Netflix is to work with because there’s no bullshit. Multiple writers, directors and actors say they have a meeting to pitch a show, Netflix execs sign off on it and then get out of the way - they let the creative people create and that’s it.
Pretty cool to see them stand by DC. Obviously they will make out well too but still, companies in the industry are toxic and it’s nice to hear them called out.
but give me a break. there are lots of stories like that. what if the chappelle show was a flop at Comedy Central? Would have given the money back to them?
"They stole the show from me"??? He made a bet and so did they. He could have certainly made a different deal or with someone else.
And yes there’s a ton of stories like his, that’s the point. And he’s telling all of us using en example we all questioned and contemplated many years ago.
I thought it was a brilliant way to breach a subject that everyone knows is there but doesn’t have the balls or the ability to discuss in a way that’s also entertaining.
He got paid $50M for two years of that show. What is the problem exactly? Did his contract allow for the rights in perpetuity? Without residuals? Does he really not get paid when it streams? That just seems highly unlikely to me.
He got paid $50M for two years of that show. What is the problem exactly? Did his contract allow for the rights in perpetuity? Without residuals? Does he really not get paid when it streams? That just seems highly unlikely to me.
I believe that $50m was for seasons 3 and 4 after the success of the first 2. When he quit during season 3 he gave up all that money. His net worth now is primarily from his standup.
No, I don’t believe he gets royalties on the show because he walked away before the terms of the deal were met on his end. That’s why he says he fucked up because he didn’t know what a good contract was at the time, but he still can be mad about it later in life.
Well no, it wasn’t. The master went to work and used real life stories and lessons that led to the decision he made today.
Did we watch the same thing?
We watched a man that learned his own business too late. It's funny...the same people in this thread that bitch when football players want to renegotiate a contract 3 years into a five years deal, feel sorry for Dave. He signed a contract...he didn't have to, but he did. That's Dave's fault...not Comedy Centrals.
With that said, I'm a big Chappelle fan and I'll stop watching his show on CC. He's a legend....BUT...
...he screwed himself. He should use his platform to help other up and coming comics be smarter younger, and in a way, maybe he is.
and I'm definitely out of my element talking about how Hollywood works, and I could easily believe the networks are scumbags and soulless (the Simpsons portrayal of network TV executives seems spot on), but it seems like his beef should be with his agent and/or attorneys.
of course the network is going to do scumbag stuff, it's because they can.
It seems like you have agents and attorneys to look out for you.
He got paid $50M for two years of that show. What is the problem exactly? Did his contract allow for the rights in perpetuity? Without residuals? Does he really not get paid when it streams? That just seems highly unlikely to me.
I believe that $50m was for seasons 3 and 4 after the success of the first 2. When he quit during season 3 he gave up all that money. His net worth now is primarily from his standup.
No, I don’t believe he gets royalties on the show because he walked away before the terms of the deal were met on his end. That’s why he says he fucked up because he didn’t know what a good contract was at the time, but he still can be mad about it later in life.
He can be mad about it, I get that but why should he get to take it back now?
Netflix wants his specials so they caved and pulked the show, I get that.
I've been a fan of Chappelle's work but I dont get the praise he is getting for this power play. He signed a contract. He walked away from the show. Now he throws a tantrum and gets it pulled.
And yes there’s a ton of stories like his, that’s the point. And he’s telling all of us using en example we all questioned and contemplated many years ago.
I thought it was a brilliant way to breach a subject that everyone knows is there but doesn’t have the balls or the ability to discuss in a way that’s also entertaining.
This is how I saw it, too, but I don’t think it was just entertainment. There aren’t a lot of people in entertainment I trust to tell it to me like it is right now, but Dave Chapelle is one. He comes off as a smart, smart dude to me.
I think he admittedly regrets some of the choices he made on that show. Which is fair, age and wisdom does that. But it does contradict the anti-cancel culture stance he’s taken in the recent past.
Simply meaning.... Could prime Richard Pryor or Eddie Murphy exist today? Dave Chappell is walking a tight line.
Either way, I’m a big fan, and I really enjoy listening to him these days, funny or not.
not sure exactly how much balls this take for Chappelle to do.
he's got a net worth north of $50M. I'm usually hesitant to comment on what exactly "enough" money is for someone else. But my most measures, he never needs to work again in his life.
ballsy would be doing this in 2005 or whenever it was when he left the Chappelle show, before he really had made it big.
he made all of his current fortune after he came back and started doing stand up comedy again. Streaming his show didn’t exist then either.
I believe 2020 Dave would do this no matter how much money he had. Just my view on him, it seems very genuine.
I know, that's what I'm saying. It would have been ballsy to do this then when he hadn't been "paid".
You can say he would do this no matter how much money he has, but reality is he didn't do it until he no longer needed to feed himself like in his story about 3 card monty (funny story is at about the same age I learned the same lesson - though I learned it in New Haven).
Either way, I watch everything he does, and I like almost all of it, just don't think a) this was particularly ballsy given his circumstances and b) as I mentioned before if i were him I'd be more pissed at my agent/lawyers than the network (but admittedly this is not my area of expertise).
he said he felt like all the agents and lawyers were like the guys in on the 3 card monty game. And those people are all out of the picture, they don’t own the show.
