HDTV on CBS - Page 92 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 7Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2731 of 2753 Old 08-02-2014, 07:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 116
It's not a talent thing, it's a character/script thing. "Sheldon" wasn't anything like the character started out to be because he was written differently. And honestly, if you compartmentalize the characters or groups, Sheldon, Leonard and Penny, Howard and Bernadette and Raj could each have their own show. But I do think the "Sheldon Show" would get old a lot quicker than any of the others. Sure Sheldon has Amy now and he's shown growth but his character still really isn't going anywhere. For either of them really. All the others have far more headroom to grow in terms of viable sitcoms (including sustainability of BBT). Ultimately, what I'm saying is if Parsons weren't on the show it would certainly take a hit in ratings. But I think it would stand a better chance of long term survival and profitability than if it were only Sheldon. People would get tired of it pretty quickly.
Closet Geek is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2732 of 2753 Old 08-02-2014, 10:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 6,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 29
hooked,
I agree completely with your analysis. Without Parsons, the show is no longer BBT and becomes just another show. He is the glue that binds the rest of the characters together. When they focused on Raj and his dating, I was ready to turn the tv off. Now, in syndication I fast forward through those bits.

CG,
You are completely off base if you think Raj and Howard need to be paid the same. Not even close. They are replaceable characters. Matter of fact, if they dumped these two and Bernie, then they could start with some new characters to give a fresh kick start to the show.

If I were to list the most important characters as this point, then I would say Sheldon and Leonard. They are like a comic duo with Leonard playing the straight man. Penny would be next. Followed by the other four. If I was the studio, then I would be negotiating the salaries based on those tiers. I would pay Kaley less than Parsons and Galecki.

My new favorite game is Save The Titanic

Ericglo is offline  
post #2733 of 2753 Old 08-02-2014, 02:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
JediMastr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, TX USA
Posts: 993
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 62
After catching up on this thread, I started thinking...If I were to list the characters in order of importance to the current show, AND could possibly have their own successful spin-off (SO), it would look something like:

1.) Sheldon. The other characters play off of him too much to be discounted. A spin-off however, would probably look just like the current show...ie people being annoyed by his antics. It would probably still work though.


BBT 10
SO 5


2.) Penny. It's simple really, she's the "sex-appeal"...aka "the hot chick"--or just plain cute--also she's the love-interest that doesn't really fit in with this particular crowd, and that makes her character another source for comedy. I don't know if her character could support a spin-off on her own, but maybe teamed up with Leonard, or even Amy...


BBT 10
SO 4


3.) Wolowitz. This may come as a surprise, but his character has grown a lot, and has always been pretty entertaining/interesting. His ranking is based mostly on the opinion that his character could easily be the center of a spin-off--that could/should include Bernie, and NOT his mom.


BBT 5
SO 8

4.) Leonard. His character is the most tortured by Sheldon, and the other half of the main love story...that's pretty much it, but it's very important to the current show. A spin-off would have to include Penny because, on his own, his character isn't that interesting.


BBT 10
SO 2

5.) Amy. Her character was a shot in the arm this show needed, even though I didn't know it. At first she was funny as a female version of Sheldon, but then became funny as Penny's 'wannabe' "bestie"...her character is needed to allow Sheldon's growth. She wouldn't be the center of a spin-off, but there are possibilities for a team-up.


BBT 7
SO 3

6.) Bernie. Clearly the show isn't about her, but she does add to it. Especially when they have her go from sweet to salty--those are her best comedic moments...and she's also eye-candy. She would have to follow Wolowitz to a spin-off, and they could keep the sweet/salty moments going.


BBT 5
SO 3

7.) Raj. His character isn't really important to the current show, he's just there to be pathetic...ironically, if he stops being pitiful, his character becomes even less important. He could be replaced by Stewart. I could see them trying a Raj spin-off when the show nears its end, and I was going to give him a much higher ranking based on that possibility alone, but I think it would be another "Joey" from "Friends".


BBT 2
SO 6

One of the best spin-off's I can remember--and it surprised me--was "Frasier" from "Cheers"...they could do something similar with Wolowitz or even Raj--but Cheers had Lilith leave Frasier before the spin-off, and I would want Bernie and Wolowitz to remain intact.

