Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[WendyCR72]

I gotta say, I admire Toks Olagundoye for refusing to take the psychotic shit shoveled out...

[chraume]

26 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

I gotta say, I admire Toks Olagundoye for refusing to take the psychotic shit shoveled out...

For sure. She gets a lot of flak for saying anything at all (see: the absolute meltdown at the implication that NF is kind and inclusive, as though you can't be both a nice person typically and kind of a jerk to people you don't like), but I have a lot of respect for the fact that she doesn't let the fandom steamroll her, even though it doesn't seem to earn her any popularity points. 

[madmaverick]

31 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

I gotta say, I admire Toks Olagundoye for refusing to take the psychotic shit shoveled out...

What an eloquent way of putting it. :D 

[KaveDweller]

23 hours ago, break21 said:

I'll say this about X-Files - they hated each other for years (have made up), but they never stopped doing promo together.  FNL leads just liked each other so it wasn't an issue.  I wish NF and SK would have gone X-Files way.

Did it ever come out why they hated each other? Have they talked about it? I know they are friends now, I'm curious what made them made up years later when they had no reason to even see each other again.

On 9/7/2016 at 9:35 AM, madmaverick said:

I know others will disagree, but re-watching some bits and pieces of S8 (example), I thought they still had pretty good onscreen chemistry.  Especially when the writing wasn't too terrible. ;)  I don't think anyone unaware of bts issues would have found anything too amiss in their portrayal of a couple in love.  I won't deny that they had some occasional rough spots in their onscreen chemistry, and that chemistry itself had evolved/tempered in a way as the characters' relationship had evolved from WT/WT to a couple going steady, but by and large, when the writing was there, I found that the chemistry was still there.  But it is subjective and maybe part of it is to do with my built in investment in the relationship.  But I also don't think that you find the kind of onscreen chemistry they had so easily everywhere.  

Yeah, I agree, there were lots of great moments in S8. That scene you linked to is one of my favorites, not just in S8 but for their whole relationship. I think if they hadn't done the break up and just reduced screentime fans wouldn't have complained as much.  Give them one or two relationship moments in an episode and fans can forgive a lot of other things. Fans would have complained because the show was boring weren't together, but not as much.

Even at the end, I think they had magic onscreen together.  They made the weak writing better in ways the other actors they were paired with couldn't pull off. I mean, what were they thinking with casting Vikram? I'm sure he's a decent actor in the right part, but he just had no sparks with Stana.

Edited September 9, 2016 by KaveDweller

[madmaverick]

Imagine my surprise when I click on this rich list and I see Stana on it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-37362444

Not surprised that Sofia Vergara is raking in eye watering bucks as she has been for a few years (though I don't really understand her massive appeal to advertisers other than her ass-ets and think she's just an average actress), but whoa, Stana made $12m from Castle???!!! :0  I know TV actors can be very well paid, but I did not expect her to come in at 7 on the list considering how low Castle's demo has been, not just in the last season, and can't really compare to most of the shows the other actresses are in on that list.  $12m works out to be over $500,000 per episode for S8 and that's quite a bit more than I expected.  I would have guessed somewhere around $300,000.  With this kind of money, no wonder neither of them walked away after S7 no matter their personal issues or the creative state of the show or their lethargy with it.  I would not have been surprised if Stana would have chosen to return for a S9 if they had offered this sort of bucks again, or more, and no wonder Nathan and others wanted to continue, with or without Stana.    And I'm not surprised again that that the network decided to ultimately cancel if these were the kinds of bucks they were paying in salaries for the return in demo, which would only go down further as the show aged some more.  If they had to negotiate more raises with the leads on a yearly basis, then I can see how ABC wouldn't think it would be worth their while.  I would have placed my bet on cheaper new shows with more future upside too.

Quote

 

Television's highest-paid actresses

Sofia Vergara - $43m (£32.6m)

Kaley Cuoco - $24.5m (£18.6m)

Mindy Kaling - $15m (£11.4m)

Mariska Hargitay - $14.5m (£11m)

Ellen Pompeo - $14.5m (£11m)

Kerry Washington - $13.5m (£10.3m)

Stana Katic - $12m (£9.1m)

Priyanka Chopra - $11m (£8.4m)

Julianna Margulies - $10.5 (£7.9m)

Julie Bowen - $10m (£7.6m)

Source: Forbes

 

And are Pompeo and Washington's agents not working hard enough? ;)  I don't watch either of their shows but I believe their demo/total ratings are much higher than Castle's and they are also both more well known than Stana.    Stana got more time off than ever this season and got this massive paycheck.  Her agent must be good.   I guess she had 12 million reasons to value art over finance, huh.  Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)  And if there wasn't a reason to stop painting her as this victim before, there definitely is now.  I mean, good for her, but I still think actors are way overpaid in general.

Quote

This year's highest new entry on the Forbes list was Priyanka Chopra, who appears in ABC drama Quantico. 

So does this tidbit from the article mean that Stana was already on the rich list last year?  I don't recall.  How much was she making last year?  I thought the huge bump in salary came in S8 but I could be wrong.

OK, the original Forbes article states that Stana was also new to the list so looks like BBC misinterpreted. ;)  The interesting bit:

Quote

Also new to the list is Stana Katic, the lead of ABC’s mystery series Castle. Although the show has received little critical attention, it garners consistent ratings for the network. Katic, who returned for the past and final season last minute, only did so after negotiating a lucrative deal that included a salary increase and a good share of the backend profit.

Little critical attention.  Ha.

So what would a good share of the backend profit amount to?  Percentage wise and in dollar terms.  What exactly does backend profit consist of?  Profits from syndication, DVD sales?  Would she have received this prior to S8 or only after she became a producer?  Would she have received money for a hypothetical S9 even if she hadn't been in it?  Some film actors accept a lower salary in return for a higher percentage of the backend profit and it's worked out very lucratively for some.  But here, Stana managed to get both a higher salary and a high(er) share of the backend profit.  Not to mention all the flexible time off to do her own stuff.  Seems to me ABC dropped the ball in negotiations and Stana's agent played hardball from an observer's pov.

I'm going to have to roll my eyes even harder the next time an actor complains about long hours or anything about their acting job.  When I think of the millions of people who get paid next to nothing for doing back breaking work.  Plus the people who make nowhere near as much even as specialists in their fields after years of study and training.  Actors and sportspeople.  Both overpaid imo.