Don’t want to get hung up on the word “ballsy” - to each their own on that one. I thought it was a good listen and much needed given how the industry scams people.
I listened to one Bill Burrs spots on JRE and he talks about this a bit using his own example. It wasn’t as pronounced as this Chappelle special but it starts to go down that path.
has basically been amassed on his own through his own tours and his Netflix deal that he calls all the shots for. A long time ago he decided that he wasn’t going to get screwed again.
Agree Uconn it was a good listen and thanks for sharing
and agree no need to get hung up on the word ballsy, but as an example of what I think of as ballsy? Ricky Gervais Golden Globes monologue.
But Gervais has almost triple the net worth of Chappelle and similarly can afford to be so bold, so even that, was it really ballsy? maybe and maybe what Chappelle did was too - he easily could have said nothing and kept collecting checks but maybe the pressure is off when you have a mattress filled with cash to fall back on.
but I am certainly not the arbiter of what people should find bold or ballsy.
1. People say that's how show business is. Chappelle is saying it shouldn't. The 'studios' (or whatever you call them) exploit people because they know they are desperate and get them to sign bad deals. Yeah, it's partly the talent's fault, but what kind of system are we celebrating where studios can basically air shows risk free becasue they exploit the talent? If you think a show is worth it, pay them up front,
2. It's ballsy becuase he didn't have to say anything, he could have just kept letting people get fucked over and tell them, 'that's show business'. But he is in a position of power to help other people since he is financially secure. It's also ballsy becasue he could get blackballed. For someone who was doing stand-up since he was 14, I think not being able to do stand-up in the future is a bigger risk to him than the money ever is. Like he said, 'don't mess with people's livelyhoods'. I think there is a misconception that a lot of people do it for the money, when in my option, the majority of people do things they love and get rich doing that. Taking that away from him is the bigger threat than the money, IMO.
from the Netflix without the massive publicity from the Comedy Central show? Seems like the deal worked out fine for him. He was promoted on national tv and used the publicity from the show, and having his name on national tv to become insanely rich. Why would Comedy Central do a deal if they don’t get to keep the upside? There’s 100s of “up and coming” comics begging Comedy Central for a deal like Chapelle got.
2. It's ballsy becuase he didn't have to say anything, he could have just kept letting people get fucked over and tell them, 'that's show business'. But he is in a position of power to help other people since he is financially secure. It's also ballsy becasue he could get blackballed. For someone who was doing stand-up since he was 14, I think not being able to do stand-up in the future is a bigger risk to him than the money ever is. Like he said, 'don't mess with people's livelyhoods'. I think there is a misconception that a lot of people do it for the money, when in my option, the majority of people do things they love and get rich doing that. Taking that away from him is the bigger threat than the money, IMO.
I agree with your first point.
I don't think he's risking anything at this point regarding his stand-up. 10-15 years ago, maybe. Now, there are so many different platforms and some that he could do on his own. With his following, he'll be able to do stand-up whenever he wants
RE: Would Chapelle have gotten the 3 show $60M deal
from the Netflix without the massive publicity from the Comedy Central show? Seems like the deal worked out fine for him. He was promoted on national tv and used the publicity from the show, and having his name on national tv to become insanely rich. Why would Comedy Central do a deal if they don’t get to keep the upside? There’s 100s of “up and coming” comics begging Comedy Central for a deal like Chapelle got.
Well, its two for for me. First, it depends on what you think of IP. A huge portion of our population thinks its ok to steal music, tv and movies via torrents and illegal downloads/streams. Not sure if you fit in that category (and I'm not accusing you) but its a huge problem with my generations outlook on "art", IMO.
Second, Chappelle built his brand himself through years of hard work and grinding. He was doing big shows and movies before the Chapelle show - in essence he was already "famous". Ask any comic how cutthroat the industry is, how hard it is to even get to do a show in front of 100 people and you might have a different outlook. Comedy Central gave him a shot but it wasn't really some big risk. The IP was all his, they just gave him a platform and some marketing. Apparently their ideas for the show were trash too. Of course DC benefitted from it, but i'm pretty confident he would have been successful without it. Killing Them Softly, one of the great specials of all time came out 3 years before Chappelle Show, he was already big time. The "100's of comics" you mention don't have shows...I wonder why?
And lastly, someone above mentioned this isn't about just money. Its about the future, and laying the groundwork for artists that are coming up and being taken advantage of. This was a warning to those to not give things away to make a nickel.
Well no, it wasn’t. The master went to work and used real life stories and lessons that led to the decision he made today.
Did we watch the same thing?
We watched a man that learned his own business too late. It's funny...the same people in this thread that bitch when football players want to renegotiate a contract 3 years into a five years deal, feel sorry for Dave. He signed a contract...he didn't have to, but he did. That's Dave's fault...not Comedy Centrals.
With that said, I'm a big Chappelle fan and I'll stop watching his show on CC. He's a legend....BUT...
...he screwed himself. He should use his platform to help other up and coming comics be smarter younger, and in a way, maybe he is.