As far as how much money the actors should get paid for doing BBT...If it were up to me, they'd all get paid the same...even the ones playing the lower-rank characters. And although I don't have any details on the cost of producing this show, or how much it makes, I think it's up there with "Friends" in terms of popularity, and so should be the pay...assuming that salary level wasn't a detriment to the show.
hooked01 likes this.

thread closed
JediMastr is offline  
post #2734 of 2753 Old 08-02-2014, 07:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Ericglo, it's not so much that I think Raj and Howard "need" to be paid more. And in fact I recognize that they are not regarded as "major" characters (compared to Sheldon, Leonard and Penny). The ultimate overall point I was making was that the studio was balking at a million per for the "main three" when the ensemble as a whole could have demanded more a la the Friends deal. IMO the studio should be thanking their lucky stars advanced deals were reached with Raj and Howard.

As it relates to some other comments about Sheldon carrying the show and having a greater chance for a spin off, I'll ask it this way. As unlikely as it is that any one person, let alone 4-6 other people, would put up with Sheldon, how playable would it be to bring in an new "group of friends" that would that would put up with him. And I was just watching a rerun with an extended scene wkrn Sheldon and Amy and I was trying to imagine an entire show centered around that. Painful.

I agree fully that this show without Sheldon becomes largely any other sitcom in many regards and the same holds true if there were spinoffs for the others. But that's not entirely a bad thing and I do believe would have a greater longevity of success than a "just Sheldon" oriented show. But that's clearly just my opinion.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #2735 of 2753 Old 08-02-2014, 08:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
filtor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 1,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Well there's about a dozen NCIS spinoffs - how about.. BBT - New York?
filtor is offline  
post #2736 of 2753 Old 08-03-2014, 01:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HDMe2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kittrell, NC
Posts: 5,185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Spinoffs... I want to make a few random points, but set the stage first.

There are backdoor pilot spinoffs where they introduce a new character (or group) with full intent to make a new series. To me, these are spinoffs in name only. Some work, some don't, based on the show's own merits... but really has only tangential connection to the original show. I am ignoring this type of spinoff for the remainder of this discussion because it doesn't apply to the Big Bang Theory discussion.

Shows that spinoff from other shows, featuring characters that either were primary/ensemble characters OR regularly recurring guest roles have a hit or miss record. There are successes like the Jeffersons or Fraiser... Fraiser is a truly rare exception where the spinoff of Cheers ran long enough to be considered its own show and not "just" a spinoff.

What stands about Fraiser... is it featured a character that was a big part of Cheers for years. So, if you watched Cheers you kind of thought you knew everything you cared to know about Fraiser... but they managed to successfully spin him into his own series and it was solid and really worked. That is hard to do.

So... with Big Bang... any main character or ensemble character you can name right now has been on the show multiple years... and I can't think of a single one of them that could carry a show. Note, I'm not talking about the actors here. Some actors have already proved they can be part of previous successful shows (Leonard and Penny haven't, but the actors who play them have)... but I'm talking about the specific characters here. I don't think any character is strong enough and has enough untold/unvisited potential to survive on a show without the rest of the cast. This isn't an insult to anyone involved... it's just that they have really developed and explored these characters over several years, and without each other to play off of, I don't know that any of them could stand alone at this point.

As for money and who "deserves" more. We really shouldn't even be involved or know this stuff. People where you work in your job don't all get paid the same for the same job title. Some get paid more, some less, and it isn't even always about who is "worth" more. This is why most companies have policies to discourage employees from talking about salaries... because if you find out your officemate makes more than you, then you start thinking "why don't I make more" and you are soured towards your job even if you otherwise feel good about things.

But athletes and actors and other public people we know what they make and know their negotiations for salary... none of us would want our salary negotiations played out in public.

Why does Dave think he deserves a raise for flipping burgers? Bob flips the same burgers as Dave and he didn't get a raise! Bob could easily flip the burgers on his own if Dave left, so screw Dave and his I-want-more-money-to-flip-burgers demands!

And so forth

Yeah baby!  It's Halloween!
HDMe2 is offline  
post #2737 of 2753 Old 08-03-2014, 02:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hooked01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Regarding spin offs (since I think I kind of started us down this tangent )

Any spin offs from BBT would have to be something totally unrelated to the nerdy vibe of BBT, as in the case of Frasier did not have him opening up another bar in Seattle.

As I mentioned earlier, perhaps Sheldon becoming the lead researcher of a project with younger scientists to torment and befuddle. Maybe he's grown a little to be a bit to be more independent or Amy is there to be his support system. But with the younger scientists, they're able to have other characters and personalities to develop so it's not just Sheldon and Amy all the time.

