• 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.

Why Rangers Might Fail - Analysis

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> B5 LOTR will not fail!!! As for the devils advocate POV..., Channe is 100% on for posting it. Let us all hope someone who has an effect on LOTR programming reads it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I never said it would fail. As for Channe playing Devil's Advocate, I would have to play Devil's Advocate with that statement. As I said earlier, the most obvious reason as to why LOTR might fail is that it may just suck.

As far as listing reasons as to why sci-fi aired Black Scorpion is akin to the reporter who asked Jeffery Dahmer why he ate people. There may be a fascinating story behind it but its still pretty freaky in my book.

------------------
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
 
What worries me far more is this recent tendency of posting negative speculation on a movie-of-the-week that HAS NOT EVEN BEEN SHOWN YET.

Have we lost perspective here? I am looking forward to seeing "Rangers". It might be great, it might be terrible. But I'm going to wait until I see it before I praise it or trash it.

Why are there so many new posters here that seem to have a negative spin on a movie that has not even aired yet? It's very strange. Is it typical messageboard behavior? Did "Enterprise" go through this shortly before it's pilot aired? I honestly don't know, since this is the only message board I read or post to, so I'm genuinely curious.


------------------
"I do not believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."-- Galileo

"I think I speak for Mr. Bloom and myself when I say: you are the only director in the World who can do justice to 'Springtime For Hitler' " - Zero Mostel, The Producers
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by channe:
The old adage "people are just about the same everywhere" only counts in the viewing public as "we all have different opinions on the subject!"

Anybody think I should post a "Why Rangers Might Succeed" thread?
smile.gif


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps a "Why Rangers could be GREAT" thread.
smile.gif


I think it will challenge the intellect a bit more than "Enterprise" has. For me at least, this is why I watch science fiction. I can enjoy a great story AND exercise my mind at the same time. I hope "Enterprise" can eventually become that for me, but right now I haven't even watched the last 2 episodes: they are taped and I'll probably watch them this weekend when I get caught up on my grading.

One thing I will say: I at least waited for "Enterprise" to AIR before I began posting what I like and don't like about it. I know we are all eagerly waiting B5LR. But I, for one, am content to wait and actually SEE the movie before I criticize or judge it in any way.

So yes, by all means, start a "Why B5LR might be Great" thread. I doubt it will accomplish anything, for the same reasons, but it does give us something to do while we wait, right?
laugh.gif
crazy.gif


------------------
"I do not believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."-- Galileo

"I think I speak for Mr. Bloom and myself when I say: you are the only director in the World who can do justice to 'Springtime For Hitler' " - Zero Mostel, The Producers
 
I dunno if I am one of the negative posters that you were talking about, but I would say that Bad Speculation is every bit as useless as Good Speculatiion -- and there seems to be no end to that. But let's get real for a minute, this whole site was pretty much created on the speculation that LOTR was going to be an on-going series... wasn't it? I mean who creates a place like this for a simple tele-movie? Personally, I commend Channe for playing Devil's Advocate-- my only point was that she did not go far enough. She could not accept the possibility that LOTR may be bad. I have no such problems.

As far as this LOTR v. Enterprise thing goes, I simply fail to understand it. There's umpteen billion sci-fi shows on TV right now and everybody thinks that Enterprise is the big competition. I'm a Trekkie, but I have to be honest -- "Buffy" is better than "Enterprise." So is "Smallville" and "Andromeda." If you want to square off against another show, then set your sights a little higher.

------------------
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
 
I don't agree with the aggressive advertising notion.

It would be far better to get an insider at Paramount to smuggle out the master tapes for Enterprise, then get someone with years of editing experience to insert words and images associated with positive promotion of Rangers, in single frame slots every so often, all the way through each episode... as in "And Now for A Word..."

Then smuggle the tapes back into Paramount and let them be broadcast as normal!

No one would suspect a thing, the section of Trek fandom who will stop at nothing to eliminate B5 would be gone as they would all be brainwashed into watching Rangers and liking it!
wink.gif


------------------
"We Live for the One. We die for the One!"
 
So, Galahad, are you volunteering to be the person who commits the half dozen (at least) felonies involved in carrying out your suggestion??
shocked.gif
shocked.gif
tongue.gif
tongue.gif
crazy.gif
wink.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif


------------------
The 3 most common elements in the Universe:
Hydrogen, Greed, Stupidity!
 
Well I'm mainly an ideas man, an innovator, I come up with the inspiration and leave it to the experts, I am an ex-media student who had a natural trend towards editing proficiency, but I have no inside information on Paramount... now if I could just get that piece of Kosh out of me, maybe I could use that to get in.

It's been done before though, I once heard some insiders on The Lion King sneaked a sexually suggestive word onto one frame only of the whole film, somehow or other, this would be totally unnoticable. After all you can only just notice the Hypernauts invasion in Matters of Honour in B5 and that lasts a few frames.

