There reaches a point where producers decide your cost just isn't worth it.
A lot of ink has been spilled lately about how Tucker Carlson was fired or quit from Fox News. Was this a result of the settlement in the Dominion case, as well as upcoming litigation? Was it the revelations in Tucker's e-mails that he thought the whole thing was a lie from the get-go - and said unflattering things about Fox management? Or was it something else - sexual harassment or conflicts with management? Or did he just quit in a fit of pique?
We may never know the real answer, but I suspect the truth is, it came down to money. Fox has gone through a number of controversial - and popular - hosts over the years. They were all ratings bonanzas and garnered huge salaries as well. But one by one they left the company - Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and now Tucker Carlson - and all at the top of their game (as odious as their game was).
What gives? Money. I believe the Fox executives felt they could groom a new face to say hateful things on the air, for a lot less money per episode than they were paying Beck, Hannity, or Carlson. And Fox has a host of hosts who are already on the air, but lesser-known to the rest of us who don't watch Fox News. They are all chomping at the bit to be the next Glenn, Sean, or Tucker - and will do so for far less money.
The history of television is one of booting actors when they get uppity. And Carlson is - or was - an actor, and Fox News is entertainment, not journalism (by their own admission). In the movie Tootsie, there is a joke on the set of the soap opera Dustin Hoffman is working on. They are setting up for a scene which is a funeral for one of of the characters of the soap opera. Hoffman's character says, "I didn't know they were ill!" to which someone replies, "They asked for more money!"
And so it goes on television - you get too pushy and they kill off your character. Nothing personal, but they have to keep costs under control. In the hit series Three's Company, the "Jiggle Interest" character of Chrissy Snow was played by Suzanne Somers, who demanded more money, at the instigation of her husband. Her character was one of the most popular on the show, but the producers wouldn't budge. If she asked for more money, the other actors would as well. So they fired her, wrote her out of the series, and hired another blonde with big tits to take her place.
Tucker, you're the blonde with big tits. Easily replaceable and nothing more than "jiggle interest."
Suzanne Somers struggled with her career after leaving Three's Company. Producers wanted to make a cautionary example of her to other actors - plus they didn't want to take a viper to their breast in some new show. Now you know why producers love the ensemble cast format. No one actor is essential to the production. If one person asks for more cash, you can just boot them off - even a main character! Comes in real handy when one of your actors professes admiration for Hitler or something.
The cast of Friends tried asking for more money early on in the show's run. The producers responded by putting together a promo ad touting the end of the show. The cast caved in, although later, combined, they garnered a hefty $1M per episode - after the show became a money-making machine.
Actually, the Three's Company story didn't end with Somers. The landlord characters of Norman Fell and Audra Lindley were offered a spin-off show called The Ropers, and veteran actor and comedian Don Knotts took their place on Three's Company. When The Ropers bombed, Fell and Lindley were let go and not brought back to the main show. The Knotts character turned out to be more popular than the Ropers had been. Nothing personal, just television.
There are an endless supply of wanna-be stars and starlets in Hollywood. And in some situations, it isn't hard to replace one with another. Sure, a "big name" actor can attract people to the box office - and more importantly, investors to the movie. But often you wonder if the millions spent on one actor was really worth it. Did Disney's live-action remake of Pinocchio really benefit from Tom Hank's phoned-in acting, or would it have been better off without him? Maybe that is why the movie bombed.
In the case of Carlson, he was just a talking head with a trademarked surprised-Pikachu face. The real "talent" of the show (evil talent) was the writers who created the snarky lies that the mouthpiece-in-a-suit then spews. One wonders whether an "AI" could be used instead of a live actor - or indeed, the snarky lies could be written by an "AI" and even the writers dispensed with. Probably someone at Fox is thinking about this right now.
The wave of the future - predicted so many years ago!
Because when you get right down to it, news presenters are pretty much interchangeable mouthpieces. Since the days of Walter Cronkite, the value of news people has plummeted, even if their salaries have gone up. Dan Rather was a bad joke, after Cronkite - and certainly not worth his enormous salary.
And maybe network executives have come to realize this - and protect their own enormous salaries in the process. People have short attention spans these days - measured in minutes on the Internet. It doesn't pay anymore to offer a high salary to a veteran newsman or entertainment figure. You are better off presenting the next shiny new thing to the bloated masses, to keep their attention.
So stay tuned for Tucker 2.0! Any guesses as to who it might be? Does anyone really care?
