# Modern Family cast members suing to void contracts



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

http://news.yahoo.com/cast-modern-family-sues-over-contract-193243339.html

Wait. You're suing to get out of contracts YOU signed? Why not sue your agents?


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

That should be it for the show's glory days. Contempt and resentment do not make a positive work environment. These people are unbelievable. Many many people can not support their families in this country, and these actors are making gobs of money. Yeah, let's sue the people who enable us to ride in limousines and such. That's the ticket.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

The "people" who allowed them to ride in limousines are going to be rolling in the dough since the show was just sold to syndication.

It is ridiculous to be sure considering this is the kind of money ordinary people will never see - 
but they're just trying to get an equitable piece of the pie.


----------



## plateau10 (Dec 11, 2007)

And this is why networks love reality TV. Put a dozen or so people on and let them fight each other for half of what these actors make per episode. 

Edit: I didn't realize how little they were being paid right now. The above statement was based on the last few seasons of Friends. I think they need to cough up the dough for these actors, actually.


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

jilter said:


> That should be it for the show's glory days. Contempt and resentment do not make a positive work environment. These people are unbelievable. Many many people can not support their families in this country, and these actoes are making gobs of money. Yeah, let's sue the people who enable us to ride in limousines and such. That's the ticket.


You do realize their bosses are making even larger gobs of money? Why aren't they held to the same level of greed? These actors just want to be paid what stars of a HIT show typically get going forward. Nothing wrong with it.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

"The suit filed Tuesday ... argues that their contracts with 20th Century Fox Television violate a California law prohibiting personal service contracts from extending for more than seven years."

Hasn't this argument been tried before and failed? Seven-year contracts for a new TV show are the industry standard (and if the show becomes a hit, typically there are renegotiations all around... it's just that in this instance, the renegotiations reached an impasse). 

I would have thought the question of the legality of the seven year contract would have been definitively resolved by now, since it's been in use for so long.


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

NatasNJ said:


> You do realize their bosses are making even larger gobs of money? Why aren't they held to the same level of greed? These actors just want to be paid what stars of a HIT show typically get going forward. Nothing wrong with it.


They were not forced to sign the contract in the first place. They chose to. If they didn't like the offer then, they should not have signed it.


----------



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

plateau10 said:


> And this is why networks love reality TV. Put a dozen or so people on and let them fight each other for half of what these actors make per episode.
> 
> Edit: I didn't realize how little they were being paid right now. The above statement was based on the last few seasons of Friends. I think they need to cough up the dough for these actors, actually.


How little are they paid? From what I recently read, Sofia Vergara was one of the wealthiest women on TV Today.


----------



## plateau10 (Dec 11, 2007)

BradJW said:


> How little are they paid? From what I recently read, Sofia Vergara was one of the wealthiest women on TV Today.


She is, but she does a lot of other stuff.

The article I read said this:



> The actors were offered $150,000 per episode and a $50,000 bonus per episode for the upcoming fourth season, and $200,000 for the fifth season, a person familiar with the negotiations told TheWrap.com, but those figures could not be confirmed.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

And those numbers represent a _raise_. That's peanuts for a hit show. The leads on _Friends_ were pulling in a million per episode by the end, IIRC.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

It's hard to feel sympathy for any of them, actors or the show creators. 

I saw one article that said they were offered pay raises that would bump them from 65,000 an episode to 150,000 an episode. For a 22 episode season that is a jump from 1.43 million a year to 3.3 million a year. 

Obviously I don't know the other terms of the contracts but that seems like a nice bump to me.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

busyba said:


> And those numbers represent a _raise_. That's peanuts for a hit show. The leads on _Friends_ were pulling in a million per episode by the end, IIRC.


This show is not the juggernaut Friends was.

Even the main three actors of the Big Bang Theory only make about $200,000 per episode and it a higher rated show.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Maui said:


> but that seems like a nice bump to me.


In a vacuum devoid of context, yes, it is.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Maui said:


> This show is not the juggernaut Friends was.


I'm not saying they should get _Friends_ money, I'm just providing some context.



> Even the main three actors of the Big Bang Theory only make about $200,000 per episode and it a higher rated show.


That's it? They need better agents. 

Seriously though... BBT is being syndicated all over the place right now. They must be getting a serious piece of that, one way or the other.


----------



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

plateau10 said:


> She is, but she does a lot of other stuff.
> 
> The article I read said this:


4.4 million for a season? 
They may deserve more (based on other shows) but 4.4 million for 22 episodes is not that shabby.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Anybody who is calling them greedy would probably be doing the same thing they're doing if the shoe was on the other foot.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

My problem is while I like the show, aside from Sofia Vergara and Ty Burrell, the others are totally expendable. 

Julie Bowen can argue she should make more because of all the money she saves them in not using the food services.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

fmowry said:


> Julie Bowen can argue she should make more because of all the money she saves them in not using the food services.


_HEY-OOOO!_


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> Anybody who is calling them greedy would probably be doing the same thing they're doing if the shoe was on the other foot.


Did Sofia Vergara give money back for "Knights of Prosperity" or "Dirty Sexy Money"?

I wonder how much the writers are getting?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

fmowry said:


> Did Sofia Vergara give money back for "Knights of Prosperity" or "Dirty Sexy Money"?


And that's the reason why the initial contracts are for the industry minimum, and then renegotiated if the show becomes a hit.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

But why sign a 7 year contract? I am all for people getting what they are worth. Sign a 2 year deal, then negotiate on years 3+.

