Lawrence O'Donnell and his un-Democratic (?) perspective on Charlie Sheen.

[spooky3]

It bothers me that O'Donnell gives Charlie Sheen all the credit for making a ton of money for NBC when he prefaces his comments on Sheen's personal and health problems.

It sounds perilously close to the idea that the network should handle his situation differently (e.g., alleged domestic violence and whether violence might later be directed toward co-workers) than it would for someone who is less of a star.

But what bothers me more is that every successful TV show has good writers (many of whom belong to unions), other actors, a director, costume designers, make up artists, etc. Even a great actor working hard in a perfectly-fitting role isn't making all that money for his/her network alone. It's the combined effort and talents of all of those professionals. And some luck, since if all the suits knew exactly how to produce a hit, they'd do it every time, and if Charlie Sheen were so incredibly gifted and charismatic and that were all that mattered, he would have hit this level of success (or bigger stardom in the movies) earlier in his career.

The whole thing reminds me of how right wingers give all the credit to CEOs for successful companies and diss the others workers.

[RandomThoughts]

1. It is the error that media tech added to the equasion.

Tech allows for fewer people to reach many people, creating many imbalances in information exchange and other areas.

Without TV, only people in a stadium could see an actor, keeping the formulas of pay in better balance. Progressive taxation can fix that within the system, or ideas like peer to peer networks where consolidated media is broken up. Internet can help with that if it remains free.

Also that change effects copyright formulas, so they should be shortened to also compensate for that.


And I am due beer and travel money and many experiences.

[aquart]

2. Good freaking grief.

The show is out of the production line-up because all those talented union people you mention cannot make the show work without Charlie and are smart enough not to try. The show is the NO. 1 comedy AND it is in syndication. It is making a freaking fortune.

It is making so much money that the producers can afford to pay Charlie his million plus per episode and not blink.

As for "and if Charlie Sheen were so incredibly gifted and charismatic and that were all that mattered, he would have hit this level of success (or bigger stardom in the movies) earlier in his career," I have no idea how to respond to such unawareness.

[jbnow]

3. Not sure of your point either. He is a star of a hit show

but that doesn't mean it could not have been a hit without him, with someone else cast in that role
That they don't continue without him isn't because they could never find such a talent... it is that you don't just replace a lead character with another actor (unless it's a soap opera I guess) in a well established hit show.
That doesn't mean "all those talented union people" aren't a big part of the success of it. Had Charlie gone to a bad show the show would still be a bad show. He was lucky too

Look I liked him in show but I don't what point you are making

[JVS]

5. They can either kill his character off or they can do one of those Darrin/Becky switches.

[polichick]

4. Sheen plays himself in that show, which doesn't take much talent. It can't go on...

...because that character is at the center of the story.