Why They Almost Had To Replace The Entire Friends Cast
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 авг 2024
- Friends is without a doubt one of the most successful sitcoms in television history. Most of that success is due in part to the absolutely perfect cast of Friends. Though as the seasons went on, and the show became more successful, the studio wasn't willing to pay the full cast their fair share. So it came down to paying the cast of Friends what they were worth, or potentially firing two of the main cast members.
#friends #writersstrike #nerdstalgic
Sources:
www.huffpost.c...
www.yardbarker... 
Развлечения
I admire that all six leads were friends as close off screen as they were on screen, even insisting that they each get the same salary. They also intervened to help Matthew Perry to go to rehab and get clean.
I meeeeeeeeean even if I disliked someone, if they were 1/6th of the cast the compared the show that paid my paycheck, I'd help them go to rehab too.
I'm not saying they weren't friends, I'm just saying them getting Perry to rehab isn't necessarily a sign of friendship.
Especially when characters we watched growing up such as drake and josh, who we would all assume were close due to their on screen chemistry, weren’t even really friends when the camera stopped rolling. Like im sure either one of them would’ve been fine being the hired paid of the two even tho both of their names were in the title.
@@patrickiamonfire965 I didn't say they weren't friends. I specifically stated that that WASN'T what I said. Gotta pay attention my goodest dude.
@@thisguy1413 oh my bad man. I reread it for 5 time. (Add)
The girls like each other, the rest is fake as fuck
The show would not have been as popular if the cast had been replaced. The show worked because of the chemistry between the six leads. And it's really cool how they all wanted equal pay.
There's no way they would have replaced the whole cast. Cancelled the show, maybe - IF it hadn't been so wildly popular - but not replaced the cast.
"The Boss Needs You, You Don't Need Him!"
so true. it would have stunk..
Definitely respect to Schwimmer. He definitely could've just been thinking about his bag, and no one would've faulted him for it... But the fact he got the cast together to make sure they all got what they were worth is pretty awesome.
I doubt he would have gotten more money without the strike. There would have been infighting due financial unfairness.
Showbiaz is full of leeches after all
Arguably the "best" friend of the show irl lol
Pretty much the opposite of what Ross might have done
You don't think Ross wouldn't have done the same? Maybe not at first, but when he thought about it, he'd do the right thing
@@Masterfuronnah he would've had some goofy look and said "u ho guess I got more" then maybe would've been like "this is an outrage!" Unless it was Monica then he would've made fun of her
Huge huge respect for David, very selfless and inspiring!
Truly! knowing how much the show business is full of leeches and backstabbers it's truly endearing
lol.... lets be honest. the more people backin him, the more powerful his poistion, makin it easier to get a raise......... he did it for himself.....they could more easily write him out...... but all 6...... not happening.
@@FastDuDeJiunn lol. Let's think again here. He himself already get the raise he want along with Jennifer. But him, Courtney, and Jen think that it would be unfair for Matt, Matthew, and Lisa. So David was making the solution here. Since the other three were less known than him, Courtney, and Jennifer so their agents must not have strong enough reason and excuse to demand any raised. But if the 6 of them go together, with how David and Jennifer were supposed to be their 'Main Leads' plan on the other cast side, the production team would think about it much more deeper and take it seriously. That takes the gut and so much thinking time to go with that plan. It's a risky plan they laid, but they go for it anyway. David won't take the risky way just cuz of the reason he wants to gain people for backing up his own salary raise that would make the higher up ended their show that just became popular. The higher up would easily command the production team to replace the entire cast, but it works anyway.
Props to Schwimmer, Cox, and Aniston for sticking up for their coworkers. Not a lot of people will do that, even when there's much less on the line. Also, it's amazing how some things never change. Workers always create the value, while ownership fights hard to keep all the money. This is exactly why collective bargaining exists.
I really wish the video wouldn't have leaned so heavily into the "David Schwimmer is such a good guy" and a little more into the fact that he gave up up ten's of thousands early to get millions later. By the end of the series, Ross was the least liked, most-easily replaced character. If he took an every-person-for-themself approach, he would have made more money in seasons 2-4, and would have been written off before the real big paydays of seasons 6-10.
