According to TV Guide, Charlie Sheen is TV’s highest paid actor, taking home an estimated $825,000 an episode for his work on TV’s top sitcom, CBS’ Two and a Half Men. (That includes ownership in the show.) CSI star and exec producer William Petersen follows with $600,000 an episode. As for the women, Law & Order: SVU’s Mariska Hargitay comes in first with a payday of $400,000, while The Closer’s Kyra Sedgwick is runner-up with $275,000.
Are these the people you’d expect to see topping the list? And more importantly, how much do you think Men’s Jon Cryer makes? We do love him.
Comments (1-30) of 55 Add your comment
Here are my thoughts: Charlie Sheen has been the highest paid (or among the highest-paid) sitcom actor for a few years now (at least since Seinfeld, Kelsey Grammer and others have been off the air), so to me this isn’t really news.
Also, though the show takes a beating from critics and a lot of people that are too cool for school (I don’t love the show or watch it regularly at all, but I’ve seen it from time to time, and it makes me laugh), the fact of the matter is that it’s the highest rated sitcom on TV, so I can’t complain about its star making the most money.
Sure, we can argue about how Steve Carell and Tina Fey (the leads in my two favorite shows) should be making that money, but that’s just not realistic since their respective shows (for better or worse – ok, worse) just don’t get the numbers “Two and a Half Men” does.
I don’t think it would bother me if Charlie Sheen weren’t so icky… the show itself isn’t fantastic, but it’s not According to Jim either. But Charlie Sheen is just such a putz, it’s almost impossible to be okay with him being the highest paid actor on TV right now, ahead of a lot more talented and deserving people.
Don’t get the appeal of him but to each there own!
Then he should be able to afford a more natural-looking toupee or at least a better haircut on the one he’s got. The piecey bangs ala 1998 are KILLING me. And who the heck has BLACK hair at his age? At least lighten it up a bit, Chuck.
Why? Whyyyyyyyy????
Ceballos, I actually agree with most of what you wrote, but I personally have watched bits of the show, and I have never laughed. Not once.
And I still think this should be filed under “things that make me die in side.”
inside. sorry.
Well, if only he could act and the sitcom wasn’t such a load of crap…
“Oh come on!” [/Gob]
He is indeed a putz and his show is everything that is wrong with network TV today. I have yet to find one person who thinks this pile of garbage is funny. One-note characters, the lot of them.
I TRIED to his watch his show once. ONCE! That’s all I could bear. Me thinks 2 1/2 Men and According to Jim HAVE to have overlapping audiences.
It makes sense. Top sitcom. It’s actor gets top pay. I don’t really care. It’s still not funny.
It’s because he’s big crossover talent from movies. Do I wish that money was going to the cast of Lost? Sure.
This reminds me of a dilemma I had this week. I was trying to explain to a friend how big a star David Tennant is in the UK but I couldn’t think of an equivalent in the US. The closest I could come up with was Simon Cowell. Is Charlie Sheen the biggest tv star in the US? And if so, can we have David Tennant instead?
Well, you do have to consider that after the alimony, the hookers, and the cocaine, at the end of the day he’s probably bringing home about what the guy who plays Jim Belushi’s fat brother-in-law gets.
The question is if Angus T. Jones was not on Three and a Half Men, would Charlie Sheen be the highest paid actor on television. No, because the show is not funny without Angus and the set-ups.
I’m sorry, but I laugh out loud during the entire show. I even laugh at the few reruns I’ve watched. I wouldn’t watch “According to Jim” if you paid me, but will watch everything that Chuck Lorre creates. (I separate the actor from the character, but if you formed your opinion of Charlie Sheen by what Denise Richards says then “shame on you!”)
Surely Alec Baldwin is a bigger “crossover talent from movies” than Charlie Sheen, yet people persist in watching Two and a Half Men rather than funny shows like 30 Rock – why won’t the networks show Alec Baldwin, Neil Patrick Harris, Tina Fey, etc the money?
Zutroy,
You’ll have to forgive me for asking, since I don’t watch “According to Jim”, but are you saying Belushi has a “fat brother in law” on that show. I haven’t seen him in a while, but when did Jimbo become the thin one?
If shows made money only based on how funny they were, Sheen would be in the poorhouse. The sad truth is Baldwin, NPH, et al. don’t make the big big bucks because their shows don’t get nearly the ratings that 2 1/2 Men does.
Sheen is funny. The show is laugh out loud funny. I like 30 Rock, too. I loved Arrested Development. Enjoying Two and a Half Men doesn’t mean you’re without humor or clueless. Does anyone who doesn’t save lives deserve 850K/ep? It takes me seven years, before taxes, to make that. And I only get 2 weeks off and no one offers me good tables at restaurants or free clothes. So does he deserve it? No–who does in that business? Sigh.
hugh laurie should be the highest paid actor in TV. House would be sorely lacking if he wasn’t in it and House has really good ratings. its ratings are actually on par if not higher than “2 1/2 men”.
I couldn’t even watch a full half hour of this show. Maybe I’m missing something, I don’t know, but how did this get to be the highest-rated sitcom?
I agree with others that there are funnier shows on TV but they don’t get the following they deserve. 30Rock is a great example. Arrested Development is another and should have lasted more than three seasons. But maybe all this is a good thing. I’d rather watch a great TV show with a smaller yet loyal fan-base then the “highest-rated sitcom” that relies on a laugh-track to prove it’s still “funny.”
Mariska is worth EVERY PENNY!!!! She and Chris ARE SVU. It doesn’t bother me one bit that she makes more in an hour than I will all year.
I swear this topic’s been done before, though with the writers strike, maybe a reassassment is needed.
Anyway, I’m not one to ridicule people for watching what they love, but never have I found Two and a Half Men clever or funny in the slightest. Ditto with According to Jim, though I find the latter show even more unwatchable.
And to reno, until we reach the day where much of the public doesn’t support the entertainment industry (which, from how much we visit/read stuff representing the industry, ain’t gonna happen), top-of-the-line actors/actresses will reap the benefit from huge market shares. Yeah, it sucks, but it’s a small price to pay for our endless adoration with movies/TV.
The big question is, how much does Jon Cryer get per episode. Without him there would be no show.
Nope, it’s not even based on what Denise Richards says. Charlie Sheen is just a putz on his own, and it’s completely off-putting at this point. There’s just something gross about him and his character on the show… blech.
I really can’t believe what these people make in one week. I just finished my tenth year teaching, and if I add up what I made each year, I still don’t match Sheen’s weekly paycheck.
It couldn’t have happened to a sleazier guy.
I’m thinking top sitcom actors make the most because the producers want to get to syndication (where the big bucks are). I was amazed at how much Ray Romano made from a middling sitcom. Sheen is just following in his footsteps.
@Ed: If you figure out a way to generate the kind of money for your boss that TV actors generate for theirs, by all means demand a raise. Until then, realize that lowering the salary of actors (or athletes) would just result in more money for the guys in suits. How does that help anything?
Jon Cryer is such an amazing, resourceful actor. I keep hoping to see his name decently placed in the credits, since he is the true star of the show.
In Sheen’s case, he’s overpaid for what’s on the screen – but then many people in the entertainment industry are well compensated. Often deservedly so, but Sheen’s show is really just placeholder crap for people used to turning on their TV sets who are too lazy to even reach for their remotes.