As someone else proposed, a show with Howard and Bernadette might be viable. I think H & B have enough backstory to explore to build a show around and Simon Helberg is talented enough to anchor the show. Perhaps they can introduce Howard's long lost father (he's not dead, right? I guess it doesn't really matter, they can write an excuse why he didn't die). But they should definitely kill off Mrs. Wolowitz. Maybe that is the impetus for Howard to change jobs.
hooked01 is offline  
post #2738 of 2753 Old 08-03-2014, 05:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kriktsemaj99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 5,950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 154
^ It's a bit early to be talking spinoffs, but I don't see Howard in one of them. He's just not a likeable character. He's an important part of the current show, but he's the guy you wince at. I don't think I want to watch a whole show about him.
kriktsemaj99 is offline  
post #2739 of 2753 Old 08-03-2014, 07:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hooked01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by kriktsemaj99 View Post
^ It's a bit early to be talking spinoffs, but I don't see Howard in one of them. He's just not a likeable character. He's an important part of the current show, but he's the guy you wince at. I don't think I want to watch a whole show about him.

This is just idle chatter to kill time over the summer. As far as the likeability of Howard, he is not as creepy as he was since he's married and not always on the prowl. I didn't like Frasier either while on Cheers, but once he gained his own show, he no longer had to be the pompous ass to play against the everyman Sam and the other bar patrons.
hooked01 is offline  
post #2740 of 2753 Old 08-04-2014, 08:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
blitzen102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooked01 View Post
Regarding spin offs (since I think I kind of started us down this tangent )

Any spin offs from BBT would have to be something totally unrelated to the nerdy vibe of BBT, as in the case of Frasier did not have him opening up another bar in Seattle.

As I mentioned earlier, perhaps Sheldon becoming the lead researcher of a project with younger scientists to torment and befuddle.
No way. Being Sheldon is getting old for Parsons.
blitzen102 is offline  
post #2741 of 2753 Old 08-04-2014, 08:44 AM
Senior Member
 
cgmv123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Parsons, Galecki and Cuoco got their $1 million/episode (plus some back end revenue). Helberg and Nayyar are reportedly close to deals as well.

http://tvline.com/2014/08/04/report-...million-deals/

Max Vrany
All opinions are my own unless otherwise specified.
I make no guarantees as to the accuracy of any information given.
GO Pack GO! On Wisconsin! Go Brewers!
cgmv123 is offline  
post #2742 of 2753 Old 08-04-2014, 10:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bpeacock22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 1,237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 36
bpeacock22 is offline  
post #2743 of 2753 Old 08-04-2014, 11:13 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
WilliamR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,957
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Good for them. Stunning its a million dollars for a 30 minute show. Stunning but they sure proved their worth with the ratings.

WilliamR is offline  
post #2744 of 2753 Old 08-04-2014, 11:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Charles R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 9,938
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamR View Post
Stunning its a million dollars for a 30 minute show.
If you consider inflation it's chump change compared to the million they got for Friends.
Charles R is offline  
post #2745 of 2753 Old 08-04-2014, 07:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post
If you consider inflation it's chump change compared to the million they got for Friends.
Yeah but I'm not sure that "Friends" got the back end points and production rights that these guys did. Overall a possible $100MM deal is "chump" nothing.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #2746 of 2753 Old 08-04-2014, 08:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Charles R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 9,938
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post
Yeah but I'm not sure that "Friends" got the back end points and production rights that these guys did.
Now, syndication isn’t guaranteed, but as we’ve seen above it can pay a pretty penny. The “Friends” cast was smart by investing in the possibility of syndication fairly early on. Before “Friends,” the only television stars who negotiated for syndication royalties were also owners of their shows (Bill Cosby and Jerry Seinfeld for example… you know, two Billionaires). The cast of “Friends” set a new precedent here; they diversified their paychecks to include salary, residuals AND syndication royalties. Because “Friends” is showing no sign of ever leaving the air, those turned out to be some pretty great moves.

http://blog.wallstreetsurvivor.com/2...ied-portfolio/
Charles R is offline  
post #2747 of 2753 Old 08-05-2014, 04:28 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
WilliamR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,957
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Why the Big Bang Theory Cast Deserves Even More Money Than They’re Getting
By Josef Adalian, Vulture.com - Aug. 4, 2013

