Like the last season of the original 5-0, with none of the original cast left except Lord, and mostly generic 70s white folk (William Smith, Sharon Farrell) filling in.
I watch 5-0 regularly w/ the Mrs. While McGarrett (Alex O'Loughlin) is undoubtedly the main dude, it's very much of an "ensemble cast" show. DDK and GP get at least as much screen time as Scott Caan does. Hell, Caan's character is full on missing from a bunch of episodes--usually written off with a throwaway line about him "visiting his mother in NJ" and something like that. So IMO their departures will cheapen the end product a bunch. Honestly, hearing this, I don't expect the show to last much more than one more season.
Doing that in the final season of the show doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Exhibit #1 - Deep Space 9. DS9 not unloading a truck of money at Farrell's doorstep to ensure she would finish out the final season was the worst mistake they ever made. Ezri was a stupid character, the episodes exploring her backstory a waste of time.
I agree. But from what I read in TVGUIDE IIRC there was lots of discontent among the DS9 cast after the 5th season because they were denied major salary increases. Paramounts position being that ratings had not improved so salary increases were not justifiable.
Ratings increases are not the norm for TV shows at that stage of their life span. One notable exception being Breaking Bad, whose ratings increased in the final season with every episode leading up to finale. I just read a story two days ago about Michael Dorn having been approached to appear in Discovery as an ancestor of Worf. Dorn reportedly turned it down because they offered him some ridiculous lowball amount, less than 1% of what his most recent salary was to play Worf in DS9. At least that's what Dorn was quoted as saying at a recent convention Q & A.
Apparently there was some belief at Paramount that all the changes they made with DS9 in the fourth season would've resulted in ratings increases. Especially as Paramount apparently agreed to shell out some major money for "Way of the Warrior".
All changes a business makes are in the interest of making the business more profitable. The business owners are not always correct, of course, but that is their intent.
I don't think CBS had any immediate plans for cancellation. It's more that gutting two major stars, especially over what appears to be a discrimination issue, will force CBS to pull the plug in another season anyway. From what I gather Ferrell was looking to expand her career and she either had to jump on Becker or pass it entirely. She's gotten a better post-Trek run than most other actors not named Patrick Stewart. I actually like Ezri, such as she was, but if they had to keep a female character around to keep the show from being a complete sausage fest, they could've just made nuDax a reoccurring character.
Plus Farrell apparently had problems with Berman that were serious enough to make nothing short of a huge amount of money being the only way to get her to stay.
Losing Terry Farrell really made that last season a drag. I could feel how Worf felt when Ezra showed up.
Ezri was certainly a waste of time but I disagree with throwing money at Farrell to keep her. The show didn't revolve around her.The main, supporting and recurring characters were already large and one less cast member would free up more screen time for everyone else.
Ensemble casts make it easier to lose characters if actors wanna quit or otherwise become unavailable, and they should equalise pay somewhat, or make it easier to spot crap like this. How do the various team members on Agents of SHIELD fare in terms of pay equality?
I'm just a bit surprised that O'Loughlin and Caan didn't step up in solidarity with DDK and GP. Actors on other shows have done so. The six "Friends" pretty much all bargained as a single unit with their contracts. And IIRC, Julia Louis-Dreyfuss, Jason Alexander, and Michael Richards all made the same $ per episode as each other in the latter seasons of Seinfeld.
Seinfeld was a pretty different situation though. Jerry Seinfeld was never an actor nor ever claimed to be. It was obvious from beginning to end that the show depended on his three buddies for its success. Friends never spent noticeably more time on any of the six characters than the others. Though Jennifer Aniston and Matthew Perry made more movie appearances that the other four, there was never really a "breakout" by any of the Friends cast.
Yeah, pretty much this. Although Seinfeld was in some sense the lead of his show, the show put nearly equal emphasis on the others, and, without them, the show wouldn't have worked at all. And there was no lead in Friends at all. Each one of the cast had many episodes/story arcs built around them.
No it's not. Many times owners/shareholders will sacrifice profitability in order to collect short term gains/dividends. Take the money and run.
It's still a matter of what they consider their best financial outcome. Nobody's operating in a way that is to their own detriment.
Despite magazines dragging the poor chick into every conversation about Brag and Angie, Jennifer Aniston is a bankable star in her own right.
