Kaley Cuoco, Jim Parsons & Galecki to make $90 million each over 3 years


The era of huge paychecks for network TV actors is kind of over. The most famous people on the most respected TV shows these days are the actors working on cable shows (Mad Men, Breaking Bad) or premium cable shows (Game of Thrones, Masters of Sex) and they really aren’t making the BIG money. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure Jon Hamm picks up a nice paycheck for Mad Men, but he’s not making Friends-type money. If you’re involved with network TV these days and you’re making millions, you’re probably a Jerry Bruckheimer-type producer or you’re part of one of the singing competition shows. Actors just aren’t making that much on network these days. But the cast of The Big Bang Theory will beg to differ. They’ve been renegotiating their contracts for months now, and yesterday, the three leads got some great news:

CBS‘ The Big Bang Theory is a big step closer to making the new Aug. 6 production start date for Season 8 — I’ve learned that stars Jim Parsons, Johnny Galecki and Kaley Cuoco have agreed to new three-year contracts. The deals for Parsons, Galecki and Cuoco came after marathon negotiations between Big Bang producer Warner Bros TV and reps for the actors over the weekend, with Parsons’ pact closing first on Sunday, followed by the Galecki and Cuoco under “most favored nations” terms, ensuring the trio have financial parity with each other. WBTV declined comment and reps for Parsons, Galecki and Cuoco could not be reached for comment, but I hear the trio are in the long-rumored Friends salary territory, scoring paychecks of $1 million per episode for the 72 episodes the show is slated to produce in Seasons 8-10. What’s more, I hear the door has been left open to a potential 11th season.

I also hear that the deals go well beyond per-episode fees and also include larger pieces of the show, signing bonuses, production deals and advances towards the back-end — perks associated with talent deals on shows as big as Big Bang. In addition to tripling their most recent salaries of $350,000 an episode, I hear Parsons, Galecki and Cuoco also quadrupled their previous ownership on the show, which has gone up from 0.25 to more than a point. I hear Parsons’ pact includes a production deal that spans TV and features and possibly theater, with Galecki and Cuoco also getting producing arrangements. Galecki produced a comedy project for WBTV last season, No Place Like Home, which went to pilot at Fox.

All in, I hear Parsons, Galecki and Cuoco are poised to make at least $90 million each over the lives of the deals, with some observers noting that the total could conceivably rise towards $100 million if Big Bang continues to be as strong in syndication and auxiliary markets. With the big payday for Parsons, Galecki and Cuoco and the windfall for top profit participants, WBTV still is expected to clear $1 billion in profits, with some projecting that Big Bang could contribute to Time Warner’s bottom line twice that over its lifespan.

[From Deadline]

While I don’t watch Big Bang and I have no real interest in most of these people (I have some vague affection for Jim Parsons as a person), I’m kind of happy for them. I’m glad they went the Friends route and Jim, Kaley and Johnny seemed to communicate with each other and negotiate together to get the best deal for everybody. And if they get $90 million (EACH) over the next three years… so be it. I’m happy to see a return to high-paid network talent. But I guess I’m in a minority – I think it’s better to have a moderately good scripted comedy or drama in primetime rather than another stupid singing/dancing/talent competition show. And hey, if they weren’t getting this money, it would probably just go to Chuck Lorre. Who sucks. Better to give it to Kaley and her Tennis K-Fed.



Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

193 Responses to “Kaley Cuoco, Jim Parsons & Galecki to make $90 million each over 3 years”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Ninja, please says:

    Big Bang theory is a stupid show. Perfect for mouth breathing america

    • Arlene says:

      If you don’t like it don’t watch it. I find it funny and easy watching.

      • Snazzy says:

        Me too! I really enjoy it! And even though some of the jokes are kind of obvious, I find the characters very endearing. One of my faves!

      • kyra says:

        You said it: funny and easy watching. Not well acted, well written, full of talent. If we keep rewarding the easy watching shit well find ours and our children asses on the dirt soon enough in America. Why not reward talent? I hope the A-list talent from House of Cards, True Detective and Breaking Bad will make not 90 but 190 million each. Yeah…

    • cubfan34 says:

      It’s the only show I watch.

      It will still be running 60 years from now somewhere like I Love Lucy. People will still be making money off of it, so give the actors big pay checks. They deserve it.

      • T.C. says:

        “It will still be running 60 years from now somewhere like I Love Lucy.”

        Big Bang Theory wishes it was as good as I Love Lucy! I tried watching Big Bang many times to see what the big deal is but could not even crack a smile. It was so not funny. I can watch old episodes of I Love Lucy or The Honeymooners to this day and have a great laugh. Big Bang reminds me more of 21/2 Men. Ten years from now people will be wondering what was so good about both shows.

        Anyway Good for the Couco lady, her PR stunt with Cavill to up her profile and demand more money worked.

      • yolo112 says:

        I agree cubfan… it is the only thing we watch. My 12 year old loves it. My scientist husband loves it. I love it. And for the record, we are not mouth breathers, we are all actually very smart people..lol. Once you remove all the shitty reality tv, all the dumb hospital shows and all the ridiculous cop shows, there’s really not a lot to watch. The science is usually all wrong (according to my husband) but it’s still good laughs. Who cares if it’s predictable or silly…so was Friends and Seinfield. I do think it will be around for a very long time in syndication, much like Friends and Seinfield. And with that being said, why not make it a huge payout. This show will be the only thing any of these actors are known for anyway.

        Someone below said “I just find that MOST (not all) people that I know IRL that love this show are some of the most intolerant, dumbest schmucks to ever grace this earth.”…wtf…mouth breathers and that… The opinions on here today are highly insulting.

    • Erinn says:

      I kind of hate it. I liked the first season enough – but it’s completely hit the same level as 2 and a half men. There’s not enough ‘show’ there to warrant this many seasons. They’ve made Cuoco’s character a raging alcoholic – because that’s super funny, right? – and Leonard just squints and looks up to everyone because they’re taller than he is. Throw in some Sheldon being confused by ‘normal’ people, and you’ve got every show in every season.

      It’s just so worn out. And the ‘smart’ jokes are so dumbed down for the average audience. I don’t know. I loved the show the first season because it was something a little different…but it’s played out. And how Kaley deserves that kind of paycheck is beyond me. Parson’s? Sure. Galecki – maybe. But Kaley is playing such an amazingly replaceable character. You could swap in any C list acting ability starlet, and get the same result.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        I hate that show. It sucks so bad.

