Serenity - Fox's plan from the get-go? by Cam

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Serenity - Fox's plan from the get-go?

POSTED BY: CAM
UPDATED: Saturday, August 14, 2004 11:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3747
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, August 13, 2004 11:40 PM

This occurred to me as I was trying to download more episodes of Space: Above and Beyond (a science-fiction show from 1995 which was picked up for one season by Fox and then summarily cancelled. It's not as good as Firefly, but I think it's definately up there).

Like original Star Trek and Firefly, SAaB was bought and then shafted in almost every way possible (lousy time slot, etc.). As I was scavenging for all 24 episodes, I got to wondering why major networks would even bother shelling out for an expensive SF series only to cancel it without even getting a decent run. I mean, it's a lot of money to throw away for only a dozen or so episodes (it isn't like they just need a set for Jerry's apartment and the coffee shop where everybody hangs out and we're good; starship interiors have to be built, lots of CG work has to be done...). My conclusion (which is largely based upon a variety of unfounded assumptions about television): major networks will sign on basically any SF show that involves a crew flying around to differnet planets and doing stuff because they're all looking to cash in on the next Star Trek.

I don't buy the "it's just too expensive," argument as a valid reason for cancelling a show like FF of SAaB - not because the show isn't expensive, but because the network *had* to realize that going into it. I think that when a major network like Fox sees a good SF show that connects with an audience, they kill it, wait a while then do a spin-off series or movie.

See, I think that if a network lets something like Firefly run its course (say, four or five seasons), they haven't really got much from their investment, aside from maybe some DVD sales. But by coming out with the movie a few years later, they get all the free hype and marketing that they need. The execs can point to communities like this and say, "look! It's got a dedicated fan base after all these years! It's a cult classic," any maybe, maybe reach a much broader audience than just the people who would have tuned in every Friday for their show (I think Babylon 5 supports this theory. It ran for five or six seasons like a normal TV show but never managed to become another Star Trek. Ditto Andromeda). People who would be interested in science-fiction when they open the TV guide would tune in, but someone who isn't really into that genre but would still watch something huge like Star Trek or Star Wars would probably pass on Firefly. However, if Fox does things this way they can proclaim basically anything they want; it's the best show nobody watched! It's so good we're bringing it back as a movie! They can make these statements and still seem credible.

So that's my crackpot conspiracy theory. I'd be interested to hear what people think of this (agree/disagree/wtf), or if I was totally wrong about the way guys that make television opeate.

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

Saturday, August 14, 2004 1:21 AM

OUTSIDER

Well, I can't deny that you make an interesting point. And it does have a (sort of) logic to it. However, I can't really see that any network exec would commission a show on the off-chance they could kick start a new movie franchise off the back of it.

Why not simply commission a movie straight away? If the goal is to build a fanbase on TV then switch to movies, why cancel a show before it's even finished its first season? You won't build a fanbase that way. Firefly managed that in large part because Joss already had a fanbase - thanks to Buffy and Angel.

Besides, there's no guarantee that a movie would be successful, and therefore no guarantee that the movie will make a profit - or any money at all. You may end up wasting more money on a movie than a TV show. If a single episode cost $1million, then the studio is spending (not counting other costs) around $44million for two seasons. A movie might cost $50-60million.

Also, what benefit is it if the studio who commissioned the TV show end up selling the rights off to another studio to make the movie, as has happened in the case of the BDM? Fox will still get a piece of the action, no doubt, but as a TV show they wouldn't have had to share anything. Now they do.

---------------------
"Today we were kidnapped by hill folk, never to be seen again. It was the best day ever."

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

Saturday, August 14, 2004 1:48 AM

SPOOKYJESUS

I'd say you're right in so far as shows like Firefly and Space A and B are greenlit off of an envy for Paramount's cash cow that is Star Trek.

Lets not forget that Firefly was the show that Joss wanted to make at that time. He may have had an idea for something non space related that would have the ability to gather a cult following - but Fox weren't interested in that initially per say, they wanted a show from Joss - Joss pitched Firefly, they said sure - and away we all go.

On the cash cow thing - If Fox had hopes for a movie they had hopes that it would come after 7 highly rated series and a ton of merchendise sales "'cause these Nerds will buy anything with the porstetute character on it!" - and they felt safe in trusting Joss with a $10000000 pilot show since he was a guy who'd given then a cash cow in the form of a blonde vampire slayer. It was only after they saw what he made that they freaked out.

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

Saturday, August 14, 2004 4:46 AM

THEREALME

For whatever reasons, I belive that the numbers on Firefly did not warrant the continuation of the show.

Now, the reasons could boil down to bad time slot, crappy promoting, showing episodes in an almost random order...

But really, if a show IS successful, Fox would have to be greater idiots than they are to cancel it. Oh, they are idiots to be sure. But if Firefly was raking in the bucks, they would have kept it going.

The Real Me

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

Saturday, August 14, 2004 5:16 AM

SPOOKYJESUS

Definityly

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

Saturday, August 14, 2004 5:22 AM

CARDIE

Here's something you have to understand about the way television networks pay for shows and make profits. The network does not pay for the production costs on the show. The producing studio does that, in this case 20th Century Fox. When a network orders a pilot, and then a given number of episodes, they come to an agreement with the production company that they will pay a license fee of so many hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars per episode. The production company has to feel that this license fee and other ancillary income from the episodes will make the total production cost profitable for them. Enterprise was renewed only because Paramount agreed to cut UPN's license fee in half, so that even anemic ratings would make the show profitable for UPN. Paramount did this because getting 100 episodes made so that the show could go into syndication was well worth the losses they will have to swallow in production costs this season.

The network makes its money from selling advertising. Advertising rates are determined by the ratings. It is often more profitable for a network not to air episodes it has paid the license fee for if another show might gain significantly higher ratings and rates for them. A network doesn't lose things like the initial investment in sets, costumes, etc. if they switch from paying a license fee for one expensive show to paying a similar amount for another. It's the studio that chalks up the loss.

FOX has been for years looking for the next X-Files, not the next Star Trek. X-Files began in the same Friday death slot as all the other SF shows they have put there and cancelled over the years. They don't seem to have gotten the message that lightning doesn't always strike twice. Any income from later movies, etc. would go to 20th, not FOX, so there's no logic to thinking they want to cancel shows so that they can become movies.

Cardie

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

Saturday, August 14, 2004 7:07 AM

DAEDALUS5

Lets face it, the execs at Fox aren't that smart. Not that I'd want to flame those truly wonderful people who cancelled the show, but, sheesh, if they wanted to, they'd have done a movie first and written off the whole set construction thing in the movie budget. They could then have done the TV show afterwards. Ala "Star Gate".

As for getting a cash cow as big as Star Trek, well, the last 2 Trek movies git dire ratings in the cinema. Heck, Nemesis didn't even get the money back that it took Paramount to make it! Para only got their money back with the international DVD sales.

"Damn you Fox for cancelling my favourite show!"

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

Saturday, August 14, 2004 8:33 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by Cardie:
FOX has been for years looking for the next X-Files, not the nest Star Trek. X-Files began in the same Friday death slot as all the other SF shows they have put there and cancelled over the years. They don't seem to have gotten the message that lightning doesn't always strike twice. Any income from later movies, etc. would go to 20th, not FOX, so there's no logic to thinking they want to cancel shows so that they can become movies.

I agree - television is a crap shoot; if every network head knew what a hit show would be - ER, Friends etc, they wouldn't fill the hours with reality TV that costs little and gets decent viewing figures (and for unfathomable reasons - great viewing figures in too many cases). Its a lot of money to throw at a show but they do it on the basis that one time in ten, they may catch lightning in a bottle.

"I threw up on your bed"

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

Saturday, August 14, 2004 8:38 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by daedalus5:
Lets face it, the execs at Fox aren't that smart. Not that I'd want to flame those truly wonderful people who cancelled the show, but, sheesh, if they wanted to, they'd have done a movie first and written off the whole set construction thing in the movie budget. They could then have done the TV show afterwards. Ala "Star Gate".

As for getting a cash cow as big as Star Trek, well, the last 2 Trek movies git dire ratings in the cinema. Heck, Nemesis didn't even get the money back that it took Paramount to make it! Para only got their money back with the international DVD sales.

Well, Star Gate the movie was made so far before the series, I don'k think your argument works - and given the gap I'm not entirely convinced that the movie retained an audience for the TV show of any magnitude. There is talk with some new movies these days of spin offs to TV shows (Van Helsing being one, clearly before they saw the clag pile that they had made), which might make more sense - but if you made a movie to launch a TV show like Firefly (where the cast would have been intended to transfer) - what happens if the film goes stellar. The cast wouldn't want a TV contract and the network would rather have a sequel for the same price as the season - with an immediate profit return unlike waiting for syndication.

I'm not certain, but I would guess that Nemesis made its money back and a small profit after everything is taken into account, but certainly not enough to make the men in suits happy.

"I threw up on your bed"

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

Saturday, August 14, 2004 8:43 AM

ELVIS

"Crackpot conspiracy theory" about nails it. Please, Fox thinking that far ahead? That'd be like Bill O'Reilly (on Fox) planning to say "shut up."

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

Saturday, August 14, 2004 11:59 AM

WILDHEAVENFARM

You know, there are some that theorize that loathesome New Coke was created solely to boost interest in Coke Classic by way of public outrage.

Mary
Always a beast, never a burden.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE