Season 5 needs funding

[Rac80]

Re: old buildings

don't forget the closed hospital used in the BSG remake where they had starbuck locked up (and were creating some sort of "nursery"). that was the same old hospital that was used in SG1's Desperate measures (where adrian conrad kidnapped sam).

re-purposing old buildings is a great way to save money when making movies --ever seen the original footloose? The place where Kevin Bacon filmed his dance sequences was little used mill called Lehi Roller Mills...they capitalized on the popularity of the movie and now have a thriving business making gourmet baking mixes. http://www.lehirollermill.com/ worked well for all involved!

 

[Briangate78]

Hey Dude, good to see you. Has the approval process changed over at Syfy? It seems like something has majorly changed, with Blood and Chrome stalled after so much teasing. Now, they are leaving open a huge gap in science fiction programming in favor of all the other cr...stuff they have been airing. Even a RE-airing of something might stimulate interest. Also, have you heard anything about this Defiance series they are whispering about?

Hey bud, good to see ya also.

If a show is making money for the network they will renew it. I don't buy into the whole replacing a show that is already making money with a show that can make more money. It is why I don't buy into the whole SGA thing. Syfy is gonna renew the shows that make them money, and that is pretty much the bottom line.

 

[YoshiKart64]

Out of the mouths of babes...

Regarding points A and B above --

Yes the unions would resist such changes, and that's a big part of the problem. Much of the bloat in these productions comes from the union requirements for staffing, crew, environment, wages, benefits, etc. You see this problem in any industry that becomes too subservient to the union mentality; it effectively strangles itself. Unions won't give up their stranglehold regardless of how suicidal it is to their entire organization. This happened in the auto industry in America and it's happening with the government teacher's unions now also. (This is not a slam on teachers, rather, it's an indictment of the bloated admin bureaucracy of their unions.)

As for TV and movie productions, the reason so much of it had moved to Canada was due to the lower cost of production in the 90's. Obviously those costs have risen and are now comparable to American production costs; the Canadian unions being a factor in these costs needless to say. Cutting a catering truck from the production list isn't an easy thing to do as chances are that it is "codefied" into the union contracts, etc. etc. In many ways the producer's hands are tied in regards to certain costs and their only choice is to cut bait and call it a day, or...

Go to someplace like Romania that, while formerly socialist, now doesn't care so much about union rules and requirements; they just want the business so they have made it economically friendly for producers to come and make their wares. And as for the quality of those productions it goes without saying that they are at the very least on par with the stuff that has been coming out of Canada for quite some time now. Yes, a crappy SyFy movie is the same whether it's produced in Canada or Romania (and let's be honest, they have produced a ton of crappy stuff in Canada). The same holds true for good quality movies and shows that are produced in other locales verses in Canada or America. So you see, just because less money is spent to produce a show or movie in a foreign locale verses in North America that doesn't mean that production will suffer in quality. You, Yoshi, want to believe that, that's all. It's called subjectivism, which seems to be your guiding philosophy. Seriously, look it up. Subjectivism = Yoshi. Nuff sed.

As for "millions" being unemployed (:roll because their talents are unneeded, what of it? If one doesn't have marketable skills and/or there simply isn't work for their skills (on a TV or movie production set no less) why should they be given a job? To take up space, breathe the air and collect an unearned paycheck? Why should I, a producer, give you, a caterer, a job on my set simply because you demand it? Where am I to get the money in order to pay you? This statement of yours reveals your youth and inexperience in the real world. Had you ever held a job where you had to manage a budget you would know that money doesn't grow on trees and reality can't be warped or bent to suit one's wishes. Reality doesn't work that way. You can fudge the numbers for only so long before reality comes back and bites you in the ass. One literally can't provide jobs to people (be it one or one million) if the budget, i.e reality, doesn't allow for it.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not anti union, I'm anti stupidity, and it's stupid to slit one's throat simply because one refuses to economize. There's no reason that the unions couldn't work with producers to reduce costs and keep some of them employed verses making them all unemployed. That is the reality of it, like it or not. Deny reality all you want Yoshi (which you usually do) but you can't evade it forever. It always comes back and sets things right. That's just how it is. A producer can't make a budget cover every single unnecessary thing including the kitchen sink. Reality just doesn't work that way, that's why it's called reality and not fantasy.