Incidentally, I've heard there have been "incidents" in the cgi on B5 where there are things like minute bottles of beer flying around, and Elvis' birthday cropped up a couple of times. I know jms got wind of the latter and put an end to it but does anyone know of these occurences?

------------------
"We Live for the One. We die for the One!"
 
Actually, there are pre-air copies of Enterprise out on the net (though it isn't so surprising) But I don't feel like getting involved atm, I'll do with just watching
laugh.gif


Sry for the off-topic post.

/MW

------------------
 
Galahad, FWIW, the "subliminal" PsiCorps thing was VERY carefully timed so as NOT to break the US laws Forbidding Subliminal messages in TV shows.

The stuff in the Lion King was done by the Animators in the original cut. They were very careful not to get caught by Disney's checkers.

It's been done just often enough that Disney and the other animation studios usually have an editor whose job it is to look at every frame.
The animators have learned to be Very Sneaky about getting stuff past them.
I understand that Disney did catch at least 50 other "unique" frames.

Some of the Japanese studios, OTOH, allow the animators to stick in an occasional joke so long as it doesn't go too far.
Like one show (I forget which, now) that has a spaceship firing a few hundred Missles at an opponent.
If you can slow it down enough, there is one sequence where one of the missles morphs into a Coke Can for about 3 or 4 frames then changes back.
Played at normal speed, it just looks like a momentary red flash in the "missle" exhaust.

And it didn't make anyone go looking for a coke, either.
laugh.gif


------------------
The 3 most common elements in the Universe:
Hydrogen, Greed, Stupidity!
 
Black Scorpion was produced independently, and then shopped around for several years. Presumably, SciFi waited until it was in the bargain bin.

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison quoting Gustave Flaubert

drakh@spamcop.net
 
I'm new here.

I have a strong marketing background and I was impressed with Channe's rational approach to the issues facing Rangers. TV is a business and business issues prevail in these decisions as much as creative ones.

I would add another marketing issue that--to me--is relevant here in terms of a product failure:

INCORRECT PRICING: Sci-Fi is the buyer. WB is the seller. Even if Sci-Fi likes the show, the price WB is willing to sell it for may not work for Sci-Fi. The buyer and seller have to come to an agreement or there is no deal.

Some people have mentioned Black Scorpion. I believe the primary reason BS got on air was because it was cheap for them to buy.

------------------
 
I get confused when it comes to the TV buyer-seller relationships, because it's been presented to us as owned by WB, produced by Sci-Fi, which to a layman would mean the exact same thing...

------------------
In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the grace of God.
-Aeschylus
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SavantB5:
I'm new here.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello and Welcome.

Glad you have joined us here the more the merrier.




------------------
Deviot
Lincbot@yahoo.com.au
 
Warner owns most of the rights to the Babylon 5 universe. JMS had to make that deal to get the show produced.
It's the way "the Biz" works: They got the Money, you get the Biz.

SciFi Produces B5-Rangers under a License bought from Warner. IOW, SciFi pays the bills and gets first shot at airing the show and making the series. SciFi makes a nice profit and so does Warner.

Then, together (depending on the exact contract terms), they can sell it to Overseas markets.

If SciFi backs out of the deal or doesn't do anything with the series, sooner or later, all the rights would revert to Warner.
Again, based on the exact terms of teh contracts.
That's why warner can say that, If SciFi doesn't go forward with Rangers, they might sell it to another network.
If SciFi either backs out or lets the rights revert, Warner can then do whatever it pleases with B5.

That's how SciFi ended up with the right to show Crusade.
TNT's contract with Warner finally expired.



------------------
The 3 most common elements in the Universe:
Hydrogen, Greed, Stupidity!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Black Scorpion was produced independently, and then shopped around for several years. Presumably, SciFi waited until it was in the bargain bin.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, do you work for Sci-fi or something? I ask because you are awfully quick to justify their missteps (of which there are many) ... or is it simply your hobby to study the inner-workings of lackluster cable channel. In either case, maybe you can explain why their programming sucks. Oh well, here's to hoping that they never air Black Scorpion again... but I'm not holding my breath.

------------------
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
 
I should have been clearer on my "buyer/seller" definitions.

Warner Brothers would be the true "owner" of B5Rangers. The basic production costs would be borne by them.

Production companies sell a "license fee" to broadcasters to get the rights to broadcast the show.

Very often in TV, the license fee a broadcaster initially pays is lower than the production cost, which means the production company bears a loss for a while unless they can make up the difference in international license fee sales or wait to make it back in syndication.

As an example, it was recently published in either Hollywood Reporter or Variety that the production cost for Farscape is $1.4 Million per episode, while SciFi only pays a license fee of $700K per episode. That means the production company Henson has to either produce Farscape at a loss right now or make up the difference by selling to other countries--BBC2 in the UK, Space in Canada, etc.

So, in a deal between WB and SciFi, the following things would have to be determined by the bean counters:

1. How much of the production cost would Sci-Fi's license fee cover?
2. If it's not the full production cost, will WB be willing to accept making Rangers at a loss?
3. If that's the case, what are WB's prospects for making up that loss.