And a lawsuit isn't much of a negotiation. 

Ed O'Neill was making $100k an episode per his own negotiation. Now he is joining the suit in solidarity with his castmates.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

Whether it's $50,000 or $5,000,000 I can't hate on anyone asking for what they are worth relative to the revenue they generate.

Sure it's a lot of money for us, but for actors on the most critically acclaimed comedy on TV right now, that's peanuts.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

fmowry said:


> But why sign a 7 year contract? I am all for people getting what they are worth. Sign a 2 year deal, then negotiate on years 3+.
> 
> And a lawsuit isn't much of a negotiation.
> 
> Ed O'Neill was making $100k an episode per his own negotiation. Now he is joining the suit in solidarity with his castmates.


if you're an unknown in Hollywood, as most of them were, you don't have any leverage.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

fmowry said:


> But why sign a 7 year contract? I am all for people getting what they are worth. Sign a 2 year deal, then negotiate on years 3+.


That seems to be the industry standard. And when it comes to the initial contract for a new show, unless you're an established name actor, the producers hold all the cards in the negotiations.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> if you're an unknown in Hollywood, as most of them were, you don't have any leverage.


Julie Bowen, Ed O'Neill, Sofia Vergara = unknowns before MF? I don't think so...


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> Julie Bowen, Ed O'Neill, Sofia Vergara = unknowns before MF? I don't think so...


learn. to. read.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> learn. to. read.


Learn to punctuate properly....

They were famous before MF...perhaps they don't represent "most" of the cast, but certainly other cast members were not "unknown". Famous? No. Unknown...no.


----------



## wedgecon (Dec 28, 2002)

Well according to the article the contract they signed was for seven years 4 months. 

So if the industry standard is 7 years, is 7 years 4 months longer than the standard?

It seems to me that the industry standard is indeed 7 years because that is the max under CA law?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

wedgecon said:


> Well according to the article the contract they signed was for seven years 4 months.
> 
> So if the industry standard is 7 years, is 7 years 4 months longer than the standard?
> 
> It seems to me that the industry standard is indeed 7 years because that is the max under CA law?


That's interesting. I guess they have a case then.

7 years 4 months is a really odd term for a contract. I wonder if that was because the show premiered as a mid-season replacement.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

busyba said:


> That's interesting. I guess they have a case then.
> 
> 7 years 4 months is a really odd term for a contract. I wonder if that was because the show premiered as a mid-season replacement.


Perhaps this is how there agents set them up, so to leave open the window for the suing.

Concerning the actors being relatively unknown, I will say that while Julie Bowen and Sofia Vergara were known to me, I would not put them in the same category as Ed O'Neil, who is much more known to TV audiences as Ed Bundy.

Note that the producers felt the same as he got paid more than his ensemble partners.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Shaunnick said:


> Perhaps this is how there agents set them up, so to leave open the window for the suing.


Then the studio has a pretty good malpractice claim against their own lawyers.


----------



## Doggie Bear (Jan 16, 2008)

Shaunnick said:


> I would not put them in the same category as Ed O'Neil, who is much more known to TV audiences as Ed Bundy.


*Al* Bundy!! (who once scored four touchdowns in a high school football game)


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

Doggie Bear said:


> *Al* Bundy!! (who once scored four touchdowns in a high school football game)


/smacks head

Of course, who could forget, "Alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!"


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

Can't they just kill off the little Asian kid and split her salary?

I wonder when the kids will hold out? After the adults get paid?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

If the show had been a dud, would they have returned the money that they were paid for those episodes to the people who put up the investment money and lost it on a dud?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

eddyj said:


> If the show had been a dud, would they have returned the money that they were paid for those episodes to the people who put up the investment money and lost it on a dud?


Potential dud-ness is why the standard contracted salaries are so low-end in the first place. Renegotiating the contracts after a show becomes an established hit is standard practice in the industry.

The only reason it's a lawsuit now is because A) negotiations broke down, and 2) the producers apparently screwed up and provided a legal out by making the contract terms over 7 years, which is illegal for such contracts in CA.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

busyba said:


> And that's the reason why the initial contracts are for the industry minimum, and then renegotiated if the show becomes a hit.


This is how Hollywood TV works. And when it is a hit, it often becomes nasty. Remember BBT a few years back, when they threatened to walk away? And I even vaguely recall LOST going thru something similar.

The only reason this wasn't a slam-dunk renegotiation is the size of the cast. One or two stars, they'd throw a few hundred K at them and be done with it. Here they have six adults, so the studio is putting a little more effort into it.

They *will *make a deal; both sides need each other. A little posturing, a few statements that will be regretted later on, and we'll be back in business. Actors making money, studios making money, audience laughing and advertisers wondering if their money really buys anything--it's what makes Hollywood great!


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

eddyj said:


> If the show had been a dud, would they have returned the money that they were paid for those episodes to the people who put up the investment money and lost it on a dud?


The "people who put up the money" was a production studio, who wastes countless dollars each year during pilot season on many shows that never even make it to air much less ones that do air but don't draw ratings. So essentially, the studio takes into consideration that most shows never make it to air when signing the actors to these initial contacts, which is why the initial contracts are so low. This show had made money hand over first for ABC since it aired. It's the highest-rated scripted show that ABC has, and it's the highest rated show ABC has in the coveted 18-49 demo (4th overall amongst all shows), which means that ABC can charge really high ad rates for it.