A few weeks ago, when reporters asked CBS Entertainment chief Nina Tassler about ongoing salary negotiations with the cast of The Big Bang Theory, the exec smiled her best Alfred E. Neuman smile and made it clear she wasn’t sweating it. "These deals manage to get worked out somehow miraculously year after year,” she said. And that’s exactly what’s happened: After a brief work stoppage that saw the actors refusing to show up for rehearsal last week, the Hollywood trades are now reporting that Big Bang’s Big Three stars — Kaley Cuoco, Johnny Galecki, and Jim Parsons — have struck a massive, multi-year deal under which producer Warner Bros. TV will basically triple the actors’ respective salaries to “around” $1 million per episode. The studio will also give each actor a bigger ownership stake in the series (and thus a bigger share of profits from syndicated reruns), resulting in a payday Deadline estimates could ultimately be worth upwards of $100 million. While that’s certainly a whole lot of bazinga, there’s a solid case to be made that Warner Bros. and CBS are actually getting away cheap.

First, it’s worth noting that while today’s deal is being described as on par with the then-landmark $1 million per episode Warner Bros. agreed to pay the cast of Friends back in 2002, that’s only true if you have a time machine. Adjusted for inflation, the cool one mill the Big Bang cast is getting is worth only around $750,000 per episode in 2002 dollars. To match the payday earned by Ross, Rachel, et al., the Big Bang cast would’ve had to hold up Warners for just over $1.3 million in today’s currency. In fact, the Big Bang deal is actually closer in real dollars to what the Seinfeld sidekicks held out for in 1997. Back then, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Jason Alexander, and Michael Richards were able to negotiate a $600,00 per episode paycheck (Jerry Seinfeld was getting $1 million per ep for both acting and producing). Adjusted for inflation, that translates to nearly $900,000 per half-hour. We’re not suggesting a pity party for the Big Bang actors, but their new deal — at least in terms of salary — is nowhere close to being a record-breaker. This raises the question of whether the Big Bang actors should be making as much coin as their sitcom ancestors — or, put another way: Is The Big Bang Theory as valuable to CBS and Warner Bros. now as Seinfeld and Friends were in their time?

On the network side, Big Bang is arguably more important to the Eye than either Friends or Seinfeld were to NBC. Sure, in a world without DVRs and reduced cable competition, the latter two comedies reached many more same-day viewers (as many as 30 million at their peaks) than Big Bang (20 million on a good night). But the sitcom economy (and network TV in general) was also far healthier in the 1990s and early aughts than it is now. As vitally important as Seinfeld and Friends were to NBC during their runs, the Peacock had other big comedy hits on its schedule when it was negotiating new deals for those shows. During the final Seinfeld negotiation back in 1997, for example, Friends and Frasier were drawing big ratings of their own. NBC was in a more precarious place when it signed the Friends to $1 million per episode in 2002, but even then, it still had other big comedy anchors: Will & Grace, a fading Frasier, the solidly performing Just Shoot Me!

By contrast, the list of huge comedy hits on CBS — and all of network TV— begins and ends with The Big Bang Theory. The network said good-bye to How I Met Your Mother earlier this year, while Two and a Half Men is well past its glory days and is about to begin its final season. The Eye’s attempt to expand to four comedies on Thursdays last fall was a bust (though the network is giving The Millers another try), while its storied Monday comedy block fell so far last season, it’s being reduced to just an hour for the first time in decades (not even Melissa McCarthy has been able to turn Mike & Molly into a big hit). Fact is, no comedy on CBS (or any network, for that matter) comes close to generating the sort of ratings Big Bang pulls. Last season, including DVR data, the Chuck Lorre–Bill Prady show averaged just under 21 million viewers. The No. 2 comedy on TV, Modern Family? It had half the audience (11.8 million). Compare that to the situation in 2002, when the Friends cast made their blockbuster deal: The Central Perk crew were TV’s No. 1 comedy, but the No. 2 sitcom, CBS’s Everybody Loves Raymond, was averaging just a couple million fewer viewers each week. While CBS has a number of big drama hits on its roster and would still have had plenty of ways to make money had its comedy jewel gone away, Big Bang is its comedy everything. It’s the one show that can guarantee any comedy the network puts behind it (even The Millers) at least gets sampled by viewers in an era when many comedies never even get noticed (RIP, Enlisted and Trophy Wife).