Edited September 15, 2016 by madmaverick

[Gant]

Well, but that's not an issue with any individual actor or athlete, it's an issue with their professional field and its standards. Do I think movie people and sports people are overpaid as a whole? By god, I do! I mean the kind of money paid to soccer players? Boggles the mind. But I have no issue with any one soccer player in particular for working to increase their transfer money worth or whatever. It's their professional field's standard measure of their professional worthiness, and if they work better than the other guy but are paid less millions than him, I totally understand how they'd see it as unfair and would work to change that. Doesn't make them greedy in my mind. And they (same as actors) still have the right to occasionally complain, express discontent or whatever with their jobs as long as they don't lose self awareness IMO. We all have issues and problems at work, which are not canceled out by the amount of money we make compared to the next Joe. I mean, a janitor in my office building probably can make a case about working harder than me, and she probably does when we have a lazy day in the editors office. And she definitely gets less money for her hard work, than I get for my easier one. But that's our professional standards. Would it do any good if she replaced me in my office chair? Doubtful. I wouldn't be any good with brooms and supply boxes too. I wouldn't be any good on a soccer field or in front of the camera. So I tend to let it go, lol. Just sad facts of life.

I agree though that painting some celebrity as a perpetual victim of other celebrities, just because you "feel close" to that celebrity and love dramatic narratives, is stupid and immature. But that's not an issue of the kind of money the celebrity gets, it's an issue of the kind of brains her/his followers have.

[KaveDweller]

It makes me wonder how much ABC makes on the show though. Paying actors millions an episode sounds crazy, but if the show is making the network/studio hundreds of millions, the actors deserve a fair share. I doubt Castle was making hundreds of million, I just meant in general you have to consider the big picture.

I'm guessing some of that $12 million is residuals from syndication.

[madmaverick]

I don't disagree that workers are entitled to a fair share of the profits, and if a TV show happens to make millions, then those involved should reap the rewards of that.  And I don't disagree that you can't have legitimate grievances even if you're well compensated.  Actors and sportspeople's earnings are a result of the free market at work.  But I can't help but think that when investment bankers make insane amounts of money from speculation while others who toil away to deliver vital public service goods don't get a fraction of that, that there's some injustice there.  It doesn't feel proportionate to me if we're looking in terms of value adding to society, though I realise that's a subjective judgment to make.  I'm not advocating communism by any means, but I do think those who are earning such a disproportionate amount in a capitalist system should at the very least pay a fair amount of tax on their earnings instead of often getting away with avoiding it. ;)  Excuse the soapbox.

No wonder people talk about landing a long lasting show like Castle as winning the lottery.  It may never win you any awards but it can literally change your fortunes for life.  Maybe I'm too cynical but I just never bought into the art over finance talk for an aged procedural show like Castle.  And talking about the art when you're banking millions is a bit disingenuous to me.

Edited September 15, 2016 by madmaverick

[chraume]

I don't personally have any problems with celebrities using smart negotiating to get a good salary boost, although I absolutely agree that it seems ridiculous to me how much money they rake in, and it does rub me the wrong way when they then turn around and complain about their hours. I was definitely shocked by that ranking, though -- I mean, the amount is nothing to turn my nose up at, but seventh for the ratings of the 2014-2015 TV season seems astronomical. Castle's ratings were certainly better than they were this past season, but sneaking in just behind the leads of the TGIF giants that are Grey's and Scandal seems unreal! Katic's team must be phenomenal, and I do relish seeing the fandom crazies try to explain her limited screentime this season now; her team was great for finances but incompetent about the mountains of screentime she actually wanted? The huge pile of money was just to appease her before ABC stole all of her screentime (which she obviously 100% wanted) at Fillion's behest in S8? ABC figured, hey, we have to pay her anyway, so why would we get any bang for our buck -- let's just write her out of eps? So many possibilities for conspiracy storylines here!

But seriously, while I do get why the art vs. finance thing is a little old to hear, that's a huge get and I'm incredibly impressed by the team that's behind her. No wonder it was such a task to get the contract finalized. Good for her -- it must make choosing more artistic movies a little easier now, but oh, that we all could work shortened schedules (or any schedules!) for a cool $12 million a year. 

Edited September 15, 2016 by chraume

[KaveDweller]

3 hours ago, madmaverick said:

I don't disagree that workers are entitled to a fair share of the profits, and if a TV show happens to make millions, then those involved should reap the rewards of that.  And I don't disagree that you can't have legitimate grievances even if you're well compensated.  Actors and sportspeople's earnings are a result of the free market at work.  But I can't help but think that when investment bankers make insane amounts of money from speculation while others who toil away to deliver vital public service goods don't get a fraction of that, that there's some injustice there.  It doesn't feel proportionate to me if we're looking in terms of value adding to society, though I realise that's a subjective judgment to make.  I'm not advocating communism by any means, but I do think those who are earning such a disproportionate amount in a capitalist system should at the very least pay a fair amount of tax on their earnings instead of often getting away with avoiding it. ;)  Excuse the soapbox.

No wonder people talk about landing a long lasting show like Castle as winning the lottery.  It may never win you any awards but it can literally change your fortunes for life.  Maybe I'm too cynical but I just never bought into the art over finance talk for an aged procedural show like Castle.  And talking about the art when you're banking millions is a bit disingenuous to me.

Oh, I agree it doesn't seem fair at a societal level and that wealth (sadly) doesn't relate to a person/industry's value. But it's the world we live in, so I won't fault anyone for trying to do what's best for them. I'm totally jealous of them though, I really picked the wrong industry.

I also agree that it's somewhat disingenuous to talk art over finance when you're making that much, but what else can actors really say when asked about this kind of thing? It's like if you're on a job interview and they ask why you're looking for a new job.....you don't say because the place I currently work for pays me crap. 