I am not one of those people that bitch about players renegotiating deals and I applaud Chappelle for standing up here and calling out people that need to be called out.
And he is in fact using his platform to educate, like you said.
Why we always insist on looking to find fault or blame is beyond me. It's not the individual here that should be held accountable. It's the industry. It's fucking disgusting.
this is half sour grapes (DC) half cringeworthy stupidity (Viacom)
Comedy Central launched his career. There's a big intangible value to the audience he was able to access (at a time when it was a lot harder to access large audiences). And like most things in life it's not standard to get paid for how something does, you get paid for your prior resume and if you are unproven you aren't likely to get a great deal pre success. Just like pro athletes on rookie contracts tend to get standard rates that are undermarket if the player is very successful. Whenever his contract was due for renegotiation or whatever his next project was Chapelle would have gotten paid a lot whether or not that next project succeeded - which may have worked out the other way in his favor. That's just how most industries work.
to get from nobody to somebody a platform is getting paid - whether it's youtube, instagram, the comedy club, or a movie/tv studio. If you want to use their platform and access to audiences they are getting a cut and the size of that cut is based on how much leverage you have.
Where Chapelle is right is that Viacom should have found a way to make things right. I don't know the ins and outs of the negotiation 20 years ago and I do recall them throwing a lot of money at him to continue doing the show after it was a hit. But to this day there should be a compromise. I expect they think they are upholding some precedent for all other negotiations but there are always ways around that. If there's motivation to do the right thing.
RE: Agree Uconn it was a good listen and thanks for sharing
and agree no need to get hung up on the word ballsy, but as an example of what I think of as ballsy? Ricky Gervais Golden Globes monologue.
But Gervais has almost triple the net worth of Chappelle and similarly can afford to be so bold, so even that, was it really ballsy? maybe and maybe what Chappelle did was too - he easily could have said nothing and kept collecting checks but maybe the pressure is off when you have a mattress filled with cash to fall back on.
but I am certainly not the arbiter of what people should find bold or ballsy.
Yeah I think both are ballsy in their own right. More than anything, I applaud both comics for having and showing something that many/most don’t which is principles. I’ve seen Dave and watched him long enough to know that he is a very humble dude, and isn’t afraid to call bullshit on things. Not sure if $ is the factor in ones feeling they can step forward or not, I’d like to think that that isn’t much of a factor and they are just doing and calling out what is right/wrong. I know to many of us we are always torn with this kind of decision in our personal and professional lives, afraid of repurcusions from making a stance on something that goes against the grain. Now more than ever I find myself living and acting with as much intentionality towards the principles I hold dear, and encourage others to do the same.
Loved Gervais completely neutering the entertainment industry to their faces, the fact he did it with them as the audience and having to watch them muck it all up was absolutely priceless. I tip my cap to him for that.
and maybe I'm too cynical, but I think (for most people) their level of tolerance for things against their principles and willingness to speak out against things that go against their principles is directly correlated to their safety net.
IOW, I have a family to feed, kids in college, a mortgage to pay, and I'm not necessarily equating any transgressions I could possibly have to deal with in my job to the crap Chappelle and other stars do or did), but I guarantee you when I come across something at work that I think is exploitative I grin and bear it out of self preservation.
Does that make me weak? or strong? or neither (it's not about me lol).
Point is, IMO, having options and knowing where your "next meal comes from" can be empowering.
And as for being blackballed, I think this has the opposite effect for an established star - people are going to say "wow that Chappelle, he tells it like it is", and IMO demand for him will increase and "studio bullshit" will decrease but if he were an unknown speaking out, maybe he'd struggle to find work and make a living. to my point.
IMO people do get blackballed in Hollywood, but not for this, and I'm not going to go into it since it's not what this thread is about.
is that he said only comedy central would be able to use his name and likeness in perpetuity. He can't even launch a new show with his name in the title. He had this refrain about getting paid, but it clearly is much more personal for him.
But that aside I thought this was really good story telling. Chappelle is becoming very good at this sort of work.
is that he said only comedy central would be able to use his name and likeness in perpetuity. He can't even launch a new show with his name in the title. He had this refrain about getting paid, but it clearly is much more personal for him.
But that aside I thought this was really good story telling. Chappelle is becoming very good at this sort of work.
Any industry that involves money behaves like that.
I'm a doctor and even my industry is shady as hell when it comes to money and contracts.
When I quit private practice to join a large hospital corporation, they purposely give you the shittiest contract and its up to you (and your contract attorney) to negotiate a good contract. As an experienced doc from private practice, I had leverage. But all the newly graduating residents are getting screwed left and right which is why we can't retain any of them for more than a year of two.
Any industry that involves money behaves like that.
I'm a doctor and even my industry is shady as hell when it comes to money and contracts.
When I quit private practice to join a large hospital corporation, they purposely give you the shittiest contract and its up to you (and your contract attorney) to negotiate a good contract. As an experienced doc from private practice, I had leverage. But all the newly graduating residents are getting screwed left and right which is why we can't retain any of them for more than a year of two.
