Terra Nova

Republibot 3.0 · November 6th 10, 13:59

Stephen Spielberg has a new series starting next year called "Terra Nova," a very large-budget production ($4 Million/Ep, which puts it in the same league as "Kings") filming mostly in Australia. The premise is that earth is more-or-less dying, and so a hardy band of settlers try to make a life for themselves on a new world. I thought I'd start a thread for anyone who wants to discuss it.

I have several questions about this:

- Every Spielberg genre series has been an unmitigated disaster, and a pricey one. Why do people keep letting him do this?

- Hasn't he already done this, and failed? I mean, this is basically Earth 2, right? Sounds like it.

- Why does Fox keep greenlighting series they know they're going to cancel in 13 episodes? Why not just sign shows intentionally as 13-episode miniseries up front?

I don't have any specific information, but the rumor is that Fox is *already* backpedaling on this one, and that there's talk of bumping it down from a series to a TV movie of the week to test audience interest. The chatter I hear is in the same vein as the Caprica chatter I heard before that series went into production: That it's basically DOA. (For the record, I'm pretty good at sifting chatter between credible stuff, and random griping, but I have been conspicuously wrong in the past. I didn't figure the RDM Galactica would make it beyond seven episodes.)

Jade Jaguar · November 7th 10, 07:47

I believe there are actual announcements, from what I read on the AVS forum.

The show is time travel, backward, and forward. The show will start with a two hour premier, in May. It will continue in the fall. Brannon Braga is show runner. They just laid off a bunch of top-flight writers, because they didn't want to pay them for nothing in the interim, but will rehire those available later, when production continues. I have no great expectations, but I'll check it out.

Recoil · November 8th 10, 22:51

I loved this show when it was called "Earth 2"

Republibot 3.0 · November 9th 10, 00:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recoil

I loved this show when it was called "Earth 2"

Slow on the draw, Recoil, I already called that one. <G>

The show is officially slated to go to series, but I'm hearing hems and haws that they're seriously considering doing the movie and being done with it, unless it gets really solid ratings.

So how does Brannon Braga get *another* Timebending show after the debacle that was Flash Forward?

Jade Jaguar · November 9th 10, 03:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recoil

I loved this show when it was called "Earth 2"

What little I've heard about it sounds nothing like Earth 2, which I hated. Can you post a link to any info that describes it, making it seem like Earth 2?

Recoil · November 15th 10, 23:03

No, I just read the generic description and made a smart-ass comment. I know nothing about it beyond what was posted in this thread.

Republibot 3.0 · November 16th 10, 13:09

Earth 2: It's the future and earth sucks, so a small band of people steal a space ship and head off to a new world to make a future for themselves.

Lost In Space: It's the future (13 years into the past) and the world is just about to start sucking, so a small band of people head off to a new world in a space ship to make a future for themselves and the human race. They never get there.

Terra Nova: It's the future, and earth sucks, so a small band of people travel through a temporal doorway to a new world to make a future for themselves.

Definitely some thematic overlap there.

Steve has *NEVER* had a good TV show. Never.

Kaleb · November 16th 10, 17:01

TBH it sounds like the sort of thing which will collapse without a incredibly strong set of characters to me. And it was only mentioned because of budget, but I miss Kings.

Demonn · January 19th 11, 20:31

This show might not be too bad... granted, I'm still waiting for a trailer..... but they have pics up & it doesn't look too bad. I think they're gonna try to use the Avatar hype for the initial ratings of the show.

& I would like to add that... RATINGS SUCK.

Why can't they just do a show... if people watch it... then they watch it.

Republibot 3.0 · January 19th 11, 21:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demonn

This show might not be too bad... granted, I'm still waiting for a trailer..... but they have pics up & it doesn't look too bad. I think they're gonna try to use the Avatar hype for the initial ratings of the show.

& I would like to add that... RATINGS SUCK.

Why can't they just do a show... if people watch it... then they watch it.

Nah, ratings don't suck. Programmers suck. Ratings are a useful tool that network programmers refuse to use correctly.

Take the recently-departed SGU, for instance. When it was on Friday nights in the first season, paired with Caprica, both shows did well. Over the summer, Syfy ran Eureka and Warehouse 13 on Tuesdays, and got boffo ratings, biggest they've ever had. Now, obviously, this was because it's Summer and no one's running anything new, but the Network Programmers said "Ha, Tuesday night's the thing we need!" so they shifted SGU and Caprica to Tuesday nights, expecting them to be as big hits as Eureka and W-13 were. Of course they ran them in the fall, opposite NEW network programming, added to which, Tuesday nights just aren't a great night for intense, moody drama.

So predictably both shows died quickly (Though to be honest, Caprica probably wouldn't have survived, regardless of where they'd put it. It's a show no one wanted to begin with). When summer rolls around again, W-13 and Eureka will again run with no real competition, and get boffo ratings, and the idiots at Syfy will say "See? We were right all along! Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Those shows just can't cut it!" Syfy, like a bunch of cow-town rubes is insisting that all ratings slots are created equal, but obviously they aren't. (Or else they're using gerrymandered ratings to kill shows they no longer want. That happens, too.)

Conversely, were it not for ratings, Lost never would have gotten a second season. Or SGA. Or SG1. Or the RDM Galactica. Or Babylon 5.

Thing is: Ratings are just as likely to work for a show as against it. If you've got The John Lennon Is Honestly Really Alive And Hanging Out With Elvis And Bruce Lee Hour, and no one's interested in watching it, it's really hard to justify keeping it on the air because it's expensive. Meanwhile, if "America's Funniest Groin Injuries" keeps getting kickass ratings, it's really hard to justify cancelling it.

So: Ratings don't suck, network programmers do.