@@jst25 That was a risk though. There was no guarantee by getting the other actors to band together that they would have been able to demand higher salaries. Also there was no guarantee that the show wouldn't have gone for 10 seasons with Ross making a million dollars from negotiating by himself. Possibly even more since the studio wouldn't have to pay the other cast members the same. He wouldn't be written off because he was considered the start along with Rachel.
Just cause you do good doesn't mean you shouldn't gain anything from it. I once convinced a bunch of animators to band together to fix a pay dispute with the studio. I ran the group as their leader, I was the one communicating with the studio, I did a lot for them because I wanted the issue fixed for them. But I also wanted to the pay dispute fixed for me, and I realized I'd have a better chance with the studio if I had an army behind me. People appreciated what I did for them. Just because I had my own selfish motivations doesn't negate the good I did for them and that what I was doing was a risk. It's the same with David Schwimmer, he's a good guy.
Ownership took all the risk. Owners create the value, workers manufacture it. Take the silly Communist shit elsewhere.
@@jst25 Ross was easily the most flawed character on the show. But that is what made him so great for comedic sketches. Think of how many independent arcs Ross has been in that are absolutely hilarious. Schwimmer is an amazing actor, and evidently also a great businessman and a good friend.
They straight up unionized. Kinda inspiring ngl
Unions are literally never bad unless you are a greedy CEO
@@Dan55888 police unions are kinda bad but otherwise, I agree.
@@Dan55888 - Unions are usually good, people running the unions are usually fucking awful - In Spain, the heads of the 2 biggest union groups are known by people as "shellfish eaters" because they care more about their own life and enjoyment than doing anything for anyone else, including the people they supposedly represent
@@Apfeljunge666 Police unions are good for the police.
David is such a stand-up guy. He really changed the trajectory of where the show could’ve gone by banding the cast together in spite of being able to make more himself. the cast didn’t grow any animosity with each other due to pay and instead felt they were on the same team. The world could’ve had no 10 seasons without him
I don't think 10 seasons of ross and rachel's toxic relationship would have been as much feel good therapy for everyone as the consistancy of six people's relationships to each other lol
If they had changed the show to a rom com, it would have died
banding together not only benefits them, but the show itself
imagine if friends focuses ONLY on rachel n ross.. ickk
the show is best becoz all six of them got more or less equal focus as characters go
And negotiating together they managed to get that percentage every year❤
What an amazing strategy from givers🎉
Damn, the more I hear about Courtney the more impressed I am. Having the deal with Friends that no one could be paid more than her, not signing a sequel clause for Scream meaning (to get her back) she could request a better pay deal. She’s VERY smart and business savvy.
to be fair, she is literally the only one who mattered at premiere, she was a movie "star" more than the others were. Perry had been in sitcoms as guest spots and a failed pilot called second chance, leblanc was spinoff from al bundy that failed hard, scwimmer was on the wonder years for like 6 minutes, kudrow was on mad about you, and anniston had just come off of leprechaun
@@TheGhostofMrArthursyour point about Schwimmer is irrelevant, Cox had to audition and he didn't. They wanted David far more than Courtney and Ross was literally written for him. He turned them down numerous times and they went to extraordinary lengths to get him to sign up to the role.
@@TheGhostofMrArthursactually David’s character on the wonder years married Karen Arnold
@@jackwhitbread4583that’s true from what I heard they wanted him but I don’t think he had a good experience on the wonder years and was planning on go back to the theater they had to beg him to do the series
@@TheGhostofMrArthursactually Jennifer had a failed sitcom before friends thst I found looking around the streaming app called Muddling Through and if it was successful then she wouldn’t have been available to become Rachel Green cause Muddling Through was released in 1994 but ultimately failed making her available for Rachel
i think this was a huge reason why friends became what they are now. if different leads would have different salaries it would turn toxic so fast - people getting bitter, refusing to pick up longer storylines if they are paid less or the opposite, asking for more screentime to get paid more, actors dropping, hating each other, the list goes on. they probably wouldn't make it 10 seasons if they tried to set the cast against each other so early on
exactly. so many 80's sitcoms fell apart b/c of this. Like Ben on Growing Pains.
