Three Stars of Seinfeld boycott DVD deal

[Imran Siddiqui]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/23/ar...on/23SEIN.html

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 22 — Three of the four leading cast members of the hit television comedy "Seinfeld" are declining to participate in the making of a DVD series of the show because they are unhappy with the related financial deals they have had over the years, people close to the actors and the show said on Monday.

These people said that the three actors — Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who played Elaine; Michael Richards, who played Kramer; and Jason Alexander, who played George — made the joint decision not to give on-camera interviews for the DVD or otherwise participate in it.

Executives at Castle Rock Television, which produced the show for NBC, and Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment, which will distribute the DVD, "were only willing to give a small recording fee to the three of them and not a piece of the action," said a representative for one of the actors, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "So they all said, `Why should we make other people richer?' "

Spokesmen for the three actors said they could not be reached for comment on Monday.

A spokeswoman for Jerry Seinfeld said he was disappointed that his three co-stars had decided to sit out the making of the DVD, which will feature extensive interviews with other cast members, writers and producers of the show.

"Jerry has enormous respect for Jason, Julia and Michael, and he had a great experience working with them on the show," said the spokeswoman, Elizabeth Clark. "He hopes they will participate in the DVD." Ms. Clark said Mr. Seinfeld hoped to talk to them after the New Year and persuade them to change their minds.

"Seinfeld," which ran from 1990 to 1998, remains one of the most successful comedy shows in television history and still plays in syndication across much of the country. The DVD of the show would seem destined to sell millions of copies.

The show continues to generate millions of dollars in revenue for its co-creators and executive producers, Mr. Seinfeld and Larry David, though the last original episode was broadcast five years ago. Mr. David did not return calls seeking comment.

The three boycotting actors earn residual payments from the show's reruns, a fee determined by the Screen Actors Guild. A representative for one of the actors estimated the fee at $100,000 a year.

Discontent over the sharing of the "Seinfeld" riches has arisen with Mr. Seinfeld's three co-stars before. In the last few years of the show the actors had sought to become part owners of the show, like Mr. Seinfeld.

They famously sought $1 million an episode for the last year of the show, 1998, in part because they said they thought they had been underpaid for many seasons. They ended up with about $600,000 a show, then a whopping sum for television.

A complicating factor is that "Seinfeld" is now owned by a handful of corporate entities. After the original "Seinfeld" deal was negotiated, Castle Rock Television was bought by Turner Broadcasting, which was bought by Time Warner. This means that Time Warner, Columbia TriStar Television, Castle Rock, Mr. Seinfeld and Mr. David will all take profits from the DVD.

Without the participation of three of the main cast members, the DVD will be significantly less interesting, executives close to the project acknowledged.

"It's never been just about the episodes; it's really about the value added," said Fritz Friedman, a senior vice president at Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment. "That's what takes so much time. That's why so much is up in the air — the concept, the taping, the schedules of people involved. Fans complain if we release bare-bones product. On something like `Seinfeld,' people won't be happy if we just put the episodes on there."

Castle Rock is working on the DVD of the first "Seinfeld" season, aiming to release it in December 2004. Plans call for the eventual release of all nine seasons.

Though taped in Hollywood, "Seinfeld," set in Manhattan, was a quintessentially New York show that contributed a succession of signature phrases and oddball story lines to American popular culture. Everything from Kramer's manic body language to "Yada, yada, yada" to "master of your domain" became fodder for water cooler chat.

Others participating in the making of the DVD expressed disappointment that resentment over money had become a legacy of the show.

Peter Mehlman, a former "Seinfeld" writer, said: "There are so few people who get that chance to be on a show that has that kind of impact. They were so brilliant. We had so much fun while we were doing it. It's kind of sad that they have bad feelings about it."

Would not having Elaine, Kramer, and George's commentary diminish your wanting a Seinfeld DVD? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Stuie]

Seinfeld is rerun so many freakin' times a day that I'd never bother with a DVD even if the three of them were included.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, but you can't choose which episode to watch... you are at the mercy of networks

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, but you can't choose which episode to watch... you are at the mercy of networks

Not when you have the internet.

[JohnT]

Waaaah. Widdle babies, upset with a mere 5 or 6-figure participatory fee that contains no residuals. It make me wanna cry!

[Spec]

Originally posted by JohnT
Waaaah. Widdle babies, upset with a mere 5 or 6-figure participatory fee that contains no residuals. It make me wanna cry!

You too!?

Spec.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not when you have the internet.

I don't steal shows

[Spec]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Not when you have the internet.

I don't steal shows

How is taping a show on TV different from Dling it somewhere?!

Spec.

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I don't steal shows

Yeah you do! I've seen your transvestite tap routine!

[David Floyd]

How is taping a show on TV different from Dling it somewhere?!

