• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

What is SciFi Channel Waiting For?

eirik

Member
Okay, so the ratings were skewed by one of the most exciting playoff football games filled with controvercy and covered with much snow. The west coast ratings, where the game was not a factor, were 3.2 to 3.6 in various markets, according to the JMS post.

If you're with the SciFi channel and you've got programming to fill, you're probably asking yourself: what should I invest in? Well, it is obvious that any B5 series would do as good or better than Farscape. And I would say it certainly would do better than the rest of their line-up. The numbers aren't difficult to work out.

So, why is SciFi saying nothing? What does it gain by not announcing what should be obvious?

Are they teasing us to create an avalanche of letters to impress their sponsors and maybe generate some free publicity?

Do their would-be sponsors really doubt that a Rangers, or even a Crusade, series would do comparatively well on the SciFi channel?

What is the timeline for the SciFi channels budget? Has it passed? Is it near?


Eirik
crazy.gif
shocked.gif
crazy.gif
crazy.gif
mad.gif


------------------
It never ends; it only changes!
 
Who knows. As far as Sci-Fi Channel goes, us fans are basically mushrooms to them
smile.gif


------------------
'I don't believe in the no-win scenario' - JTK
 
Any negotiations will be done with Warner Brothers. Announcing information on their decision will only hurt their bargaining position, especially in a case like this where on the surface the numbers look bad but are actually encouraging if you dig a little deeper.

Why would they potentially hurt their financial position just to satisfy a few fans?

------------------
"Crying isn't gonna get your dog back. Unless your tears smell like dog food. So you can sit here eating can after can of dog food until your tears smell like dog food or you can go out there and find your dog."-Homer in The Canine Mutiny
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>The west coast ratings, where the game was not a factor, were 3.2 to 3.6 in various markets, according to the JMS post. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But those are only two markets out of who-knows how many that get the west coast feed. This may all be a good deal less "obvious" than you think it is. And, as correctly noted by the good Doctor, even it Sci-Fi decided they wanted a series today, there's still the little matter of making a deal with Warner Bros., Warner Bros. making deals with the actors, etc. and so forth. They are certainly not going to make a public announcement about any of this until they have all their ducks in a row. Until the contracts are signed there is no series, and nothing to announce.

These things take the time they take. In the meantime, what are you doing posting messages here when you should be writing letters to the network and the sponsors?
laugh.gif


Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division

joseph-demartino@att.net
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
In the meantime, what are you doing posting messages here when you should be writing letters to the network and the sponsors?
laugh.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joe,

How does writing to sponsors help?

------------------
KoshN
-------------
Vorlon Empire

http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/
 
This isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. B5 has done well on the channel, it has a fan base. By that, why didn't they commision a series straight away? Becuase there's reluctance somewhere... and not-great ratings (whatever the details) don't help reluctance.

Not saying we should give in. But don't expect grand moves from SCI FI when they could have done this ages ago.


------------------
MPAA: Rated R for bad language, crude humor,
language, sexuality/nudity and drug content.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
But those are only two markets out of who-knows how many that get the west coast feed. This may all be a good deal less "obvious" than you think it is. And, as correctly noted by the good Doctor, even it Sci-Fi decided they wanted a series today, there's still the little matter of making a deal with Warner Bros., Warner Bros. making deals with the actors, etc. and so forth. They are certainly not going to make a public announcement about any of this until they have all their ducks in a row. Until the contracts are signed there is no series, and nothing to announce.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent points on the negotiations with Warner Brothers. As I understand it, there is a rather common problem between content owners and cable channel companies in struggling to assemble mutually satisfactory business models.

This negotiations point worries me. I don't know who owns what and who pays for what and how all of that stuff works. It seems to me that the more popular B5 is perceived to be on the street, the stronger Warner Bro's hand is in the negotations. Therefore, it seems like we're in a vicious cycle. While we try to encourage the SciFi channel to go for a series with our letter campaigns to them, Warner Brothers, and the sponsors, we're making Warner Brothers' hand stronger and lengthening the negotiations process, possibly leading to an impasse. If we pull back on the letter writing campaign, we may weaken the SciFi channel's resolve to move forward with a series at all.