Excellent point, although I believe it has more to do with corporatism and truly the monopolization/ oligopolies that controls each industry. This also gets to my point of the problem we face with often having to cave on our principles in favor of appeasing or not offending the gatekeepers who make the bread and butter of the fabric of our world. It’s a tough choice and often the unpopular thing to do, but I think it’s one more people need to start making across the board. While I am a firm believer in Pareto’s principle, and think it is wrong to chalk up others not making there success solely based upon not appeasing those in the industry that feeds you. I think we would all stand to benefit with more decentralization and competition of various ideals rather the homogenization of allowable opinions. To digress and and bring this back to some of the points Dave was making, I am speaking to his reference of a change in the industry by means like Netflix as he mentioned to how they deal and work with content creators.
As UConn said, I think you’re getting a little too hung up on the “ballsy” part. Chappelle didn’t necessarily do this to be “ballsy”, certain people are just calling it that. Chappelle did this because he can. You said it yourself— with his popularity, it’s not like he’s going to be blackballed or taken off the air. He’s one of the few comedians who can do something like this. I don’t consider this “ballsy” so much as just a very smart and self-aware power move on Dave’s part.
He said he went to his agent and asked what they could do, and the agent said “nothing,” so Chappelle decided to take matters into his own hands and go to the people himself— ask them to boycott the streaming Chappelle’s Show. He knows he has nothing to lose here and can only gain.
I also think the broader message was very important for artists as a whole and Dave probably realized he’s one of the few people who can get away with saying it publicly. You said something along the lines of “of course Viacom will do shitty things to artists— because they can.” I think that’s Dave’s exact point. 1) just because you “can” do something, does that really make it right? 2) are we comfortable living in a system where execs regularly fuck over artists “because they can”?
Someone else on this thread made a point about the contract process in all industries being cut-throat. That is true, but in tv and music in particular it’s a little different. It’s a stipulation of most contracts that the product you produce and even your name and likeness to the extent they’re associated with the product are owned permanently by the company. To me, that’s different than working as a doctor for instance where if you have a bad contract you can just move on and work somewhere else after a few years. As an artist, you never know if/when one of your projects is going to blow up, and you could be reliant on a stream of income from that project for many years to come. Plus it’s inconsistent— a lot of small-time actors can go a whole year without getting a gig and then can get 3 the following year. It’s often somewhat random.
That’s why it sucks that the norm in the music and tv industries is for companies to basically permanently own whatever product you make— that’s also why agents can’t often get a better deal, because the norm is companies being in a position to essentially fuck artists over. Living in Nashville, I’ve known a bunch of musicians that have signed deals that would sound like complete scams to the average person, but are actually the status quo in the industry and their agents told them they were getting a decent deal.
I think Chappelle made his main gripe very clear: he said look at the amount of money Viacom/CC made from that show, then look at how much he ultimately was paid in total. I think all he’s saying is they should have made it right. And they still haven’t.
I don’t care how rich you are and if you have a $50M net worth, if you see someone made $100M off of your work and you were only paid $3M (I’m making up numbers but I know for a fact his 2 years before being offered that big contract were not very lucrative), you’d be pissed off too even just based on the principle of it, even if you went on to make 10s of millions later on. It’s probably always slightly pissed him off and the recent streaming without consent probably stirred up some of those old feelings on an already sensitive subject.
Seeing a bunch of people you barely know (and don’t like) individually each make a lot more than you off of something that was purely your own hard work and talent just couldn’t feel good to anyone.
I agree with all you said, my whole point was for people like Chappelle and I'd even add Gervais, they should do things like Unforgiven and the Golden Globes monologue to protect the next group of .....themselves. they have a platform and are financially secure enough to take risks.
It's almost like if Chappelle didn't do this he'd be complicit. Ask yourself why didn't he do this in 2003 or 2004 or whatever year it was when he left the Chappelle show and when he wasn't financially secure. I think we all can guess. Probably because he needed to continue to gain employment.
that said, and maybe that's a little harsh, but the point still stands IMO, to play devil's advocate, the networks, studios, record companies, generally are the ones taking the bigger risks. it's kind of the difference between an artist who remains "independent" and goes via indie labels - because they want to remain in control of their life's work - they generally do not have the same financial success, because the corporate machines maybe suck you in, but they also provide the benefit of them...the corporate machine.
do they prey on the vulnerable and exploit the desperate? sure and no it's not ok, but the extreme alternative is you don't get your name out there.
ideally there would be some happy middle ground, but to my original point, that's at least partly on the job of the agent/lawyer and yes, some accountability rests with the person.
My financial planner was meeting with me this past fall and he said "you and your wife based on these projections will be able to retire when you're 55". So I said that's awesome, move it out about 10 - 15 years, I'm positive I won't be ready to retire at 55. He said, no that's not the point, being in a position to comfortably retire doesn't mean you have to, just really means you can live your life (work life) on your terms. I get it, and IMO that's the level Gervais and Chappelle have reached. They can afford to comfortably retire and now can work on their terms.