The question of relative worth is thornier when it comes to producer Warner Bros. TV. At this point, every episode of Big Bang represents pure profit to the studio, since CBS is almost certainly covering the full cost of production on the show, even after the actors’ salary hikes. What’s more, syndication rights to the show generate at least $2 million per half-hour, piling on even more profit for Warners. The studio also makes money from DVD and iTunes downloads. But there’s a case to be made that Big Bang’s biggest paydays are yet to come. One day in the future, for example, a streaming service such as Netflix will undoubtedly back up a Brinks truck for online rights to the show. And shorter term, when the cable rights for Big Bang come up for renewal in the next few years, it wouldn’t be shocking if Warners were able to negotiate an even bigger price tag for the show than its last sale. After all, reruns of the comedy have been transformative for TBS, often helping the cable network beat broadcast competition among viewers under 35. And the lack of big new comedy hits on the broadcast networks in recent years only makes Big Bang reruns more valuable. All of this means that if Big Bang had gone bye-bye, Warner Bros. would have been walking away from hundreds of millions in syndication money from the loss of what will now be 72 additional episodes. The tens of millions in extra salary now being funneled to the Big Bang cast seems a relative pittance when compared to what’s expected to end up being billions in profit for the show. That was true for the final seasons of Friends, of course, which is why it’s tougher to say if Big Bang is a bigger deal to Warners than Friends was. But it’s hard not to say that both shows are at least equally important in value.

In the end, of course, every salary negotiation is its own unique animal. Whether Big Bang is more or less “valuable” than earlier sitcoms isn’t what ultimately decided the final cost of the cast’s new deal. At the time, Jennifer Aniston was seen as a bigger potential movie star than any of the Big Bang crew is today, something which gave her — and, by extension, her Friends friends — more leverage than their present-day peers. And while the Big Bang actors may be getting a smaller per episode salary in terms of real, 2014 dollars, what’s not known is exactly how much they’ll make from their increased ownership in the series. The Seinfeld sidekicks are not believed to have gotten any back-end profit participation (though Seinfeld himself, as a creator, did). The Friends gang did get a stake, but the exact amount wasn’t widely known at the time and could well have been smaller than what the Big Bang actors will get. In any event, all of the actors on Big Bang had high-profile agents and lawyers looking after them, meaning it’s unlikely that much money was left on the table. Likewise, even though they’ll be handing out much bigger paychecks this fall, Warner Bros. and CBS will still end up making an absurd amount of money off of a half-hour comedy about some lovable nerds. Bang!

http://www.vulture.com/2014/08/big-b...ore-money.html

WilliamR is offline  
post #2748 of 2753 Old 08-05-2014, 11:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Yeah, what he said, lol.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #2749 of 2753 Old 08-05-2014, 03:33 PM
Senior Member
 
cgmv123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Helberg and Nayyar's deals are now done. Everyone's now signed on for the new season.

http://tvline.com/2014/08/05/the-big...-kunal-nayyar/

Max Vrany
All opinions are my own unless otherwise specified.
I make no guarantees as to the accuracy of any information given.
GO Pack GO! On Wisconsin! Go Brewers!
cgmv123 is offline  
post #2750 of 2753 Old 08-06-2014, 07:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NickTheGreat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 1,639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 81
It'll be interesting to see what their numbers are
NickTheGreat is offline  
post #2751 of 2753 Old 08-06-2014, 08:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 6,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Supposedly they are close to the big three. Personally I think that is to much especially for Raj, who should have been dumped. I guess the studio doesn't want to rock the boat.

My new favorite game is Save The Titanic

Ericglo is offline  
post #2752 of 2753 Old 08-06-2014, 10:35 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
WilliamR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,957
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post
Supposedly they are close to the big three. Personally I think that is to much especially for Raj, who should have been dumped. I guess the studio doesn't want to rock the boat.
Actually I just read their numbers are expected to be nowhere close to the 3 other's million dollar pay day.

WilliamR is offline  
post #2753 of 2753 Old 08-06-2014, 12:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post
Supposedly they are close to the big three. Personally I think that is to much especially for Raj, who should have been dumped. I guess the studio doesn't want to rock the boat.
Couldn't disagree more about Raj. Yeah his storyline needs better development but he has had some very good moments to shine as well as Howard. And last I read these two weren't even asking for $400k.
mike1812 likes this.
Closet Geek is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

Tags
The Big Bang Theory The Complete Fifth Season

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off