Well, it seems the 'safe' thing to do is to proceed with the letter campaign. Although focusing only on the SciFi Channel would prevent Warner Brothers from learning of their strengthened position in the negotations from our campaign.

So, what role do the sponsors and Warner Brothers play in the grand decision. Does Warner simply decide to proceed on whether or not SciFi will make it worthwhile to them? This gets back to what role WB plays.

Eirik



------------------
It never ends; it only changes!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Does Warner simply decide to proceed on whether or not SciFi will make it worthwhile to them? This gets back to what role WB plays.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WB plays the role of the seller, and Sci-Fi that of the buyer. And it is always a buyer's market. There are far more new series being pitched to every network at any given time than the network has prime time hours to run them in.

If they ask too high a price, Sci-Fi buys something cheaper, and there is no show. If Sci-Fi's per episode offer is less than WB's projected production cost, WB either gives up or agrees to deficit-finance the show. In that case WB loses money on every single episode until and unless they get enough total episodes in the can to sell it into the secondary market. If the show gets cancelled in under four years, there is virtually no chance of their making their money back on it (Crusade notwithstanding, that was a special case.)

WB has always insisted that all the PTEN shows be produced for less than the license fee (which is how they arrived at the budget) and therefore return a small profit from the first airing. I'm not aware that they changed this policy for Crusade and I'm doubtful they would for a Rangers series.

And the same applies to any network or syndicate of stations that they might take the show to. WB certainly cannot "go ahead anyway" without somebody to actually air the show, and there will be a limit to how much they can charge/spend to make it.

The sponsors play no role in any of this except to the extent that Sci-Fi can get some to sign on as major "presented by" sponsors and to the degree that any feedback that they offer on the letters they receive influence's Sci-Fi's thinking about the whole package.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division

joseph-demartino@att.net
 
I think Anthony hit the nail on the head. All this talk of 'complex' agreements between SCI-FI & Warners has little to do with it. If things were this complex then few shows would get made.

As Anthony pointed out, there seems to be reluctance from people within SCI-FI itself to go with the product.
Babylon 5 made profit even after it had aired a few times. It was a *cheap* show like Buffy. SCI-FI is spending far more on Farscape. Sales to oversea markets and the larger DVD sell through market in Europe helps make Farscape an attractive commercial product. The B5 videos were also *very* popular here.
The market for B5 is there - the re-re-re-runs on SCI-FI got great figures but after seeing the movie, the Channel got cold feet. Simple as that (wrongly in my view obviously).

------------------
'I plan to live forever, or die trying' - Villa Blake's 7
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>All this talk of 'complex' agreements between SCI-FI & Warners has little to do with it. If things were this complex then few shows would get made.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Few shows do get made, when compared to the number of proposals, scripts and pilots that are produced every year, few if any of which are ever seen by the public at large.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Babylon 5 made profit even after it had aired a few times.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the studio, yes. Whether all the stations were recouping their cost that quickly is another matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>It was a *cheap* show like Buffy. SCI-FI is spending far more on Farscape. Sales to oversea markets and the larger DVD sell through market in Europe helps make Farscape an attractive commercial product.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Farscape is an international co-production made by a consortium of production companies. The risk is spread a bit. Shooting Down Under also saves money. As a co-owner of a show sold all around the world, Sci-Fi may not be paying nearly as much per episode as you're assuming. The financial arrangements are entirely different than they would be with Babylon 5

The B5 videos were also *very* popular here.

And they tanked over here. Not that that has anything to do with Sci-Fi anyway, since they wouldn't participate in video revenue, or overseas revenue or any other long-term revenue for a Rangers series. All they would do is pay a fee to air the show, and try to turn a profit on the advertising.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>The market for B5 is there - the re-re-re-runs on SCI-FI got great figures but after seeing the movie, the Channel got cold feet. Simple as that (wrongly in my view obviously).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nonsense.

