Waiting on the rating

A friend alerted me to this paragraph from a USA Today Story on the TV Critics shindig:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>On Sci Fi Channel, USA's sister network, Straczynski is writing and producing Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers, a two-hour movie that builds on an elite alien and human fighting force introduced during his popular science fiction series. It will premiere in early January.

Andreas Katsulas will reprise his Citizen G'Kar role from Babylon 5.

Sci Fi president Bonnie Hammer said the two-hour film could evolve into a series. "We want to see how the movie does."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe that's why the probable start date on the series has been pushed back from February. If they won't have a decision until after the movie airs in January, they'll need more prep time before the cameras can roll.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

I must admit that Sci-fi's schedule for airing new episodes confuses me somewhat. Basically, They appear to air new programming when the major networks show reruns.

Therefore, do most series launch in March, with new episodes peppered throughout the breaks of the major networks?

If it gets a go, does that mean Rangers could possibly air in June of 2002 or sooner?

I really have no idea how long it takes to get production rolling. Did it not take two weeks to produce an episode of Babylon 5, or am I hearing voices now. like Joan of Ark?



------------------
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in a confederacy against him.
-Jonathan Swift

Filming an episode takes about 7 days. (Season 5 switched to a 6 day/episode schedule, but it was too hectic and CRUSADE returned to the 7 day schedule.)

However, that doesn't include the time needed for pre and post production, script writing and revising, CGI, editing, etc... all of which adds a rather large amount of time.

If an order for the series were to be made in January, they'd need at least six months to get everything up and running before they'd be able to air the first episode. They'd need to rebuild the old sets (which I assume are in storage right now), built some new ones, write episodes, create designs for new ships and FX, etc... all of which takes time.

In short, don't look for a series until Summer 2002 at the earliest. Considering how SciFi likes to have new episodes of series in the summer, that seems to be the most likely date.

------------------
WombatControl
http://www.flarn.com/wombatcontrol/
"Who let the spoo out? Sigh sigh sigh sigh sigh..."

I can see reasons to think June could still be a go, though. JMS seemed to indicate a series was "likely" so maybe those sets weren't struck as much as put into a corner, intact. I have no idea, though, if start time could be pushed up a month, or why the movie was pushed back. Someone must have some idea of what they want out of this at scifi.

------------------
"Why not? Only 1 Human captain has ever survived battle with the Minbari fleet. He is behind me, you are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else."

Well that's a bummer Joe!

1. It contradicts the "Series Commitment Imminent" thread and....

2. It just doesn't make any sense.

Doesn't waiting on the ratings seem like a strange practice for SciFi to start using NOW and with THIS *ahem* FRANCHISE?

All of SciFi's regular series went straight into production without the benefit of testing the waters first with a pilot.
Some, like Black Scorpion and The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne, flopped. Others like The Invisible Man, Farscape, and to some extent First Wave, have been more successful.

As for The Chronicle, well, I give it 4 to 6 episodes before it starts to slip, with the George Takei episode bringing in the biggest rating. We've already had Kolchak, Men in Black, and the UPN Special-Unit-something-or-other. You just can't sustain a show like that.

Of all Sci-Fi original series, only LEXX had had the benefit of the previously run Showtime movies to give them an IDEA of what they could expect in the ratings.

Now we come to B5LR, the current favorite son of Babylon 5 - a show with an extremely good track record on SciFi, and step-brother to Crusade - a failed show that ALSO garnered impressive ratings on SciFi.

This should be a no-brainer. It has the greatest amount of statistical data in its favor, but NOW Bonnie Hammer wants to get all cautious on us. Jeez.




------------------
"Draal gave Zathras list of things not to say. This was one. No, not good. Not supposed to mention 'one'... or 'THE one'... Mmmm. You never heard that."

Raider:

When I mentioned "start date" I was referring to "the start of production, not the series premiere.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>If the movie airs in Jan 2002, I believe it would be more logical for the series should it go ahead to premiere around February time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be physically and logistically impossible. If Sci-Fi airs the movie January 2nd, gets the major-market overnight ratings on January 3rd and places the series order the same day it would still be at least a month before they could start shooting the first episode.

There aren't any scripts written at this point. There can't and won't be (per WGA rules) until a series order is placed and JMS and the other writers start getting paid to write scripts. They'll need several at various stages of completion before the cameras can roll, or they'll end up with people on the payroll standing around with nothing to do. (A series ordinarily has five or six shows in various stages of pre- through post-production at any one time, and staffs accrodingly.)

On B5 it took 7 working days to shoot an episode. (This does not count FX, sound, music, or rotoscope work - all of which can take several weeks - nor does it include preliminary or final editing.) On Crusade the shooting schedule was cut back to 6 working days, which was a strain on everybody, but necessary to stay on budget.