In conclusion, I am in complete agreement with almost all the commentary here, I just wasn't ready to say this bit was ballsy, or heroic (and I know no one claimed heroic but same line of thinking IMO) and I think best case if anything he's made up and coming entertainers more aware.
but ask yourself the next Chappelle, he gets a 7 figure contract put in front of him that includes a clause about using his name and likeness in perpetuity - does he or she sign it? Even knowing Chappelle's warning, does he or she sign it?
didn’t do this in 2003 for a few reasons. First and foremost he was young and making mistakes he’s saying now, at 47 he won’t make again. You can’t go back in time. Iirc at the time he just wanted to go away and leave the business and that’s exactly what he did. Basically severed all ties. Second, I’m not sure he had the clout yet - no one cares what little people think and while he wasn’t exactly little, he definitely wasn’t “powerful”. If I complain at work, no one gives a shit. And third, there was no streaming, no way to get his voice heard on this scale on his own.
I think the money thing is being made into a bigger deal than it is. This was about more than money.
didn’t do this in 2003 for a few reasons. First and foremost he was young and making mistakes he’s saying now, at 47 he won’t make again. You can’t go back in time. Iirc at the time he just wanted to go away and leave the business and that’s exactly what he did. Basically severed all ties. Second, I’m not sure he had the clout yet - no one cares what little people think and while he wasn’t exactly little, he definitely wasn’t “powerful”. If I complain at work, no one gives a shit. And third, there was no streaming, no way to get his voice heard on this scale on his own.
I think the money thing is being made into a bigger deal than it is. This was about more than money.
It wasn't about money, I never said it was, but having money empowered him. If you disagree great, but I never said what he did was about money.
He didn’t continue his employment after he left though
he basically disappeared. He left the money along with it. Streaming also didn’t exist then and this was in response to CC not even asking him when streaming it. Part of this conversation couldn’t have happened 17 years ago. To me CC streaming it was the last straw for him.
RE: He didn’t continue his employment after he left though
he basically disappeared. He left the money along with it. Streaming also didn’t exist then and this was in response to CC not even asking him when streaming it. Part of this conversation couldn’t have happened 17 years ago. To me CC streaming it was the last straw for him.
it seemed like the streaming was a symptom, he didn't want them making money off his name, and he signed a contract saying they had the rights to use his name and likeness "in perpetuity"
and that's really what pissed him off IMO, if you read or know his history with Comedy Central and the Chappelle show he wasn't happy with how he didn't have control of the content, and the final straw was when CC created season 3 without him involved from a creative standpoint (obviously his content).
The $60M from Netflix is the safety net I'm talking about, plus the Netflix model is so different from network TV it's silly to even compare them. The networks are beholden to prime time slots, what are there? 3 per night or 6 at most? Netflix has no schedule, time slots are limitless. so of course they sign you and get out of the way. It's not like by signing a deal with Chappelle they're not green lighting someone else because they have nowhere to air the other show
anyway, I think we can agree to disagree or we're not even that far apart, but just talking past each other at this point.
What should he be worth? 100 million?
Pretty cool to see them stand by DC. Obviously they will make out well too but still, companies in the industry are toxic and it’s nice to hear them called out.
Thanks for posting.
No thanks.
No thanks.
Well no, it wasn’t. The master went to work and used real life stories and lessons that led to the decision he made today.
Did we watch the same thing?
"They stole the show from me"??? He made a bet and so did they. He could have certainly made a different deal or with someone else.
I thought it was a brilliant way to breach a subject that everyone knows is there but doesn’t have the balls or the ability to discuss in a way that’s also entertaining.
I believe that $50m was for seasons 3 and 4 after the success of the first 2. When he quit during season 3 he gave up all that money. His net worth now is primarily from his standup.
No, I don’t believe he gets royalties on the show because he walked away before the terms of the deal were met on his end. That’s why he says he fucked up because he didn’t know what a good contract was at the time, but he still can be mad about it later in life.
Quote:
16 minute video of him bitching?
No thanks.
Well no, it wasn’t. The master went to work and used real life stories and lessons that led to the decision he made today.
Did we watch the same thing?
We watched a man that learned his own business too late. It's funny...the same people in this thread that bitch when football players want to renegotiate a contract 3 years into a five years deal, feel sorry for Dave. He signed a contract...he didn't have to, but he did. That's Dave's fault...not Comedy Centrals.
With that said, I'm a big Chappelle fan and I'll stop watching his show on CC. He's a legend....BUT...
...he screwed himself. He should use his platform to help other up and coming comics be smarter younger, and in a way, maybe he is.
of course the network is going to do scumbag stuff, it's because they can.
It seems like you have agents and attorneys to look out for you.
Quote:
He got paid $50M for two years of that show. What is the problem exactly? Did his contract allow for the rights in perpetuity? Without residuals? Does he really not get paid when it streams? That just seems highly unlikely to me.
I believe that $50m was for seasons 3 and 4 after the success of the first 2. When he quit during season 3 he gave up all that money. His net worth now is primarily from his standup.
No, I don’t believe he gets royalties on the show because he walked away before the terms of the deal were met on his end. That’s why he says he fucked up because he didn’t know what a good contract was at the time, but he still can be mad about it later in life.
