jdavis said:
I think Sci Fi channels new show budget for all of 2003 was around 135 million (about the same as the budget for the first Spiderman movie). The budget for the Taken Mini-series was around 40 million, Stargate runs around 1.5 million per episode (36 million for a 24 episode run). So there's more than half their total new show budget for the year, then you got all the other shows and movies and specials and the Galactica mini series and well you can see it just doesn't go all that far.
Here is a chart I found on a Firefly messageboard, don't know how reliable it is:
It's moderately reliable. I remember JMS specifically discussing budget for B5 multiple times, and the numbers provided here are slightly lower for the average, but about correct. Individual episodes would widely diverge in cost, based on the requirements for set construction and CGI. B5 was the first show I know of that used the occasional 'virtual' set....meaning most of the room was CGI. B5 was
very concise on what was to happen during the year, with the main story specifically planned from the start, which allowed them to better plan what they'd need (the same approach that Jackson used for LotR). And being syndicated doesn't mean there haven't been shows that go over budget, or that being a network show means that you
can go over budget. In both cases, unless you're phenonemally successful, you end up having to cut costs later in the season to make up for it. Some B5 episodes were much more expensive than others, due to makeup or CGI requirements, for example. Star Trek used the 'Ship-in-a-bottle' episode idea (not the first to do it, of course, just the first I ever heard use a title for it): namely that you shoot an episode without using
any new sets, to cut the costs and time requirements. Which, if done properly with a good story, can work very well.
Different factors affect costs, too. Location shooting is expensive, generally. Many shows are co-produced outside of the US, such as Highlander and Farscape, so that TV stations in places like France or Germany help defer the costs in return for getting first run shots at the show. Having multiple cameras, CGI or extensive makeup effects add up, as do needing new sets on regular basis.
Mind you, all of that can be irrelevant to why a show succeeds or fails. Politics can be huge. Stephen J. Cannell, Stephen Bochco, David Kelley, JMS and many other writer/producers have had very public feuds with their networks and distributors over their shows. Sometimes they win, and sometimes they lose. Remember when B5 was part of PTEN? JMS had plenty of feuds with WB's movie division, who was responsible for B5, not their TV division (and what a convulted web that was). In the case of TNT, JMS attempted to compromise on some issues, and ended up with some terrible episodes of an otherwise good series. The political and very public scuffle almost certainly led to the show's demise. JMS' subsequent battles over Jeremiah have led to his severing ties with that show after season 2.
When a show like NYPD Blue, the X-files, and Law and Order has problems with the networks who help make them, you can bet a show like B5 or the Invisible Man has much less chance of getting it's own way.
The only way really good shows get made, SF or no, is to fly under the radar of most TV execs until it becomes a certifiable hit...and even then, it's not only stronger, not invulnerable.
As for the ideas of mini-series versus regular series: they're different formats, and have different strengths and weaknesses. I"m not sure that I'd prefer one to the other. A good mini-series often leaves you wishing they had done more, for example (a lot of BBC productions can be like this, due to their short runs). A regular series can often flounder, with episodes that are clearly 'filler'. A mini-series often is more expensive than a regular series, as you're not deferring some costs over a long period.
If I had my druthers, I'd have both.
)