Yep. I think it's also questionable to label Ross and Rachel as *the* "main characters" of the show - I was never under the impression that the others were less important than them.
This is one of the only instances of it ever working out that way. Usually some actors get much less screen time or don't pull their own weight... or end up going to rehab a lot, etc.
@@n.l.4626I think this decision might have also influenced how the story was written. If only Ross and Rachel were paid highly, then writers would be more inclined to give more storylines to them, to get their worth out of their salary and we would get less stories with the other characters. And friends would be way more boring. Win win If u ask me
@@Tuffsmoyglessom of growing pains problems started after Kirk found religion causing its been rumored he became harder to work with cause he didn’t just find religion he dove headfirst into it where he couldn’t separate himself from his religion while at work and saw would view the show through a religious lens and after they aged up Chrissy I could see why Jeremy Miller would have asked for more screen time cause they didn’t have to age up Chrissy
Fun Fact: The actors and actresses, led by David Schwimmer, held an "intervention" for Jennifer Aniston because of her lateness to the set.
Why am I not surprised Jennifer Aniston was always late...
Super rude
I love looking through the trivia section on IMDB too!
FuN FaCt🤡🥴
What was that like?
Schwimmer's parents were successful attorneys in LA. They probably advised him on some of the negotiation tactics.
It's crazy to me that executives expect to get paid more than the actors on a successful show, and get confused when the actors ask for more.
Good Executives dedicate every waking moment to the show. Somebody has to be in charge of it all or it falls apart very quickly.
Without them, there would be no show lol. Actors are way overpaid. What about all of the writers, directors etc. They are the people that make the show
@@satan5537If the writers and directors are gonna be paid better, that money should not be taken from the actors salaries. They at least deserve the money the show makes more than the executives at the TV network who don’t do shit except decide what shows to renew and which to axe.
@@mncdssctn9110 the problem with your logic is you’re approaching it from the perspective of the executives not having to take risk. They take ALL of the risk. That’s why movie studios go under all the time; they take the risk of going bankrupt on even one flop.
The executives are the ones putting up the money, negotiating money deals, getting advertisers, etc. They get paid the most because they put the most on the table.
Imagine if you and I start a lemonade stand and I ask you to pay for all the costs. You buy the lemonade, you set up the stand, you continue purchasing new ingredients and paying the cost of gas to get us to and from the grocery store to buy the sugar, water, and lemons. But then I ask for a 50-50 split of the revenue from the lemonade stand. That would not be fair at all; you’re taking on all the risk, all the expenses, and if the lemonade stands fails, you’ll lose money but I’ll make a profit. That’s not fair nor does it make logical sense.
Are executives overpaid? Yes they are in many cases. But in many cases, they are not. But we don’t focus on those cases; we focus on the egregious cases of executive incompetence, meddling, and corruption.
They fund the project and carry all the financial risk.
The financial success of the FRIENDS actors is a direct result of them NOT being selfish and greedy, individually. I wish more people understood that, regardless of the industry. *One candle lighting another diminishes neither. Instead, it brings a shared light that helps everyone see.*
A rising tide raises all boats.
david schwimmer feels like genuinely good person. ❤️
unlike ross...
@greentree211 what's so bad about Ross? He only slept with Chloe when on a break coz he didn't understand that Rachel wanted a break n he thought they'd broken up
@@gh0510Rachel didn’t want a break, that’s LITERALLY the entire point of their conflict.
@OctagonCookies wtf u talkin about??? She literally said, "we should take a break."
Ross said yh lets go get some frozen yoghurt or sumthin.
N rachel said NOO a break from US!!
N he stormed out thinkin she was dumpin him.
