Money Talk.. Why no new series? by seryn

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Money Talk.. Why no new series?

POSTED BY: SERYN
UPDATED: Friday, January 6, 2006 16:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2197
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 12:21 AM

That is apart from Fox still holding the rights on the name 'Firefly'.

I'm just looking around though and the general opinion is that its more likely to be another movie than to be another series if we get a continuation of the 'verse at all.

But i'm genuinly interested in why the economics don't point to another series - if an episode costs 2 million, that means you can get 20 episodes for the price of a movie (especially as sequels tend to cost more) I'm pretty sure that t.v. advertising costs less, even if magazine/billboard advertising would be the same.

Plus as, someone else on the site pointed out, television DVD sales are on the up, and you can charge much more for them.

Quote:

Consider, the only field of dvd sales that has seen an increase (and a remarkably sharp increase at that) is television dvd sales. While the dvd market for movies has flattened out and failed to see a growth. (Look it up if you don't believe me :)) And few enough movies are making a profit in the theaters as to be no nevermind. People are willing to spend the 40-50 bucks for 14 to 24 hours plus over the 20 bucks for two hours (and as many hours of often useless extras as can be dreged up).

A quote from CBS news online ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/23/opinion/main676006.shtml ) "Today the average movie costs $4.2 million to distribute and nearly $35 million just to advertise." That's not even the cost of making the movie - whereas a tv show is the advertisement of the upcoming dvd release that I am willing to bet, cost less than 35 million to make. But again, I'm sure someone can work up the actual numbers.

Anybody got an idea?

-------------------------------------------
"She's a mite whimsical in the brainpan."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 4:17 AM

TOMSIMPSONAZ

I honestly have no idea, I think it is just going to take awhile until the right exec stumbles onto a computer and sees the following.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 4:49 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by seryn:
...I'm just looking around though and the general opinion is that its more likely to be another movie than to be another series if we get a continuation of the 'verse at all...

All of the internet polls I've seen show that a majority of fans would prefer the TV series (in some form) over another movie.
If you are talking about which one most people think is more feasible - maybe people are wrong?
Guess we have to wait though for the final numbers on the movie dvd sales. The info you cite along with the tv series amazing dvd sales sure make a strong case for another series... not unlike the way SciFi presents BattleStar Galactica (altogether now!).

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.net

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 5:02 AM

DONCOAT

One big problem is that Joss (for excellent reasons) doesn't want to work for Fox Entertainment again.

That really leaves only a couple alternatives:

1) Someone who Joss is willing to work with buys the TV rights from Fox;

2) The franchise continues in some form other than TV.

You have to wonder a bit about the grey areas, though. For example, if a series of Firefly episodes were to be made and sold by subscription (direct to DVD), would that violate Fox's TV rights? What about a direct-to-DVD movie sequel?

Maybe there's an entertainment-industry lawyer among us who can clarify exactly what it is Fox owns, and how the movie-rights deal worked between Fox and Universal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 11:11 AM

SERYN

ah, so does FOX hold the rights to the content and not just the name in a tv show format?

So Joss couldn't just use the same 'verse in a show of a different name?

oh, poot.

How do things stand on mini series and stuff like that?

Its simply that although the film was marvellous and one of the best tv to film adaptions i'd ever seen done, 90 minutes can't serve the characters or the 'verse itself in the way that a series could, the whole thing has so much potential and if it only get a movie every two years (or less)... the words 'damn shame' don't nearly cover it.

-------------------------------------------
"She's a mite whimsical in the brainpan."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 11:16 AM

DANIELFYRE

This may or may not be a stupid question but: is the Sci-fi channel a subsidiary of FOX? I'm guessin yes since it can run the eps...am I right?

-Dan

Ain't that just shiny?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 11:18 AM

FOLLOWMAL

The way I understand it is that SciFi is connected to Universal and NBC.

I've read that somewhere online here, but I sure couldn't point you to the thread... sorry, not too bright about such things yet.