As astrohip said, this is pretty much par for the course and is going to be over very soon.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

But why couldn't you have low salaries to start, but have higher ones later (if you get to later, it is because the show is doing well). Or have a clause that if the show does well, there are automatic salary bumps or something? Seems like if you sign for 7 years, you should stand by that. Otherwise why bother with having 7 year contracts in the first place, if you are just going to ignore them? I don't get Hollywood.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

busyba said:


> That's interesting. I guess they have a case then.
> 
> 7 years 4 months is a really odd term for a contract. I wonder if that was because the show premiered as a mid-season replacement.


It didn't. It premiered in September of 2009.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

DreadPirateRob said:


> The "people who put up the money" was a production studio, who wastes countless dollars each year during pilot season on many shows that never even make it to air much less ones that do air but don't draw ratings. So essentially, the studio takes into consideration that most shows never make it to air when signing the actors to these initial contacts, which is why the initial contracts are so low. This show had made money hand over first for ABC since it aired. It's the highest-rated scripted show that ABC has, and it's the highest rated show ABC has in the coveted 18-49 demo (4th overall amongst all shows), which means that ABC can charge really high ad rates for it.
> 
> As astrohip said, this is pretty much par for the course and is going to be over very soon.


It's not so much about whether it's the number 1, 2, 3 or whatever show 18-49. It's about what the actual ratings are. The ratings for the number 1 show in 18-49 in 2012 aren't nearly as high as they were for the number 1 show in 18-49 in 1998 when Friends was on the air. Viewership industry-wide is lower, because there are more alternatives now, and people watch the show in ways that don't count toward the ratings (like, on DVRs).

The network makes money based on how many people are watching. You count eyeballs. The comparisons to everything else on the air are secondary. Number 1 ain't what it used to be.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

aindik said:


> It's not so much about whether it's the number 1, 2, 3 or whatever show 18-49. It's about what the actual ratings are. The ratings for the number 1 show in 18-49 in 2012 aren't nearly as high as they were for the number 1 show in 18-49 in 1998 when Friends was on the air. Viewership industry-wide is lower, because there are more alternatives now, and people watch the show in ways that don't count toward the ratings (like, on DVRs).
> 
> The network makes money based on how many people are watching. You count eyeballs. The comparisons to everything else on the air are secondary. Number 1 ain't what it used to be.


Certainly. And I doubt that the cast is looking for _Friends_-type money, because that's no longer available.

_But_, they do have leverage with the studio/network because it's by far the biggest scripted show on ABC and gets all sorts of awards and nominations that gives the network buzz, and aside from Lily, none of the cast is easily replaceable _especially_ when they are negotiating together.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

eddyj said:


> But why couldn't you have low salaries to start, but have higher ones later (if you get to later, it is because the show is doing well). Or have a clause that if the show does well, there are automatic salary bumps or something? Seems like if you sign for 7 years, you should stand by that. Otherwise why bother with having 7 year contracts in the first place, if you are just going to ignore them? I don't get Hollywood.


You want fairness in a contract when one side has all the negotiating power and can just replace the other without batting an eye? Pollyanna.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

aindik said:


> It didn't. It premiered in September of 2009.


Ok. Then I'm baffled.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I wonder if the court will void a 7.5 year contract, or will simply "blue pencil" it to make it like it said 7 years.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

plateau10 said:


> And this is why networks love reality TV. Put a dozen or so people on and let them fight each other for half of what these actors make per episode.


Yeah, while some shows give out $100K or more, "Love in the Wild"'s prize is a "trip around the world". Sure, it looked like it was multi thousands of dollars (stops in like 6 cities all around the world), still very very cheap, and resulted in IIRC 8 hours of TV.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

How long has 7 years been the standard? I sure thought it was 3-5, but this is just based on stuff I read long ago (i.e. probably wrong). I hope I'm not conflating it with the "standard" 3 picture deal for movies.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

plateau10 said:


> She is, but she does a lot of other stuff.
> 
> The article I read said this:


$200K an episode?
Those are some very good salaries for an ensemble TV show especially in this day and age. And remember it's only a half hour show. Either way they signed the long term contract. Unless someone held a gun their head they have no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

eddyj said:


> But why couldn't you have low salaries to start, but have higher ones later (if you get to later, it is because the show is doing well). Or have a clause that if the show does well, there are automatic salary bumps or something? Seems like if you sign for 7 years, you should stand by that. Otherwise why bother with having 7 year contracts in the first place, if you are just going to ignore them? I don't get Hollywood.


They had a 4% salary bump per year in the contract (Vergara had %5 I think).

Aside from Vergara, I think any of them could be easily replaced without affecting ratings. Fortunately for the other 5, Vergara and O'Neill are showing solidarity and negotiating with them. They'd probably get more if they went in solo.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

This show has peaked for me. It used to be I would watch the show right after it was done recording. With this last season, I think a couple got recorded over bc I just never got around to watching it.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Either way they signed the long term contract. Unless someone held a gun their head they have no one to blame but themselves.


I'm not sure if you read many of the above posts. Signing a long term contract at a relatively modest salary is SOP for non-stars on a new sitcom. If the show becomes a hit, it is also SOP that your contract will be renegotiated. SOP. It always happens. And neither side thinks twice. Nobody pulls out the "you signed a contract" whine; that's not how Hollywood-TV works.