It's not. That's the point - according to intellectual property laws, both ways are stealing

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Spec



How is taping a show on TV different from Dling it somewhere?!

Spec.

The Supreme Court ruled that taping for home or personal use is not a violation of copyright laws back in 1984. They've yet to make the same ruling in re: to downloads, however.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Not when you have the internet.

I don't steal shows

Ninny.

[David Floyd]

The Supreme Court ruled that taping for home or personal use is not a violation of copyright laws back in 1984.

Really? Well ignore what I said then

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Supreme Court ruled that taping for home or personal use is not a violation of copyright laws back in 1984. They've yet to make the same ruling in re: to downloads, however.

I may think it is a bit different. After all if you tape a show for personal use, you are taping it off the tv service which you have paid for. If you download a show, you may not have paid the television network a dime.

[David Floyd]

You'd have a point if you were talking about cable TV or satellite, but you don't pay anything for network television.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I may think it is a bit different. After all if you tape a show for personal use, you are taping it off the tv service which you have paid for. If you download a show, you may not have paid the television network a dime.

What if you tape it from "over the air". Not everybody has cable So in that case, you aren't paying anybody a dime either.

[:) Smiley]

I don't know about you but I don't pay for broadcast TV.

[Boris Godunov]

Considering Jerry Seinfeld is my least favorite of the four, having the DVD sans the others commentary would probably be more irritating than anything else.

Hey, more power to them. Considering the revenue that Seinfeld has generated, if they can get a little more of the pie that was made off of their work, who could complain? If it's worth having them for the producers, they'd better be willing to pay.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The Supreme Court ruled that taping for home or personal use is not a violation of copyright laws back in 1984. They've yet to make the same ruling in re: to downloads, however.

I may think it is a bit different. After all if you tape a show for personal use, you are taping it off the tv service which you have paid for. If you download a show, you may not have paid the television network a dime.

Back in '84 the majority* of homes were still receiving over-the-air broadcasts which I'm sure the Supremes were aware of.

*rereads previous sentence* And the Supreme Court as well - I don't think Diana Ross rendered an opinion on the matter.

*or a very significant minority - I don't have the figures

[Imran Siddiqui]

but you don't pay anything for network television.

The argument can be made that you pay for network television as part of the price for the TV... they tend to go together (unlike, say, downloaded TV brodcasts on a PC )

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
they tend to go together (unlike, say, downloaded TV brodcasts on a PC )

I think those go together quite nicely. You can say that monitors include the price of television shows, too, if it makes you feel better about it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

but you don't pay anything for network television.

The argument can be made that you pay for network television as part of the price for the TV... they tend to go together (unlike, say, downloaded TV brodcasts on a PC )

From my POV they're the same. My PC has a TV tuner card and actually doubles as a DVR, so downloading them is no different from having the DVR software set up to tape them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My PC has a TV tuner card and actually doubles as a DVR, so downloading them is no different from having the DVR software set up to tape them.

A court may make a difference on that (using DVR) than just downloading them from some individual's server.

The court won't just contain its ruling to broadcast networks, though. Downloading shows could be trying to go around cable and premium bills by DLing those shows.

[Dis]

$100,000 a year!!

They are making plenty of money- even if none of them can find work- aside from KFC commercials.

They don't need the money.

Who cares if they are making rich people richer.

They are supposed to do it for the fans.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They are supposed to do it for the fans.

Yeah... right .

[Arrian]

Anybody know what the projected profits will be? I mean, the demands of these 3 actors might sound outrageous to people like us who aren't millionaires, but if Castle Rock/Columbia are going to make a shitload of money off of this DVD release, do the actors not have the right to demand they get a reasonable share of that money? Note I said a reasonable share (as in %), not reasonable amount (with something as popular as Seinfeld, the money will surely be unreasonable ).

It's like with the baseball players. Do the contracts look outrageous to Joe Schmoe? Of course. But then look at what the owners are making (once you throw out their lies reports and check out some independent info on them) and ask yourself why the employees shouldn't get a big fat share of the pie (or, even better, why the fans keep providing those profits for the owners and players if they think the money is out of control?).

-Arrian

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by JohnT
Waaaah. Widdle babies, upset with a mere 5 or 6-figure participatory fee that contains no residuals. It make me wanna cry!

They can add value to the DVD, and they're trying to recieve more for that added value. What's wrong with that?

[Arrian]

Much more concise than I was, MM.

-Arrian

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Ming


What if you tape it from "over the air". Not everybody has cable So in that case, you aren't paying anybody a dime either.

You're paying by viewing commercials.

*cough*

[The Mad Monk]

Of course, that's where the difference between even a "free" service and downloading lay -- even if you tape it off the air for free, the provider of that programming paid to air it (and are being paid by others to air commercials along with it), so money is going back to the owners.

In the case of most downloading, this is not the case.