Then he called her n Mark was deliberately speaking soo loudly to make Ross jealous which worked n Ross thought oHhhh if shes movin on with the 1 that she knows im jealous of. I'll fuck the xerox girl, chloe
@@gh0510but he still cheated on Bonnie and Julie by kissing Rachel while he was still with those women. He also dated his student, took his ex to his honeymoon while he was still trying to fix his marriage, and got together with Charlie while she was still with Joey.
Now I have a theory that they made Ross so unlikeable in later seasons as revenge for Schwimmer’s actions!
FUN FACT - David Schwimmer is credited as a writer in A LOT of episodes, including ones where Ross is an asshole. Sometimes it's fun to be a bad guy, just ask WWE wrestlers!
Ross was never unlikable
@@Black2KGSRHe was often unlikable.
@@Black2KGSRHe was.
@@Black2KGSR He acted intellectually superior even though he often did the stupidest things. He took no responsibility for his break up with Rachel. He tried to get it on with his cousin.
Shout out to the cast for sticking together as a whole and making sure everyone gets their equal pay
Man, my respect for David Schwimmer just shot through the roof. For rest of them too
Schwimmer was probably smart enough to know that if one or two other characters were replaced, the whole show might end prematurely.
10 years is a very good run, those later seasons made their first pay checks look like spare change, there’s no sense in arguing over loose change.
David literally proved Matt wrong. He had the opportunity to fuck over the rest of them and didn't, b/c he knew they were stronger together. David was not stupid, he was a truly good man.
Respect to David Schwimmer! Given what's going on currently in Hollywood with the labor strikes, I hope everyone bands together to get their demands met.
Huge respect to David. He not only secured the future of the show but he also changed the way these type of ensemble contracts are handled. Much respect to him
This is why employers don't want you to talk about pay. Then, if you have a close relationship with your coworkers, you can pin them to get a new pay
I don't know what the general stance in the United States is when it comes to the hot topic of salary. I think here in Germany, it's not something that many people like talking about. I don't talk about it with my friends. I wouldn't mind too much people knowing how much I make but still talking about the money you make feels weird.
A huge problem is arising at the moment because the economical situation makes many everyday goods more expensive. So "old" employees are demanding more money but they won't get paid more necessarily. But new employees need to get hired. You cannot hire them by paying them as "little" as what "old" workers are paid that didn't get a raise. But if word gets out that new employees get paid more than the ones that have been working at that company for some years...
I also heard that apprentices at my company that completed their 3 years of training won't get paid more until they stayed at that company for two more years, while new employees obviously wouldn't do the same job for that little amount of money. So no wonder these apprentices are leaving one by one...
@CitizenAlien where I work it's against policy to talk about pay, and is even a fireable offense. I live in America
@@travishayslip9409 Ah, that's interesting to hear! Since I haven't worked in well paying jobs yet, I never thought about it but I'm not too familiar with social norms. I'll check with my co-workers to see what their opinions/stories are. 🌞🫵
@@travishayslip9409 Your job is lying. I'm sorry but you're SO SO SO misinformed. It's not illegal in the least in the US. In fact, the only thing illegal is companies telling you that you can't discuss pay w/ coworkers. It is even MORE ILLEGAL to fire you for discussing pay at work. There is very specific laws that protect you as an employee. Google it and you'll find all sorts of documentation supporting worker rights in this regard. Your company is full of it and breaking the law if they say this to you. They say things like this to take away employee bargaining power. Seriously, look it up and call them out on it or report them.
@@travishayslip9409 They can't fire you for that in the US. Companies want you to believe its not good to talk salary, that way you don't know what your co workers make. The government has to keep reminding people, they are free to discuss their wages because companies keep telling people, it's not right to discuss wages and you could get in trouble.
I have seen people use other people's wages in a way that was inadvertently harmful to the company culture and moral. But that's in part because so few people actually know what other people make, when they find out, they often don't have the experience to understand how to use that information, it's their first time seeing it. Which is why Americans need to be more comfortable talking about wages among themselves.
