[Major Tom]

One also might assume that it is the fault of the show that becomes entirely reliant on its success primarily due to particular actors. Indeed, certain actors do a very good job, but, the sign of a good show is to survive the loss of some of your main actors. NYPD Blue lost actor after actor, but still remains a top show. Law and Order does not have a single original actor left, but is still very well done.

However, 'ER' will bust after losing all of its actors due to the hype placed on the importance of its actors in the success of the show. Just like 'Friends' would never survive the loss of just one of its cast members.

The problem arises is when the 'Shelly Long' syndrome arises. When a successful TV actor then believes that they are great because their show is successful. They then demand extraordinate amounts of money, hoping to break their contract and end up in movies where the big money and fame is. However, most tend to flop, and end up on the latest CSI spinoff.

It sort of reminds me of the show "News Radio", which was an awesome piece of Television. When Phil Hartman was murdered, the show lost a lot of its already small audience. However, the quality of the show really didn't suffer, and was as funny in its Last episode as it was in its first. The problem is, is that the individuals of shows are hyped well beyond the actual show itself.

Indeed, good shows do get expensive to run. But where are all of the Francis Ford Coppolas? The guys who spend all the money they make on blockbusters (Godfather series) on works of movie/television art (Apocalypse Now). It seems like all of the profits of television corporations are to be spent purely on making even more profits, and not using these profits to provide good programming that may not earn you a lot of money, but earn you a very loyal fanbase.