If you are totally ignorant about how American television is produced and financed, you're certainly free to speculate in a vacuum to your heart's content, but please don't make such absolute pronouncements on a subject you clearly know nothing about.

The plain fact is that most series sold this country are not sold on the basis a two-hour TV movie. They are sold on the show-runner's reputation, a concept sketched on the back of a napkin, a script or a finished sample episode. (One hour for a drama, half hour for comedy.) These may be seen by a focus group, but never by an audience until after the studio has agreed to produce the series and the network has agreed to air it.

The mere fact that Sci-Fi asked for a TV movie first indicates that they were not certain that a new B5 series was what they wanted, from the very beginning. It was something that they would consider along with a lot of other options. TNT bought Crusade without a pilot episode, after all, based purely on B5 S5 and some ideas from JMS. (Which some people at the network totally misunderstood, but that's another story.)

JMS himself reported on some of this back and forth thinking, since at one point he was told that a series commitment might come with the approval of the pilot script.

It has also been reported that the reason the cast was not put under an option to appear in a series before the pilot was shot was that Sci-Fi and Warner Bros. could not reach an agreement on the terms of an optional series deal before production had to start. (And it is certainly the case that the cast had no such option, as both they and JMS have confirmed, which suggests that something unusual was going on.) Deals for television pilots nearly always include an option for the series, since neither the studio nor the network wants to risk losing an actor who really clicks with the audience.

If this is the case, that means that the unresolved points have to be hashed out now if Sci-Fi is still interested. Such negotiations are complex (especially if Sci-Fi is shooting for some kind of ownership stake in the new show, which is not the kind of thing WB has looked kindly on in the past.) It is silly to dismiss this as an issue.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division

joseph-demartino@att.net
 
Joe DeMartino:

Is there anything fans from foriegn markets, such as Canada, can do in this situation?

CR



------------------
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Is there anything fans from foriegn markets, such as Canada, can do in this situation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sadly, no. Since this isn't an international production, and isn't likely to become one, it all comes down to what happens here. All the decisions are going to be based on the show's prospects on American television. That's who Sci-Fi is concerned about, because it is the ratings here that determine their ad rates. Warner Bros. must sell the show to an American network, because that is it's primary market. It leverages successful shows on one network to help it sell more shows to the same network or other networks. No American sale, no show.

WB would be delighted to also sell the show to other countries, because all that revenue is just gravy. But sales in the U.S. is the studio's bread and butter. Hearing that fans outside the country are interested would make WB happy, but wouldn't mean much to Sci-Fi, since they wouldn't share in the overseas revenue. WB already wants to produce a series.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division

joseph-demartino@att.net
 
Thank you

I was just thinking that if, say, CHUM(owner of Space:TIS) was 'lettered' into desiring the show, and lets say offered WB some money to distribute the show in Canada, and, if the negotiations are at an impasse of a small difference of money, the chum money could tip the balance that WB would want from scifi and then the show would be a go?

CR

------------------
 
Since we're all B5 zealots and there have got to be more who don't post I say re-run the durned movie! Pick a good time when everyone is home, no miserable football games are on, and show it! It'll only be the fourth time more people might watch it since there won't be a game on, and they can solve this once and for all!

Pluus..I can get it on tape in case it fails.
laugh.gif


------------------
 
If you are totally ignorant about how American television is produced and financed, you're certainly free to speculate in a vacuum to your heart's content, but please don't make such absolute pronouncements on a subject you clearly know nothing about.

Joe, whilst I enjoy reading your posts, I can't help but think that you are speculating just like the rest of us. To my knowlege, there is no one here that actually works within Sci-Fi or Warners so we are all guessing.
Details about a possible series between the two companies would have been discussed before SCI-FI invested in a pilot.
JMS was told that it could become a series once the pilot had been filmed. When it was in the can, SCI-FI went cold.
The costs of a potential series would have already been considered by both parties.
If these 'complex' agreements were such an obstacle then I don't think the pilot would have been made period.
Of course American TV politics and mechanics is complicated but then so is UK TV.
Lets not get side tracked. The people who need convincing is SCI-FI and the market for Rangers is there for all to see.