As for your second paragraph, well, as usual it's nothing but gibberish. It's been proven countless times that the audience doesn't have to accept "less" just because production costs are lowered. More money doesn't automatically mean better. John Carter ring any bells?

At any rate, you're wrong as usual Yoshi and we can only hope that when Valhalla calls the gods will have mercy on your delightfully obtuse and unrepentant soul.

If you really believe that trained camera men, producers, directors, lighting specialists etc are not needed to make a TV show look good, then it's you that refuses to accept reality. Making a piece of media is not as simple as turning on a camera and loading some editing software on a computer, it requires a great amount of talent from hundreds of people trained in their respective fields. And since they've all spent years training they deserve decent pay. We all remember the writers guild of America strike, nobody is in a rush to see that again.

The irony is that despite this being directed at the 'bloated' studios, all your suggesting is that they fire people to get their profits up. The average employee who works hard to play their part would end up without a job while the studios remain in control of the money. In return the remaining employees would be expected to do double the job for the same pay.

I think the most ironic part is that you claim the budget can't handle the current costs, when in fact it can. The current system of TV/Films is making more money than ever, while online only efforts are failing to monetize their products. Plus when you consider that nobody in the entertainment industry is actually propagating changes, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd go along with the ideas of a few forums members who have no experience whatsoever in the field.

 

[EvilSpaceAlien]

Hey bud, good to see ya also.

If a show is making money for the network they will renew it. I don't buy into the whole replacing a show that is already making money with a show that can make more money. It is why I don't buy into the whole SGA thing. Syfy is gonna renew the shows that make them money, and that is pretty much the bottom line.

Hey man, good to hear from ya. I haven't seen you in a while. But guess you've spent the past month just constantly jumping up and down, being all giddy over the upcoming Anchorman sequel, right?

 

[Overmind One]

If you really believe that trained camera men, producers, directors, lighting specialists etc are not needed to make a TV show look good, then it's you that refuses to accept reality. Making a piece of media is not as simple as turning on a camera and loading some editing software on a computer, it requires a great amount of talent from hundreds of people trained in their respective fields. And since they've all spent years training they deserve decent pay. We all remember the writers guild of America strike, nobody is in a rush to see that again.

I have to jump in here. You have obviously NEVER seen any of these shows being produced. I have been in the audiences of MANY of the network shows, been on the sets of location shoots, etc. I would say that 75% of the people at these filmings could be let go without ill effect. The Producers assistants, multiple gaffers and stange hands are not needed on a LOCATION shoot, but they are there because the contract says they will be. On the Waterworld set at Boeing's space testing tank ( a huge water tank holding several million gallons of water), there were makeup artists, TWO catering trucks, and at least 80 odd people milling around with clipboards and cigarettes. It may not be true that everything can be automated, but it is also true that the same antiquated and expensive methods being used today in TV production are the ones they used in 1955.

The irony is that despite this being directed at the 'bloated' studios, all your suggesting is that they fire people to get their profits up. The average employee who works hard to play their part would end up without a job while the studios remain in control of the money. In return the remaining employees would be expected to do double the job for the same pay.

Fire the fat, keep the meat. The writers strike you mentioned forced these top heavy studios to stop hiring their Journalist Major neices and nephews and cousins to be on writing teams they have no business being on. Lots of these useless appendages were let go during the writers strike.

I think the most ironic part is that you claim the budget can't handle the current costs, when in fact it can. The current system of TV/Films is making more money than ever, while online only efforts are failing to monetize their products. Plus when you consider that nobody in the entertainment industry is actually propagating changes, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd go along with the ideas of a few forums members who have no experience whatsoever in the field.

Yoshi, how many of these shows/films which are supposedly "making more money than ever" lasting more than a season or two? Lost made more money than ever. SGU just COST more than ever, and the money did not make it good. The point is that money is not the solution to any of this stuff. Sanctuary's popularity was built online BEFORE it became what it is today. If it now costs 2.6 million to make, then it has gained weight somewhere and a fatal stroke of cancellation may be the result.

 

[SciphonicStranger]

Just to get back on topic - my original link appears to be a dead story now. I'm not sure if that means that this Sanctuary funding issue is still in question or not.