[Thirteen]

14 hours ago, chraume said:

I don't personally have any problems with celebrities using smart negotiating to get a good salary boost, although I absolutely agree that it seems ridiculous to me how much money they rake in, and it does rub me the wrong way when they then turn around and complain about their hours. I was definitely shocked by that ranking, though -- I mean, the amount is nothing to turn my nose up at, but seventh for the ratings of the 2014-2015 TV season seems astronomical. Castle's ratings were certainly better than they were this past season, but sneaking in just behind the leads of the TGIF giants that are Grey's and Scandal seems unreal! Katic's team must be phenomenal, and I do relish seeing the fandom crazies try to explain her limited screentime this season now; her team was great for finances but incompetent about the mountains of screentime she actually wanted? The huge pile of money was just to appease her before ABC stole all of her screentime (which she obviously 100% wanted) at Fillion's behest in S8? ABC figured, hey, we have to pay her anyway, so why would we get any bang for our buck -- let's just write her out of eps? So many possibilities for conspiracy storylines here!

But seriously, while I do get why the art vs. finance thing is a little old to hear, that's a huge get and I'm incredibly impressed by the team that's behind her. No wonder it was such a task to get the contract finalized. Good for her -- it must make choosing more artistic movies a little easier now, but oh, that we all could work shortened schedules (or any schedules!) for a cool $12 million a year. 

Stana probably got equal pay to Nathan, I'm more impressed by that. Well deserved though.

[FlickerToAFlame]

The syndication is a smart thought too. Castle is on TNT for hours almost every day. Which is why Mariska is probably so high too, though SVU is literally on almost every channel every minute, so I'm surprised hers isn't higher. Also because she *is* the show. 

[Sonik Tooth]

I was wondering about Stana’s two movies. But Forbes said nothing about them, so I guess one is to assume that the 12 m are all Castle related (they mentioned other endorsement and licensing deals inflating earnings regarding other actresses).

On 15.9.2016 at 4:32 PM, madmaverick said:

I What exactly does backend profit consist of?  

No, idea. My guess is it’s just Season 8 with or without the overseas deals for the season. No syndication. That’s how I would interpret backend profit and how Forbes is able to estimate for 2016.

22 hours ago, Gant said:

Well, but that's not an issue with any individual actor or athlete, it's an issue with their professional field and its standards. Do I think movie people and sports people are overpaid as a whole? By god, I do! I mean the kind of money paid to soccer players? Boggles the mind. But I have no issue with any one soccer player in particular for working to increase their transfer money worth or whatever. It's their professional field's standard measure of their professional worthiness, and if they work better than the other guy but are paid less millions than him, I totally understand how they'd see it as unfair and would work to change that. Doesn't make them greedy in my mind. And they (same as actors) still have the right to occasionally complain, express discontent or whatever with their jobs as long as they don't lose self awareness IMO.

Agree, it’s insane amounts.  I’m also contemplating the corporate side. It’s a multi million/billion dollar business. Soccer, music, film, TV. The “talent”, drawing the money in, should be compensated accordingly IMO.

20 hours ago, chraume said:

I was definitely shocked by that ranking, though -- I mean, the amount is nothing to turn my nose up at, but seventh for the ratings of the 2014-2015 TV season seems astronomical. Castle's ratings were certainly better than they were this past season, but sneaking in just behind the leads of the TGIF giants that are Grey's and Scandal seems unreal! 

The ratings were indeed lower for Season 8 but more or less consistent considering the overall drop in ratings network wide. The real drop  - as you mentioned - happened from Season 6 to 7. I too would have thought that would make renegotiating Season 8 contracts pretty tough. 

Quote

Katic's team must be phenomenal, and I do relish seeing the fandom crazies try to explain her limited screentime this season now; her team was great for finances but incompetent about the mountains of screentime she actually wanted? The huge pile of money was just to appease her before ABC stole all of her screentime (which she obviously 100% wanted) at Fillion's behest in S8? ABC figured, hey, we have to pay her anyway, so why would we get any bang for our buck -- let's just write her out of eps? So many possibilities for conspiracy storylines here!

Please don’t forget the extra money (and effort) for introducing the new character Hayley to compensate for her limited screentime! And I might add, the money for the two consultants in logistics who were hired to apportion script time of Castle and Beckett for the writers to ensure there is no breach of contract :

Logistics: Yo, is it strictly 2 days per week or are we allowed to stretch it over the whole season. Is it whole workdays or if they only work for x hours a day, we get a third day à y hours? What about incidents due to force majeure? Are there additional constraints we have to consider? Other actors availabilities and sensitivities? Locations?

Legal: Don’t get it wrong or he sues for compensation!

Creative writer folks: I don’t really understand the optimization calculations we are getting from logistics. I think I messed it up.

Nathan: Ha! That was more than two days a week. I want my money!

ABC: We are soooo lucky. Nathan is our precious unicorn. Take my money!

Mind you, could be all true:-)

[WendyCR72]

5 hours ago, FlickerToAFlame said:

Which is why Mariska is probably so high too, though SVU is literally on almost every channel every minute, so I'm surprised hers isn't higher

I believe the amount paid to an actor for a syndicated show decreases with every rotation, i.e. the first is a bigger check, which decreases every time the rotation starts over. So Mariska's syndication checks can be pennies now, except for when S17 goes into rotation soon, if it hasn't already...

Same for any other show: Big check to start, then a decrease. But if a show is widespread, the small checks can certainly add up!

[break21]

They also don't get any money from overseas syndication.

[KaveDweller]

Please don’t forget the extra money (and effort) for introducing the new character Hayley to compensate for her limited screentime! And I might add, the money for the two consultants in logistics who were hired to apportion script time of Castle and Beckett for the writers to ensure there is no breach of contract :

Probably one of the reasons they had to write off Gates, a new contract with PJJ would have been more than whatever they paid a newbie. Not that I'm suggesting that's Stana's fault.

I don't think we should give them credit for the "effort" of introducing Haley. Her backstory changed as they needed it and they basically just plopped her in and had Castle and Alexis treat her like they'd known her forever, no character development about why or showing them bond. I put more effort into writing this post than they did on Haley.

It does explain from a financial sense why ABC would consider doing a show without her, they may have known the ratings were so low they wouldn't get a bigger budget and wouldn't be able to match her demands (even if the demands were reasonable). But it still seems kind of desperate on the studios end to consider that rather than making the choice to end on a high note.

[chraume]

1 hour ago, KaveDweller said:

It does explain from a financial sense why ABC would consider doing a show without her, they may have known the ratings were so low they wouldn't get a bigger budget and wouldn't be able to match her demands (even if the demands were reasonable). But it still seems kind of desperate on the studios end to consider that rather than making the choice to end on a high note.

