Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 4532420" data-attributes="member: 115">Unless, of course, they're getting less money from SFC, in which case the product placement offset the loss, resulting in the same production values.  This is why I believe it was done in the first place.My reasoning on it is that for TV writers/director, they're heavily dependant on the quality of their product.  Thus, presented with a shrinking budget, they were left with three options:1) Let the show be cancelled.  This is not an attractive option in any but the most idealistic of senses.  While it may seem romantic that a writer/director would stick to their guns, what is more likely to happen is that someone more pliable is brought in to take your place.  A couple of notable examples in the sci-fi genre would be Andromeda and Jeremiah.  It's better to have some degree of input, and some degree of income, than to be out on the street with no real product to show.2) Reduce the production quality of the show.  Again, not an attractive option, if your future jobs are based on the production quality of that show.3) Accept the product placement.  While tacky, this preserves the production quality of the show, and everyone's jobs.  Clearly this is the best option for all involved.Now, is Eureka doing it well?  Aside from a few well-placed snarky comments, I wouldn't say they were.  However, I don't think I can particularly find fault with that, when it was pushed upon them suddenly.  Also, given this is SFC we're talking about, I would be inclined to believe it was a push to try and cancel the show.  It's unfortunate that the way television is set up, it's very difficult to get a genre show off the ground on one of the major networks (ie, Firefly).  That makes SFC a viable alternative, for better or worse.</blockquote>

Verification