------------------
'I plan to live forever, or die trying' - Villa Blake's 7
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>The mighty oracle Joe DeMartino informed us that
WB already wants to produce a series.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do they? I hadn't seen this anywhere, but I am happy to bow to your greater wisdom in these matters.
smile.gif
laugh.gif
smile.gif


One thing so far appears to have gone un-speculated on, and that is simply ...

What if, having seen the rough cut of the movie or tried in vain to reach some sort of option agreement with WB, SFC just decided that they were not interested in a series and it was always going to be just a one-off.

Given that the movie was still to be shown it wouldn't make sense to announce that beforehand in case that affected ratings, and therefore SFC's advertising revenue.

If Joe is correct in his comment above, perhaps all that is happening at the moment is SFC listening to WB to see if they have anything to say that may change minds about producing a series.

If 90% of all pilots are never shown as pilots, and decisions are made before anything is seen by the viewers (and that would certainly explain a lot), then we may have to be satisfied that this was just a TVM and enjoy it for what it is - assuming I ever get to see the damn thing over here.

mad.gif
mad.gif
mad.gif


------------------
DaveC
"Let me be the first to say that this is the nuttiest idea you've ever had."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>What if, having seen the rough cut of the movie or tried in vain to reach some sort of option agreement with WB, SFC just decided that they were not interested in a series and it was always going to be just a one-off.

Possible, but again, why the huge ad campaign? Both the rough and final cuts were screened months before that cranked up.[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has actually been speculated on in a posting by someone else. An ad campaign makes sense irrelevant of the final disposition of pilot to film. Once you have a show in the can you want to recoop your costs, if possible. Additionally, since new episodes of their number 1 show (Farscape) are delayed, SCI-FI doesn't actually have anything else to lead with in January. Hence, Rangers may have been the only candidate.

The reason to air the old B5 movies before Rangers is cross-selling. The B5 movies "sell" Rangers and Rangers sells the B5 movies. A clear win-win.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Does anybody seriously think that Bonnie Hammer - the President of the network - would go out and get her car wrapped to promote a movie she had already judged a failure? And to have pictures of herself and said car posted on the interet? Does anybody think she is stupid enough to publicly associate herself with a "busted" pilot that the network had no further interest in? [/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. That's her job. As CEO of the Net she must cheerlead for all it's products whether she thinks they are any good ornot. All CEOs do that.

I'm not suggesting that SCIFI or Bonnie Hammer have negative opinions of Rangers. I'm just trying to ground our conversation in business reality.

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


[This message has been edited by ala (edited January 29, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by ala (edited January 29, 2002).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ala:

Absolutely. That's her job. As CEO of the Net she must cheerlead for all it's products whether she thinks they are any good ornot. All CEOs do that.

I'm not suggesting that SCIFI or Bonnie Hammer have negative opinions of Rangers. I'm just trying to ground our conversation in business reality.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're being unrealistic in your asessment of Hammer and the car wraps. Certainly, she would be expected to publicly support everything the network does, from Rangers to Black Scorpion. On the other hand, you don't see Hammer in a BS car, do you? Or even a Farscape one for that matter. Companies and executives support all their products, but they don't support them all equally. If Hammer hadn't had the car wrap, no one would be saying 'Hey, why isn't the president of the network driving a car advertising this particular show?' On the other hand, if the show bombed, it would be perfectly reasonable to expect people to ask 'why did the president drive a car advertising that show?' It was an unusual step, and unusual steps are gambles. People only tend to take gambles unless they have nothing to lose or they think the odds are in their favor, and I'd say the latter is far more likely than the former in this case.

