n Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dave Sikula <[email protected]> wrote:
> He's "putting his art above his wallet," but is unwilling to give up > $1.5 million of his $30 million to retain two of his actors? Yeah. > Right. I would say that he is putting his art on the same level as his wallet. AMC and Lionsgate are basically trying to bribe him with the $10m/year contract if he agrees to the cuts and loss of creative control. He is saying back to them: "Screw You! - I earned the $30M (which is about 30% of just the estimated DVD revenue), plus I insist on retaining the creative control, which is what made this property so valuable to everyone concerned in the first place. The projected actor cuts would result in about $9M of savings over the next 3 years ($1.5*3 - $4.5; $1.5*2 = $3M; $1.5M*1 = $1.5M. $4.5+$3M+$1.5M = $9M). You are suggesting that the creator and main creative force behind the show that take 30% of his salary and spend it on keeping the current actors, rather than the multi-million dollar corporations earning slightly less profit from his labor over those three years. I think Weiner has the high ground. [it looks like there is a joke somewhere in that last sentence but I cant fint it right now]. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
