By the early 1980's Mackenzie Phillips was making more than Bonnie Franklin per ep - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

ThomasE · 05-14-2015, 10:28 PM

According to this link, ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5k9wHbbgt0 ) Bonnie Franklin was making about 40,000 per episode. Pat Harrington was making 15,000. Mackenzie was making 50,000 per episode according to the E True Hollywood Story and it is also on Wikipedia although I don't rely that much on Wikipedia but the True Story Documentary does state it as Wikipedia does. Now, I noticed in season 8 that Mack appeared in about 10 eps for the season. Could it be due to the salary being so high that they had to keep a balance in the budget? I am wondering if she had gotten more eps that she would have received less money for each one? 10 eps for the season eight making 500,000 for the year? She had it made!! Pat Harrington was getting frustrated because he wanted more money and almost got it until Bonnie decided to call it quits during season nine.

caladon · 05-14-2015, 11:40 PM

That's too bad; Pat Harrington definitely contributed more to the show than Mackenzie Phillips. Certainly more professional and reliable.

ThomasE · 05-15-2015, 12:15 AM

I thought it was fair the way it was. I just think Mack screwed it up. She only appeared in a certain amount of eps and was getting ridiculously paid for them. I would not have messed that up.

'80sSitcoms · 05-15-2015, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThomasE

Bonnie Franklin was making about 40,000 per episode. Pat Harrington was making 15,000. Mackenzie was making 50,000 per episode

Wow, Pat with only 15,000? That's really surprising, since he was a man. I know he wasn't the main star, but still, back then you wouldn't have thought his salary would be that far below the others (although I don't know what Valerie was making).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThomasE

it is also on Wikipedia although I don't rely that much on Wikipedia

Why do people always say that? lol Everything I look up on Wikipedia always seems reliable. Granted, mostly I look up articles on film and television so those have reliable sources and citations, but still, I tend to think the big distrust cloud over Wikipedia seems exaggerated.

'80sSitcoms · 05-15-2015, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Brady's Hair

I do a bit of editing on there. I think that nearly every extensive article has some errors that could be corrected. People misread sources, take general statements and apply them to specific situations, present opinion as if it were fact. Sometimes someone will be promoting a book or some such and inject mentions of it into many articles. Sometimes one person will edit something out, including material that makes another part of the article unclear. It's a good starting place, but if you have more than a passing interest in a subject I would always take a look at any cited sources that are available online.

I tend to look just at things which I'm heavily interested in anyway, and I have many books on those subjects, so I can see that those articles on Wikipedia tend to be extremely factual. I will sometimes see something written that has the notation noting that this "fact" or "claim" needs to be cited. One of the only times I can think of reading something I considered to be inaccurate is in some articles on Greek myths, which have so many variations and incarnations.

LittleRickyII · 05-16-2015, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

Why do people always say that? lol Everything I look up on Wikipedia always seems reliable. Granted, mostly I look up articles on film and television so those have reliable sources and citations, but still, I tend to think the big distrust cloud over Wikipedia seems exaggerated.

Because anyone can put in a Wikipedia entry. I've done it myself. Usually the people contributing to Wikipedia know what they're talking about, but I've seem mistakes. I remember some politician a few years ago -- I can't remember who it was -- got in trouble for making a declaration about something based on what he read on Wikipedia -- which turned out to be wrong. Egg on his face. Wikipedia is a great resource but should not ever be taken as the gospel truth.

TVFactFan · 05-17-2015, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThomasE

According to this link, ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5k9wHbbgt0 ) Bonnie Franklin was making about 40,000 per episode. Pat Harrington was making 15,000. Mackenzie was making 50,000 per episode according to the E True Hollywood Story and it is also on Wikipedia although I don't rely that much on Wikipedia but the True Story Documentary does state it as Wikipedia does. Now, I noticed in season 8 that Mack appeared in about 10 eps for the season. Could it be due to the salary being so high that they had to keep a balance in the budget? I am wondering if she had gotten more eps that she would have received less money for each one? 10 eps for the season eight making 500,000 for the year? She had it made!! Pat Harrington was getting frustrated because he wanted more money and almost got it until Bonnie decided to call it quits during season nine.

Why the hell did he want more money and was only seen ocassionally?

ThomasE · 05-17-2015, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

Why the hell did he want more money and was only seen ocassionally?

You must mean "occasional" as in one to three scenes per episode, right? I know he was in almost every episode of the show. I do agree with you, though. 15,000 for the time should have been enough for him. Well, maybe they could have given him 20,000. It was said that he wanted a deal similar to Bonnie's. However, she should have been paid more than him. She also had it in her contract that she would get residuals as well.

TVFactFan · 05-17-2015, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThomasE

You must mean "occasional" as in one to three scenes per episode, right? I know he was in almost every episode of the show. I do agree with you, though. 15,000 for the time should have been enough for him. Well, maybe they could have given him 20,000. It was said that he wanted a deal similar to Bonnie's. However, she should have been paid more than him. She also had it in her contract that she would get residuals as well.

He was not worth more than he was getting because of some goofy scenes lol

ThomasE · 05-17-2015, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

He was not worth more than he was getting because of some goofy scenes lol

But in fairness, he did have longevity with the show plus Glenn Scarpelli, Shelley Fabares and eventually Mack left, so it left more money to play with. Do I think he should have gotten 30G's? Probably not. 20G's should have been suffiicent. I think (IMO) that he got the "starring" credit in the last season to make up for not getting the money. LOL.

Coffeecup · 05-23-2015, 04:49 PM

[QUOTE='80sSitcoms]Wow, Pat with only 15,000? That's really surprising, since he was a man. I know he wasn't the main star, but still, back then you wouldn't have thought his salary would be that far below the others (although I don't know what Valerie was making).

----
I was surprised too. Pat had been on the Danny Thomas show in the late 1950 and early 60's so he had been a established actor. When One day at Time went on, he was the only actor appearing on the show ,I had heard of. Maybe the agents don't push for the clients. or maybe we heard wrong information.

opus · 10-14-2016, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThomasE

But in fairness, he did have longevity with the show plus Glenn Scarpelli, Shelley Fabares and eventually Mack left, so it left more money to play with.

Shelly never became a full time regular, but was there right up to the finale.

Anna Karenina · 10-14-2016, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opus

Shelly never became a full time regular, but was there right up to the finale.

I thought she became one in the 8th season though, wasn't she in the credits?

opus · 10-14-2016, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anna Karenina

I thought she became one in the 8th season though, wasn't she in the credits?

She definitely got some opening credit notice toward the end(I don't remember exactly when it started), but in my mind she was never more then recurring. Maybe others have a different view?

Alex Cooper · 10-14-2016, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opus

She definitely got some opening credit notice toward the end(I don't remember exactly when it started), but in my mind she was never more then recurring. Maybe others have a different view?

I don't know if she was in each episode when she earned opening credits status, and even if she was, unless she was integral to the plot, it seemed like she only got a quick appearance with a token line or two. It too think of the character as recurring. Her adversarial relationship with Ann, even when the two were business partners and frenemies, made her a character who was best when seen in a more limited and as needed capacity.

05-14-2015, 10:28 PM	#1
ThomasE Member Moderator Forum Fanatic Join Date: Apr 04, 2000 Location: New York, New York, U.S.A. Posts: 10,857	By the early 1980's Mackenzie Phillips was making more than Bonnie Franklin per ep According to this link, ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5k9wHbbgt0 ) Bonnie Franklin was making about 40,000 per episode. Pat Harrington was making 15,000. Mackenzie was making 50,000 per episode according to the E True Hollywood Story and it is also on Wikipedia although I don't rely that much on Wikipedia but the True Story Documentary does state it as Wikipedia does. Now, I noticed in season 8 that Mack appeared in about 10 eps for the season. Could it be due to the salary being so high that they had to keep a balance in the budget? I am wondering if she had gotten more eps that she would have received less money for each one? 10 eps for the season eight making 500,000 for the year? She had it made!! Pat Harrington was getting frustrated because he wanted more money and almost got it until Bonnie decided to call it quits during season nine.
	__________________ Check out my my "It's A Living" Facebook Fanpage!!! https://m.facebook.com/groups/107208...&source=result

05-14-2015, 11:40 PM	#2
caladon Member Senior Member Join Date: Jun 30, 2001 Location: Massachusetts state home for the bewildered Posts: 1,151	That's too bad; Pat Harrington definitely contributed more to the show than Mackenzie Phillips. Certainly more professional and reliable.
	__________________ Jesus is the son of GOD and my savior; pretty cool.

05-15-2015, 12:15 AM	#3
ThomasE Member Moderator Forum Fanatic Join Date: Apr 04, 2000 Location: New York, New York, U.S.A. Posts: 10,857	I thought it was fair the way it was. I just think Mack screwed it up. She only appeared in a certain amount of eps and was getting ridiculously paid for them. I would not have messed that up.

05-23-2015, 04:49 PM	#11
Coffeecup coffeecup. Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Jan 17, 2003 Location: snoozeville Posts: 3,181	[QUOTE='80sSitcoms]Wow, Pat with only 15,000? That's really surprising, since he was a man. I know he wasn't the main star, but still, back then you wouldn't have thought his salary would be that far below the others (although I don't know what Valerie was making). ---- I was surprised too. Pat had been on the Danny Thomas show in the late 1950 and early 60's so he had been a established actor. When One day at Time went on, he was the only actor appearing on the show ,I had heard of. Maybe the agents don't push for the clients. or maybe we heard wrong information.