So much this. I'm still super bitter, not by the fact that it ended or that Katic left or got fired or whatever, but by the fact that an already-declining show (ratings-wise particularly, so less profitable) with a cast that required new, most likely expensive, contracts, wasn't just announced as final season when it was renewed. Or in January, when I assume it would've been clear that she was unlikely to return, at the TCAs. Or at any point before the absolute last minute. 

I mean, from a financial standpoint I know ABC had kind of a stinker of a year and the decision to renew a declining show vs. taking the risk of a new one did come down to the wire for them. But I appreciate now seeing the scope of how that decision was shaped financially, and I really, really wish that the decision had been made prior to the disaster that was the last four weeks of the show's run. Just for the sake of my own sanity. 

Edited September 17, 2016 by chraume

[BellyLaughter]

3 hours ago, chraume said:

So much this. I'm still super bitter, not by the fact that it ended or that Katic left or got fired or whatever, but by the fact that an already-declining show (ratings-wise particularly, so less profitable) with a cast that required new, most likely expensive, contracts, wasn't just announced as final season when it was renewed. Or in January, when I assume it would've been clear that she was unlikely to return, at the TCAs. Or at any point before the absolute last minute. 

I mean, from a financial standpoint I know ABC had kind of a stinker of a year and the decision to renew a declining show vs. taking the risk of a new one did come down to the wire for them. But I appreciate now seeing the scope of how that decision was shaped financially, and I really, really wish that the decision had been made prior to the disaster that was the last four weeks of the show's run. Just for the sake of my own sanity. 

Minus the character of Beckett....surely anyone who had paid any attention to this show and its history would know that it was never gonna float without Beckett.  I will always be bitter and twisted, like you, that it wasn't called earlier and I do try to understand that complexities of Hollywood business  and money motivation but not once did I feel like ANYONE  involved actually gave 5 seconds of thought to the creative outcomes that were at stake.  It was greedy, selfish behaviour but I guess I should expect nothing less from people who stand to make a lot of money and think nothing of squeezing out season after disappointing season of shows that have long since passed their used by date (I'm looking at your Criminal Minds)......was it any wonder it all went pear shaped and why I CLEARLY don't belong in Hollywood ;)

[Gant]

Quote

 And talking about the art when you're banking millions is a bit disingenuous to me.

This is the only thing that annoys me in this whole money issue story. I am very understanding and all, about pay discrepancies and creative professionals needing to balance financial and actually creative issues, but up to a point. The point being pretentiousness and grandstanding of any caliber, which was what I felt coming off in waves from Stana in general, and her 'art over finance' statement in particular. I always liked her image overall, but these rather frequently expressed pretentious statements and gestures made my hackles rise.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Gant

[madmaverick]

Not sure we've seen this interview with Nathan before?  It's from a French media outlet which has interviewed him before as I recognise the reporter, who looks kind of creepy to me.  :P  Think they may be airing more from a previous interview as the final season is premiering in France.  Not sure when the interview was done, sometime last season?  I don't think he knew whether the show would go on at that point, but he must have known it wouldn't go on forever.  I did want to laugh at Nathan saying Castle had better fashion sense than him (or maybe both have it equally bad? :P).  I did appreciate what he said about the team behind Castle and the credit he gave them, about Castle living on and always being available at the click of a button on our computers for those of us who miss the show, and so true about skipping the slow (bad!) eps, heh.   Oh boy, there are definitely eps that I won't be watching again.  Unless I press on it accidentally, heh.  Or years down the line and I want to watch them out of morbid curiosity about how bad they were.  TS&TQ, I'm looking at you. 

I don't believe the idea of Castle Legacy as conceived by Molly was meant to be taken the least bit seriously, but imagine a darker series about Molly becoming Beckett 2 (ha, that would send some Stanatics screaming :P) becoming a cop/P.I. to avenge her Dad and Beckett's untimely deaths by Loksat.  History repeats itself.  The irony!  Molly's incredibly lucky to be a homeowner at her age so I think she, and us all, can do without Castle Legacy, the show. ;)

Edited September 19, 2016 by madmaverick

[BlakesMomma]

1 hour ago, madmaverick said:

Not sure we've seen this interview with Nathan before?  It's from a French media outlet which has interviewed him before as I recognise the reporter, who looks kind of creepy to me.  :P  Think they may be airing more from a previous interview as the final season is premiering in France.  Not sure when the interview was done, sometime last season?  I don't think he knew whether the show would go on at that point, but he must have known it wouldn't go on forever.  I did want to laugh at Nathan saying Castle had better fashion sense than him (or maybe both have it equally bad? :P).  I did appreciate what he said about the team behind Castle and the credit he gave them, about Castle living on and always being available at the click of a button on our computers for those of us who miss the show, and so true about skipping the slow (bad!) eps, heh.   Oh boy, there are definitely eps that I won't be watching again.  Unless I press on it accidentally, heh.  Or years down the line and I want to watch them out of morbid curiosity about how bad they were.  TS&TQ, I'm looking at you. 

I don't believe the idea of Castle Legacy as conceived by Molly was meant to be taken the least bit seriously, but imagine a darker series about Molly becoming Beckett 2 (ha, that would send some Stanatics screaming :P) becoming a cop/P.I. to avenge her Dad and Beckett's untimely deaths by Loksat.  History repeats itself.  The irony!  Molly's incredibly lucky to be a homeowner at her age so I think she, and us all, can do without Castle Legacy, the show. ;)

That is new I think.  That same creepy guy published a much shorter version back before the end of S8.  This must be the rest of the interview done at that time that they saved for the S8 premiere in France.

Good interview!  And he's right, there are people just now discovering Castle/Firefly or any other show or movie that is no longer on the air.  Modern technology allows us to keep them close forever.

For all the complaints I see that he doesn't, Nathan has always mentioned and credited the crew for all their hard work and long hours, and that it isn't just the people we see on the screen but a huge team of hard working individuals who each add their own expertise to the show.  

[anoldfriend]

On 9/15/2016 at 3:14 PM, KaveDweller said:

It makes me wonder how much ABC makes on the show though. Paying actors millions an episode sounds crazy, but if the show is making the network/studio hundreds of millions, the actors deserve a fair share. I doubt Castle was making hundreds of million, I just meant in general you have to consider the big picture.

I'm guessing some of that $12 million is residuals from syndication.

Edited September 21, 2016 by anoldfriend

[madmaverick]

3 minutes ago, anoldfriend said:

ABC only makes money off advertising dollars.

The studio makes the money in syndication, foreign sales, etc. The actors get a piece of that. Stana and Nathan much more.

I'm just surprised Stana managed to get so close to Ellen Pompeo and Kerry Washington's salaries because I understand their shows draw much bigger audiences.  Priyanka Chopra also did very well for an ABC newbie, but she's massive in India, so I'm not sure how much of her earnings came from Quantico and how much from Bollywood.

[BlakesMomma]

Here's the rough English translation of the article and interview madmaverick linked above for anyone interested.

 

Last March as he turned the last episode, Nathan Fillion received Telestar.fr the filming of the last episode of Castle in the Raleigh Studios in Los Angeles. Since the broadcast begins September 26th on France 2 at 8:55 p.m., the actor has indulged in some confidences on this final chapter.

He admits that the Beckett / Castle couple will live some difficult moments ....

"Being happy all the time does not really represent reality. It would have been boring to watch. Our series is primarily dramatic. This is basically a drama even if we try to keep a certain lightness. But in reality, all marriages face problems. There are always challenges, in the best cases we try to identify together and grow out. I think in our case, the producers did it! "

What memories will he keep this experience that made him a star of the small screen? "I learned a lot working in this series. It lasted eight years, is the longest experience of my life. Except for my education. He spent a long time since we started this series. Molly Quinn was thirteen! Today she owns her home. this is an adult and that is a lifetime. "

As for fans who now feel orphaned, Nathan Fillion takes the time to reassure them with humor! "They can watch Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead.

No one abandons anyone. We live in a time when the series never die. I learned this through the series Firefly. She stopped there thirteen years and I still have people who come to me and say, "I discovered this series there are two weeks! ". Many will continue to follow or explore the Castle series although it is complete. And for those who have silent monitoring, they can review all these episodes. It will be like an old friend. A simple click on the computer gives us access it there. You can reach this universe very quickly or choose the episodes you chose! "

[anoldfriend]

On 9/19/2016 at 4:11 PM, madmaverick said:

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by anoldfriend

[madmaverick]

8 minutes ago, BlakesMomma said:

Here's the rough English translation of the article and interview madmaverick linked above for anyone interested.

 

Last March as he turned the last episode, Nathan Fillion received Telestar.fr the filming of the last episode of Castle in the Raleigh Studios in Los Angeles. Since the broadcast begins September 26th on France 2 at 8:55 p.m., the actor has indulged in some confidences on this final chapter.

He admits that the Beckett / Castle couple will live some difficult moments ....

"Being happy all the time does not really represent reality. It would have been boring to watch. Our series is primarily dramatic. This is basically a drama even if we try to keep a certain lightness. But in reality, all marriages face problems. There are always challenges, in the best cases we try to identify together and grow out. I think in our case, the producers did it! "

What memories will he keep this experience that made him a star of the small screen? "I learned a lot working in this series. It lasted eight years, is the longest experience of my life. Except for my education. He spent a long time since we started this series. Molly Quinn was thirteen! Today she owns her home. this is an adult and that is a lifetime. "

As for fans who now feel orphaned, Nathan Fillion takes the time to reassure them with humor! "They can watch Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead.

No one abandons anyone. We live in a time when the series never die. I learned this through the series Firefly. She stopped there thirteen years and I still have people who come to me and say, "I discovered this series there are two weeks! ". Many will continue to follow or explore the Castle series although it is complete. And for those who have silent monitoring, they can review all these episodes. It will be like an old friend. A simple click on the computer gives us access it there. You can reach this universe very quickly or choose the episodes you chose! "

Merci beaucoup, Blakesmomma.  I hadn't read the blurb below because I thought it was just recapping the video.  Now all those people who were so busy lambasting Nathan for saying the show was comedic (and so he only wanted to play the clown blah blah blah) at one time can now lambast him for saying the show is primarily dramatic. :P  I never get worked up about what actors say about the show one way or another because a), it tends to adapt to whatever storylines the writers are writing, b) they are actors not the writers, so it's only their interpretation separate from the show, so so what whether you agree or disagree with the actor's pov.

5 minutes ago, anoldfriend said:

The Priyanka thing counts her movies and other crap she does. It's not just her Quantico money.

Ratings drawers help for leverage of course, but Stana was the female lead of the ABC Studios second longest running procedural.  Castle also cleans up in syndication and foreign more than Grey's and Scandal do.

Saw someone said actors don't get foreign residuals, that's untrue. 

While I am inclined to agree, I think her "art over finance" meant that she wasn't going to do Castle forever just to get a high paycheck. She wants to do other things, edgier things. 

Now she will probably end up right back on a network show, and then we can call bullshit on her art of finance. I'll be ready to clink glasses with you ;)

I had no idea that Castle made more money in syndication and overseas compared to Grey's and Scandal.  That's interesting.  Shonda's coffers still do very well, I have no doubt. ;)

That may have been what Stana meant.  But at the same time, Castle was hardly at an artistic high point by S7 and the characters' story was clearly heading to a natural conclusion, so I am sceptical as to how big a part artistic merit played n her decision to stay on for S8 vis a vis the $12m paycheck. ;)  

I do think that she wants to do edgier things, and also, film work, but edgier films are not always quality things either.  Judging from the results of her indie films so far, I say there's better material available in television, especially cable, if she can get it. 

I really hope neither Nathan nor Stana will end up on a network show.  And definitely not a network procedural.

[WendyCR72]

16 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

And definitely not a network procedural.

I get they can be rote. But more often than not, procedurals can be/usually are lucrative. And people watch. So I won't fault anyone if they ever do go this route since it almost guarantees another financial windfall.

[TWP]

Quote

Ratings drawers help for leverage of course, but Stana was the female lead of the ABC Studios second longest running procedural.  Castle also cleans up in syndication and foreign more than Grey's and Scandal do.

If so then why in the world  wouldn't the studio ask her back and why would ABC cancel the show. It makes no monetary sense at all, if the payout is so huge. And we all know the driving force is money (for all parties involved, even those who claim art over finance).