The only reason this didn't get resolved behind the scenes, and fairly quickly, is it's an ensemble show. With six actors to pay-bump, and not the usual 1 or 2 or even 3, the studios will take a slightly firmer stance in the early stages, trying to squeeze a few bucks out. But it won't matter--the actors WILL get their money, maybe not the exact amount they want, but they will get a substantial raise. And no one will remember this in three months.

I'm not saying this "contract don't mean shyte" policy is good or bad. I'm just saying this is SOP for this industry. Trying to understand it using real world norms just makes your head hurt.



fmowry said:


> Aside from Vergara, I think any of them could be easily replaced without affecting ratings. Fortunately for the other 5, Vergara and O'Neill are showing solidarity and negotiating with them. They'd probably get more if they went in solo.


Disagree. This is an incredibly popular ensemble show. Changing any of them would be disruptive. Changing several of them would kill the show. Dead. Dead. Dead.

And going solo removes the threat of a mass defection.That's the fear that will make the studio pony up.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

If I signed a contract I would honor it. Of course if I became huge, we would ask the studio to give me a bump. It sounds like the studio offered them more than was in their contract and that was still not enough for them.

Hard not to side with the studio in this case IMO.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Disagree. This is an incredibly popular ensemble show. Changing any of them would be disruptive. Changing several of them would kill the show. Dead. Dead. Dead.
> 
> And going solo removes the threat of a mass defection.That's the fear that will make the studio pony up.


I don't think they need the gay guys at all. Way over the top at this point. And I love Phil, but his wife? Could be played by anyone. The show wasn't nearly as funny this past year.

I guess it's the reason the writers aren't asking for more money. They didn't do their jobs last year.

If anything, the kids (aside from Lily) stole the show.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

This is standard practice in the tv world. The studio signed a syndication deal. In order to reach the proper number of episodes, they need to make probably two more seasons. That means the Studio needs the actors. The actors now have leverage to ask for more money. When a show first starts, the actors are hired for less money. Everyone is taking a chance, hoping the show hits. When a show hits, the studio makes a huge profit. They should be compensating the actors who helped make it a hit, and who have been paid less up to this point.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

fmowry said:


> Aside from Vergara, I think any of them could be easily replaced without affecting ratings.


I disagree completely. The show isn't nearly as good as it was its first season, but it's still a ratings hit by today's standards and by now the characters are well established. You couldn't just swap out Ty Burrell for anyone else, either as a new "Phil" or as a new character, and expect people not to notice. This isn't the 1960s and this isn't_ I Dream of Jeannie_.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> I disagree completely. The show isn't nearly as good as it was its first season, but it's still a ratings hit by today's standards and by now the characters are well established. You couldn't just swap out Ty Burrell for anyone else, either as a new "Phil" or as a new character, and expect people not to notice. This isn't the 1960s and this isn't_ I Dream of Jeannie_.


Agreed. While it hit a sophomore slump, it still garnered 14 (14!) Emmy nominations.


----------



## TheMerk (Feb 26, 2001)

busyba said:


> That's interesting. I guess they have a case then.
> 
> 7 years 4 months is a really odd term for a contract. I wonder if that was because the show premiered as a mid-season replacement.


7 * 12 = 84

84 + 4 = 88

_I guess_ I can see someone thinking 88 months was a nice round number and making a contract around that.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

TheMerk said:


> 7 * 12 = 84
> 
> 84 + 4 = 88
> 
> _I guess_ I can see someone thinking 88 months was a nice round number and making a contract around that.


I thought the studio heads and agents and lawyers were all jews. No way they pick that number.  

(look it up )


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

billypritchard said:


> This is standard practice in the tv world. The studio signed a syndication deal. In order to reach the proper number of episodes, they need to make probably two more seasons. That means the Studio needs the actors. The actors now have leverage to ask for more money. When a show first starts, the actors are hired for less money. Everyone is taking a chance, hoping the show hits. When a show hits, the studio makes a huge profit. They should be compensating the actors who helped make it a hit, and who have been paid less up to this point.


This, exactly.

Maybe people don't know this, but TV show contracts are entered into before even the pilot is fully cast. Basically, when the producers have narrowed down to a few final actors for a role, *each* of those actors is signed to a contract, and then the studio has final approval on who is going to be cast in the role. That contract - which again, is entered into _before even the pilot is even filmed_, much less before it is picked up for series and then becomes a hit - determines what the actor will be paid for the pilot, and if it makes it to series, what the actor will be paid for the next 5-7 years. If the actor balks at the contract he/she is presented with, the studio will in all likelihood just move on to the next candidate (unless they are a big name). Obviously, if an actor is not approved by the studio, their contract is torn up and they aren't paid anything.

Actors are only paid for the number of episodes that are produced, so if the show doesn't make it to series or if the show gets cancelled early on, it's not like the studio is going to keep paying them. And while the studio *may* come back and offer them more money once the show is a hit, they may also try and get away with not doing so. That is why these renegotiations are entirely commonplace and standard operating procedure.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

astrohip said:


> I'm not sure if you read many of the above posts. Signing a long term contract at a relatively modest salary is SOP for non-stars on a new sitcom. If the show becomes a hit, it is also SOP that your contract will be renegotiated. SOP. It always happens. And neither side thinks twice. Nobody pulls out the "you signed a contract" whine; that's not how Hollywood-TV works.
> 
> The only reason this didn't get resolved behind the scenes, and fairly quickly, is it's an ensemble show. With six actors to pay-bump, and not the usual 1 or 2 or even 3, the studios will take a slightly firmer stance in the early stages, trying to squeeze a few bucks out. But it won't matter--the actors WILL get their money, maybe not the exact amount they want, but they will get a substantial raise. And no one will remember this in three months.
> 
> ...


Isn't a 5 year contract the norm for those situation?. Not 7 years.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I find reading this thread weird. Pretty much everyone who gets a pilot gig signs a seven year deal that is one sided.

It is normal for casts of shows to renegotiate those deals if the show is successful. If it is the number one scripted show on tv then that is guaranteed. This is how tv has worked forever.

The only weird thing is 20th Century Fox pushed the negotiations to the point of forcing a lawsuit. People saying they are making enough are being crazy. It is all relative. Modern Family will generate 1 billion plus dollars in profit for those running it. For the actors collectively to want to see 10% of that over the life of the show is not crazy at all. Now more than ever the shows need their cast, especially an ensemble show. Without the cast there is no billion dollars. Again though this is how tv has worked forever.

They are forced to sign deals that suck when the production companies and networks have all the leverage. If the show becomes a hit the leverage shifts and they force a renegotiation.

It always gets resolved because their is a massive pie to be shared. I suspect Modern Family will have similar success to Big Bang Theory in syndication and because of Big Bang Theory's success they are going to make ridiculous deals.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Frylock said:


> They were not forced to sign the contract in the first place. They chose to. If they didn't like the offer then, they should not have signed it.


Yeah that is not how tv works. Unless you are a massive star coming in to the show you take the contract offered or you get replaced by someone else.

As I mentioned these are contracts signed when you just make a pilot. You have the option to take it or not be a tv actor. There is no negotiation going on 99% of the time. In this case Ed O'Neil was the only cast member with the ability to negotiate any terms.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

aindik said:


> It's not so much about whether it's the number 1, 2, 3 or whatever show 18-49. It's about what the actual ratings are. The ratings for the number 1 show in 18-49 in 2012 aren't nearly as high as they were for the number 1 show in 18-49 in 1998 when Friends was on the air. Viewership industry-wide is lower, because there are more alternatives now, and people watch the show in ways that don't count toward the ratings (like, on DVRs).
> 
> The network makes money based on how many people are watching. You count eyeballs. The comparisons to everything else on the air are secondary. Number 1 ain't what it used to be.


Yet advertisers pay more for commercials now.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

eddyj said:


> But why couldn't you have low salaries to start, but have higher ones later (if you get to later, it is because the show is doing well). Or have a clause that if the show does well, there are automatic salary bumps or something? Seems like if you sign for 7 years, you should stand by that. Otherwise why bother with having 7 year contracts in the first place, if you are just going to ignore them? I don't get Hollywood.


The whole purpose of the 7-year deals when casting a pilot is to lock up the talent in the event the show gets picked up and stays on the air. It's much easier to negotiate salary down the road if the actor is already committed to the show for the long term. Nobody expects that the salaries called for in the initial contract will remain as written. It's simply too difficult to draft an agreement that takes into consideration all the potential variables in how well the show could perform, how many people could be watching, the demographics of the viewers, the money received from advertisers, and therefore what the cast should be paid. Instead, everyone signs these deals knowing that for 99% of them, they won't last past the first year, and that for the lucky 1% that lasts longer and eventually becomes a hit, they'll renegotiate.


aindik said:


> It's not so much about whether it's the number 1, 2, 3 or whatever show 18-49. It's about what the actual ratings are. The ratings for the number 1 show in 18-49 in 2012 aren't nearly as high as they were for the number 1 show in 18-49 in 1998 when Friends was on the air. Viewership industry-wide is lower, because there are more alternatives now, and people watch the show in ways that don't count toward the ratings (like, on DVRs).
> 
> The network makes money based on how many people are watching. You count eyeballs. The comparisons to everything else on the air are secondary. Number 1 ain't what it used to be.


Another factor to consider is that syndication deals aren't paying nearly what they used to pay, either. So while MF was recently sold into syndication, and there will be tons of money flowing from this show for a long time, it's not likely to ever reach the kind of money that Friends or Seinfeld made in their heyday of syndication.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

"The lawsuit asks a judge to rule the contracts are illegal and should be voided because they prohibit the actors from other work. "

that's just wrong 
why would they sign something like that ? (yeah, I guess they don't really have choice if they want to work)
I hope the judge voids the contract 
they should certainly be allowed to do movies or mini series or guest star on other shows during the off season


----------



## 2004raptor (Dec 31, 2005)

Ok, im probably smeeking but I haven't read the thread. Also, I've never watched the show but have considered getting the DVD series and starting to watch since I've heard good things.

Anyway, what if the shows ratings started to drop? Not enough to be cancelled but enough to affect revenue. Would it be OK for the Studio to rip up the contract and lower their pay? 
The studio is the one that gambles on shows in the beginning. Sometimes they lose money, sometimes they make money. If the actors don't like it then they need to not sign contracts and just get a regular 9-5 job like a "normal" person.

I jut don't feel sorry for millionaires.


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

Ed O'Neill Officially Joins 'Modern Family' Cast Lawsuit

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/ed-oneill-modern-family-cast-lawsuit-355042



> In an amended complaint filed Thursday, the patriarch of the hit ABC series alleges his deal should be declared "illegal" because it violates California's prohibition on personal services contracts that last longer than seven years.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

2004raptor said:


> Ok, im probably smeeking but I haven't read the thread. Also, I've never watched the show but have considered getting the DVD series and starting to watch since I've heard good things.
> 
> Anyway, what if the shows ratings started to drop? Not enough to be cancelled but enough to affect revenue. Would it be OK for the Studio to rip up the contract and lower their pay?
> The studio is the one that gambles on shows in the beginning. Sometimes they lose money, sometimes they make money. If the actors don't like it then they need to not sign contracts and just get a regular 9-5 job like a "normal" person.
> ...


But you seem to be very sympathetic towards their billionaire bosses.


----------



## 2004raptor (Dec 31, 2005)

busyba said:


> But you seem to be very sympathetic towards their billionaire bosses.


Not at all. As I said, I'm sure every show they try to launch isn't a success so they are successful but that comes at a price.

And they are the ones that put their neck on the lines. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me in the least. It just seems odd that the actors have agents that help them line up the best deal but then then complain after the fact.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

2004raptor said:


> Not at all. As I said, I'm sure every show they try to launch isn't a success so they are successful but that comes at a price.
> 
> And they are the ones that put their neck on the lines. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me in the least. It just seems odd that the actors have agents that help them line up the best deal but then then complain after the fact.


Go back and read the thread. This is all SOP for this particular industry.


----------



## 2004raptor (Dec 31, 2005)

busyba said:


> Go back and read the thread. This is all SOP for this particular industry.


Not likely to change my opinion. But if it's SOP to bring up a lawsuit then there's really no point in this thread.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

2004raptor said:


> Not likely to change my opinion. But if it's SOP to bring up a lawsuit then there's really no point in this thread.


The renegotiating 7-year contracts after 2 or 3 years thing is SOP.

The lawsuit is a little more outside the norm, but apparently is a result of 1) the negotiations breaking down, and b) the contracts in this particular case appearing to be structured in a way that is actually in violation of CA law.


----------



## Waldorf (Oct 4, 2002)

busyba said:


> The renegotiating 7-year contracts after 2 or 3 years thing is SOP.
> 
> The lawsuit is a little more outside the norm, but apparently is a result of 1) the negotiations breaking down, and b) the contracts in this particular case appearing to be structured in a way that is actually in violation of CA law.


1) and b) makes me miss Paul Reiser and Mad About You.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Here's a good discussion from someone who is familiar with the process explaining why he thinks ABC/20th should pay up.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bastard-machine/abc-modern-family-salary-lawsuit-355352


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Does ABC actually produce this show or another company? Would the negotiations be with the company that produces the show?


EDIT: I see 20th Century Fox is the company they are suing, not ABC.

I didn't realize Christopher Lloyd is one of the creators and Showrunners for Modern Family. Or is that a different Christopher Lloyd ?



Sent from my HTC ReZound using Forum Runner


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Does ABC actually produce this show or another company? Would the negotiations be with the company that produces the show?
> 
> EDIT: I see 20th Century Fox is the company they are suing, not ABC.
> 
> ...


It's not the Christopher Lloyd that was Doc Brown in Back to the Future.

It's the Christopher Lloyd that is a long-time TV writer and producer.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

whitson77 said:


> Hard not to side with the studio in this case IMO.


its actually very easy not to side with the studio

this kind of stuff happens in sports all the time

athlete signs low paying 4 contract with team

athlete becomes superstar mid-way through 2nd year

its pretty obvious to all the fans and sportswriters that "superstar athlete" is one of the primary reasons the team made the playoffs

team makes millions more than it would have otherwise from TV and merchandise

team offers "superstar athlete" minimal raise

"superstar athlete" sues to renegotiate contract

that's pretty much the case here

studio should lose


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Ken Levine chimes in...

http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-modern-family-cast-holdout.html


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

jamesl said:


> its actually very easy not to side with the studio
> 
> this kind of stuff happens in sports all the time
> 
> ...


Athletes don't sue to renegotiate their contract. They may try and hold out. And this argument is awful. What id the well-paid athlete gets hurt, or plays awful. Should the team get to pay him less because he is bringing in less money? The athletes sure say no. This one-way deal never made sense. You sign a contract. With it you get certain guarantees. If you don't like it, don't sign it.Athletes could always sign 1 year deals. But that's a risk for them that they don't want to take.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

The cast didn't file a lawsuit to have their contracts voided, they filed the lawsuit to get leverage. This will be finalized shortly and everybody will go back to making television shows.


Other than "The Dukes of Hazard" does anyone else remember a time when shows were filmed without the key actors before it got resolved? The Dukes never really recovered from that mess.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Ken Levine chimes in...
> 
> http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-modern-family-cast-holdout.html


I love this quote from his blog:



> And something else you should know: Studios are making horrible deals these days. Why? Because they can. If an actor doesnt agree with the studio's offer for the pilot, there are fifty others who will. Same for writers deals. The money is way less than even ten years ago. It used to be your agent could negotiate with the studio. Today the studio says these are the terms and you have until 5:00 to agree to them, or we move on. There are enough out-of-work writers that studios can get away with that now. And unlike the actors, writers have no leverage should the show become a smash hit. If actors dont show up theres no show. If writers pull that stunt there are seven new writers in the room tomorrow. The public isnt going to know. But they sure will when they tune in MODERN FAMILY and its just Haley and Lilly.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

"But they sure will when they tune in MODERN FAMILY and it&#8217;s just Haley and Lilly. "

That would be an awesome spin-off though...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Azlen said:


> The cast didn't file a lawsuit to have their contracts voided, they filed the lawsuit to get leverage. This will be finalized shortly and everybody will go back to making television shows.
> 
> Other than "The Dukes of Hazard" does anyone else remember a time when shows were filmed without the key actors before it got resolved? The Dukes never really recovered from that mess.


