
Coming this summer to CBS and WBTV, it’s renegotiations time for the Big Bang gang. The CBS comedy is coming off a red-hot 3rd season and a gigantic off-network syndication deal, putting the cast of the show in a prime position for big salary bumps. Which brings me back to a post I did a month ago titled Is The Big Bang Theory the next Friends? The two comedies share a similar setup: ensemble multi-camera sitcoms about single twentysomethings, the majority of them living in two apartments across the hall; similar ratings strength: Big Bang is now the highest-rated scripted series on TV just like Friends once was; and now the two also share the same time slot, Thursday 8PM, after CBS decided to move Big Bang there in the fall.
Yes, I felt the two comedies had a lot in common… until now. One of the signature moves of the Friends cast was that they negotiated their deals together in an all-for-one, one-for-all fashion, getting to $100,000 per episode each in their first go-around with producer Warner Bros. TV after two seasons and eventually to $1 million per episode. Now, the cast of Big Bang is facing their first salary renegotiation with WBTV following a record-breaking syndication deal for the show, that netted the studio $2+M per episode. But I hear one of the three leads, Jim Parsons, is considering negotiating separately from co-stars Johnny Galecki and Kaley Cuoco.
Some of the rationale behind the strategy is that Parsons has been the breakout star of the series and that he is the only regular who has been nominated for an Emmy. But while Parsons gets a lot of attention, some argue that Cuoco might be the one with the most leverage as her feature career is picking up. She was offered 3 movies to do during her hiatus this year and was able to fit in 2, I Hop and The Last Ride. To keep the Friends analogy, Cuoco has potential to become the next Jennifer Aniston. But despite that, I hear neither Cuoco nor sitcom veteran Galecki have any interest in negotiating their deals separately from their co-stars.
Parsons has already gotten recognition on the show with larger salary bumps early on. Since the trio’s initial salaries were based on their quotes, Galecki and Cuoco, both already sitcom veterans at the time, started off with bigger paychecks than Parsons who was little known. Going into season 4, all three have reached parity, each making around $60,000 per episode. The 3 are also bound by another thing: they all are represented by the same law firm, Hansen, Jacobson, Teller, Hoberman, Newman, Warren & Richman.
And, whether the three renegotiate in coordination or not, I hear WBTV is looking to give them “favorite nations” deals, meaning all would get the best terms any of them was able to negotiate. “The studio has to do it that way,” one insider said. “They will have an unhappy set otherwise.”
For that reason, favored nations deals have become common practice on ensemble shows these days. The four leading ladies on ABC’s Desperate Housewives too started off at different salary levels but the differences were erased after the first couple of seasons and the four have been cutting equal paychecks ever since, currently $250,000 per episode each. And while they don’t negotiate together per se, there is coordination among the actresses’ reps.
It is not clear where the three stars of Big Bang will end up salary-wise as talks are yet to begin. (They could potentially reach the $250,000 per-episode salary of the Desperate Housewives stars given the extraordinary size of Big Bang’s syndication deal.) Since the Big Bang actors are under multi-year contracts and are not entitled to a raise, it is customary for the studio to reach out first with an offer for more money that triggers a back-and-forth with the actors’ reps. That hasn’t happened yet on Big Bang, with many studio executives and agents away on vacation. But when the two sides begin negotiations, probably soon, I hear WBTV may look to add at least two and maybe even 3 more years to the actors’ current contracts. The standard salary renegotiations practice on successful series calls for the cast to get another year added to their original six-year contracts in exchange for getting more money than originally negotiated. But WBTV just sold 9 seasons of Big Bang episodes in syndication. Longer-term deals with the primary cast would prevent a repeat of the Two and a Half Men standoff this year where star Charlie Sheen, who had no deal beyond Season 7, held up the eighth season of the hit WBTV comedy, which had already been picked up by the network and sold in syndication.
So whatever salary bumps Galecki, Cuoco and Parsons secure for the next 3 seasons, which they already have deals for, they will be even more handsomely rewarded for any extra seasons they agree to. The trio’s salary renegotiations will also set the pace for the two other co-stars of the show, Simon Helberg and Kunal Nayyar, who are also expected to get raises.
As for the timetable of the talks, it’s unclear for now. Following WBTV’s syndication deal for Friends during the show’s second season, the cast demanded salary increases to about $100,000 each per episode and threatened to boycott production of Season 3 episodes if they didn’t get what they wanted. For the Big Bang cast, early indications are that talks could proceed peacefully and may stretch into the fall, possibly continuing while the actors work on Season 4.
TV Editor Nellie Andreeva - tip her here.
New ‘Man Of Steel’ Television Spot #6


Wonder what they are going to do for the “Glee” cast this year??
Nothing. Because if Ryan Murphy keeps pandering to fans by listening to their ridiculous demands instead of following his own creative vision, “Glee” won’t make it to Season 3.
…except Glee has already been picked up for a third season.
I hate to say it but you can keep the other cast members as long as you have Jim Parsons. His Sheldon character can be spun off in a second and it would be a great show. They better be careful or the will end up being replaced!
If you read the article, they aren’t the ones being difficult. No one is negotiating yet, but the article is saying that they heard Parsons is considering going solo in his renegotiation.
And trying to spin off Sheldon would be a mess. Just because he is funny on one show does not mean he will have the same chemistry on another show with a new cast.
If you read the name of the author of this post, the joke will make more sense.
Agree completely.
It worked so well for “Joey” didn’t it?
I would not watch this show if all five are not part of it. I don’t think the “trio” are the heart of the show.
Glee has only been on one year. Those kids don’t deserve a big raise yet
Why no mention of BBT co-stars Kunal Nayyar and Simon Helberg? On Will & Grace, weren’t co-stars Megan Mullaly and Sean Hayes treated most favored nations with McCormack and Messing?
The cold truth? Kunal and Simon are both good, but they’re not irreplaceable in this particular show. The core trio IS the show.
On W&G, Megan and Sean made themselves irreplaceable in pretty short order by generating a positive feedback loop with the writers – the writers gave them table scraps, they turned it into a feast. The writers realized they had actors who got it, and gave ‘em more.
Galecki is okay, but as a fan he can be replaced. If you replace him no big deal but with the others their replacements would be called “the fake …”, think the lady that came after susan on threes company.
I don’t begrudge Parsons getting as much as he can as quickly as he can. The reason – he will definitely be typecast after this and I don’t see him having the kind of career that someone like Cuoco and maybe even Galecki will continue to have.
The big difference between TBBT and Friends, is that TBBT is funny
Well said! I also never saw the appeal of Friends, and I never thought it was funny ;whereas, Big Bang is hilarious!
Finally! SOmeone said it! hahaha
I bet that CBS still tries to nickel-and-dime Kaley Cuoco off the show, like it’s been doing to its women on a lot of its shows lately.
— Rob
No offense, Rob, but you seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands to be writing as many posts as you do…
Good observation. No offense taken.
— Rob
nothing will happen for the Glee cast, they are under contract. Plus all can be replaced besides Jane Lynch and no one would notice. If Glee remains popular they have a wonderful gimmick, it is high school so most of the cast will always have a high turn over rate and that will keep salaries down
You have clearly not watched the show – or are a complete moron
Great article Nellie – I hope Kunnal gets his due he is the second funniest for me after Jim Parsons!
seconded! kunal nails whatever he’s given
In my opinion it’s an ensemble show.. you can’t give “Sheldon” his own show it will end up like “Joey”. They ALL should stick together like the Friends cast did. All 5 of the main cast even though 2 of them are on screen less. It wouldn’t work if they weren’t all a part of the production.
This way there is no fighting, no egos everyone is equal and they show won’t end prematurely due to fighting and lack of chemistry.
I’m sure Jon Cryer hates Charlie Sheen’s guts.. Charlie makes over a million an episode (or quite a bit more) yet he held a knife to his wife’s throat at Christmas (allegedly) meanwhile Jon Cryer is actually the funnier of the 2 on the show.
I can see advantages both ways.
Negotiating together helps eliminate some of the studio’s advantage.
Negotiating separately could go either way, but at least the result you get is due to your own efforts.
One choice can seem better than the other after the fact, but you have to make a choice based on what you know/believe at the time.
This show is unwatchable. The fugly boys are annoying, redundant and NOT funny. Wonder what heinousness CBS has up its sleeve for Cuoco.
This show is ONLY rated high in a certain age demographic. Two and A Half Men are the OVERALL highest rated show.
This show is unwatchable too. Not funny at all!
The fact that you’re a fan of Two and a Half Men says more than any insult I can conjure up. Good day.
Not exactly. BBT beats 2.5 Men in ALL age demographics. 2.5 Men wins in total viewers and not by much.
I find it interesting that the sellers of a product in this case – the talent – can collude (or excuse me, “coordinate”) to fix prices but if sellers of, say, orange juice did the same they’d wind up in prison.
So if OJ started making TONS more money for the markets where it was being sold than originally, the makers shouldn’t be entitled to some of that money?
Your argument is lame.
Great writing makes t.v. actors sitcom stars!
“Big Bang Theory” was a very funny show when all of the guys where woman-less geeks. The decision to couple them up killed the humor.
I’m totally not supposed to be TBBT’s demographic – a woman in her mid-60′s, but I find the show absolutely brilliant in its writing and acting — down to the wonderful actress who voices Howard’s classic Jewish mother. I am old enough to remember the contributions to the sitcom form made by Sheldon Leonard in the early 50s-60′s, the man honored by Chuck Lorre in naming the lead roles after him. TBBT had a rocky first season, but hits its stride in its second and went through the roof this season. I look forward to Sheldon’s forthcoming “relationship” with the new Mayim Bialik character.
I’m in complete agreement with those on this thread who commented that Friend wasn’t funny. I never got that show. All those actors did better work when it was over.
P. S. On the post-Friends actors’ success — except for poor Matt Leblanc of course!
good article.. thanks. i love it, when infos about salaries are posted..
TBBT makes me love my life… I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way. These actors deserve a extra cut to! he’ll I’d give it to them myself if I was able!
You’re right, you’re not the only one.
This is some crazy news, imo.
$$$