 

[Overmind One]

Just to get back on topic - my original link appears to be a dead story now. I'm not sure if that means that this Sanctuary funding issue is still in question or not.

They will get funded I think. I hope! But hopefully Amanda and Damien will sit down with the show and put it on a diet. Getting back to basics would help. Go back to the "Men In Black-esque" foundations, and keep the stories centered on the Sanctuary. They already have the green screen sets in the can. Stop making more, stop with all the location shoots.

 

[Overmind One]

Hey bud, good to see ya also.

If a show is making money for the network they will renew it. I don't buy into the whole replacing a show that is already making money with a show that can make more money. It is why I don't buy into the whole SGA thing. Syfy is gonna renew the shows that make them money, and that is pretty much the bottom line.

Didnt SGA make more money than SGU did? If it cost less to make, and had a larger audience, wouldnt that have made it more profitable? Is there ANY possibility that it could return?

 

[OMNI]

I have to jumpm in here. You have obviously NEVER seen any of these shows being produced. I have been in the audiences of MANY of the network shows, been on the sets of location shoots, etc. I would say that 75% of the people at these filmings could be let go without ill effect. The Producers assistants, multiple gaffers and stange hands are not needed on a LOCATION shoot, but they are there because the contract says they will be. On the Waterworld set at Boeing's space testing tank ( a huge water tank holding several million gallons of water), there were makeup artists, TWO catering trucks, and at least 80 odd people milling around with clipboards and cigarettes. It may not be true that everything can be automated, but it is also true that the same antiquated and expensive methods being used today in TV production are the ones they used in 1955.



Fire the fat, keep the meat. The writers strike you mentioned forced these top heavy studios to stop hiring their Journalist Major neices and nephews and cousins to be on writing teams they have no business being on. Lots od these useless appendages were let go during the writers strike.



Yoshi, how many of these shows/films which are supposedly "making more money than ever" lasting more than a season or two? Lost made more money than ever. SGU just COST more than ever, and the money did not make it good. The point is that money is not the solution to any of this stuff. Sanctuary's popularity was built online BEFORE it became what it is today. If it now costs 2.6 million to make, then it has gained weight somewhere and a fatal stroke of cancellation may be the result.

stop bullying yoshi ESPECIALLY when its YOU who deosnt have a f$%king clue about any of this as is PAINFULLY obvious by the continous BULLSHIT you continue to spew on this topic time and TIME again.

 

[shavedape]

If you really believe that trained camera men, producers, directors, lighting specialists etc are not needed to make a TV show look good, then it's you that refuses to accept reality. Making a piece of media is not as simple as turning on a camera and loading some editing software on a computer, it requires a great amount of talent from hundreds of people trained in their respective fields. And since they've all spent years training they deserve decent pay. We all remember the writers guild of America strike, nobody is in a rush to see that again.

The irony is that despite this being directed at the 'bloated' studios, all your suggesting is that they fire people to get their profits up. The average employee who works hard to play their part would end up without a job while the studios remain in control of the money. In return the remaining employees would be expected to do double the job for the same pay.

I think the most ironic part is that you claim the budget can't handle the current costs, when in fact it can. The current system of TV/Films is making more money than ever, while online only efforts are failing to monetize their products. Plus when you consider that nobody in the entertainment industry is actually propagating changes, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd go along with the ideas of a few forums members who have no experience whatsoever in the field.

I don't know what's more stultifying, the fact that you're incapable of logical, honest thinking or that you take pride in this fact about yourself.

#1. I never said trained camera men, producers, directors, lighting specialists etc are not needed to make a TV show look good in this thread. I NEVER SAID THAT. Please, show me where I said that. Go on Yoshi, quote me where I said that in this thread. What's that, you can't? Hmm... You're so delusional you don't even know what an intellectual fraud and liar you are. Sickening, truly sickening.

#2. Please just stop with the cliche leftist gibberish about "The average employee who works hard to play their part would end up without a job while the studio parasite fat cats suck their blood until they're empty husks, blah blah, leftist unionist bullshit blah". :roll:

#3. This is the most important part so turn off Dragonball Z and pay attention kid: I have (and still do) managed budgets. I have also worked with producers and promoters for stage productions both dramatic and musical in nature. I have dealt directly with union demands for these productions. I know first hand the kind of bloat that the unions have written into their contracts. I know first hand that unions have staffing requirements that have zero to do with what is actually required for any given production. I know for a fact that if one wishes to produce something for the stage within a large venue that one will be forced to hire numerous people who are completely unneeded. One will also have to provide food and amenities for them over what the venue itself provides. I know for a fact that there is bloat bloat bloat caused by union excess in any given production. I KNOW FOR A FACT. So, how many productions have you managed Yoshi?