He can be mad about it, I get that but why should he get to take it back now?
Netflix wants his specials so they caved and pulked the show, I get that.
I've been a fan of Chappelle's work but I dont get the praise he is getting for this power play. He signed a contract. He walked away from the show. Now he throws a tantrum and gets it pulled.
I thought it was a brilliant way to breach a subject that everyone knows is there but doesn’t have the balls or the ability to discuss in a way that’s also entertaining.
This is how I saw it, too, but I don’t think it was just entertainment. There aren’t a lot of people in entertainment I trust to tell it to me like it is right now, but Dave Chapelle is one. He comes off as a smart, smart dude to me.
Simply meaning.... Could prime Richard Pryor or Eddie Murphy exist today? Dave Chappell is walking a tight line.
Either way, I’m a big fan, and I really enjoy listening to him these days, funny or not.
he's got a net worth north of $50M. I'm usually hesitant to comment on what exactly "enough" money is for someone else. But my most measures, he never needs to work again in his life.
ballsy would be doing this in 2005 or whenever it was when he left the Chappelle show, before he really had made it big.
I believe 2020 Dave would do this no matter how much money he had. Just my view on him, it seems very genuine.
I believe 2020 Dave would do this no matter how much money he had. Just my view on him, it seems very genuine.
Yeah, I saw him in a small theater in Richmond VA when he was putting himself back out there. It’s like he was starting from scratch again.
I believe 2020 Dave would do this no matter how much money he had. Just my view on him, it seems very genuine.
I know, that's what I'm saying. It would have been ballsy to do this then when he hadn't been "paid".
You can say he would do this no matter how much money he has, but reality is he didn't do it until he no longer needed to feed himself like in his story about 3 card monty (funny story is at about the same age I learned the same lesson - though I learned it in New Haven).
Either way, I watch everything he does, and I like almost all of it, just don't think a) this was particularly ballsy given his circumstances and b) as I mentioned before if i were him I'd be more pissed at my agent/lawyers than the network (but admittedly this is not my area of expertise).
Hmmm
Don’t want to get hung up on the word “ballsy” - to each their own on that one. I thought it was a good listen and much needed given how the industry scams people.
I listened to one Bill Burrs spots on JRE and he talks about this a bit using his own example. It wasn’t as pronounced as this Chappelle special but it starts to go down that path.
But Gervais has almost triple the net worth of Chappelle and similarly can afford to be so bold, so even that, was it really ballsy? maybe and maybe what Chappelle did was too - he easily could have said nothing and kept collecting checks but maybe the pressure is off when you have a mattress filled with cash to fall back on.
but I am certainly not the arbiter of what people should find bold or ballsy.
2. It's ballsy becuase he didn't have to say anything, he could have just kept letting people get fucked over and tell them, 'that's show business'. But he is in a position of power to help other people since he is financially secure. It's also ballsy becasue he could get blackballed. For someone who was doing stand-up since he was 14, I think not being able to do stand-up in the future is a bigger risk to him than the money ever is. Like he said, 'don't mess with people's livelyhoods'. I think there is a misconception that a lot of people do it for the money, when in my option, the majority of people do things they love and get rich doing that. Taking that away from him is the bigger threat than the money, IMO.
2. It's ballsy becuase he didn't have to say anything, he could have just kept letting people get fucked over and tell them, 'that's show business'. But he is in a position of power to help other people since he is financially secure. It's also ballsy becasue he could get blackballed. For someone who was doing stand-up since he was 14, I think not being able to do stand-up in the future is a bigger risk to him than the money ever is. Like he said, 'don't mess with people's livelyhoods'. I think there is a misconception that a lot of people do it for the money, when in my option, the majority of people do things they love and get rich doing that. Taking that away from him is the bigger threat than the money, IMO.
I agree with your first point.
I don't think he's risking anything at this point regarding his stand-up. 10-15 years ago, maybe. Now, there are so many different platforms and some that he could do on his own. With his following, he'll be able to do stand-up whenever he wants
Well, its two for for me. First, it depends on what you think of IP. A huge portion of our population thinks its ok to steal music, tv and movies via torrents and illegal downloads/streams. Not sure if you fit in that category (and I'm not accusing you) but its a huge problem with my generations outlook on "art", IMO.
Second, Chappelle built his brand himself through years of hard work and grinding. He was doing big shows and movies before the Chapelle show - in essence he was already "famous". Ask any comic how cutthroat the industry is, how hard it is to even get to do a show in front of 100 people and you might have a different outlook. Comedy Central gave him a shot but it wasn't really some big risk. The IP was all his, they just gave him a platform and some marketing. Apparently their ideas for the show were trash too. Of course DC benefitted from it, but i'm pretty confident he would have been successful without it. Killing Them Softly, one of the great specials of all time came out 3 years before Chappelle Show, he was already big time. The "100's of comics" you mention don't have shows...I wonder why?
And lastly, someone above mentioned this isn't about just money. Its about the future, and laying the groundwork for artists that are coming up and being taken advantage of. This was a warning to those to not give things away to make a nickel.
Quote:
In comment 15056267 Jerz44 said:
Quote:
16 minute video of him bitching?