------------------
Dave Thomer
This Is Not News
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Joe, whilst I enjoy reading your posts, I can't help but think that you are speculating just like the rest of us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course. But there is a difference between informed speculation and wild guesses. I’ve been “studying” the way American television works since the early 1970s. I communicate with people connected to the business in various ways, who are nice enough to correct me when I get something wrong. If I extrapolate from a situation, or try to use logic to get from two known facts to a third, unknown, one, I’m at least starting with facts and some idea of how things “tend to work.”

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Details about a possible series between the two companies would have been discussed before SCI-FI invested in a pilot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they had been, the cast would have been signed to options for the series. They weren’t. Something didn’t go the way things normally go. And “discussed” does not mean “settled”

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>JMS was told that it could become a series once the pilot had been filmed. When it was in the can, SCI-FI went cold. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JMS was also told (see above) that it could become a series after the pilot script was approved, after the rough-cut was assembled, after the final cut was screened, or after the movie aired and the ratings were in hand. He was told (and posted about) all of these possibilities before they even started shooting the pilot.

If Sci-Fi had “gone cold” after seeing the finished film, why did they schedule it and advertise it as one of their major “events” for the month of January. Why did they run commercials on other networks, and run a theatrical trailer (previously only done for the major project Dune)? It doesn’t make sense. The pilot wasn’t that expensive, the cost of two episodes of some of their other series. Presumably they could have made their money back with a couple of airings of the film, without investing in a huge advertising campaign.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>The costs of a potential series would have already been considered by both parties. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but if a decision on how to pay those cost hadn’t been reached, or if Sci-Fi were insisting that they own a piece of the show, a deal may not have been. Or both sides may have wanted to see how the ratings looked so they’d know how big a pie they would be dividing.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>If these 'complex' agreements were such an obstacle then I don't think the pilot would have been made period. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not? Sci-Fi still gets a TV movie that will appeal to the B5 audience. Warner Bros. still gets a TV movie that can later be resold to other networks and released on home video. And if things go well both might get a series out of it. Classic win/win situation.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Of course American TV politics and mechanics is complicated but then so is UK TV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they are also different. So knowing something about the one does not mean that you know anything about the other. I wouldn’t presume to comment or even speculate about British television broadcasting, because I’m aware that I know nothing about it. (I have learned a little about the British video market, and the pre-cable and pre-satellite TV business that shaped it, but that’s all.)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Warner Bros. already wants to produce a series.

Do they? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A question in return – why wouldn’t they? One of the major ways that WB makes money is by selling TV series to networks. Another is by selling said series overseas, and into secondary domestic markets (reruns). As long as its costs are covered there is no reason for WB not to want to produce this series or any other. B5 has been returning steady, if not spectacular, profits to the studio for years. They’d be fools if they didn’t want to replicate that success. As long as the terms of the deal are acceptable.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>What if, having seen the rough cut of the movie or tried in vain to reach some sort of option agreement with WB, SFC just decided that they were not interested in a series and it was always going to be just a one-off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possible, but again, why the huge ad campaign? Both the rough and final cuts were screened months before that cranked up. If you have a disappointing pilot why air all of the {presumably better) existing B5 films leading up to it? Won't that just make it look worse by comparison? Why spend a ton of money promoting it? They had plenty of time to scrap that after seeing the movie for the first time.

Does anybody seriously think that Bonnie Hammer - the President of the network - would go out and get her car wrapped to promote a movie she had already judged a failure? And to have pictures of herself and said car posted on the interet? Does anybody think she is stupid enough to publicly associate herself with a "busted" pilot that the network had no further interest in?

Common sense alone should show that this scenario isn't terribly likely.
smile.gif


I don't know what's going on at Sci-Fi, or what kind of chance Rangers has of becoming a series. But I do think we could all invest our time in something more positive than inventing reasons to be gloomy out of whole cloth. And that's exactly what all of this "they hated the film when they saw it, they sky is falling" talk is. The production history, JMS's contemporary posts and the advertising campaign all clearly show that whatever did happen, this didn't.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division

joseph-demartino@att.net

[This message has been edited by Joseph DeMartino (edited January 29, 2002).]
 

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top