Seeing how much money the show made not only on it's original run, but on the almost 2 decades of reruns since, their high salaries were completely justified and I'm glad they stuck together.
Exactly with all the secondary merchandise that has come out since the show ended and my friends sweatshirt was original run merchandise cause i got it from the nbc online store when I was in high school in the last 3 seasons
It's success was more down to it being a comfortable easy watch. You got to know the characters over years of development. Even now if it's on I can just watch it even if its the 10th time I've seen the episode 😅
I hear about this from time to time but I'm never unentertained by a good video about them banding together to make sure their value was maintained against the studios who make millions more off their efforts.
I think this is an unsung reason for the continued success of Friends. Collective bargaining maintained the cast chemistry.
It would be difficult enough to get two leads with good chemistry the audience eat up let alone six & for them to all actually get along off screen in hollywood is almost a miracle.
Huge props to David Schwimmer, and Jennifer Aniston for agreeing - especially as her star was probably the biggest of the cast.
Humongous respect for all the six leads for having each others’ backs ❤️
It was a benchmark series for me for years....fond memories of binging dvds😅
No need for the DVDs in Spain, it has been on TV for like 25+ years straight - I don't think I've ever watched the full show in order but I'm sure I must've watched over 120+ different episodes
Dave is probably the 1% of actors that would go to bat for his co-stars like that. Just unusually selfless in our modern day.
0:09 it's not arguable, it's a fact that Friends is one of the most popular sitcoms of all time, I say that as a non-fan of the show.
I am not sure. I used to think that growing up in India but apparently it's more popular outside the US than inside, Seinfeld seems to be way more popular in the US
@Anurag-xe2jp it is arguable which sitcom is THE MOST popular, it is not arguable that Friends is ONE OF the most popular sitcoms.
he said Arguably not Arguable
@@decentrob8126That's just a grammatical thing. Position in the sentence.
@@monmothma3358 No they are 2 different words with different meaning
If I heard the rumors correctly, this is kind of ruined the friendship between the BBT cast. Simon and Kunal felt hurt that Jim, Johnny and Kaley were willing to accept big contracts without including them.
The cast also felt that if anyone made more money than another than it could cause tension and jealousy on set and they didn't want that. They were and are all actually friends.
Interestingly, the cast of Living Single (Friends’ spiritual predecessor) also banded together to get better paychecks, but it didn’t go nearly as well.
I think that’s a testament to how popular Friends was.
And New York Undercover. But they weren't getting what Friends was getting. Friends was and is a behemoth of a show.
Long running shows these days are cutting casts members to keep them running. By the way, comedies are not doing well if you look at the current TV ratings. Some network might finally bid goodbye to comedies with how awful they're performing right now.
Yea, Living Single’s “Ross” which was Kyle, was the casts mouthpiece and wanted them to be paid fairly and they paid him…by cutting him from the show and firing him. Living Single IS the blueprint of Friends. Idc what Marta and David said.
@@redlizard541and that’s the problem, why weren’t they getting what Friends was when LS and NYU were both highly rated shows Thursday nights on Fox. As well as Martin. Those shows smashed ratings Thursday nights
It's great that the cast managed to work things out. But I can imagine how the studio was not expecting to start paying 25.5K and ending up with 1M per episode. It's a hell of a raise. But well deserved and probably everyone involved made good money due to the show's success. Anyway I'd prefer for the cast to get more money than studio executives who probably did far less work...
Didn't collective bargaining happen for the Avengers cast too? Or was it just RDJ who fought for everyone else's contracts? I remember something like that happened, but it got out much later.
You know, this is a really good example of what true unity among people can achieve. Remember the old saying, United we stand, divided we fall.
RDJ was still getting paid the most, but he did fight for the rest of his OG Avenger cast-mates to get salary increases in later movies. Scarlett Johansson and Chris Hemsworth were notably paid MUCH less than their costars, but the changed for later appearances/movies. That being said, Downey was still making colossal bank in comparison to the others.
@@thedefinitionisthis Ah. Thanks.