#4. Just as important as point #3, there is nothing wrong with producers making a profit on their productions. That's what they're in business to do. That's the whole point of producing a product -- to make a profit. Producers don't produce something so that cameramen and make up artists make a profit. It's a pretty simple economic reality that you refuse to accept (big surprise). More importantly, producers have a right to the profits they make -- a moral right. The cameramen and the make up artists do not have a moral right to the profits of the producers. They get a paycheck for the work they perform. If their services aren't needed it is immoral to require that producers provide them with unearned profits for unnecessary "work".

At any rate, it's clear I was right when I said that you had never worked a job where you had to manage a budget. Had you ever done so you would know that there's almost always room to trim said budget to economize. Had you ever done so you would know that payroll is usually the first place one begins to cut because it is the most costly. In your little distorted pea brain you erroneously believe that everyone is entitled to a job; has a "right" to a job regardless of the necessity for their talents and the budgetary considerations involved with employing them. You conveniently ignore the question of where the money will come from to pay them every week and when pressed on this important point you vaguely blather that "The current system of TV/Films is making more money than ever..." which means nothing and is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't matter how much the industry is making as a whole as that means nothing in relation to individual productions. TV shows aren't all produced by a collective entity; they're produced by private, separate companies. Those companies don't all succeed in their productions as evinced by the high failure rate of shows every single year. I could go on and on about this point but the fact that you even bothered to type such nonsense proves that you're willfully delusional.

Do us all a favor kid, get out in the real world and work a job where you experience some reality. Manage a budget and then come back here and edify us on how basic economics work. I can't wait to see how you manage to unnecessarily employ people with imaginary money that grows on the magic tree in your mom's back yard. Good luck with that.

 

[YoshiKart64]

I don't know what's more stultifying, the fact that you're incapable of logical, honest thinking or that you take pride in this fact about yourself.

#1. I never said trained camera men, producers, directors, lighting specialists etc are not needed to make a TV show look good in this thread. I NEVER SAID THAT. Please, show me where I said that. Go on Yoshi, quote me where I said that in this thread. What's that, you can't? Hmm... You're so delusional you don't even know what an intellectual fraud and liar you are. Sickening, truly sickening.

#2. Please just stop with the cliche leftist gibberish about "The average employee who works hard to play their part would end up without a job while the studio parasite fat cats suck their blood until they're empty husks, blah blah, leftist unionist bull$#@! blah". :roll:

#3. This is the most important part so turn off Dragonball Z and pay attention kid: I have (and still do) managed budgets. I have also worked with producers and promoters for stage productions both dramatic and musical in nature. I have dealt directly with union demands for these productions. I know first hand the kind of bloat that the unions have written into their contracts. I know first hand that unions have staffing requirements that have zero to do with what is actually required for any given production. I know for a fact that if one wishes to produce something for the stage within a large venue that one will be forced to hire numerous people who are completely unneeded. One will also have to provide food and amenities for them over what the venue itself provides. I know for a fact that there is bloat bloat bloat caused by union excess in any given production. I KNOW FOR A FACT. So, how many productions have you managed Yoshi?

#4. Just as important as point #3, there is nothing wrong with producers making a profit on their productions. That's what they're in business to do. That's the whole point of producing a product -- to make a profit. Producers don't produce something so that cameramen and make up artists make a profit. It's a pretty simple economic reality that you refuse to accept (big surprise). More importantly, producers have a right to the profits they make -- a moral right. The cameramen and the make up artists do not have a moral right to the profits of the producers. They get a paycheck for the work they perform. If their services aren't needed it is immoral to require that producers provide them with unearned profits for unnecessary "work".