"There's obstacles in our path, and we're gonna deal with them, one by one. We'll get through this."
Malcolm Reynolds

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 4:50 PM

DC4BS

I'm not a lawyer but from what I "think" I understand, it seems to me that any network can broadcast any show simply by entering (a) contract(s) with the current owner of that show in order to obtain the permission (rights) to do so.

The networks involved don't need to have any affilliation other than the contract(s).

It's possible for a network to buy a show from another network outright but this is rare. Usualy it's licensed rather than purchased

If I'm completely off base here, someone please educate me. I could use some edumacatin...

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 5:02 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Ok here's my question.

First the premise, if this is wrong please tell me.

The reason for weasel words and fine print in commercials and other advertisements is that the laws against false advertising in the US are at least harsh enough for large corporations to avoid breaking them.

Fox explicitly said in an official manner that they would in no way stop another network from making Firefly. (Someone who knows where to look should check this.)

The possibility of a continuation (which is what Fox's statement amounts to) (probably) affected DVD sales.

So, the question:

Can Fox legally stop the series from coming back on a new network?

-

Every time I have asked this before the thread was abandoned.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 5:24 PM

RKLENSETH

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Ok here's my question.

First the premise, if this is wrong please tell me.

The reason for weasel words and fine print in commercials and other advertisements is that the laws against false advertising in the US are at least harsh enough for large corporations to avoid breaking them.

Fox explicitly said in an official manner that they would in no way stop another network from making Firefly. (Someone who knows where to look should check this.)

The possibility of a continuation (which is what Fox's statement amounts to) (probably) affected DVD sales.

So, the question:

Can Fox legally stop the series from coming back on a new network?

-

Every time I have asked this before the thread was abandoned.

Yes, because 20th Century Fox owns the rights to anything related to Firefly/Serenity that goes to TV.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 5:40 PM

DC4BS

Yep. The US legal system is a funny thing...

Even if FOX did say that, without that statement in writing and signed by someone at FOX with legal authority to do so, I would bet noone will touch it.

Example of US legal system: Dangerous activities wavers. It doesn't matter in the US if you sign one saying you will not sue in the event you are injured doing something you have been EXPLICITLY warned is dangerous...

Say I sign a waver that I understand that bungee jumping is dangerous and I hold the people who are providing me with the equipment to jump not responsible if I get hurt doing it.

Well, if I do get hurt, I (or my next of kin) can still sue (and win huge awards/damages). This has happened countless times in the US. Go figure.

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 6, 2006 2:22 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:
Yes, because 20th Century Fox owns the rights to anything related to Firefly/Serenity that goes to TV.

No you're missing the point, or I am.

They own the rights, but they said, officially I believe, that they would use that ownership in a particular way.

I mean if a software company sells you a program promising that, while the code belongs to them, it will be completely open to any company that asks, and then when somsone asks they don't let them have it aren't they guilty of false advertizing and thus in legal trouble?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 6, 2006 4:16 PM

JOHNQPUBLIC

Quote:
They own the rights, but they said, officially I believe, that they would use that ownership in a particular way.

Saying something "officially" is hardly a legal binding contract.

christhecynic, you keep using the term "false advertising", but that's got nothing to do with any of this - it's got to do with, well, advertising. Y'know TV commercials, magazine ads, etc.

If a toothpaste company ran TV commercials saying that using their product would cause fat people to lose weight, bald people to re-grow their hair and ugly guys to suddenly be able to date Playboy Bunnies, *that* would be "false advertising" (unless, of course, they could actually prove their toothpaste could do all that).

I don't know what Fox "officially" said about Firefly, but again, it isn't a legal document. If they said they'd be willing to let another network take over the show, it doesn't mean they're giving up rights to it to anyone that wants to produce their own episodes. It means they'd consider offers to buy or lease any rights Fox owns to the show.

Most likely they meant it. If someone came to them and offered enough money, I'm sure Fox would be willing to sell the legal rights to produce more episodes. Or sell outright whatever rights Fox has to Firefly. Even if they were lying and had no intentions of letting anyone else buy it, they're not breaking any laws by "officially" saying they're interested in selling and not meaning it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE