Mad Men

[uwsman2]

Lots of people have recently mentioned to me that they thought I would like this series, so I bought the first season on DVD, and after having watched seven episodes, I am hooked. Many of the male regulars in the cast are real beauties, especially leading man John Hamm, and one character is supposed to be a closet case who is going to have some "episodes" ahead. (For those not familiar with it, the series is set in a NYC advertising agency, the first season being set in 1960.) They do a meticulous job on keeping everything "in period." There is a fair amount of sex, and the lead man has a nicely toned middle-age bod that gets some exposure from time to time... The writing is superb!

[Guest zipperzone]

I agree - it's a great show. I find it hard to believe that in these days of gigantic pay-cheques for TV actors (Charlie Sheen get 21 million a year for 2 1/2 Men) that John Ham only makes $75,000 per episode. I think he needs a better agent.

[+ purplekow]

You mean he only makes in one week what the average fireman in NYC makes in a more than a year? Yeah he should be making at least 2 fireman, a police officer and nurse at least. After all Charley Sheen is making per episode more than Obama makes in a year. But Presidencies are easy, comedy is hard.

I realize that residuals and advertising are very lucrative. That does not mean we should not keep things in perspective. After all Mr. Sheen barely makes in a year what a middling Investment Excutive gets as a chump change end of the year bonus.

[jackcali]

PK, your post about comparing salaries reminds me of this story about Babe Ruth's salary negotiations in 1929 or 1930. When a reporter said to him that he was asking for a salary that was more than what President Hoover was paid, he said "What the hell has Hoover got to do with it? Besides, I had a better year than he did."

[JT Brooklyn]

Whatever the Market will bear! Make what you can while you can!

 

Just like the "Working Guys"...The Mad Men "Gig" ain't gonna last forever! Definitely it will be a shorter run than some Guys who have been "Working It" for Years!

 

Of course J.H. can move on to Older Parts, he's not starring as a 20 something on the CW, unless he really gets type cast, as opposed to the Working Guys who don't have that Future.

[+ purplekow]

Jack I prefer Ralph Kiner's story of asking for raise after leading the league in homer runs, something he did for 7 straight years I believe, and being told that he wasn't getting a raise because: "with came in last place with you, we can come in last place without you."

[+ Billsboy4]

Regarding the salary comment about Sheen vs Hamm. Sheen came into his series as a 'movie star' (whether one agrees or disagrees that he was one) and commanded a higher salary to begin with. When the show became a hit, that's when he renegotiated this astronomic salary. Hamm (a working actor, but virtually unknown) came into a CABLE show at a much lower salary. As the show continues to gain success, watch for salary renegotiations soon. Also you can't compare network tv to cable tv, as network salaries have always been higher. If Sheen's show hadn't been a hit, his salary wouldn't reach this level.

 

Also, from an actor's point of view, a hit series or movie is their chance to make big money, while there's heat on them. There are very few actors (William Shatner comes to mind) that goes from hit series, to hit series, to hit series. Look at Kelsey Grammer....Frasier was a big hit and he made a ton of money. Since then he's had 1 series tank and a current one that's about to tank.

 

While I'm not defending Sheen or Hamm.....I'm trying to explain the reasons things play out the way they do.

[Guest zipperzone]

You mean he only makes in one week what the average fireman in NYC makes in a more than a year? Yeah he should be making at least 2 fireman, a police officer and nurse at least. After all Charley Sheen is making per episode more than Obama makes in a year. But Presidencies are easy, comedy is hard.

I realize that residuals and advertising are very lucrative. That does not mean we should not keep things in perspective. After all Mr. Sheen barely makes in a year what a middling Investment Excutive gets as a chump change end of the year bonus.

 

You seem to be missing my point or else you enjoy playing the devil's advocate.

 

A NYC fireman or policeman or nurse is doing a job for a contractual amount of pay. If that pay is not enough they have the option of finding other employment. They can't be compared to an actor who, by being in a hit show and is a major reason the show is a hit, is able to generate millions of dollars in advertising revenue for the network.

 

I don't think Charlie Sheen is worth 21 million any more than I think Glen Beck is worth 50 million. But I think the disparity between the two salaries (Sheen vs Ham) is proof that Ham does need a better agent.

 

While we are on the subject of outrageous salaries - how do sports "stars" justify what they earn? The same way - they bring in the big profits for their employers. Are they worth it? Not in my opinion.

[uwsman2]

re sports stars vs actors

 

Sports stars have to make their killing while they can. Most "major league" sports stars have relatively brief careers at their peak earning potential, whereas an actor who is really talented, in the top star category, can have a career lasting three or four times as long. These things have to be seen in proportion.

[+ purplekow]

You seem to be missing my point or else you enjoy playing the devil's advocate.

 

A NYC fireman or policeman or nurse is doing a job for a contractual amount of pay. If that pay is not enough they have the option of finding other employment. They can't be compared to an actor who, by being in a hit show and is a major reason the show is a hit, is able to generate millions of dollars in advertising revenue for the network.

 

I don't think Charlie Sheen is worth 21 million any more than I think Glen Beck is worth 50 million. But I think the disparity between the two salaries (Sheen vs Ham) is proof that Ham does need a better agent.

 

While we are on the subject of outrageous salaries - how do sports "stars" justify what they earn? The same way - they bring in the big profits for their employers. Are they worth it? Not in my opinion.

 

 

No I understand the system. I am merely pointing out that by saying he is merely making 75000 an episode, you suggest that he is being underpaid. Mr. Hamm is a handsome man and a fine actor. My guess, 500 actors unemployed at the moment would do as fine a job as he had with the material. There is nothing intrinsic in Mr. Hamm's performance that demands more money, rather it is the success of the show and the venue that has had this salary affixed to it. If the producers wanted to risk it, I am sure that could find someone who would do as well with the role for less money. Soap operas change actors in the same role all the time, I believe Mr. Hamm could be replaced. Mr. Hamm's one quality that demands an increase in this high salary is, he has the job and when something is working people don't want to change. Certainly Mr. Hamm, an interesting name for an actor as most would not want to be considered hams, is making what most would consider an exorbitant salary for what he does, as does Mr. Sheen, Mr. Jeter, Mr. Rodriguez etc. That we might consider him underpaid only points out how inured we have become to the extravagances of entertainment celebrity reimbursement.

[TruthBTold]

I have also become hooked on the show. I get it from Netflixx and run through as many episodes a day as I can - just like an addict. The acting is uniformly outstanding. Jon Hamm is talented AND gorgeous. I also watch many of the commentaries. The commentaries are done a little differently from ones I have seen before. There are two for each episode. One includes some of the actors and the other is made up of directors, costumers, or tech people. Be forewarned, some of the commentaries can get a tad grating at times.