At any rate, it's clear I was right when I said that you had never worked a job where you had to manage a budget. Had you ever done so you would know that there's almost always room to trim said budget to economize. Had you ever done so you would know that payroll is usually the first place one begins to cut because it is the most costly. In your little distorted pea brain you erroneously believe that everyone is entitled to a job; has a "right" to a job regardless of the necessity for their talents and the budgetary considerations involved with employing them. You conveniently ignore the question of where the money will come from to pay them every week and when pressed on this important point you vaguely blather that "The current system of TV/Films is making more money than ever..." which means nothing and is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't matter how much the industry is making as a whole as that means nothing in relation to individual productions. TV shows aren't all produced by a collective entity; they're produced by private, separate companies. Those companies don't all succeed in their productions as evinced by the high failure rate of shows every single year. I could go on and on about this point but the fact that you even bothered to type such nonsense proves that you're willfully delusional.

Do us all a favor kid, get out in the real world and work a job where you experience some reality. Manage a budget and then come back here and edify us on how basic economics work. I can't wait to see how you manage to unnecessarily employ people with imaginary money that grows on the magic tree in your mom's back yard. Good luck with that.

Despite the hilariously overblown nature of your responses (an intellectual fraud and liar? Really now, it's nice to know I can 'sicken' you with such moderate words) I will respond.

I'm not arguing that there isn't any bloat in the industry, I'm simply suggesting that you wouldn't be able to cut the amount of money needed just by firing those periphery workers. Since most TV shows make a healthy profit, why risk things by laying off people who might have proved useful later on. To answer 'where does the money come from?', well it's been there for decades now so there is hardly a problem obtaining it.

Plus your argument that the high failure rate of TV shows having anything to do with the budget is insanely misleading. The production companies get paid for the season of Television anyway so they've still made a profit even if the show is cancelled. Even a successful channel like CBS cuts a percentage of its lowest rated shows each year, even when they make a profit, because it needs to make room for newer ones. The only people who suffer from a failed show are the networks and they have a business model that accommodates shows that don't take off. Everybody else just moves onto the next production.

If you really think you can redefine the Film and Television industry and produce the same quality of show with hundreds of thousands dollars less, then you really should be working for a large production company like 20th Cent Television. If somebody came along with a plan to produce a show that looked the same, but cost less, then obviously they'd jump at the chance.

 

[Overmind One]

stop bullying yoshi ESPECIALLY when its YOU who deosnt have a f%^king clue about any of this as is PAINFULLY obvious by the continous BULLSHIT you continue to spew on this topic time and TIME again.

WTF? What is "bullshit" about having been on multiple filming locations and in TV audiences? I am not bullying Yoshi, and I am not talking bullshit. Perhaps you should rephrase your comments when you do not know what the deal is. I have been on these deals hooking up stuff, I have been to the larger studios and have posted pictures from MGM's studio building here. Unless you are trying to call me a liar, just disagree. How many location shoots have YOU been on ??? I do not profess to know how the finances or the contracts are made, but I know what I have SEEN with my own eyes.

I have seen it from the setup, the rolling in of the studio trucks, and then watched as over 100 people sat around and did NOTHING but eat catered food and smoke cigarettes. I was on a TV set at CBS and watched as the 2nd and 3rd cameramen drank Starbucks and never manned their cameras at all. This is costing SOMEBODY money and if those cameramen were fired what would change? The bottom line would be minus those extra unneeded men. Perhaps they were contracted for those jobs which needed more than one cameraman, I dont know. But the Industry is top heavy and I am living in California where a huge portion of what people watch is created and filmed/shot for TV. I interact with Industry people on a regular basis. I talk with them, I get into the studio offices in Burbank and Studio City and Culver City and Warner Studios regularly. Bullshit indeed!

 

[Overmind One]

I don't know what's more stultifying, the fact that you're incapable of logical, honest thinking or that you take pride in this fact about yourself.

#1. I never said trained camera men, producers, directors, lighting specialists etc are not needed to make a TV show look good in this thread. I NEVER SAID THAT. Please, show me where I said that. Go on Yoshi, quote me where I said that in this thread. What's that, you can't? Hmm... You're so delusional you don't even know what an intellectual fraud and liar you are. Sickening, truly sickening.