So I've watched the whole video, still waiting for the part where they "almost fired a Friend" promised in the thumbnail....
That was big on David. He could have dumped them and moved on to movies (which we all knew would have been more like Shelly Long LOL) but he banded everyone together and got everyone paid. That is pretty cool!
They took “I will be there for you” to a million of dollars level!
the cast of friends it’s truly one of the best casts in front and behind the screen, they had each others backs at all times
Not only what David did was generous and compassionate, but it saved the show, without the members on the same level, some might have left or it would have badly impacted the chemistry
See, they were paid more and somehow the people above them/CEOs didnt go bankrupt!
Now if only the rest of business could increase worker pay without CEOs and random other people whining for no good reason...
What a surprise. The people that cry the loudest are the richest. I know the video's intention. It is solely talking about the cast. But we all know that a show wouldn't exist without the army of "small" personal behind the scenes/camera. The writers and the actors are on strike now.
Problem is: It's fantastic that the stars of Friends got paid tons of money because they obviously were worth even more money to NBC. But what about the rest of the people? Except for the writers maybe, you surely could replace the rest of the staff. Did they get raises too? So in the end the rich got richer and the poor stayed poor.
@@SavedByGrace_CitizenEmperorユウ yeah I get it, actors are not exactly "the little guy" this was a victory for people who were gonna be rich no matter what, so not exactly the overcoming adversity story.
It's very heartwarming to see people support each other like that. David was the catalyst but all 6 sticking it out is what stood the true test of time.
Great stuff as always
@cianodonnell2181 what's not to like?
Nerdstalgic, good
Friends, gooood
Thats the power of collective bargaining. What is better for all of us, is also better for each of us.
What is boggling my mind, and maybe I’m misunderstanding, but we talk today about expensive shows having $300+ million budgets. But if they’re making $1 million/episode in the last seasons, that’s $100 million right there split 6 ways. I can’t imagine how much the show has made but way to go David Schwimmer.
The interesting thing about this is despite the cast scoring this fat paychecks you just know that the studio made and still making much MUCH more money.
Well, yes, but that's not necessarily bad.
Studios have people to pay. Writers, sound crew, camera crew, costs for props, shooting, etc.
The studio carry the risk, not the actors and the show is not made up entirely by the actors.
@@whzbwkkfu Nobody ever insinuated it did...who are you trying to debate here?
Fact is, no cast, no show. Plain and simple. Sounds like you want to give rebuttal, while pivoting away from the actual topic...why? Just being contrarian? Do you personally work in the industry? Honestly curious...
Or are you one of those anti union old school conservatives? In which case, just be honest...sick of the weaselly debates coming from those clowns lately.
I am right leaning myself, but the anti union crowd makes me sick 🤮
Good luck putting make up and wardrobe on dolls and throwing em in stage.
@@Wallychans You are projecting a bunch of opinions onto me that I don't have. I'm not anti-union. I'm in a union myself and live in an extremely pro-union country (Denmark).
I don't want to give a rebuttal, I wanted to inform about the bigger picture, because I read OP's as a critique - you might not, but that's how I read it. Otherwise I see no reason why OP would even bring up that the studio makes more money.
Fact is, no crew, no show. Same logic - "plain and simple". Good luck making a show without cameras, lighting, a network to broadcast it on, etc.
I'm not arguing that actors aren't important, I'm just commenting that they are not the only thing making a show, just like studio also can't make a good show without good actors.
I don't know why you have generalized and shoved me into some weird group of people you dislike, but it also sounds like you have already made up your mind about who I am and what I stand for.
@@whzbwkkfu
That comment is gone, but wallychans seem to have been a real dick. O.o
@@whzbwkkfu But none of that is profit, it's overhead. From what I can gather, the total cost of each episode of "Friends" was about $10-million and half of that was cast salary.
I can find almost no information as to how much actual _profit_ the studio made off of the series, but the following should put it into perspective. Reruns of the show net the studio about one _billion_ dollars per year - and the cast only gets 2% of that.
