Does the TV scifi paradigm need to change?

[Umbran]

[*]Epic Storytelling - I'm a sucker for a good epic. I want a beginning, middle and an end... not just to an episode, but to a season or a series. Take me from A to B to C. Just don't assume that your audience has seen A when you get to C... a slight problem with shows like Babylon 5.

That's asking a lot. Too much, really.

You want to be taken from A to B to C, but when you're between B and C you can't refer to A? Essentially, that's asking for a the story to havew a solid and rational arc, but the series to have episodic structure. It's like asking Robert Jordan to write "The Wheel of Time" series so that each book stands alone.

While some shows may occasionally be able to do that for short periods, asking for it consistently isn't at all realistic or fair to the writers.

 

[LightPhoenix]

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:

*snip chart*

Are those numbers adjusted for inflation? I know it wouldn't add much, but one thing that truly annoys me is when people compare numbers without accounting for it.

So my question is, why is the budget only 135 million? And that's apparently a total programming budget, otherwise stuff like mini-series and specials wouldn't be taken out of that fund. I just don't feel that it needs to be that low.

Any numbers on SFC's advertising budget?

 

[Hypersmurf]

You want to be taken from A to B to C, but when you're between B and C you can't refer to A?

Wait... didn't he say "Don't assume I've seen A"? As in, some time between B and C, remind me about A in case I missed that episode?

-Hyp.

 

[Umbran]

Sci Fi's budget seems to increase every year it's just that they still seem to mar every year with one or two bonehead decisions.

Well, that leaves a question - how boneheaded are these decisions if they allow for an increase in budget every year? They can't be so bad that they're quickly sinking the channel. As I understand it, the Sci Fi Channel has been making a consistent profit for a number of years now, so they're decisions are obviously not completly imbecilic.

There is something we have to avoid here - the preconception that what we like and want is necessarily the best business move.

Let's face it - we are oddballs, fairly hard-core sci-fi and fantasy fans. We like Farscape and B5. But if ratings and past success are a measure, the rest of the world likes Jerry Springer, "Married with Children" and "reality TV". Our tastes are not run-of-the-mill, and pandering to our tastes may not be the way to greatest profits for the Sci Fi Channel.

 

[WizarDru]

Are those numbers adjusted for inflation? I know it wouldn't add much, but one thing that truly annoys me is when people compare numbers without accounting for it.

So my question is, why is the budget only 135 million? And that's apparently a total programming budget, otherwise stuff like mini-series and specials wouldn't be taken out of that fund. I just don't feel that it needs to be that low.

Any numbers on SFC's advertising budget?

Those numbers are not adjusted for inflation, which is an important point. ST:TNG's budget is worth comparing to B5s, because they were contemporaries, as was DS9. The original series, however, is another story.

So, for example: ST:TOS had a budget of $100,000 an episode. In 2002 dollars, that would be equal to roughly $518,000 an episode. ST:TNG had a budget of 1.5 Million, which is worth about 2.35 million today. DS9 had a stating budget of 2 million, which translates into about 2.46 million today. Babylon 5 had a budget of 750,000, which becomes $897,000 in 2002 dollars. Battlestar Galactica cost $750,000 per episode in 1978 (where'd that money go?) or 2.14 MILLION today!!

Read into those numbers what you will.

 

[WizarDru]

Let's face it - we are oddballs, fairly hard-core sci-fi and fantasy fans. We like Farscape and B5. But if ratings and past success are a measure, the rest of the world likes Jerry Springer, "Married with Children" and "reality TV". Our tastes are not run-of-the-mill, and pandering to our tastes may not be the way to greatest profits for the Sci Fi Channel.

That's not the problem. The problem is that we'll watch ANYTHING, sometimes. Remember, one of the reasons that Farscape got dropped is that they ran the numbers, and noticed that first-run Farscape episodes and reruns of some shows generated about the same numbers. They decided that there wasn't much point in spending money for almost the same amount of profit. It's the whole 'captive audience' concept that drives Star Trek onward. Paramount is pretty much convinced (and unfortunately, the numbers have borned out over time) that they have a plug-in Trek audience that will watch Trek, regardless of it's respective quality. Call it the Voyager Factor, if you will. It doesn't matter if Trek fans didn't enjoy a show or not...they tuned in, just the same.

If the Scifi channel concludes that they can throw virtually anything vaguely scifi-ish on the screen and have an audience of about the same size, why wouldn't they do just that?

 

[Umbran]

Wait... didn't he say "Don't assume I've seen A"? As in, some time between B and C, remind me about A in case I missed that episode?

If you don't assume the audience has seen A, when you refer to it you must retell the entire story of A, comic-book style, the way they tell you every other issue how Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider, and his Uncle ben said "With great power comes great responsibility".

If you make only partial reference, say by having a plot point relate to A, but you don't explicitly say it, and instead expect the audience to remember it, any viewer who didn't see the previous episodes gets lost.

You wanna see what happens when you try to write a show that doesn't assume you've seen previous episodes? Look at "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda". Started out with some of the greatest character development, some of the most interesting plots you've ever sunk your teeth into. But some folks felt that long, involved sotryline depended too much on the audience having seen previous episodes. And honestly, it did. They simpley didn't have time to explicate all that had gone on before each time it became relevant, since there was a lot going on. If you didn't watch regularly, you got lost. It was felt that made the show "inaccessible to new and part-time viewers", and that would severely limit the show's growth and longevity. So, all that plot and development was scrapped, and the show turned to mush.

Mind you, last time I checked (which IIRC was back at the beginning of this season), Andromeda was still the #1 syndicated genre show, still making money.

 

[Umbran]

That's not the problem. The problem is that we'll watch ANYTHING, sometimes.

Well, actually you're supporting my point, so long as the different forms of "we" are kept straight.

There's we - the general American viewing public.

There's we - the hard-core geeks who want better shows.

Scifi seems to do reasonably well panding to the former. As you note, then there's not much point at going after the latter, which is a much smaller group.

 

[Umbran]

Hm. Posting a lot to this thread today. My apologies...

Apropos to the discussion, though, is an announcement found in today's Sci Fi Wire.

The Sci Fi Channel will be creating a new "SciFi Thursday", an evening of Scifi Original programming. What's in this lineup? "Mad Mad House", a form of reality show. "Scare Tactics", a hidden camera/practical joke show. And "Tripping the Rift", an animated show - the original short is crude enough that I wouldn't link to it here as it'd offend Grandma seven ways from Sunday.

So, does it look like SciFi is aiming at highbrow viewers? Given what else has been successful on TV ("reality" and crudeness), is this at all surprising?

 

[Hypersmurf]

What's in this lineup? "Mad Mad House", a form of reality show. "Scare Tactics", a hidden camera/practical joke show.

Wait, but... the...

... what?

-Hyp.