      • mint says:

        I agree with every word you just said!! I liked the first season but then it got soo bad and I haven´t watched it for the last 2-3 seasons. Same happend with How I met your mother. Comedy shows these days suck so bad after a short period of time.
        I can´t believe that we live in a world where Kaley Cuoco is making 90 million in the next three years! How did this happend? Well, congrats to her freeloader husband.

      • Lis says:

        Always thought 2.5 Men was sexist misogynist crap. BBT is definitely better.

      • Erinn says:

        I’m mostly upset that shows like this -bland, predictable, spoon fed – get such long runs, and genuinely amusing shows gets short ones because nobody watches them, or NBC screws up (again).

        I like me some Happy Endings, It’s Always Sunny, The Mindy Project, Brooklyn Nine-Nine – obviously I like comedies; I just don’t like this crap.

        Lis- there’s some pretty gray area stuff in BBT as well. Just because it’s ‘better’ than 2.5 Men, it’s not something I’d call ‘good’ when it comes to handling women.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I like all different kinds of comedy, but I see where BBT fits in. It IS a great show to have on while you make dinner, because you don’t have to see it in sequence, etc. If you are dealing with something on the stove and miss 5 minutes, you can still figure out what is going on. They are easily viewed as one-offs. Not something you can do with Louie C.K., that type of show needs intense attention in order to fully be appreciated.

        I think the quality has gone very far down hill in recent years because they are running out of scenarios, but I think there have been very funny bits over the years that come out of their unusual jobs and personalities. It kind of highlighted “geek culture” before Comic-Con blew up. The Amy Farafowler character played by Mayim Bialik has had me seriously laughing out loud. She and Parsons are very gifted with comic timing.

      • Erinn says:

        Tiffany – I get that. There were times where I really liked that ‘geek culture’ bits of the show. I work in IT – not a lot of ladies around me, and not the most ‘cool’ crowd. So I get how that can be appealing. But I have so many co-workers who feel like the show mocks their ‘geek culture’.

        And then you have all the people saying they’d loooove to be friends with Sheldon – but they would never be friends with someone like Sheldon. Sheldon exhibits a ton of aspergers like characteristics – my brother who has aspergers exhibits many of these qualities as well. How many friends does he have? Hardly any outside of myself, my fiance, and a few other casual friends. Because people don’t like people who are different. No matter how sweet and funny that person is.

        I just find that MOST (not all) people that I know IRL that love this show are some of the most intolerant, dumbest schmucks to ever grace this earth. The same ones who think 2.5 Men is hillarrrrioouusss. They want easy comedy. They don’t want to think, but hearing the science jokes allows them to feel like they’re smarter, and more cultured. While there are so many witty friggin comedies drowning on tv. It’s just a shame, overall.

      • Peppa says:

        I don’t know any actual nerds/comic book geeks/dork etc that like this show. Everyone I know that likes it were the kind of people who tormented the nerds in high school. I find that pretty ironic. I see it as a mindless, formulaic sitcom. Don’t even get me started on Two and a Half Men. My in-laws love that stupid show and are always watching it when I go to their house (no exaggeration… they must have it DVRed or have the DVDs because they are always watching it!)

      • G. says:

        I grew up as a big Anime fan. I’d go to conventions, the whole deal. I don’t know many people who like these kinds of things and like BBT, because it mocks their culture. I’d personally rather watch something where differences are celebrated, instead of mocked with a laugh track.
        I dunno, it’s just never been my thing either. I’ve never been a sitcom fan.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Peppa, you hit the nail on the head! It IS a formulaic sitcom, that is why it is so beloved . It has the traditional comedic style of having the straight characters, surrounded by the quirky characters that play off them. You have the straight characters set up the joke and quirky characters hit the punch line that gets the laughs when it is told with the right rhythm. In some ways, comedy is a science. Certain trends have prevailed over centuries because there is just something in human nature that responds to these trends.

        It isn’t breaking boundaries, it isn’t new and exciting, it is predictable and therefore, it fulfills a specific need.

        I just have to say, I don’t understand when people try to generalize the audience of comedy. Tens of millions of people watch this show, there is variety in there. I don’t enjoy Bob’s Burgers, but you won’t find me saying that the majority of people watching it are idiots. I love Louie CK, but you won’t find me thinking that another person is awesome if they love it and a fool if they don’t. There are much better benchmarks that reflect the quality of a person’s character.

      • Ange says:

        Erinn you and I are comedy soul mates, all of the ones you listed are in my personal favourites list along with Arrested Development.

      • Lady D says:

        I’m an intelligent non mouth breather and I like the show.
        Tiff: It’s Amy Farrah Fowler. I thought her last name was Farafowler too.

    • Adrien says:

      BBT is the only decent show Chuck Lorre has ever made.

    • megs283 says:

      I don’t get the hate for mouth breathers. To be frank – I had a severely deviated septum and had NO idea…but I couldn’t figure out why I couldn’t breathe through my nose like the rest of the (educated? highfalutin?) world without needing to GASP for air after. I got it fixed in 2011 and it was kind of life-changing…I can breathe through my nose! Comfortably! So I don’t understand why people use the term “mouth breather” to signify ignorant, or stupid, or trashy.

      *steps off soapbox*

      • Krista says:

        Bravo bravo!
        My fiancé and I both have deviated septums! He had surgery to correct his two years ago that went horribly wrong. He is alright now, but doomed to live as a mouth breather for the rest of his life. Good thing he has his master degree (and me, who will never take the chance after his terrible experience) to comfort him.

    • TX says:

      I can’t stand it either. It’s what’s referred to as a “dishwasher”… Most shows with a laugh track are specifically made so you don’t have to pay too much attention. The laugh track (or studio audience) tells you when to laugh, so you can be washing the dishes of otherwise not paying attention at the same time. Pretty much all of CBS’ comidies are like that.

      TL;DR- if it has a laugh track it’s probably not high quality entertainment.

    • QQ says:

      Ok? Every time i have to catch it at my bf’s im like what is this shit and who watches it? then he wants to say “well My Bro Is sooo Like Sheldon” I just look at him blank stares and say “im assuming its not a compliment cause that show looks awful” before going back to anything …anything but that! …fucking Chuck Lorre and his awful shows

    • Stef Leppard says:

      Holy vitriol! It’s such a good idea to make a sweeping generalization about an entire nation. I’m sure wherever you’re from there are no “mouth breathers.”