For a while I was thinking 90s TV salaries were quite modest, until I realised they were being paid $22k to $75k PER EPISODE in the early seasons, not per annum.
I think it was one of the Friend’s actors but it could have been someone on another show that said that the biggest difference was going from being a normal person to making $35 000 per episode. Not the jump from whatever to a million per episode. It makes sense to me
I can't think of anything today (besides the super bowl or American idol) that approaches the numbers Friends achieved.
I think David Schwimmer was just being smart, more than altruistic. He probably realized that the shows success did depend on the whole cast, and if he took more money, and the rest of the cast quit or the series got cancelled he would lose out on a lot of money in the future, and he was not wrong.
Or he’s just a decent human being
Funny how being smart and altruistic goes together
@@BeautyfulMess
It was both things, in my opinion.
Great timing of this video being posted during the joint SAG Actors and Writers Strike!
I think if anyone had taken the "Screw you, I got mine" route, it inevitably would have soured the undeniable chemistry and friendship the actors clearly had. It's just not something you can hide, even if you were the best actor in the world.
😮😮so many shows go down in ratings when one cast member leaves and it changes the dynamics of the show. This decision of 6 equal cast members certainly paid off for everyone.
such a great video to make in a time when hollywood's actors and writers are banding together to make sure everyone is paid fairly. Those actors and writers all work hard and studio execs can enjoy the fruits of other people's labor years down the line. i hope the WGA and SAG strikes come to a conclusion that benefits everyone but especially the minds behind some of our greatest entertainment and art!
100% agree!
Heck, I wonder if Schwimmer has his eyes on SAG-AFTRA leadership at some point.
Wow, really touch my heart. That is the secret why I watch Friends until the end and then start over again
The best channel of all time
David's a genius, he could've gotten a lot of money, but instead, he used the power of the group to get even more
That’s why Friends was a success… everybody did cared for each other on and off set. ❤
It's a win-win-win. A win for the cast, a win for the creators and studio, and a win for the audience because the views got 10 seasons to watch of an amazing tv show. This kind of thing makes a series like FRIENDS legendary. It's a perfect triple combo.
So if the cast was getting 1mil each episode in the final seasons, that means that season 7 of friends cost 144 million dollars in actor pay alone. That's crazy.
There is a LOT of money in advertising.
With a *huge* audience and lots of advertising dollars. And the network really hammed up how special the final season would be, which brought in both the audience and advertising money.
Love this show, but it could've been cancelled about season 5-6ish. I remember forgetting that it was still on and being surprised at all the hubbub about the finally in year 10.
That comment about getting a raise whenever you can is very true. Never forget that the corporation is not your friend and will replace you the second they can find someone who will do the same job for less.
I appreciate that you said it's one of the most popular comedies, not one of the "best".
Pay your cast whet they’re worth
"...I never think of money as an issue."
"That's 'cause you have it."
BINGO!!!
People may hate Ross, but they still love David Schwimmer!
It can be done!
the only ones that hate Ross are Buzzfeed Feminists who love words like "toxic masculinity" and anything that has an -ist or a -phobic at the end of it
@@TheGhostofMrArthurswhat the fuck is a buzz feed feminist 💀
And this is exactly why unionizing is so important:
COLLECTIVE bargaining.
It makes sense, if your show is performing great time and time again then they should be getting paid to match that. They’re the talent.
They made more money per episode 25 years ago than most people today do in a year. Good on them for getting paid, but god damn.
Resulting to almost cancelling your golden goose show instead of just paying your actors for their work is the most showbiz thing that has ever showbiz’d
I wonder if the writers still get royalties of 20mil/yr.
As important as the actors are, in a sitcom like friends without as much physical comedy, the writers definitely feel more important
Streaming services would've cut into their royalties, same with other shows, hence the strikes going on atm
I feel like chemistry between actors carried the show way more than the writing. Epecialy in the later seasons.
@@stypie3711 Yes, the later seasons had bad writing, for which I would assume, the writers were ditched at that point entirely, and the studios just were betting on the characters they had built over the seasons to do the work.