I'm not sure what schedule Rangers is going to work under. But from shooting-to-finish I would imagine it will take at least six weeks to actually have a given episode ready to air. (Not counting writing and pre-production time.)

That's why any series needs to have several episodes stockpiled before it debuts for a given season, otherwise they could never deliver an episode per week once they are on the air. Even with several shows in the pipeline at once it is all too easy to fall behind schedule. (The main reason that Star Trek did "The Menagerie Parts 1 & 2" was to save the season one schedule. By using substantial parts of the original series pilot they got two episodes while only having to produce what amounted to one new show.)

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

B5_O:

Well, the "series deal" thread could have been based on information that was passed along in good faith, but which was never-the-less wrong. It happens.

And it doesn't necessarily "not make sense." If the show isn't going to air until next June anyway, they don't gain a great deal by making the series deal now beyond nailing down the cast and allowing a little pre-production work to be done. JMS is going to be tied up with "TWCBN" for the next five months anyway - and with the schedule on that shifting around, they probably don't have a definite date when they can start shooting yet.

I would guess that if they signed the actors today they would have to give them a contractual start date. If they miss that date because JMS is still tied up on "TWCBN" I would guess that the studio still has to pay people, and you can bet they'll pass that cost on to the network. Even a couple of weeks of this can play hell with your budget.

Finally, this may have been a factor. Don't know the original source, this was cut and pasted from an article somewhere by someone in Los Angeles who sends me stuff from time to time:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Sci Fi beams aboard Storey from NBC

July 09, 2001 NEW YORK -- The Sci Fi Channel has hired away NBC executive Erik Storey to serve as vp programming for the cable network, officials said today.

Based in Sci Fi's Los Angeles office, Storey will be responsible for finding and developing the cable networks original slate of series and movies. Storey will report to Ian Valentine, senior vp original programming.

Most recently, Storey was vp, movies and miniseries at NBC Studios where he was responsible for in-house development and production of all long-form programming and NBC's Saturday morning series "All About Us" and "Just Deal." (Jim McConville)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All deals may have been put on hold until the new broom has a chance to look them over, and Storey may have decided he wants to see the ratings before he commits $25 million or so of the network's scarce dollars to a new series.

Most of the other shows you mentioned were bought "off-the-rack" - that is, they had been developed elsewhere, often based on pre-sales to other countries, and could be picked up relatively cheaply. Black Scorpion and Jules Verne both fall into this category. They were not developed "in house." I believe Lexx does as well. I'm not sure about First Wave and I-Man, but they look like legit "SFC" projects. But, being contemporary action shows with comparatively few special effects, they are probably also cheaper than a pair of outer-space epics.

I agree this is an annoying development, but it may not be as completely irrational as it seems. And it probably won't change the premiere date for the possible series by as much as a week. The only practical effect this decision is going to have will be on our mental health. It would be much nicer if the suspense were over and we knew for sure that we were going to get a series.

Possible ray of sunshine: Bonnie Hammer said, "We want to see how the movie does." That doesn't necessarily mean ratings. (OK, I know, I'm reaching here. ) But it could just mean that they're waiting for the finished FX, sound and music so that they can put it in front of some "focus groups" and test audiences and "see how the movie does" with them.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

Joseph DeMartino wrote:

>July 09, 2001 NEW YORK -- The Sci Fi Channel has hired away NBC executive Erik Storey to serve as vp programming for the cable network, officials said today.

Oh great! Comes The Inquisitor!

When I said it didn't make sense, I was more or less saying it didn't make sense for the reason given about the ratings.

I do agree about the other points you made.

I must wonder, though, if you wait to sign actors based on the success of a movie would they not also attempt to negotiate a contract based on the success of that same movie? The result COULD either get ugly, with agents trying to squeeze out more money for their clients or we could end up seeing roles re-cast and characters changing.

But from a promotional point of view, I think Bonnie Hammer saying "we're going to see how it does" signals a lack of confidence in the product. It gives ME pause.
Not that I even think that matters.

Even if the movie sucks, I'm going to watch it and it will probably get very good ratings on SciFi. It STILL would not be indicative of the success of a show based on it.

Sorta like Tomb Raider's opening box office totals.







------------------
"Draal gave Zathras list of things not to say. This was one. No, not good. Not supposed to mention 'one'... or 'THE one'... Mmmm. You never heard that."

Yes,Lexx falls into the category with Jules Verne and BS(with the exception being lexx is a great show while those 2 shows are not.)

------------------
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I'd look up at your lifeless eyes and wave like this. Can you and your associates arrange it for me, Mr. Morden?"
Vir - In The Shadow of Z' HA Dum

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>I must wonder, though, if you wait to sign actors based on the success of a movie would they not also attempt to negotiate a contract based on the success of that same movie?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actors negotiating for a series gig after a pilot airs don't have that kind of clout, especially relative unknowns like the Rangers cast. A box office hit is one thing, or a couple of seasons on a highly-rated series* - but a single pilot? Not hardly. Actors all live with the fear (and possibility) that the next job they get is going to be the last one they ever get. Even folks like Gene Hackman have talked about this. Most actors spend most of their time looking for work, not actually acting. And that includes the ones who work a lot.