I suspect the Stana camp held feet to the fire for Season 8, so the studio paid her an outrageous sum, or else they'd have had no time to revise their Season 8 plans.  They just didn't have the money or maybe desire to give her even more for Season 9 so they cut her. Or else her Castle pay really was relatively low and the Lifetime movie SC and the straight to VOD "The Rendezvous" had huge monetary payouts ;-) that we aren't taking into account.

I'm waiting with baited breath to see if Nathan makes the Forbes list.

[madmaverick]

25 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

I get they can be rote. But more often than not, procedurals can be/usually are lucrative. And people watch. So I won't fault anyone if they ever do go this route since it almost guarantees another financial windfall.

Oh, I won't fault them if they choose to do another procedural for creative/financial reasons.  Everyone's free to choose what appeals to them.  Just as someone who likes them as actors, I'd prefer to see them in something more serialised, which is more to my personal taste.   There's so much TV out there that's challenging and telling new kinds of stories, I'd love to see them do work like that.  But hey, I got stuck into Castle because of them, and I do like the occasional procedural show if the chemistry and the writing are good.

[BlakesMomma]

1 hour ago, anoldfriend said:

The Priyanka thing counts her movies and other crap she does. It's not just her Quantico money.

Ratings drawers help for leverage of course, but Stana was the female lead of the ABC Studios second longest running procedural.  Castle also cleans up in syndication and foreign more than Grey's and Scandal do.

Saw someone said actors don't get foreign residuals, that's untrue. 

While I am inclined to agree, I think her "art over finance" meant that she wasn't going to do Castle forever just to get a high paycheck. She wants to do other things, edgier things. 

Now she will probably end up right back on a network show, and then we can call bullshit on her art of finance. I'll be ready to clink glasses with you ;)

That's interesting because neither Sister Cities nor The Rendezvous strike me as being "edgy".  One is a typical family drama story and the other is a low budget RomCom.  I'm not sure Lost In Florence (The Tourist) is even worth mentioning.

[WendyCR72]

Stana may be about art, I have no idea. But art doesn't necessarily lead to great exposure, assuming she even wants that.

Hell, the only way to that these days seems to be cable shows, the dreaded procedurals on network, or doing a Netflix show - and on Netflix, the Marvel superhero shows seem to be the hottest commodities.  :-P

Nathan, he loves Cons. I can see him doing Marvel stuff. But Stana? No, not really.

Maybe she likes being below the radar. And I don't mean to disparage it at all. Not EVERYONE can be super famous and in demand.

[KaveDweller]

15 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Stana may be about art, I have no idea. But art doesn't necessarily lead to great exposure, assuming she even wants that.

Hell, the only way to that these days seems to be cable shows, the dreaded procedurals on network, or doing a Netflix show - and on Netflix, the Marvel superhero shows seem to be the hottest commodities.  :-P

Nathan, he loves Cons. I can see him doing Marvel stuff. But Stana? No, not really.

Maybe she likes being below the radar. And I don't mean to disparage it at all. Not EVERYONE can be super famous and in demand.

I get the sense she likes being under-the-radar, but knows fame can help her get interesting projects. If she was really just about fame she'd have given an interview when the whole firing story came out, she seemed to go into hiding instead. But I don't know her, obviously, so who the hell knows for sure.

Edited September 20, 2016 by KaveDweller

[BlakesMomma]

34 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

I get the sense she likes being under-the-radar, but knows fame can help her get interesting projects. If she was really just about fame she'd have given an interview when the whole firing story came out, she seemed to go into hiding instead. But I don't know her, obviously, so who the hell knows for sure.

She hadn't given an interview since she signed her contract for S8 back in May 2015.

[break21]

6 hours ago, KaveDweller said:

I get the sense she likes being under-the-radar, but knows fame can help her get interesting projects. If she was really just about fame she'd have given an interview when the whole firing story came out, she seemed to go into hiding instead. But I don't know her, obviously, so who the hell knows for sure.

Cynical me thinks she wanted off the show and her publicist put out a story to make her look like the victim.  JMO.

[madmaverick]

7 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

Stana may be about art, I have no idea. But art doesn't necessarily lead to great exposure, assuming she even wants that.

Hell, the only way to that these days seems to be cable shows, the dreaded procedurals on network, or doing a Netflix show - and on Netflix, the Marvel superhero shows seem to be the hottest commodities.  :-P

Nathan, he loves Cons. I can see him doing Marvel stuff. But Stana? No, not really.

Maybe she likes being below the radar. And I don't mean to disparage it at all. Not EVERYONE can be super famous and in demand.

Even if Stana is about the art, whatever that means, I'm still fairly sure she would jump at the chance to be in a Marvel movie.  Or a Joss Whedon movie for that matter.   She seems like she's more interested in doing film than TV (at least network TV), and getting a role in some big time, commercial movie would be the kind of higher profile career opportunity in film that she would want, like most other actors out there, and be stupid to turn down when you're mostly known as a network TV actor.  

I think she has had a more proactive and deliberate PR approach in recent times, and you can see that from her social media use amongst other things.  She's been much more active on instagram, which suggests to me she wants to stay on people's radar and grow her following.  She appears to make deliberate choices about what she chooses to promote and not promote in my opinion.  She promoted Castle in its last season very little. and curiously, she also promoted Sister Cities very little in the end.  I don't know if that was because the movie ended up on Lifetime, or whatever reason.

There's a lot of really high quality content on cable that I would love to see Nathan and Stana doing, but, I am not so sure that it's easy for network TV stars to cross over to being cast against type there.  And there are loads of film actors competing for that work.

Edited September 20, 2016 by madmaverick

[femmefan1946]

On 2016-09-19 at 4:11 PM, madmaverick said:

 Priyanka Chopra also did very well for an ABC newbie, but she's massive in India, so I'm not sure how much of her earnings came from Quantico and how much from Bollywood.

Thank you for that reminder. Has the show also been sold to India, I wonder?

Late to the discussion, but one part of the high salaries for actors and athletes is the 'fifteen minutes of fame".

Most have a very short time to earn that money- we were discussing earlier whether Stana Katic at 38 would ever be as widely noticed as she did on Castle. Last year, after I finished streaming Two Guys and a Girl, I looked up the cast. Ryan Reynolds and Nathan Fillion went on to stronger careers, but the rest of the cast? IMdB doesn't show very much steady employment and certainly not for the women. (Traylor Howard was in Monk, but does not seem to have worked since 2010).