Didn't something like that happen with CHiPs?

Sent from my HTC ReZound using Forum Runner


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Frylock said:


> Athletes don't sue to renegotiate their contract. They may try and hold out. And this argument is awful. What id the well-paid athlete gets hurt, or plays awful. Should the team get to pay him less because he is bringing in less money? The athletes sure say no. This one-way deal never made sense. You sign a contract. With it you get certain guarantees. If you don't like it, don't sign it.Athletes could always sign 1 year deals. But that's a risk for them that they don't want to take.


You don't seem to be paying attention.

This is Hollywood TV. This is SOP for Hollywood TV. *You keep trying to bring the real world into this situation, and it doesn't exist.* If you or I sign a contract, we live by it. In Hollywood, they are simply starter contracts and both sides expect to renegotiate if the show is a success.

While I obviously have no stats to back this up, I would bet 80%+ of all sitcom contracts are renog'ed between years 3-5.

Please stop saying "don't sign it if you can't live with it". You're making my head hurt.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

marksman said:


> I find reading this thread weird. Pretty much everyone who gets a pilot gig signs a seven year deal that is one sided.
> 
> It is normal for casts of shows to renegotiate those deals if the show is successful. If it is the number one scripted show on tv then that is guaranteed. This is how tv has worked forever.


I find reading this thread weird for a different reason. Specifically that what you said above has been repeated 27 times now, and each time that poster said it like it's something new.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

scooterboy said:


> I find reading this thread weird for a different reason. Specifically that what you said above has been repeated 27 times now, and each time that poster said it like it's something new.


Based on the other half of posts in this thread, each time it *is* something new to a lot of people.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

A deal is in place: http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/done-modern-family-cast-close-deals-for-salary-increases/


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

> Originally Posted by marksman
> I find reading this thread weird. Pretty much everyone who gets a pilot gig signs a seven year deal that is one sided.
> 
> It is normal for casts of shows to renegotiate those deals if the show is successful. If it is the number one scripted show on tv then that is guaranteed. This is how tv has worked forever.


I agree with you. I have read the thread on and off but right from the start did not even post because so many people seemed upset over an action that we have seen before on hit tv shows. I didn't get why they were so upset. Well, I guess I do get why, but not so much so as to bash the actors. The actors are doing what has been done before. It's Hollywood.


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

*'Modern Family' Kid Actors Now Seeking Salary Raises*

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/modern-family-kid-actors-seeking-salary-raises-355614



> With the adult cast having scored big increases, sources tell THR that the four principle young stars are set to begin their own contract renegotiations


----------



## ronsch (Sep 7, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I love this quote from his blog:


And I completely disagree with the proposition that the current writers are easily replaced. A lot of the genius in this show is the writing.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

ronsch said:


> And I completely disagree with the proposition that the current writers are easily replaced. A lot of the genius in this show is the writing.


They are easily replaced because no one will know they have been. The quality may suffer, but there's no face to see. It's not like Dick York.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> They are easily replaced because no one will know they have been. The quality may suffer, but there's no face to see. It's not like Dick York.


Exactly. Writers are basically anonymous in Hollywood. I'll bet the majority of fans of this show wouldn't even notice if creators and showrunners Steve Levitan and Chris Lloyd were replaced.

That's not to say I don't recognize the value of good writers and showrunners. But most viewers don't.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

One of my big issues is the salary demands made were not crazy and they could have negotiated a contract that would continue through the life of the show. I just think 20th Century took a weird and unnecessary stand here.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

DreadPirateRob said:


> I disagree completely. The show isn't nearly as good as it was its first season, but it's still a ratings hit by today's standards and by now the characters are well established. You couldn't just swap out Ty Burrell for anyone else, either as a new "Phil" or as a new character, and expect people not to notice. This isn't the 1960s and this isn't_ I Dream of Jeannie_.


Did you mean _Bewitched_?
It didn't hurt _Roseanne_ or _The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air_ in the '90's.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

ronsch said:


> And I completely disagree with the proposition that the current writers are easily replaced. A lot of the genius in this show is the writing.


There was a sitcom I liked called "It's, Like, Y'Know". Hilarious writing. It vanished (during the writer's strike, I think) and I assumed it was dead, but over a year later, it came back as a mid-season replacement. They got the whole cast back, but I watched a couple episodes and it was just TERRIBLE. They'd lost all their writing talent and it showed. The show was quickly cancelled for good.

I've heard that "Breaking In" has recently had the same problem.....came back without the writers and suddenly sucks.

Dear networks: YES WE NOTICE when you can the off-screen talent.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

True, but if you replaced the writers with writers of equal talent, you are unlikely to notice.

