First Dates - Manchester

I doubt, very much, that you would get paid as an extra - it's a simple quid pro quo. I think there are lots of people who would enjoy being part of the programme and finding out how it's filmed but without all the nerves of being the couple that's filmed. Sometimes you do it for the experience - it also depends if you're a fan of First Dates......

angemski Yes you would. This company is being a cheapskate. An Extra anyhow is someone who is in the background, NOT paid to have a meal.

CaroleBallard Just checking back on the post - there were two comments about £50 being mean and over 200 very interested. Maybe some people think it's worth it just to meet Fred.

angemski If Fred was my date, I'd do it... but that's not the point.

CaroleBallard Having a meal in the background doesn't mean they should be paid as extras - when paid extras have a meal the meal is provided FREE.

I, many times in the past, was a paid extra (with an Equity card), on a few occasions with the unpaid public in the background. The public couldn't be instructed what to do.

If the producers want to encourage people to be "background" with some inducement, which would be necessary for this kind of production, they are entitled to do so. They do it regularly with studio audiences.

Dilligaf I felt the same way.

angemski where did you get that picture of me, I'm the same shape, always have an empty plate in front of me and only ever wear a t-shirt.

If people want to do it then fair play, good food, cheaper price, good company and the chance to be on TV

Dilligaf You my twin?

angemski hey sis

I love all opinions so not offended but why are they greedy? Do you mean the producers or the punters? Many will see it as a night out and be happy to participate. True the £50 wouldn't cover a round of cocktails but I do love to play devil's advocate sometimes.

angemski It's pretty clear he means the TV company are greedy but, it's a bit greedy just trying to get something for nothing anyhow really, but you can't blame them. I'd agree, if they used actors which kind of defeats the object but none the less they would pay them a whole lot more.

DebbieReed2020 a whole section of this site is dedicated to getting something for nothing so does that make us all greedy? I would happily sit in a restaurant and get paid for it via a free meal. It seems a pretty fair reciprocal arrangement and no hard work involved.

DebbieReed2020 But the cost of using enough paid actors to look like a busy restaurant would be prohibitive so such programmes couldn't be made. As an example would anyone expect every spectator at a sporting event even expect to be paid, even if they "might" be caught on camera?

Lynibis yes but you are not really getting a free meal, the cost of it will be much more than the £50

davidstockport I just think, that this is a producers way of making a cheap programme. It undermines the acting agency, and i think they should use or at least pay actors to do it. Instead they pay a measly sum and can repeat it where as, actors would get a repeat fee.

DebbieReed2020 Almost all TV programmes have to be made "on the cheap" the big budgets that abounded when commercial TV started are things of the past. That's why reality shows (cheapest of the cheap) have nearly taken over.

In some ways paid actors couldn't be used (although many actors would welcome it) - it wouldn't be very realistic if recognised actors could be seen in the background.

davidstockport I agree that, although actors would be grateful for the work, it just wouldn't do to see a familiar face, even if they were only recognisable from a commercial.

angemski Back in the seventies - Coronation Street and Emmerdale Farm (the opposite side of the Pennines) had the same extra, as a postman, for quite some time - people do notice.