Unless an actor decides to be a character actor and be 'that guy' on every second screen, one TV episode might be the acting income for the year.

[WendyCR72]

TV Line has posted the list of both actors and actresses and who made what...

[KaveDweller]

So people were right, they were getting equal pay for the last season. Good for everyone involved. And that got them each the same ranking within men and women, I was curious about that. Of course the comments on that article are turning into a Castle thread.....

Big Bang Theory is not a good enough show to make all those actors that much money. 

[madmaverick]

On 9/28/2016 at 10:13 AM, WendyCR72 said:

TV Line has posted the list of both actors and actresses and who made what...

Surprisingly slow to the punch.  :P  Wasn't that list out earlier?  Or maybe it was a slow week at TV Line and they needed some bait to fill the void.

On 9/28/2016 at 11:38 AM, KaveDweller said:

So people were right, they were getting equal pay for the last season. Good for everyone involved. And that got them each the same ranking within men and women, I was curious about that. Of course the comments on that article are turning into a Castle thread.....

Big Bang Theory is not a good enough show to make all those actors that much money. 

Oh, some Castle folk will never let go of TV Line comment sections... same song all over again. ;)

Hope the equal pay can put to rest the idea of one being a sexist, egotistical dude who didn't want his costar to get equal pay. ;)  $12m bucks.  No one's a victim imo.  

I think someone like Mindy Kaling is good value considering her creative chops and multiple hats for her show.  As for the sitcom stars who've made outrageous amounts over the years, even if the show was funny, they were never consistently THAT funny to me.  I didn't know many of those sitcom stars on the list before they landed their shows, but man, are you set for life if you happen to be part of a hit sitcom ensemble.  You don't even have to work those grueling hour long schedules as a lead. 

[westwingfan]

3 hours ago, madmaverick said:

Surprisingly slow to the punch.  :P  Wasn't that list out earlier?  Or maybe it was a slow week at TV Line and they needed some bait to fill the void.

Oh, some Castle folk will never let go of TV Line comment sections... same song all over again. ;)

Hope the equal pay can put to rest the idea of one being a sexist, egotistical dude who didn't want his costar to get equal pay. ;)  $12m bucks.  No one's a victim imo.  

I think someone like Mindy Kaling is good value considering her creative chops and multiple hats for her show.  As for the sitcom stars who've made outrageous amounts over the years, even if the show was funny, they were never consistently THAT funny to me.  I didn't know many of those sitcom stars on the list before they landed their shows, but man, are you set for life if you happen to be part of a hit sitcom ensemble.  You don't even have to work those grueling hour long schedules as a lead. 

I think some people have missed the fact that these figures are their TOTAL earnings for the year, as explained that Sophia Vegara's 43M includes all her endorsements on top of her Modern Family income, which I've seen someone reckons as "ONLY" $325K per episode, so although their Castle income probably makes up a sizeable portion of the $12M, Stana's also presumably includes what she got for her two movie roles, and NF's would take into account his lucrative Con appearances, so I'm not  sure that it could be claimed they got equal pay for Castle unless the numbers are officially confirmed.

[KaveDweller]

1 hour ago, westwingfan said:

I think some people have missed the fact that these figures are their TOTAL earnings for the year, as explained that Sophia Vegara's 43M includes all her endorsements on top of her Modern Family income, which I've seen someone reckons as "ONLY" $325K per episode, so although their Castle income probably makes up a sizeable portion of the $12M, Stana's also presumably includes what she got for her two movie roles, and NF's would take into account his lucrative Con appearances, so I'm not  sure that it could be claimed they got equal pay for Castle unless the numbers are officially confirmed.

I wondered how those numbers worked, because they do have other income. I doubt Nathan's Con appearances  pay the same as Stana's movies (Cons are probably more?), but I certainly can't believe Stana made more for Castle.

I think the more likely scenario is that the list contain other income that is known, but does not necessarily match these people's tax returns.

[madmaverick]

I did note that the figures included income from endorsements as well as acting work, which accounted for Vegara's whopping total.  I doubt they bothered to track down Nathan's con and voicework income etc., or Stana's salaries from two indies, but I could be wrong.  I think $12m was about Castle but not just pay per episode, but including the backend stuff.  I'd find it hard to believe ABC was paying them both $500,000 plus for an episode.

[WendyCR72]

9 hours ago, madmaverick said:

Surprisingly slow to the punch.  :P  Wasn't that list out earlier?

Partially. The actresses were released; the actors, as far as I could tell, were not.

[chraume]

1 hour ago, WendyCR72 said:

Partially. The actresses were released; the actors, as far as I could tell, were not.

I caught the Forbes list for the actors last week, but only because I was reading another article on the Forbes website. I didn't see it circulated around Twitter at all -- I wonder why?

But I'm really pleased to see that they had equal, or mostly-equal, pay. Good for them; after eight seasons, with the two of them really holding up the show, it was definitely deserved. I'm still shocked that any Castle actors made the cut, but I guess there aren't a ton of shows on network TV at the moment that have passed the requisite seven-season-contract mark. 

[BlakesMomma]

15 hours ago, westwingfan said:

I think some people have missed the fact that these figures are their TOTAL earnings for the year, as explained that Sophia Vegara's 43M includes all her endorsements on top of her Modern Family income, which I've seen someone reckons as "ONLY" $325K per episode, so although their Castle income probably makes up a sizeable portion of the $12M, Stana's also presumably includes what she got for her two movie roles, and NF's would take into account his lucrative Con appearances, so I'm not  sure that it could be claimed they got equal pay for Castle unless the numbers are officially confirmed.

For each actor or actress on the lists it specifically spelled out any endorsement or other projects (one had a book deal) that were included in their calculation.  Neither Fillion or Katic had anything listed besides Castle so seems likely both their figures are their Castle money only.

[femmefan1946]

 I doubt they bothered to track down Nathan's con and voicework income etc., or Stana's salaries from two indies, but I could be wrong.

On the other hand the acting jobs, both indie and voice work, would be done under union contracts, so those numbers would be easily available to a dedicated reporter.

I have a vague memory that Nathan gets about $80,000 for a con appearance, including a flat fee and the takings from photo ops and autographs. A few years ago a buddy bought a photo op for herself and a daughter and paid $100Cdn.