    • kibbles says:

      I’ve never watched this show even though I know several people who love it. No one deserves this kind of cash. This insane salary makes me glad that I never watched a single episode.

    • Mola says:

      I catch reruns when there is nothing else on and enjoy it. Its the only laugh track show I can stand and its made me want a Sheldon in my life

    • G says:

      LOL!! Maybe you just don’t understand it. It’s a pretty funny show. It reminds me of my nerdy gamer friends from school. I was kind of into physics so to me the show is pretty funny and Sheldon is just hilarious.

    • CH2 says:

      I agree with you. I really hate this show… I have a degree in physics so I get asked if I watch this a lot. I gave it a try a few times but it’s so DUMB!

    • Lia says:

      Actually, the show requires you to pay attention or you’ll miss the nuances and the high-science chatter that is sprinkled throughout the story each week. The mouth- breathers are the ones who don’t understand it, so they simply trash it and move on to The Bachelor or something equally as inane.

      • NorthernGirl_20 says:

        Yes!! I love the show, I think it’s hilarious and I think the people that dont get it .. just don’t get it..

      • delorb says:

        Before I started watching the show, I thought it was going to be about a geek trying to get the hot girl and everyone would laugh at him. I also had a vague idea of them walking up stairs as a running joke. Then I actually sat down and watched an episode. I was hooked. They aren’t making fun of geeks, but treating them like fully formed humans. Showing the good as well as the bad. I also don’t think that there is a straight man, because everyone has their quirk.


        You’re so right. Those who don’t, don’t and probably never will. Its one of the few network TV shows that I watch.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I think the “mouth breathing” bit was way over the top. Humor is totally subjective, and to be insulting because other people find something funny that you don’t is absurd.

    • Zwella Ingrid says:

      I think the Big Bang is one of the few funny shows on television, and I say congratulations to all of them on their new paychecks.

    • mytbean says:

      The fact that those that don’t like BB tend to hurl an insult along with their opinion really paints a clear picture of the personality types that don’t watch.

      Big Bang is missing the boob flashes, male butts, violent torture scenes, random sex, arguments and fist fights about whatever, and of course, no car chases or explosions once every few episodes.

      The comedy doesn’t involve gall or shock tactics to get a laugh. There are no expletives. In BB, the jokes do not rely on people to treat each other in horrible ways to get a laugh. Basically – the comedy is clean and attempts to be respectful to its audience.

      But – and this is something a lot of people just won’t say – I think the haters who tend to be flat out annoyed by this show simply don’t like the demographic being portrayed there. These characters are the nerdy, introverted, brainy and neurotic. And I think what is especially sad, is that those who react with such vitriol to the characters in the show may feel the same way about people like this in their every day life.

  2. in_theory says:

    I think this show is highly overrated, and I cannot comprehend the amounts of money an ensemble of – let’s face it – mostly mediocre actors is making.

    • hutter says:

      Jim Parsons is a great actor! That episode were Sheldon was drunk and had to give a speech? He was so good! he could have easily done the classic comedy “I’m drunk” thing and just slurred his words but he acted it with such subtlety and intelligence, which is even more amazing given that they tape the show with a live audience.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      They aren’t getting paid that because of its assumed quality. They are getting paid that amount because $1 BILLION is being made by a show that is based on the performances of these three actors. It might not be high quality, but it gets people to watch in large numbers. It is very unique in its ability to pull in viewers. They are doing a job that brings in astronomical amounts money for the parent company, it makes sense that they would be compensated accordingly.

      • Josa says:

        This. And I hope they pay the writers too, it was the writing that makes this show works (at least the first 2 seasons). Whether we like this show or not, it’s popularity is undeniable. Sad that new and even quality shows drop like flies these days.

      • delorb says:

        So true Tiffany. The powers that be made a ton when it first hit syndication and will continue to do so years from now. Why shouldn’t they get paid? I remember reading that some stars of old TV shows don’t get a dime. The Beverly Hillbillies I think it was.

  3. MrsBPitt says:

    I can’t stand this show…I have tried to watch it a couple of times and it is just too damn stupid and unfunny…DON’T GET IT!

    • TX says:

      +100000 it’s so so so unfunny. But I mean, it’s one of the biggest shows on TV so maybe we’re wrong? I just find it so one dimentional and obvious.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      SO unfunny! Total garbage.

      I do agree with others though that Parsons is the only one that shows a glimmer of talent.

      I love Galecki and I guess I’m happy for him, but I can’t help but think he could do SO much better that this trash.

    • Ag says:

      “unfunny” is the perfect way to describe it.

      and i know SO many people who LOVE it – i don’t get it.

    • kibbles says:

      I didn’t like Two and a Half Men but it was one of the most popular shows on television for many years. Guess most a Celebitchy readers have better taste and a higher IQ than the general population.

      • Pepinsky says:

        Wow, that’s kinda rude!
        BBT is without a doubt one of my favourite TV shows, as was Two and a Half Men while CS was still there. I watched the seasons over and over again and laughed as much every time. All of this while writing my phD thesis AND being a Celebitchy reader. Same goes for a lot of my friends. There’s nothing bad with easy and lightweight fun sometimes. Judging people’s intelligence by their tastes and making easy generalizations sound really «general population» to me.

        That being said, those salaries are ridiculous. Jim Parsons is really good but most of the fun comes from the stories and over the top characters. I don’t think they deserve that much at all. I’ll still watch, over and over again.

      • Ange says:

        I don’t get it either. The little bits of two and a half men I saw were hugely sexist and paaaaaaainfully unfunny. I could see the joke coming from a mile off and it was never even clever once it arrived. Even if the humour had been smart I could never condone a show that portrayed the treatment of women that the two main clods doled out (not to mention they were raising the son to think and act the same way).

  4. FranticallyBored says:

    You have got to be effing kidding me.

  5. ClaireB says:

    Regardless of the quality (or lack of) , it all comes down to what the network makes because of these three. If it’s big, they should earn big. And they probably know these characters will stick to them like glue when it’s all over, it won’t be easy to find something else, so…

  6. GiGi says:

    I’ve only ever made it through 5 minutes of this show on a few occasions… I don’t understand how this show is even still on. It’s the worst! And, even thought I’m a pop culture fan… I can’t stomach these kinds of salaries. I get that the money is going “somewhere” when you have this sort of revenue… but it just feels gross.

    • in_theory says:

      Agreed on the last part. I feel like there’s no work in the world that is worth that much money (and most certainly not acting). But then, the worth of something and its price often differ quite a lot.