#2. Please just stop with the cliche leftist gibberish about "The average employee who works hard to play their part would end up without a job while the studio parasite fat cats suck their blood until they're empty husks, blah blah, leftist unionist bullshit blah". :roll:

#3. This is the most important part so turn off Dragonball Z and pay attention kid: I have (and still do) managed budgets. I have also worked with producers and promoters for stage productions both dramatic and musical in nature. I have dealt directly with union demands for these productions. I know first hand the kind of bloat that the unions have written into their contracts. I know first hand that unions have staffing requirements that have zero to do with what is actually required for any given production. I know for a fact that if one wishes to produce something for the stage within a large venue that one will be forced to hire numerous people who are completely unneeded. One will also have to provide food and amenities for them over what the venue itself provides. I know for a fact that there is bloat bloat bloat caused by union excess in any given production. I KNOW FOR A FACT. So, how many productions have you managed Yoshi?

#4. Just as important as point #3, there is nothing wrong with producers making a profit on their productions. That's what they're in business to do. That's the whole point of producing a product -- to make a profit. Producers don't produce something so that cameramen and make up artists make a profit. It's a pretty simple economic reality that you refuse to accept (big surprise). More importantly, producers have a right to the profits they make -- a moral right. The cameramen and the make up artists do not have a moral right to the profits of the producers. They get a paycheck for the work they perform. If their services aren't needed it is immoral to require that producers provide them with unearned profits for unnecessary "work".

At any rate, it's clear I was right when I said that you had never worked a job where you had to manage a budget. Had you ever done so you would know that there's almost always room to trim said budget to economize. Had you ever done so you would know that payroll is usually the first place one begins to cut because it is the most costly. In your little distorted pea brain you erroneously believe that everyone is entitled to a job; has a "right" to a job regardless of the necessity for their talents and the budgetary considerations involved with employing them. You conveniently ignore the question of where the money will come from to pay them every week and when pressed on this important point you vaguely blather that "The current system of TV/Films is making more money than ever..." which means nothing and is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't matter how much the industry is making as a whole as that means nothing in relation to individual productions. TV shows aren't all produced by a collective entity; they're produced by private, separate companies. Those companies don't all succeed in their productions as evinced by the high failure rate of shows every single year. I could go on and on about this point but the fact that you even bothered to type such nonsense proves that you're willfully delusional.

Do us all a favor kid, get out in the real world and work a job where you experience some reality. Manage a budget and then come back here and edify us on how basic economics work. I can't wait to see how you manage to unnecessarily employ people with imaginary money that grows on the magic tree in your mom's back yard. Good luck with that.

THANK YOU. You know, I wouldnt be talking about this subject from this viewpoint if I had not also seen much of what you describe. Granted, I am usually only in these Industry locations to set up computer equipment or troubleshoot stuff, but I talk to these people and I have been on location shoots setting up computers. I see the waste. I see the catering trucks, the Starbucks gallon containers, the incredible waste of time and personnel. I was at a location in Manhattan Beach about a month ago, and watched as some of the people just made trips to the catering truck and sat and watched everything. Talking to one of them, I found out she was a production assistant and she was whining that she had to be there because "the Agreement" said she had to be. What I dont get is where Yoshi and OMNI are getting the idea that all of this bloat is necessary. I do not expect that movies will be made on cellphones next year, but to say that the current bloated methods and culture of the Industry is in any sense efficient or cost effective is RIDICULOUS.

 

[Overmind One]

Despite the hilariously overblown nature of your responses (an intellectual fraud and liar? Really now, it's nice to know I can 'sicken' you with such moderate words) I will respond.

I'm not arguing that there isn't any bloat in the industry, I'm simply suggesting that you wouldn't be able to cut the amount of money needed just by firing those periphery workers. Since most TV shows make a healthy profit, why risk things by laying off people who might have proved useful later on. To answer 'where does the money come from?', well it's been there for decades now so there is hardly a problem obtaining it.

Did you really print that statement? If there was "no problem obtaining the money", then why do the shows have to struggle with the renewal process, and why is money an issue for Sanctuary right now? Just wow.

Plus your argument that the high failure rate of TV shows having anything to do with the budget is insanely misleading. The production companies get paid for the season of Television anyway so they've still made a profit even if the show is cancelled. Even a successful channel like CBS cuts a percentage of its lowest rated shows each year, even when they make a profit, because it needs to make room for newer ones. The only people who suffer from a failed show are the networks and they have a business model that accommodates shows that don't take off. Everybody else just moves onto the next production.

