How much did Andy Griffith get in residuals for TAGS? - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Yong Fang · 09-30-2014, 08:49 AM

I was born in 1967, when TAGS was still on, so I literally remember my whole life growing up with this show, and I am 47 now, while Andy died two years ago when I was 45.

So, this means that TAGS has more or less been on somewhere on television for a whopping 54 years. TBS, cable, some independent TV station, this show has always been on.

So did Andy get residuals from this? I would think this would be a monster amount of money, even in the 1970s and 1980s. The 1986 NBC reunion show was a blockbuster, probably one of the top rated shows shown all time next to the Super Bowl.

It seems to me that if Andy owned or had a financial interest in his show, he should have been like Seinfeld, semi retired and very, very, very wealthy instead of just being very wealthy. Andy after TAGS tried several projects that failed until he scored with the old folks with Matlock in the 80's-90's.

I would think Andy would have really been raking it in. So did he? Or were residuals not so great then as they are now?

Samme · 10-14-2014, 06:49 PM

As he was part owner of the show I'll guess that he was just very wealthy. Back in those days he wouldn't have made the kind of money Seinfeld made when that show was sold into syndication. I've never heard that Don Knotts got anything other than his residuals as an actor, and after a short time, that probably meant getting nothing. I've read that Don was annoyed that he didn't earn more, but I'll guess that none of that was directed at Griffith because they were such great friends. But I'm surprised they didn't offer him anything. Maybe they did if he would have stayed beyond the fifth year, just like the network did for Griffith after his five year contract was over. In the last year or two of the Van Dyke show MTM was offered a piece of that show because she contributed so much to its success, but she foolishly took just a straight salary increase instead.

09-30-2014, 08:49 AM	#1
Yong Fang Member Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Aug 04, 2009 Location: Memphis Tennessee Posts: 3,073	How much did Andy Griffith get in residuals for TAGS? I was born in 1967, when TAGS was still on, so I literally remember my whole life growing up with this show, and I am 47 now, while Andy died two years ago when I was 45. So, this means that TAGS has more or less been on somewhere on television for a whopping 54 years. TBS, cable, some independent TV station, this show has always been on. So did Andy get residuals from this? I would think this would be a monster amount of money, even in the 1970s and 1980s. The 1986 NBC reunion show was a blockbuster, probably one of the top rated shows shown all time next to the Super Bowl. It seems to me that if Andy owned or had a financial interest in his show, he should have been like Seinfeld, semi retired and very, very, very wealthy instead of just being very wealthy. Andy after TAGS tried several projects that failed until he scored with the old folks with Matlock in the 80's-90's. I would think Andy would have really been raking it in. So did he? Or were residuals not so great then as they are now?

10-14-2014, 06:49 PM	#2
Samme Member Forum Regular Join Date: Dec 01, 2001 Posts: 676	As he was part owner of the show I'll guess that he was just very wealthy. Back in those days he wouldn't have made the kind of money Seinfeld made when that show was sold into syndication. I've never heard that Don Knotts got anything other than his residuals as an actor, and after a short time, that probably meant getting nothing. I've read that Don was annoyed that he didn't earn more, but I'll guess that none of that was directed at Griffith because they were such great friends. But I'm surprised they didn't offer him anything. Maybe they did if he would have stayed beyond the fifth year, just like the network did for Griffith after his five year contract was over. In the last year or two of the Van Dyke show MTM was offered a piece of that show because she contributed so much to its success, but she foolishly took just a straight salary increase instead.