[madmaverick]

Came across this article giving an overview of salaries in the entertainment industry.  Quite informative as I had no idea what writers were being paid per teleplay, showrunners etc.  Me thinks some highly talented fanfic writers should try to break into the television writing business considering their quality of output and what we got from some show writers. ;)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/hollywood-salaries-2016-who-got-933037/item/hollywood-salaries-revealed-who-got-933050

[Sonik Tooth]

On 29.9.2016 at 11:47 AM, madmaverick said:

Hope the equal pay can put to rest the idea of one being a sexist, egotistical dude who didn't want his costar to get equal pay. ;)  $12m bucks.  No one's a victim imo.  

Fat chance. As long as he likes what he’s doing/ is having fun, and as long as people respond positively about it, they won’t leave their bubble of moral uproar. It’s just too good a feeling to stop. Those infected by the zeitgeist of self-righteous zealousness will just adjust and expand the narrative. They’ll keep going as long as there is an echo chamber (which isn’t really hard to find on the internet/social media).

16 hours ago, femmefan1946 said:

 I doubt they bothered to track down Nathan's con and voicework income etc., or Stana's salaries from two indies, but I could be wrong.

On the other hand the acting jobs, both indie and voice work, would be done under union contracts, so those numbers would be easily available to a dedicated reporter.

Even so we don’t exactly know if Forbes was just too lazy to mention their respective other projects, it would be much of a coincidence that they both end up with 12 millions. (Even if one considers rounding differences to the next level – 11,5 or 12,5)

If it is all Castle, I can’t really agree with the equal pay talk. If I work 32 hours per week and get the same money as my colleague who works 40 hours per week, I wouldn’t consider it equal payment. I don’t recall actual airtime of both characters but I remember a distinct unhappiness about fewer Beckett scenes in some corners.

12 hours ago, madmaverick said:

Came across this article giving an overview of salaries in the entertainment industry.  Quite informative as I had no idea what writers were being paid per teleplay, showrunners etc. Me thinks some highly talented fanfic writers should try to break into the television writing business considering their quality of output and what we got from some show writers. ;)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/hollywood-salaries-2016-who-got-933037/item/hollywood-salaries-revealed-who-got-933050

I won’t argue about the quality of the output from Castle writers as it seems to vary depending on theme, tone and – well - dialogue of an episode. And to each his/ her own. But with fanfic writers (and I might or might not be wrong as I haven’t read that many fanfics) for starters the ratio/ structure is mostly completely off. It’s not so much about the case of the week but a personal journey/ something personal/ something relationshippy. It’s not about all characters, it’s only an outtake prolonged or changed of something that has happened. It doesn’t really reflect what the series is about week after week. And of course they don’t actually write a script that also comes with certain restrictions as time and structure. It’s not anti-fanfic and I’m not diminishing any writing talent (as I myself have none) but they are taking a vast amount of liberties in story-telling and character descriptions as far as I have seen.

[chraume]

1 hour ago, Sonik Tooth said:

I won’t argue about the quality of the output from Castle writers as it seems to vary depending on theme, tone and – well - dialogue of an episode. And to each his/ her own. But with fanfic writers (and I might or might not be wrong as I haven’t read that many fanfics) for starters the ratio/ structure is mostly completely off. It’s not so much about the case of the week but a personal journey/ something personal/ something relationshippy. It’s not about all characters, it’s only an outtake prolonged or changed of something that has happened. It doesn’t really reflect what the series is about week after week. And of course they don’t actually write a script that also comes with certain restrictions as time and structure. It’s not anti-fanfic and I’m not diminishing any writing talent (as I myself have none) but they are taking a vast amount of liberties in story-telling and character descriptions as far as I have seen.

I'd argue that it's not so much liberties in storytelling as it is a very different format of storytelling -- Castle in particular was constrained by the time that needed to be dedicated to a case vs. the b-story, so a lot of the fanfic is about expanding on different elements of the relationship, and having more rounded conclusions to episode storylines than (for example) "Beckett's apartment blew up once and nobody ever mentioned it or thought about it again." I don't believe it's intended to be an exact nod to the show, with the case of the week and an analysis of all of the characters, just -- as you said --  a journey of the characters, a more in-depth look at what the show can't (in its own constraints) take a look at, or a totally different look of "what if x happened." Or, well, the good stuff is. ;)

Definitely different talents, though, you're right; I don't have a talent for writing at all, but I definitely imagine it must be far more challenging to work within the constraints of a TV script, particularly with a procedural where you have to keep things fresh several seasons in, and come up with new cases, AND write only five or so minutes of action that deals with the relationships or personal dealings of the characters, while still trying to keep things moving and keeping everything relevant to the case and moving the longer arcs along. The Castle writers really excelled at that until, in my opinion, somewhere around mid-season five. And that's not even trying to tie in things like actors having time constraints for things like shooting other projects, or wanting time off, and having to deal with only having certain guest stars for x amount of eps, etc. etc. 

[KaveDweller]

2 hours ago, Sonik Tooth said:

If it is all Castle, I can’t really agree with the equal pay talk. If I work 32 hours per week and get the same money as my colleague who works 40 hours per week, I wouldn’t consider it equal payment. I don’t recall actual airtime of both characters but I remember a distinct unhappiness about fewer Beckett scenes in some corners.

True, but in past seasons Beckett had just as much or more airtime than Castle and Stana was earning less then. It probably balances out over the eight seasons.

52 minutes ago, chraume said:

Definitely different talents, though, you're right; I don't have a talent for writing at all, but I definitely imagine it must be far more challenging to work within the constraints of a TV script, particularly with a procedural where you have to keep things fresh several seasons in, and come up with new cases, AND write only five or so minutes of action that deals with the relationships or personal dealings of the characters, while still trying to keep things moving and keeping everything relevant to the case and moving the longer arcs along. The Castle writers really excelled at that until, in my opinion, somewhere around mid-season five. And that's not even trying to tie in things like actors having time constraints for things like shooting other projects, or wanting time off, and having to deal with only having certain guest stars for x amount of eps, etc. etc. 

Yeah, as much as I give the writers a hard time, I will acknowledge that writing a TV series is a really hard job. They can't do anything they want like fan fiction writers can. There is also the network and budgets to deal with. I think one reason I like fan fiction with Castle is because I thought the show was really best at having small moments with the characters. Only, they hardly ever did any of them because of the COTW. Fanfiction can explore those small moments in more depth.