    • minime says:

      I like the BBT. It’s not brilliant but it’s pretty entertaining. I usually watch it in the intervals of my other usual series.
      Anyway, if they are able to pay them that money it’s because they can and they profit way beyond it. I think the actors should also be awarded from a successful show (and economically it seems to be one). I just hope that other people behind it, specially the creative ones are also proportionally rewarded.
      These type of salaries are incredibly obscene, but it’s not a problem of BBT, it’s a problem of the all industry. If we compare what the Kardashians or Beyonce/Rihanna make in a year to a physician working in a war area or a scientist it should be enough to make us wonder…I don’t have a problem with this specific case.

      • GiGi says:

        I get what you’re saying. And I like to be well compensated for my work, too. But as a business owner (and socialist at heart) I like to spread the wealth. So when I make more, so do my employees. And maybe that’s the case here, too. But I wish that the main players here would have said, “Ok, this is a successful show. We want a large raise. But, we’ll take $500,000 per episode but the crew and any actors making scale on the show also deserve a raise.” That seems much more palatable to me.

        I get that the show is making the revenue – I just wish the salary disparity weren’t so great.

      • minime says:

        Yes, yes! I agree 100% about the salary disparity. Unfortunately, that’s not the way things seem to be done but it would be nice to see it happening. Kudos to you for the fairness towards your employees, that’s really nice! :)

      • Tiffany :) says:

        But, to be realistic, if a crew member is replaced the fans won’t notice. If a main character on a BILLION dollar show is replaced, that might affect viewership. I think their pay is understandable in light of how much the show is making and how crucial they are to its continued success.

    • CH2 says:

      Agree with you… both posts.

  7. Jenny12 says:

    I remember Johnny Galecki from Roseanne- love him.

    • SamiHami says:

      Do you remember that Johnny Galecki played Chevy Chase’s son in Christmas Vacation? He was such a cute little guy!

    • Chris says:

      Roseanne was a great show until she lost the plot. The last season was truly awful.
      As for BBT, i’ve caught bits of it and it just seemed like a run of the mill sitcom to me, just like Two and a Half Men. Why is mediocrity so popular?

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        I agree with everything you say here. I lump BBT in with Two and A Half Men and How I Met Your Mother.

        I think the last season of Roseanne was pretty terrible, but that being said, they had a great run.
        For the most part that show holds up too. I still laugh when I see reruns.

      • Happyhat says:

        Is this when Darlene (sp?) got married to Johnny Galecki in a wood somewhere, and she was pregnant?

        I always hated the show when Darlene started dating Johnny Galecki (can’t remember his name in the show), cos up till that point I was totally one with Darlene’s tomboy character and it made my boyfriend-less teen years more bearable.

        Also, the older I get the more my laugh sounds like Roseanne’s.

  8. Freebunny says:

    How deserved for very mediocre actors.

  9. Dorothy#1 says:

    Love Big Bang!! Such a good show and they are good in it. I’m happy for them. :)

  10. Mrs. Lecter says:

    What’s NOT Friends-like is that the actors split off into groups to negotiate salary instead of an entire unit. So then you get supporting cast members who only make 100k before negotiations vs 1 million each + back end for galecki/cuoco/parsons. That’s gotta sting.

  11. Lindy79 says:

    I find it a bit iffy that the other two main cast members since day one seem to have earned less than the three of them. Granted it might have been down to prior tv experience and work but given their contracts were all up for renewal at the same time, it would have made sense to go in as a group.
    At least on Friends they went in united for their pay increases.

    • Erinn says:

      It must sting, huh? For all of the other actors that are now regulars. I get that they’re the three ‘main’ characters, but you’d think at least Walowitz and Raj would be getting somewhere in the same ballpark of money. When I did watch, I watched for those two – not the ‘main cast’. And even now, when I’m at my parents’ house and they’re watching it, it’s Burnadette that draws me in. Not the main three.

      • sigh((s)) says:

        Yes, I was a little miffed by that, too. I think raj and Howard did get raises, but nowhere near the ballpark of the other 3. And the other women are on the show almost as much as the main cast. BBT has definitely gone downhill in quality the last couple of seasons. The episodes seem to be hit or miss anymore, but the first 4-5 seasons were really great.
        I have no problem with the actors making more, but I do wish it was spread around more. The producers and the network are making an absolute killing on this show, and an actors shelf life is much shorter than a producer’s. Get it, guys.

      • Original Tessa says:

        You may like Bernadette, but the show can exist as it is without her. She’s not essential. The show doesn’t exist without Sheldon and Leonard and to a lesser extent Penny. They are the three essential cast members.

      • Erinn says:

        Oh, I agree Tessa. I know she’s not the draw of the show at all.

  12. Lady Macbeth (Hiddles F.) says:

    I like the show, although it has become less funny in recent seasons. About their paycheck, yes it is huge but it wouldn’t be fair that the producers get all the profits and no pay-rise is given to the actors. If they will be given 90 millions $ each, I guess the producers are earning 4-5 times that amount (each).

  13. Kiddo says:

    So what if it’s not actually rocket science? It’s a light comedy that, yes, is predictable, but does have a few funny moments. It’s not offensive like 3 and a half men, it’s infinitely less annoying than HIMYM, and no worse than “Friends”. I would take it over any reality program. They are making the money for the network, so why shouldn’t they cash in?

    • PunkyMomma says:

      Agree with you in every point, Kiddo. It’s the only network television I watch on a somewhat regular basis and it’s already huge in syndication worldwide. BBT doesn’t exist without Parsons, so why shouldn’t he get a bigger piece if the pie? Same goes for Galecki. Cuoco, I think is easily replaceable, so she just hit the mother load.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      Yep, that’s what I thought as well. Not everything has to be GoT or frickin’ Sons of Anarchy. I feel like the more violent you get these days, the “better” your show? Everything has its place and its audience but I simply cannot watch only violent 40 Minute shows. I need my sitcoms. And I miss the 90′s in terms of sitcoms. There are some great shows on TV these days but really, sometimes I want light fun. If they make big money for the network, they should try to milk it.

      • sigh((s)) says:

        IKR? I miss sitcoms. There’s so few of them anymore. Don’t get me wrong, I love GoT, but sometimes you need some funny inter-spliced with your head chopping. My husband’s been dying for me to get into Breaking Bad. I finally watched the first episode and.. Meh? We all have our own tastes. Thank goodness for me every show isn’t a BB spinoff.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “but sometimes you need some funny inter-spliced with your head chopping.”