If you replace the actors with actors of equal talent, you'll probably notice anyway.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Polcamilla said:


> There was a sitcom I liked called "It's, Like, Y'Know". Hilarious writing. It vanished (during the writer's strike, I think) and I assumed it was dead, but over a year later, it came back as a mid-season replacement. They got the whole cast back, but I watched a couple episodes and it was just TERRIBLE. They'd lost all their writing talent and it showed. The show was quickly cancelled for good.


Are you sure you got the title right and aren't confusing that with another show? "It's Like, You Know" aired years before the writer's strike, was not off the air for over a year, and never came back as a mid-season replacement. First season ended in May '99, and the second season premiered in Sep '99.


----------



## LooseWiring (Jan 6, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> Did you mean _Bewitched_?
> It didn't hurt _Roseanne_ or _The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air_ in the '90's.


Are you kidding? 2nd Becky made the show BETTER. She was hotter and 10x the actress the original was.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

didn't 2nd Becky become Elliot from Scrubs ?


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

David Platt said:


> Are you sure you got the title right and aren't confusing that with another show? "It's Like, You Know" aired years before the writer's strike, was not off the air for over a year, and never came back as a mid-season replacement. First season ended in May '99, and the second season premiered in Sep '99.


Okay....my dates were wrong and apparently the gap wasn't as long as I thought it was. 

(Thanks for making me feel old, dude!)


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Polcamilla said:


> Okay....my dates were wrong and apparently the gap wasn't as long as I thought it was.
> 
> (Thanks for making me feel old, dude!)


Heh. It made me feel old when I looked up the dates too. It doesn't feel like it should have been that long ago. I used to love that show!


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> Did you mean _Bewitched_?
> It didn't hurt _Roseanne_ or _The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air_ in the '90's.


Aw, crap, you're totally right. Right premise (cute, quirky wife with supernatural abilities), wrong show. 

And I think it's a stretch to compare minor supporting characters like one of Roseanne's daughters or Aunt Viv - both of whom would go episodes at a time without being seen/heard from - as being as front-and-center as one of the leads of MF, all of whom are in every episode.

Plus, I just think audiences nowadays would be upset by it, although I can't quite articulate why.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

jamesl said:


> didn't 2nd Becky become Elliot from Scrubs ?


Yes, yes she did.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Aw, crap, you're totally right. Right premise (cute, quirky wife with supernatural abilities), wrong show.
> 
> And I think it's a stretch to compare minor supporting characters like one of Roseanne's daughters or Aunt Viv - both of whom would go episodes at a time without being seen/heard from - as being as front-and-center as one of the leads of MF, all of whom are in every episode.
> 
> Plus, I just think audiences nowadays would be upset by it, although I can't quite articulate why.


Aunt Viv was absent in 20 of 147 episodes over 6 seasons. 
Becky was only absent in 5 of 221 episodes over 9 seasons.
Compare those to your example, Bewitched, where Darrin was in 240 of 256 episodes over 8 seasons. 
I think it's a stretch to think they are not comparable.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> Aunt Viv was absent in 20 of 147 episodes over 6 seasons.
> Becky was only absent in 5 of 221 episodes over 9 seasons.
> Compare those to your example, Bewitched, where Darrin was in 240 of 256 episodes over 8 seasons.
> I think it's a stretch to think they are not comparable.


If your best and most recent examples are shows that last aired 15 years ago, before the advent of the internet as we know it, including social media, blogging, etc., then I don't think your examples mean as much you think they do.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

DreadPirateRob said:


> If your best and most recent examples are shows that last aired 15 years ago, before the advent of the internet as we know it, including social media, blogging, etc., then I don't think your examples mean as much you think they do.


One cast member in Modern Family has already been replaced and I know I saw TiVo forum do the research to verify that their suspicions were correct and the actor was different.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

Of course, this reminds me of one of my all-time favorite College Bowl questions:

"This member of the Brady Bunch cast was hit by a car and died following filming of the first season and all subsequent appearance were assembled from stock footage. Who was this?"



Spoiler



Tiger, the family dog.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Polcamilla said:


> One cast member in Modern Family has already been replaced and I know I saw TiVo forum do the research to verify that their suspicions were correct and the actor was different.


Are you talking about Lily? Yes, she was replaced because the parents of the twins that originally played her decided they didn't want their kids participating any longer. I don't think that required any TiVo forum research. It was pretty public knowledge.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Polcamilla said:


> One cast member in Modern Family has already been replaced and I know I saw TiVo forum do the research to verify that their suspicions were correct and the actor was different.


Yeah. And everyone hates her.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Polcamilla said:


> One cast member in Modern Family has already been replaced and I know I saw TiVo forum do the research to verify that their suspicions were correct and the actor was different.





DevdogAZ said:


> Are you talking about Lily? Yes, she was replaced because the parents of the twins that originally played her decided they didn't want their kids participating any longer. I don't think that required any TiVo forum research. It was pretty public knowledge.





busyba said:


> Yeah. And everyone hates her.


1) It was common knowledge (as has been pointed out)

2) It was a non-speaking part played by a toddler at first. Not exactly a leading role.

3) And yeah, she was the worst character on the show before the switch, and still is after the switch.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> 3) And yeah, she was the worst character on the show before the switch, and still is after the switch.


I thought she was awesome before the switch. The unintentional comedy factor was through the roof. My friends turned it into a game; each week we'd have a pool to see who could guess closest to how many milligrams of vicodin she would be on for that episode. 

New girl is just scary creepy.


----------