No thanks.
Well no, it wasn’t. The master went to work and used real life stories and lessons that led to the decision he made today.
Did we watch the same thing?
We watched a man that learned his own business too late. It's funny...the same people in this thread that bitch when football players want to renegotiate a contract 3 years into a five years deal, feel sorry for Dave. He signed a contract...he didn't have to, but he did. That's Dave's fault...not Comedy Centrals.
With that said, I'm a big Chappelle fan and I'll stop watching his show on CC. He's a legend....BUT...
...he screwed himself. He should use his platform to help other up and coming comics be smarter younger, and in a way, maybe he is.
I am not one of those people that bitch about players renegotiating deals and I applaud Chappelle for standing up here and calling out people that need to be called out.
And he is in fact using his platform to educate, like you said.
Why we always insist on looking to find fault or blame is beyond me. It's not the individual here that should be held accountable. It's the industry. It's fucking disgusting.
to get from nobody to somebody a platform is getting paid - whether it's youtube, instagram, the comedy club, or a movie/tv studio. If you want to use their platform and access to audiences they are getting a cut and the size of that cut is based on how much leverage you have.
Where Chapelle is right is that Viacom should have found a way to make things right. I don't know the ins and outs of the negotiation 20 years ago and I do recall them throwing a lot of money at him to continue doing the show after it was a hit. But to this day there should be a compromise. I expect they think they are upholding some precedent for all other negotiations but there are always ways around that. If there's motivation to do the right thing.
But Gervais has almost triple the net worth of Chappelle and similarly can afford to be so bold, so even that, was it really ballsy? maybe and maybe what Chappelle did was too - he easily could have said nothing and kept collecting checks but maybe the pressure is off when you have a mattress filled with cash to fall back on.
but I am certainly not the arbiter of what people should find bold or ballsy.
Yeah I think both are ballsy in their own right. More than anything, I applaud both comics for having and showing something that many/most don’t which is principles. I’ve seen Dave and watched him long enough to know that he is a very humble dude, and isn’t afraid to call bullshit on things. Not sure if $ is the factor in ones feeling they can step forward or not, I’d like to think that that isn’t much of a factor and they are just doing and calling out what is right/wrong. I know to many of us we are always torn with this kind of decision in our personal and professional lives, afraid of repurcusions from making a stance on something that goes against the grain. Now more than ever I find myself living and acting with as much intentionality towards the principles I hold dear, and encourage others to do the same.
Loved Gervais completely neutering the entertainment industry to their faces, the fact he did it with them as the audience and having to watch them muck it all up was absolutely priceless. I tip my cap to him for that.
IOW, I have a family to feed, kids in college, a mortgage to pay, and I'm not necessarily equating any transgressions I could possibly have to deal with in my job to the crap Chappelle and other stars do or did), but I guarantee you when I come across something at work that I think is exploitative I grin and bear it out of self preservation.
Does that make me weak? or strong? or neither (it's not about me lol).
Point is, IMO, having options and knowing where your "next meal comes from" can be empowering.
And as for being blackballed, I think this has the opposite effect for an established star - people are going to say "wow that Chappelle, he tells it like it is", and IMO demand for him will increase and "studio bullshit" will decrease but if he were an unknown speaking out, maybe he'd struggle to find work and make a living. to my point.
IMO people do get blackballed in Hollywood, but not for this, and I'm not going to go into it since it's not what this thread is about.
But that aside I thought this was really good story telling. Chappelle is becoming very good at this sort of work.
But that aside I thought this was really good story telling. Chappelle is becoming very good at this sort of work.
I'm a doctor and even my industry is shady as hell when it comes to money and contracts.
When I quit private practice to join a large hospital corporation, they purposely give you the shittiest contract and its up to you (and your contract attorney) to negotiate a good contract. As an experienced doc from private practice, I had leverage. But all the newly graduating residents are getting screwed left and right which is why we can't retain any of them for more than a year of two.
Now these guys know how to negotiate - ( New Window )
I'm a doctor and even my industry is shady as hell when it comes to money and contracts.
When I quit private practice to join a large hospital corporation, they purposely give you the shittiest contract and its up to you (and your contract attorney) to negotiate a good contract. As an experienced doc from private practice, I had leverage. But all the newly graduating residents are getting screwed left and right which is why we can't retain any of them for more than a year of two.
Excellent point, although I believe it has more to do with corporatism and truly the monopolization/ oligopolies that controls each industry. This also gets to my point of the problem we face with often having to cave on our principles in favor of appeasing or not offending the gatekeepers who make the bread and butter of the fabric of our world. It’s a tough choice and often the unpopular thing to do, but I think it’s one more people need to start making across the board. While I am a firm believer in Pareto’s principle, and think it is wrong to chalk up others not making there success solely based upon not appeasing those in the industry that feeds you. I think we would all stand to benefit with more decentralization and competition of various ideals rather the homogenization of allowable opinions. To digress and and bring this back to some of the points Dave was making, I am speaking to his reference of a change in the industry by means like Netflix as he mentioned to how they deal and work with content creators.