        Exactly! I was a bit traumatized after doing a marathon of 5 seasons of Breaking Bad. After that, I NEEDED some light hearted stuff to watch that wasn’t going to haunt me for days afterwards.

        It is like this site. We could be looking at news stories about Palestine and Israel, thousands of migrant children, ebola…but instead we are here talking about silly things because people need something light hearted in the midst of all of the intensity.

    • woodstock_schulz says:

      I completely agree Kiddo.

    • Lori says:

      my parents watch it. And they watched 2 1/2 men until Charlie left and Kutcher ruined it. Their words not mine. My folks are in their late 60s and this is what they like. And as a family we watched threes company and that type of show. There’s not much out there for people with that type of viewing taste and this fills the void for them so they are not always watching TVland reruns. And apparently there’s lots of folks out there doing the same thing. Or less the network wouldn’t be making so much money off the show. I’ve no problem with the actors getting paid for it.

      • PunkyMomma says:

        I watch it and I’m not near sixty.

        For the record, BBT is geek heaven. I can’t think of any network show, other than the new Cosmos, that would attract Stephen Hawking (next to Einstein, probably the greatest theoretical physicist of the last century, and undoubtly one of the great genius minds of mankind) to make a cameo appearance. And Hawking is not the only notable from the science world to make an appearance. BBT is appealing to many demographics because it’s written on several different levels. You may find it lacking compared to, say, Friends, but some of the inside jokes are written for the geek community and those are brilliant.

      • Kiddo says:

        I never knew anyone who watched 2 and a half men with Sheen and yet it was phenomenally popular. Maybe people just didn’t admit it. I know my parents never watched it. I don’t think anyone watches now with Kutcher, or maybe they do?

        But there is a remarkable amount of crap on TV, I’ll give you that. Other than The Bachelor or Dancing with the Stars, which seem to have a large number of geriatric fans, I can’t imagine an older demographic watching Kardashians and other shows like it, so I guess it (BBT) could be the path of least annoying and offensive. I can go down that road sometimes, but I really don’t watch a ton of TV. There is VERY little that I would keep to a schedule to watch.

      • Kiddo says:

        I’m thinking my use of geriatric was wrong in discussing 60 yos. I apologize and I don’t want to upset anyone in that range.

  14. Hissyfit says:

    My bf loves this show and I tried watching it a couple of times but I just can’t. It’s so stupid and corny as hell. But damn, that is a huge paycheck!

  15. Dhavynia says:

    I rather watch this than some reality crap show which seems to be on every day in every network
    CBS is probably making 100x more than these actors and if it’s been on this long then people are still watching
    I wonder why the other actors were not part of this deal but in reality, these 3 are the ones people seem to single out the most. Would be very interesting to find out the scoop

  16. Talie says:

    Johnny and Kaley have been in the TV game forever, so good for them! They finally got their payoff after years of hard work.

  17. aenflex says:

    So interesting that people who really like the show are totally fine with the exorbitant salaries. I don’t personally blame the actors here, although none of them are beyond so-so, IMO. I wish I know whom to blame when anyone makes millions upon millions of dollars for acting, period. Or sports. Not when there are doctors and teachers and first responders, etc making a pittance in comparison.

    • jessica6 says:

      Here Here! Very well said. I completely agree.

    • Ag says:

      i agree. it’s a sad commentary on what we as a society value. (i’m not commenting only on the above actors but, like you said, on any industry where “salaries” are that insane.)

      re this specific show, i tried watching it a few times, but didn’t find it funny. i’m apparently in the minority.

    • maybeiamcrazy says:

      I agree with this to an extent. The thing is, somebody is going to get that money anyway. If actors didn’t then Chuck Lorre would get it. The money , unfortunately, won’t go to people who need it even if actors are paid significantly less.

    • original kay says:


      it’s a sad commentary on our society, that there is more value placed on sports and acting than police, doctors, etc. Not to mention the rest of the world going to hell in a handbag fast. That amount of cash could do wonders for the good of everyone.

    • Kiddo says:

      It’s all relative. If the network is making money on something that we all know isn’t curing cancer, then why shouldn’t the direct workers have a bigger portion of that pie? The assessment of real value in the world for entertainment and wealth associated with it, in general, is another subject altogether. To me, these people are delivering the product, they deserve their portion.

    • Ennie says:

      It is true, but if the actors don’t get a great salary, the earning (that will be made, big salaries or not) will go to the studios and producers.
      I find it more fair to go with the big paychecks for the actors. Anything that goes to the big masses through media will make huge money.
      People in the sports, reality TV, actors, studios, producers, etc. I prefer people in sports and actors because they at least do some kind of an effort, but reality TV people ughhh
      now, on the other hand the people who do good for the world are not working in a global level… so… no big paychecks. Sadly.

    • ctkat1 says:

      I totally get what you are saying and in theory I do agree that there is a very unfair pay discrepancy, but there is also a big discrepancy between the level of “risk” inherent in choosing that career- the number of performers/athletes that actually “make it” is a really small percentage of the people who try. For every Kaley Cuoco, there are a hundred (or a thousand) unemployed actresses who aren’t going to make it, and don’t have any money or job skills to try something else. There aren’t thousands of trained teachers working as bartenders or servers, dealing with constant rejection and hoping for their big break to get into the classroom. It’s risky to try for an acting/music career, because the failure rate is almost 99%- if you succeed, you become rich and famous, but most don’t succeed.
      I work for the state doing public interest work, and I don’t make a lot of money- but I do have steady employment, good benefits, and the comfort of knowing that I have long-term employment. I’d like $90 million, but I’m not willing to risk what I have right now for the infinitesimal chance that I might get a lot more!

    • Kate2 says:

      “I wish I know whom to blame when anyone makes millions upon millions of dollars for acting, period. Or sports. Not when there are doctors and teachers and first responders, etc making a pittance in comparison.”

      We can blame ourselves. We can complain all we want that the teachers/first responders of the world are making crap but nothing is ever done about it so nothing will change. I hate reality shows too, and I actually don’t watch sitcoms beyond Parks & Rec that I can think of (although I do watch adult cartoons so I don’t have any moral authority over anyone in my TV watching habits). And as the daughter of a teacher, I agree they get paid shit for what they do. But as with anything, nothing changes until the product becomes unprofitable, which I don’t really see happening considering it will always be cheaper to produce reality TV than scripted shows. Unless everyone stops watching Honey Boo Boo and Top Chef and the like, this is the “reality” for television. I will stick to my cable tv shows and low brow adult cartoons. All this being said, I raised my eyebrows in surprise at the salaries, but it really doesn’t bother me too much. I would ask for that much too if the product I was creating was producing that much money for the bigwigs.

      ETA: I did actually use to watch BBT quite a bit in syndication and I enjoyed it at first but I got sick of it after seeing all the episodes. They don’t play well (at least with me) after a first viewing. And I say this as a Marvel movie nerd.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Blame capitalism? They are key parts in making a billion dollar product.

      When you look at public workers like teachers, you can blame your local community and the representatives and unions for their salary. That is a collective decision, and it doesn’t have any impact on how much or little an actor makes. People at any time can advocate for higher salaries for those doing important work in their communities. They don’t need an actor to make less in order to do that.

  18. jessica6 says:

    I’ve watched three or four episodes of this show, and quite frankly, while it’s admittedly amusing in a few parts, I just don’t get the huge love-on people have for this series. “Big Bang Theory” doesn’t strike me in the least as being superior to other sitcoms I’ve watched…and I’m not a huge sitcom fan. The scripts aren’t that great overall, and the acting is, to me, run of the mill sitcom performances.

    I think Warner Bros. were suckered in this deal. There is no way these three actors (who, in my opinion, aren’t the greatest) warrant this negotiated per-episode salary. No way. Warners could have stuck to their guns and offered a ceiling salary of maximum $550,000.00 to $600,000.00 per actor per episode, and even these figures are going over the top.

    BTW, I feel the same way about the totally overrated “Friends” and the overrated mediocre cast of six. Have you ever watched a rerun of “Friends” from its first three seasons? The episodes are truly atrociously written, performed, and edited…and the subsequent seasons of this show have the cast literally SCREAMING their dialogue in non-stop exposition. Sweet Jesus.

    Sorry, Warner Bros., you were taken for a huge ride.

    • Ag says:

      that’s funny re Friends – i haven’t seen an episode since like 1995/96, my freshman year in college, and they seemed pretty bad then, so i assume that they wouldn’t hold up.

    • minime says:

      LOL Finally someone says that about “Friends”. I was wondering if I was the only one in the world that can’t (or could never) endure a full episode of that horrible show!!

    • mom2two says:

      The thing that goes into these deals is ratings, Q scores, ad rates and syndication. Right now the only network comedies on TV that are syndication worthy (and already are in syndication) is Big Bang and Modern Family. Unfortunately, other shows like New Girl, the Mindy Project are not being billed as being attractive for syndication given the fact their viewership right now is not at the level of Big Bang or Modern Family. If Brooklyn Nine Nine can grow it’s audience and stick around for a while, it might be a contender for syndication.
      Big Bang Theory is making people a lot of money-for CBS and Warner Bros. It was only a matter of time before the main three was going to ask for Friends like money. I agree that Raj and Wolowitz should be making more money than they do, but I believe they were billed as guest stars in the first season and not main cast. Same for Bernadette and Amy, who negotiated their deals a while ago and therefore were not eligible for this time around.
      And to be fair, the show would not be what it is without Parsons, Galecki and Cuoco and they negotiated, like the Friends cast did, as a unit.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      If you knew how much the parent company made from selling Friends, the ad space in the commercial breaks, and the videos and dvds, their salary would make more sense to you.

      Salary isn’t based on quality, it is based on what is SOLD. Money, not emotion.

  19. Rhiley says:

    I guess Kaely Cuoco can afford to have as many random husbands as her heart desires. Johnny Galecki better watch out, though. Roseanne Barr thinks anyone worth over 100 million should be beheaded.

  20. Wren33 says:

    I have never watched the show, but for some reason I have an aversion to Kaley Cuoco. I don’t think I have ever heard her speak. She just has this annoying smirk I want to slap (violence is always wrong, blah, blah.)

  21. megs283 says:

    OMG. I would plan to work my tail off for three years and then RETIRE!!

  22. Tippy says:

    When the dust settles that $90 Million will be less than $50 Million.

    Friends was a great show from seasons 2-8 in spite of some mediocre writing. The cast had such great chemistry and tremendous comedic timing that they could have demanded more from WB.

  23. maybeiamcrazy says:

    I truly don’t get the mentality of “I don’t like it so it is overrated”. I don’t ‘t even watch the show and I find it ridicolous that people assume the show does not warrant that money because they don’t like it. Get over it, it is not like actors get paid the money they don’t help to make. This is how showbiz works. You gain the money if you attract people regardless of the quality. Even if the show is not the most cleverly written show, it is obviously still funny enough.

    • eliza says:

      I do not feel actors or shows that I do like deserve that kind of money.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        eliza, do you think the parent company deserves $1 billion, and that they have no obligation to share it with the people whose participation generated that $1B?

      • eliza says:

        @Tiffany- I see your point, however, I still do not agree with their salary. I personally think everyone involved in the business of entertainment is paid too much and that includes EVERYONE. People pitch a fit at the money doctors make, where there is actual saving of lives involved, but people have no issue with celebrities, agents and Hollywood honchos making millions. Teachers as well. Paid horribly but do a very important job in this world. I could go into more detail, but you get my point.

        I feel Hollywood sets ridiculous standards for money making. I also am not a fan of celebrity freebies when they make so much money but get handed swag right and left.

        Maybe I am jealous. Who knows but I still stand by my initial comment. Lol.

      • maybeiamcrazy says:

        You are missing one very important point in your arguement. The actors, singers etc. make as much as money we help them to make. If we stopped paying attention to media, they would have made less. I understand your and many other people’s frustration but comparing a teacher and an actor is not sensible in this case. Teachers are paid by a specific institution while actors are paid by public. Teachers should be paid more but it is completely unrelated to this situation.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I guess I just feel that while it might be easier to vent at the entertainment industry for society’s skewed priorities, it does no good. They are just a boogey-man that has no effect on how doctors or teachers are paid.

        As maybeiamcrazy pointed out, the money that they are getting is money that comes from the public spending it. If you want things to change, then you’d need convince Americans, not actors, to adjust their spending priorities. If you want teachers to be paid more, they can! For that to happen, it doesn’t require an actor to be paid less. It requires that the American public push for better paid teachers. Businesses, not just the entertainment industry, can make huge profits from meaningless work, but that is capitalism.

        I totally understand, respect, and agree with where you are coming from when it comes to priorities. I just think that actors are a scapegoat and we should really be directing our passion at our local communities and elected leaders if we want things to change.

  24. eliza says:

    I tried watching this show a couple times, and for me, it is completely unwatchable.

    I think their salaries are ridiculous.

  25. lucy2 says:

    I really dislike the show, and don’t understand all the awards love it receives.
    However, it’s one of the few shows out there that has a huge audience, so it makes a lot of money. I don’t have a problem with the stars getting their fair share of it – if you’re part of a product that earns a lot of money, you should be compensated appropriately. It’d be nice if everyone who works on the show got a triple salary raise though, but I doubt that’s happening.

    Kaley haircut looks terrible.

  26. LAK says:

    The level of their remuneration is a reflection of what Warners is making. If Warners is making a billion dollars off of their work, they should be adequately compensated in a manner that reflects that.

    If Warners wasn’t making stupid money off of them, they wouldn’t be compensated to the same level.

    Or would y’all prefer for Warners to keep the money or perhaps compensate chuck Lorre whose paycheck will be much, much bigger than this cursory $90M over the 3yrs.

  27. truthful says:

    I’ve tried watching it, and its horrible to me. Yeah, I laughed a few times but its not something I’d ever watch again. Welp, someone is watching it huh??

    not interested here, I think its lame and kinda dumb.

  28. Kori says:

    It’s kind of ridiculous but I feel about it the way I do about high-level pro athletes. Do they do ‘important’ work or service work (military, police, nurses)? No. But the money is going to be made by someone. Should it go to the talent (actors, athletes) or to the corporate bigwigs who greenlight it/own the team? What should the split be? So in that case, I don’t begrudge it. The shelf life of most actors and athletes is a short one (very short for some athletes–witness David Wilson of the Giants this week) so cash in while you can. It’s not like somehow those millions will trickle down to the servicemen/fireman/nurse/aid worker otherwise. It’s just not the way the world works. I just wish more of them did something significant with the boatloads of money they earn.

  29. pretty says:

    this show is just cringe-y. have you guys ever seen youtube videos that removed the laugh tracks? the actors throw some stupid unfunny lines and they wait for the laugh track (or the “live” audience) to play , it’s lame and stupid, cringe-y.

  30. db says:

    So many friends have raved about this show — I tried to watch it. It’s cute, but not a must-see by any stretch.

  31. Paloma says:

    The characters have been toned down as the show progresses. I agree it was funnier in the beginning. I think Simon Helberg is incredibly talented, but they don’t use him to his full potential.

    As for the hefty pay raise; all the more power to them. CBS can afford it.

  32. pleaseicu says:

    What I got from this is the very disappointing fact that this show is going to continue for at least three more seasons. This show is already running out of steam, that beaten dead horse will be rancid by season 10.

  33. Kiki says:

    Regardless of if the show is still funny or not (I preferred it before the wives/girlfriends were on it), I think these people have worked really hard and they deserve whatever raise they get. I as a teacher, would love to earn a bit more and I’d use it for helping others but I don’t reach as many people as these guys do. BTW, I think Galecki is sexy!

  34. Josefa says:

    This show is so SO bad. I normally hate American sitcoms, The Golden Girls being the only one that constantly made me laugh. I find the older sitcoms (Friends, Seinfeld, Will & Grace, etc.) to be simply unfunny and boring, but this show for me is just painful. The jokes are so dumb and predictable, I think I have been hearing them since the ’70s. You know when there’s a series you find so annoying you get inexplicably angry when you’re channel surfing and you see it’s on? That’s TBBT for me.

  35. Algernon says:

    ” I’m happy to see a return to high-paid network talent.”

    Why? This is exactly what’s driven network TV into the ground. The networks make these ridiculously huge deals and then they have to maximize the show’s earning potential by making it the broadest, blandest thing imaginable so that they can net every type of sponsor under the sun to bring in the ad revenue to pay their talent. My company only produces commercials, but we work with a number of ad agencies that won’t even contract with sponsors who want to broadcast on the basic networks because there’s no prestige in it, but that in turn makes it harder for the networks to find sponsors so they have to go even broader and blander to make up the difference. You can actually see this play out over the seasons of BBT. The first season was actually pretty sharp and cutting and felt new and fresh, but then it became a big hit and it immediately starting flattening out as the actors got paid more and more. Every time their salaries have gone up, the show has gotten duller and less interesting in the name of appealing to the widest audience possible, in an era when the mere idea of a “wide audience” is laughable; it’s all about niche programming now.

    Also, let’s be clear on what just happened here. The show shut down for several days while they negotiated these mega-contracts for the stars, but guess who didn’t get paid? The union workers who actually make the show. They’re just out the paycheck for the days they didn’t work. So awesome job, guys! Yay for you and no one else!

  36. perplexed says:

    There are too many reality shows on tv nowadays.

    I can see why this show is successful. The humor might not be everybody’s cup of tea, but at least the show provides a forum for bonding with actual characters as opposed to television personalities.

  37. Hiddlesgirl85 says:

    I’m happy for Jim Parsons and Johnny Galecki. They seem like great guys (especially Jim). That is all.

  38. Meme says:

    Stating the obvious, actors and athletes are paid ridiculous amounts of money. $90 million over 3 years? Insanity because the show isn’t that funny anymore. I hope Sheldon finally gets laid in the third season.

  39. jammypants says:

    This show is like a live action wikipedia. Fast facts about geeky subculture things spoon fed to people who don’t really care about geeky subculture. It’s actually insulting.

  40. InvaderTak says:

    I never got this show and I really did try. Wonder if we’ll be talking about bad tv contracts in 10 years (like they do in sports ) and this will come up. Just doesn’t seem worth the money.

  41. Kaley says:

    Maybe Kaley can finally get her butter face fixed!

  42. kri says:

    I watched it once. That was enough for me. But good for them-they got some major money. I can”t stand Kaley-so grating and untalented. I bet Mr. Kaley is as happy as a pig in the mud.

  43. Jessica says:

    It’s such a bad show. The jokes aren’t even funny.

  44. Steph says:

    Personally,I think it is the writers who should be paid the big money,not the actors. The actors should be paid well,but I find this sum to be ridiculous. There are thousands of actors and actresses who could play these roles. The big money should go to the creators and writers.

    • lucy2 says:

      The creator definitely makes big bucks, and probably owns a sizable chunk of all syndication and other profits. I’d think the writers on a very successful show like this are paid well too (even if I don’t think they do a very good job). It’s the crew who usually gets the short end of the stick in deals like this. Hopefully those with the huge contracts give nice holiday and end of the season gifts!