So, you're a new actor and someone is offering you a steady paycheck and greater visibility than you've probably ever had, even though it is only a direct-to-basic-cable gig. You've only shot a pilot and everybody knows how easy it is to recast roles or change characters between pilot and series. It might be harder to write you out after a couple of successful seasons, but at this stage you are almost certainly replaceable. Are you going to play hardball with the studio at this point?

And the negotiations are with the studio, not with the network. Sci-Fi tells Warner Bros., "OK, go to series, here's how much we'll pay per episode in licensing fees for X number of broadcasts." The studio then hires the production company to turn out the series and hires the actors to be in it. At this point, ratings are a moot point. The ratings were good enough to get the series order from the network, but now the studio is negotiating to bring the show in on-budget so that it can make a profit. Anybody who prices himself out of the market will not carry over into the series.

So I don't even think that this is an issue in anybody's mind.

(* a couple of seasons on a highly-rated series: This is why all the Trek shows ran seven years - that's how long standard TV contracts run. While actors could renegotiate for certain perks like directing assignments, and better dressing rooms, the costs were largely contained within the automatic raises stipulated by the SAG rules.

If Paramount had wanted to do TNG for an eighth season their costs would have probably more than doubled, because the entire cast of a hit show would have been lining up for big raises. Instead Paramount put them on the big screen, where returns are immediate, and continued the Trek franchise with a "new" show, DS9.)

B5's contracts were all for five years to make sure that Warner Bros. couldn't afford to continue the show into a sixth season without involving JMS. Sneaky bastard, ain't he?

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

Here is my question. . .

What kind of ratings does it need to get? Any speculations? 2.0? 1.5? SciFi rarely hits 2.0, and Dune was their highest rated broadcast ever, and I think it was 3.6. Is that what they are looking for?



------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> B5's contracts were all for five years to make sure that Warner Bros. couldn't afford to continue the show into a sixth season without involving JMS. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would the cost of a 6th season depend on JMS' involvement?

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."

I don't think any of the actors in B5LR can afford to think they're irreplaceable. In a show involving 9 or 10 regulars, it must be quite easy to make cast changes. Just look at the changes in B5 between pilot and series. Several of the actors are young Canadian actors and they do a lot of guest work in on-going series but only a couple of them are reasonably well known.

If it is true that SciFi likes to start new series in early summer then it seems possible that B5LR series could be ready by June. That would mean about 5 episodes in the can and five more in the works. That's allowing 10 weeks from March lst 2002.



------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Why would the cost of a 6th season depend on JMS' involvement?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wouldn't, that was badly phrased. I was trying to be brief. That always gets me into trouble.

Warner Bros. owns the show, lock, stock and MedLab. By contract they have to consult JMS regarding any sequels, continuations or spin-off, but they don't have to listen to him. If TNT had waved some more money in front of them, WB could have fired JMS as executive producer and brought in someone else to produce B5 S6. But it would have been too expensive to make, just like TNG S8. Everybody would have wanted a raise, because all existing contracts would have expired. And that was JMS's plan.

I was trying to convey this while still making it clear that Warner Bros. did have a legal right to do any damned thing they wanted to, and made a mess of it.

In practice, JMS needn't have worried. WB has been remarkably "hands off" with the show and with JMS, offering very few notes and generally staying out of his way. They would have known that pushing B5 into a sixth season without JMS would have been pointless since he, more than any of the characters or actors, was the heart of the show. But he didn't know that at the beginning, hence the poison pill of the five year contract.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> I was trying to be brief. That always gets me into trouble. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joe? Brief? BLASPHEMY!

* Leaps from tall building, only to have Kosh catch him *

Kosh! I didn't know he delivered.

------------------
Sheridan: Are you trying to cheer me up?
Ivanova: No sir, wouldn't dream of it.
Sheridan: Good, I hate being cheered up. It's depressing.
Ivanova: So in that case we're all going to die horrible, painful, lingering deaths.
Sheridan: Thank you, I feel so much better now.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> On Sci Fi Channel, USA's sister network, Straczynski is writing and producing Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers, a two-hour movie that builds on an elite alien and human fighting force introduced during his popular science fiction series. It will premiere in early January. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Early January? We seem to be getting slightly more specific with each new press item.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> I must admit that Sci-fi's schedule for airing new episodes confuses me somewhat. Basically, They appear to air new programming when the major networks show reruns.

Therefore, do most series launch in March, with new episodes peppered throughout the breaks of the major networks?

If it gets a go, does that mean Rangers could possibly air in June of 2002 or sooner?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I asked a question like this on this board about a month and a half ago, and the response that a couple of people gave was that SFC tends to premiere new shows in June.

Since then, I saw a couple of posts in the moderated newsgroup on this topic, and what I got out of two posts that I read was that SFC tends to show its original shows in January, March - April, and mid-June - mid-September. Presumably, this is to avoid the sweeps months when the broadcast networks pull out their big guns.

Keep in mind, I'm pretending to be an expert on the SFC's schedule after reading just two Usenet posts.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that SFC will only air Rangers during those three times of the year. Then I think you can probably count on SFC making a decision on whether Rangers will become a weekly series in time to get it on the air by June 2002, or maybe July 2002. August 2002 would really be pushing it, because then you'd only be airing only six episodes before you go into reruns for 3.5 months.

Once again, I'm basing this analysis on two Usenet posts. If anyone has more accurate information on SFC's scheduling practices, then please speak up.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> What kind of ratings does it need to get? Any speculations? 2.0? 1.5? SciFi rarely hits 2.0, and Dune was their highest rated broadcast ever, and I think it was 3.6. Is that what they are looking for? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know. My prediction though, is that TLaDiS will be SFC's second highest rated original programming ever, after Dune. We (B5 fans) have been without any new filmed material in the B5 universe for two years now, and we're really eager to see some.

Anyone know what kind of rating "In the Beginning" got when it first aired? That might be a good benchmark.


------------------

I thought Dune got a 9.? something?
anybody know?

------------------
"I am the state"
Napoleon

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> I thought Dune got a 9.? something?
anybody know? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's a quote from a February cnn.com article ( http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/jobenvy/02/05/hammer/ )

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> And in its best showing to date, the Sci Fi Channel pulled a 4.4 rating for the three-night premiere of its critically honored six-hour miniseries of Frank Herbert's "Dune," directed by filmmaker John Harrison and starring Alec Newman. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Early January? We seem to be getting slightly more specific with each new press item.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, one of the news items that came out of the TV Critic's shindig specified January 2nd. (A Wednesday, if anyone is interested.) I thought that had already been mentioned somewhere around here or I would have said something.

Can't find any specific numbers on the ratings for In the Beginning, but here are a couple of JMS quotes that I ran across while looking:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>We got the ratings, and I can't release them yet, that has to come from TNT, but suffice to say they're dancing in the aisles over at TNT.

Again, I can't give specifics yet, but they had a very specific rating in mind that they felt was the best we would probaby get, which we beat handily, and they felt that the pilot, being a rerun, wouldn't do that well ... and it ended up doing as well as the maximum they'd hoped the prequel would get.

They're stunned. --- jms<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Replying to a fan who asserted that if A Call to Arms had gotten a 10 rating instead of the 2.8 or so that it did get, TNT would have kept Crusade:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Nothing on cable -- nada -- gets a 10 rating. The successful shows get somewhere from a 1 to a 3 rating, that's it. That's all the penetration you can get given the number of sets that have cable.

Sliders, considered a big hit on SFC, generally gets a 1.0 rating. --- jms<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since JMS didn't dispute that 2.8 rating for ACtA, I'm guessing that it was either correct or darned close. I believe ItB did a little better, and the re-edit of The Gathering probably did about a 2.3 - which is likely the number that TNT was hoping ItB drew. I do know that ACtA got next to no promotion on TNT, whereas ItB did. JMS noted with a little bitterness that ACtA almost equalled the 3.0 rating earned by TNT's Houdini biopic - which was promoted to death.

On TNT Crusade averaged a 1.3 rating, on SFC a 0.8. The B5 reruns were averaging a 0.7 during the three weeks Crusade was on SFC. Both JMS shows were beating new episodes of SFC's primetime original programming during those weeks. So it is tough to compare TNT ratings to Sci-Fi's because they so rarely get anywhere near them as a general rule. (Dune being the huge exception. I remember reading that it came very close to a 4.0 rating, the highest in Sci-Fi's history.)

I'm not sure that the "sheer number" of B5 fans is going to make Rangers that big a hit. Presumably most of us are watching the show every day, and it gets about 0.7. Sure there are some fans who have seen the whole thing three or four times and are "taking a break" from the show, and others for whom it is on at a bad time, but I'm not sure if there are enough of them to move Rangers into the thin ratings air occupied by Dune.

I'm hoping for a solid 1.2 to 1.5, something better than what most of their current series are getting, with the numbers building each quarter hour. (Which is normal. When they drop each quarter hour, whatever the final average rating is, networks worry. ) I'd be thrilled with a 2.0. If it breaks 3.0 in the major market overnights I will probably need smelling salts. But I'm willing to make that sacrifice.

Regards,

Joe


------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net