I don't know the answers to these questions. We may never know, but these things come up in all TV deals.

There was an interesting story last year about the initial production company for CSI backing out of the show prior to it airing because they didn't think it would be a hit and it would lose money for them. Alliance Atlantis stepped in and the show was a hit. So, they *are* making money on it. They took the risk and it paid off, but every time you see a show get canceled quickly, you are probably seeing a show that lost money for the production company.

Recently, Sony pulled out of the TV production business because it was unprofitable. They said there was too much financial risk for the production company at the front end of the deals

------------------
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bakana:
Warner owns most of the rights to the Babylon 5 universe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They own all the rights. Sharing the rights is generally a recepie for disaster, and could cost them lots of cash shoud it for example become unclear who owns the remaining rights.

(In this case the point is rather moot at the moment, since WB has yet to show any interest in doing any B5 projects without jms being involved.) <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>SciFi Produces B5-Rangers under a License bought from Warner. IOW, SciFi pays the bills and gets first shot at airing the show and making the series.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not exactly... The "standard" way is that the studio (WB.) produces, and the outlet pays a fee for airing it. The budget is the fee + whatever the studio feels like throwing in. This model often means the studio produces the show at a loss, planing to make the money back by selling rerun rights and merchandising.

Judging by jms comments, SciFi wanted co-owership of Rangers (The non-US broadcasts of Lexx seems to indicated they have that on the 4th season of the show, and I've heard the same about Farscape). That was not something WB was particularly enthusiasic about, so they ended up striking a deal for the TV movie and waiting until the movie aired before hammering out the details for the series (should SciFi order it). <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Then, together (depending on the exact contract terms), they can sell it to Overseas markets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope. Unless the outlet has an ownership interest, the studio handles the distribution. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>That's how SciFi ended up with the right to show Crusade. TNT's contract with Warner finally expired.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>TNT's US ariing rights expired. If you take a look at the end credits of Crusade, there's no TNT branding present - it was always fully owned by WB.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PsionTen:
Okay, do you work for Sci-fi or something?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>I ask because you are awfully quick to justify their missteps (of which there are many)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>1. Your definition of misstep seems to be whether or not you like the program. In the TV biz a misstep is one that loses money.

One recent example of this was SciFi's acquisition of Earth: Final Conflict. I loved the show's first season, but I do not fault SciFi's decision to pull it half-ways through since it wasn't getting good ratings. Another example is Farscape. Even though I can't stand it, I still say that renewing it was smart, since it's regularly their highest rated show.

2. I try to explain their actions, not justify them.

SciFi bought Black Scorpion because it was cheap. That meant it could earn a solid profit while getting lower ratings than other programs. As it turned out, the ratings weren't good enough, but given the fickle nature of TV audiences, that's not something one could have known in advance. It wouldn't have been the first time crap sold. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>or is it simply your hobby to study the inner-workings of lackluster cable channel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hardly. I've simply picked up bits and pieces here and there, and after a while a bigger picture forms.

(And there are people here who know far more about this stuff than I do.) <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>In either case, maybe you can explain why their programming sucks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For better or worse, there are enough people who disagree with you on that for SciFi to make a profit airing what they do.

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison quoting Gustave Flaubert

drakh@spamcop.net

[This message has been edited by drakh (edited November 06, 2001).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> 1. Your definition of misstep seems to be whether or not you like the program. In the TV biz a misstep is one that loses money.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seeing as how neither you nor I are involved in the TV biz then how can you claim to know what they perceive as a misstep. I have heard you argue several times that airing Black Scorpion was not a fiasco for Sci-Fi. You're damn right I call it a misstep because it DID suck and NO ONE watched it. Of course you liked it, which is cause enough for me to doubt the veracity of your opinions and the wisdom of your insight.

As far as the coup of obtaining EFC, you know, I know, and everybody else knows that there IS only one season of that show. After that, it became something else ... not unlike your beloved Black Scorpion.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> 2. I try to explain their actions, not justify them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I'm sorry then. I wasn't aware of your psychic abilities in that area. Or are you an entertainment journalist as well as a budding network programmer? Of course a REAL journalist would have actually gone through the time and trouble of interviewing sources before trying to explain the actions of an immense organization. And let's face it... a REAL journalist would at least attempt to appear impartial -- you just come off as their cheerleader.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Hardly. I've simply picked up bits and pieces here and there, and after a while a bigger picture forms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's funny, because your stuff often comes off like its the official WORD OF GOD. Glad to see that you're just throwing out opinions like the rest of the lowly subjects that you enlighten with the brilliance of your "common sense" deductions.

------------------
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
 
Hi SavantB5, nice to hear from you again.

If you are interested, there are a couple of other advertising threads in the back issues.


------------------
Andrew Swallow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 83 (members: 0, guests: 83)

Share this page

Back
Top