He said he went to his agent and asked what they could do, and the agent said “nothing,” so Chappelle decided to take matters into his own hands and go to the people himself— ask them to boycott the streaming Chappelle’s Show. He knows he has nothing to lose here and can only gain.
I also think the broader message was very important for artists as a whole and Dave probably realized he’s one of the few people who can get away with saying it publicly. You said something along the lines of “of course Viacom will do shitty things to artists— because they can.” I think that’s Dave’s exact point. 1) just because you “can” do something, does that really make it right? 2) are we comfortable living in a system where execs regularly fuck over artists “because they can”?
Someone else on this thread made a point about the contract process in all industries being cut-throat. That is true, but in tv and music in particular it’s a little different. It’s a stipulation of most contracts that the product you produce and even your name and likeness to the extent they’re associated with the product are owned permanently by the company. To me, that’s different than working as a doctor for instance where if you have a bad contract you can just move on and work somewhere else after a few years. As an artist, you never know if/when one of your projects is going to blow up, and you could be reliant on a stream of income from that project for many years to come. Plus it’s inconsistent— a lot of small-time actors can go a whole year without getting a gig and then can get 3 the following year. It’s often somewhat random.
That’s why it sucks that the norm in the music and tv industries is for companies to basically permanently own whatever product you make— that’s also why agents can’t often get a better deal, because the norm is companies being in a position to essentially fuck artists over. Living in Nashville, I’ve known a bunch of musicians that have signed deals that would sound like complete scams to the average person, but are actually the status quo in the industry and their agents told them they were getting a decent deal.
I think Chappelle made his main gripe very clear: he said look at the amount of money Viacom/CC made from that show, then look at how much he ultimately was paid in total. I think all he’s saying is they should have made it right. And they still haven’t.
I don’t care how rich you are and if you have a $50M net worth, if you see someone made $100M off of your work and you were only paid $3M (I’m making up numbers but I know for a fact his 2 years before being offered that big contract were not very lucrative), you’d be pissed off too even just based on the principle of it, even if you went on to make 10s of millions later on. It’s probably always slightly pissed him off and the recent streaming without consent probably stirred up some of those old feelings on an already sensitive subject.
Seeing a bunch of people you barely know (and don’t like) individually each make a lot more than you off of something that was purely your own hard work and talent just couldn’t feel good to anyone.
It's almost like if Chappelle didn't do this he'd be complicit. Ask yourself why didn't he do this in 2003 or 2004 or whatever year it was when he left the Chappelle show and when he wasn't financially secure. I think we all can guess. Probably because he needed to continue to gain employment.
that said, and maybe that's a little harsh, but the point still stands IMO, to play devil's advocate, the networks, studios, record companies, generally are the ones taking the bigger risks. it's kind of the difference between an artist who remains "independent" and goes via indie labels - because they want to remain in control of their life's work - they generally do not have the same financial success, because the corporate machines maybe suck you in, but they also provide the benefit of them...the corporate machine.
do they prey on the vulnerable and exploit the desperate? sure and no it's not ok, but the extreme alternative is you don't get your name out there.
ideally there would be some happy middle ground, but to my original point, that's at least partly on the job of the agent/lawyer and yes, some accountability rests with the person.
My financial planner was meeting with me this past fall and he said "you and your wife based on these projections will be able to retire when you're 55". So I said that's awesome, move it out about 10 - 15 years, I'm positive I won't be ready to retire at 55. He said, no that's not the point, being in a position to comfortably retire doesn't mean you have to, just really means you can live your life (work life) on your terms. I get it, and IMO that's the level Gervais and Chappelle have reached. They can afford to comfortably retire and now can work on their terms.
In conclusion, I am in complete agreement with almost all the commentary here, I just wasn't ready to say this bit was ballsy, or heroic (and I know no one claimed heroic but same line of thinking IMO) and I think best case if anything he's made up and coming entertainers more aware.
but ask yourself the next Chappelle, he gets a 7 figure contract put in front of him that includes a clause about using his name and likeness in perpetuity - does he or she sign it? Even knowing Chappelle's warning, does he or she sign it?
I think the money thing is being made into a bigger deal than it is. This was about more than money.
I think the money thing is being made into a bigger deal than it is. This was about more than money.
It wasn't about money, I never said it was, but having money empowered him. If you disagree great, but I never said what he did was about money.
it seemed like the streaming was a symptom, he didn't want them making money off his name, and he signed a contract saying they had the rights to use his name and likeness "in perpetuity"
and that's really what pissed him off IMO, if you read or know his history with Comedy Central and the Chappelle show he wasn't happy with how he didn't have control of the content, and the final straw was when CC created season 3 without him involved from a creative standpoint (obviously his content).
The $60M from Netflix is the safety net I'm talking about, plus the Netflix model is so different from network TV it's silly to even compare them. The networks are beholden to prime time slots, what are there? 3 per night or 6 at most? Netflix has no schedule, time slots are limitless. so of course they sign you and get out of the way. It's not like by signing a deal with Chappelle they're not green lighting someone else because they have nowhere to air the other show
anyway, I think we can agree to disagree or we're not even that far apart, but just talking past each other at this point.