  45. Kelly says:

    Good for them. I think the show would actually be better if it just featured the 3 of them, get rid of the other actors, they bring it down.

  46. ctkat1 says:

    There’s a great article on Vulture about why these salary raises are actually a really good deal for Warner’s Entertainment and CBS- it’s a really interesting read, and shows that actually, the deal for these three isn’t nearly as lucrative as the deals that other sitcom actors made. The point of the article is that the money the studios will make from the next three seasons of the show is so much more than they are paying the actors to make those three seasons, the actors could have held out for even more.

    Link here: http://www.vulture.com/2014/08/big-bang-cast-deserves-even-more-money.html

    • Algernon says:

      It’s only a good deal *if* the network bubble doesn’t burst within the next five years, but pretty much everyone thinks the networks are done. Their business model is about to radically shift, and these types of syndication deals, where they count on making most their money, aren’t going to exist in the same structure soon. It’s already happening to FX, as people are not watching syndication like they used to. Why watch re-runs with commercials when you can watch commercial-free on Netflix, Amazon, or even skip re-runs in favor of binging on the show you missed two months ago because you were watching something else? The way we consume TV is drastically different than even 5 years ago and it’s still changing. They count so much on syndication but, like the home video sales on the movie side of the industry, the syndication market is drying up. What’s probably going to kill the networks is having to pay out syndication deals like these long after syndication has ceased to exist as we know it.

      • Ennie says:

        it still is working in a global level.
        Not everyone around the world is watching their TV online, the yuse the internet for entertainment, yes, but watching series, many do so on TV . I live in the 3rd world and I see lots of young people and they do know Sheldon and company, some of them from cable TV, but many from public networks that buy and repeat the series for a number of years, many times dubbed.

      • Algernon says:

        Foreign syndication is lucrative , but when everything else has fallen away, that alone isn’t going to be enough to sustain the model. That’s the problem. Every other part of the equation is collapsing, and there will come a point when even with a big foreign deal on the table, it won’t be enough to keep going, and at the rate things are changing here at home in re: advertising dollars, it’s going to give out in the next few years.

  47. Kate says:

    Why does she make that face in EVERY publicity photo. It’s SO unflattering. She’s such a pretty girl and then she makes that dumb face.

  48. Mrs McCubbins says:

    She looks better with long hair or styled differently.

  49. Miss M says:

    Good for them. But, in my humble opinion, they could go by without renewing with kaley cuoco. The other two female characters in the show are way funnier than hers.

  50. tarheel says:

    Good for them — they have made an insane amount of money for the network, production company, etc., and will continue to make an insane amount of money for all involved.

    I think the rest of the case deserves a hefty raise, too.

    I didn’t start watching the show until the third season, and absolutely love it.

  51. AnoANo says:

    Maybe Kayle can now afford the good face work now. She should ask for a refund on the cheek inmplants and lip injections. Her face in the new episodes is SO PAINFUL to look at it’s so injected. And her lips, that silly pursed/duck lip think she does??!!! She needs to retire that look pronto!!

  52. Hannah says:

    Disgusting. It’s not like it is even a well written show with great performances. It’s a poorly written show with decent performances. Argh all those years studying and now working my arse off every single day and I will never ever see any kind of pay check like that. Weird weird world.

  53. peaches mcdooby says:

    i like this show but these salaries are waaaay to high for what its worth. talk about milking it!

    kinda spoils the show for me now when it all becomes about money.

  54. jojo says:

    i do not get the love for Cuoco. She’s so average looking, and a decent, but not great actress. The big three? You could replace Penny with any ditsy blond that doesnt mind showing cleavage.

    It comes down to parsons and galekki. They are irreplacable. I’d throw holowitz in there as well. The others are really just complementary folks that can be replaced easily enough.

  55. Fernando says:

    It’s such an unfair place this world we live in,
    While Tatiana Maslany makes 500k a year for his work on Orphan Black, this talentless blonde makes a million per episode. So, unfair!

    • TheOriginalPuppy says:

      Yeah must be tough living on 500k a year and enjoying all the perks that go with being famous. Maybe we should start a charity for the underprivileged celebrities of the world.

      As an aside I remember the Seinfeld cast knocked back an offer of a million dollars an episode to do an extra season and that was back in the 90s.

  56. Marianne says:

    The thing that made it great when the Friends cast was making 1 million an episode, is that they ALL negotiated together. They could all see that TOGETHER they made the show. So it kind ofpisses me off that Kaley, Jim and Johnny get big pay raises, but Kunal and Simon get left out.

  57. cubfan34 says:

    ‘Big Bang Theory’s Simon Helberg & Kunal Nayyar Reach New Deals, Series To Start Production Tomorrow

    Playing hard ball, seeking parity with co-stars Jim Parsons, Johnny Galecki and Kaley Cuoco, seems to have paid off, with Helberg and Nayyar each netting more than $70 million over the life of the three-year deals for Seasons 8-10, I hear. I also hear that the quintet have parity on the back-end participation, which is very valuable, and that Helberg and Nayyar will catch up with their counterparts in Season 10 with equal per-episode fees. Parsons, Galecki and Cuoco just secured big new three-year contracts that would pay each of them at least $90 million dollars, including a $1 million per-episode fee. With Melissa Rauch and Mayim Bialik renegotiated their contracts last fall, now the entire cast of Big Bang is locked in for next season.


  58. Chris says:

    All the scorn being heaped on this show has restored my faith in humanity.

  59. HappyMom says:

    The show is cute and that’s about it. I’m always surprised when I hear people say it’s a “family show”-it’s all sexual innuendo IMO.

    • TheOriginalPuppy says:

      That’s because a lot of adults have become so desensitized to the smut and violence in the media that they’ve lost touch with was is and isn’t appropriate for children to see. And when you consider how much time kids spend in front of screens these days it’s frightening to think about the effect that prolonged exposure to age inappropriate material could be having on them.

  60. Dear Diary says:

    This show is very average. Compared with something like Seinfeld (the cast also got paid a lot), it’s not that funny or smart.

  61. ann says:

    Howard is by far my favourite character. Then Sheldon, Amy and Bernadette. Raj, Penny and Leonard would not be missed by me if they quit the show.

  62. hownowbrowncow says:

    Terrible show that makes a lot of money because most people have terrible taste. That’s really it, in a nutshell.