But the later seasons only worked because the previous seasons had done the heavy lifting in terms of character development.
@@pandusonu - The "bad writing" in Friends can easily be accounted for 2 reasons:
· Running out of scenarios
· Having to stretch plotlines in order to have yet another season
The writing of friends is shit . Actors carried the show
The poor network executives that contribute absolutely nothing were only making hundreds of millions per episode in ad revenues. How were they going to survive, paying the performers who actually produced the value they were selling? Poor executives, always scraping by. :((
Network executives are gamblers. You invest a metric ton of money in hopes that shit works out... and then you might get Indiana Jones 5 or you might get Fast & Furious 7 or whatever - They 100% do stuff but it's less noticeable for most people. The final 2 seasons of Friends cost more than 850 million dollars each and that's a gigantic gamble, specially in the early 2000s back when movies rarely went over the 100 million mark.
there is no way that each of them needed 1 million dollars an episode for their show
It literally made the show worse, too, because all the money was going to them, and not the show
I’ve never understood the obsession or interest in the Ross and Rachel relationship. They were a terrible toxic and codependent relationship. Shared no interests. And would continue to intervene and sabotage each others love lives after breaking up
Toxic is drama and lots of people love it, I also dislike it but at that time TV bussines was like that, if people wanted to watch crap the studios gave them crap...not sure if that was better than nowdays when they try to give people woke propaganda but that is another story
The company definitely made more, they are still making money for the fact that we are still re-watching the series
I have a new-found respect for David Schwimmer.
it's an ensemble cast so, yes, compensation should be equitable
David is a mad lad for banding together with his cast mates!
Collective bargaining is so powerful and important to the history of the US. It's the only reason we have weekends, paid sick leave, holidays off, 40 hour work weeks, no more child labor (mostly), etc. Support unions and support your fellow workers!
Would have been real cool if the title reflected the video. Not once did it mention the entire cast being replaced.
Damn 20 MIL a year for each of them still til this day?! 😮
Teamwork makes the dream (of being uber rich) work
RIP Chandler
The fact that they got together to do collective bargaining is something I always loved about them.
my respect for David has gotten more....
I like that you did this right as SAG started striking.
Man, it's wild to think that David Schwimmer was the one they expected to be a breakout star. I think the popularity had shifted even just a few seasons in and that he ultimately secured a position advantageous to himself when it came time to discuss syndication royalties. If he hadn't spearheaded their efforts as a united front when he was in the lead, his own expected royalties could have plummeted.
I never thought Ross and Rachel were the leads.
Me too. And I disliked Ross (not Schwimmer, he did a great job) right from the start.
I did as a kid. But i have no idea why.
Ross Geller might be the most obnoxious friend.
But David Schwimmer was the best friend irl.
I don't know much about the TV industry but how is 22,500 per episode considered a modest amount for unknown actors in a shows first season, that seems crazy high (not compared to the later paychecks of course, but still)
I liked the break down. Saved me a google search.
Lol
I remember hearing about Schwimmer doing this years ago! He really is a neat guy 😂
The cast learned to look out for each other, some successful shows are not as lucky to have trusted circles like Friends did where every member contributed something to the show. If any person had left, it would have been a missing piece, the closest we get is when Phoebe happened to get pregnant (Lisa apparently was actually pregnant during this) that she couldn’t join everyone at Ross’ wedding in London. The writers still made the effort to make sure Lisa was given a fair shot, likely a little limited, to perform as Phoebe that is over a 1000 miles away from the rest of the crew.
I mean, that is just the idea behind unions. But props to the cast for sticking together and not srewing each other over for a payday.
Fair fucking play Schwimmer
It's crazy that actors get paid so much more than teachers, doctors and cleaners. Matt LeBlanc's comments are tone deaf.
Weird that Ross and Schwimmer were basically opposites when it comes to morality.
I have an exam on labor economics in two days, you just helped me understand my class better 😂👍
Give a raise to Monica's agent though.