If advertisers will not pay for enough slots in any show, then the show will be cancelled. If the cost of the show does not come in under what the advertisers will pay for a show, it will be cancelled. The ratings of the show influence the advertising dollars, not the studios.

If you really think you can redefine the Film and Television industry and produce the same quality of show with hundreds of thousands dollars less, then you really should be working for a large production company like 20th Cent Television. If somebody came along with a plan to produce a show that looked the same, but cost less, then obviously they'd jump at the chance.

The large companies are still stuck in the 1950s as far as production. I would like to see some smaller more technologically savvy players come out of the woodwork. And it will happen because the ultra-bloat of the studios is unsustainable.

 

[Joelist]

They will get funded I think. I hope! But hopefully Amanda and Damien will sit down with the show and put it on a diet. Getting back to basics would help. Go back to the "Men In Black-esque" foundations, and keep the stories centered on the Sanctuary. They already have the green screen sets in the can. Stop making more, stop with all the location shoots.

They set the foundation to do exactly that in the last couple of episodes of the previous season.

 

[Overmind One]

They set the foundation to do exactly that in the last couple of episodes of the previous season.

That is good to know. Perhaps they will be able to go a few more seasons!

 

[YoshiKart64]

Did you really print that statement? If there was "no problem obtaining the money", then why do the shows have to struggle with the renewal process, and why is money an issue for Sanctuary right now? Just wow.
[/COLOR]


If advertisers will not pay for enough slots in any show, then the show will be cancelled. If the cost of the show does not come in under what the advertisers will pay for a show, it will be cancelled. The ratings of the show influence the advertising dollars, not the studios.



The large companies are still stuck in the 1950s as far as production. I would like to see some smaller more technologically savvy players come out of the woodwork. And it will happen because the ultra-bloat of the studios is unsustainable.

Shows struggle with the renewal process because anything performing under the ratings average is seen as expendable. Regardless of how many people are watching, some shows will always be at the bottom end of the scale. The article at the start of the page already answered your sanctuary question. It's privately funded, unlike nearly every TV show out there right now. Ironically the idea of smaller companies making cheaper shows through their own means is exactly the type of approach you were propagating. Only this shows the types of problems that go along with that.

Renewing a show is not a simple 'does it make money?' If yes, renew', it's all about rating averages. If it was about making money that CBS wouldn't need to cancel any of it's shows right now. And again, the production companies are still getting paid for the shows even if they get cancelled.

As for the ultra-bloat, well the money is still rolling in for those companies so they are hardly in a position of worry. When they can throw $200 million at Transformers and get a $1.1 billion dollar return they ask for more where that came from. When big budget shows like Game of Thrones wins big, HBO is hardly likely to settle for cheap looking green screen productions.

As for your very last point; is there a market for really cheap shows? Maybe, but until Netflix finds a way to monetize it we're left with technology that is simply unable to compete with the grandiose of location shoots and big budget productions.

SIDEBAR: As a kind of aside your not suggesting that green screen replace location shoots? I love the way real locations look. Certainly green screen has it's place but it has an undeniably different feel that I really wouldn't want in some types of shows.

 

[Overmind One]

Shows struggle with the renewal process because anything performing under the ratings average is seen as expendable. Regardless of how many people are watching, some shows will always be at the bottom end of the scale. The article at the start of the page already answered your sanctuary question. It's privately funded, unlike nearly every TV show out there right now. Ironically the idea of smaller companies making cheaper shows through their own means is exactly the type of approach you were propagating. Only this shows the types of problems that go along with that.

Renewing a show is not a simple 'does it make money?' If yes, renew', it's all about rating averages. If it was about making money that CBS wouldn't need to cancel any of it's shows right now. And again, the production companies are still getting paid for the shows even if they get cancelled.

As for the ultra-bloat, well the money is still rolling in for those companies so they are hardly in a position of worry. When they can throw $200 million at Transformers and get a $1.1 billion dollar return they ask for more where that came from. When big budget shows like Game of Thrones wins big, HBO is hardly likely to settle for cheap looking green screen productions.

As for your very last point; is there a market for really cheap shows? Maybe, but until Netflix finds a way to monetize it we're left with technology that is simply unable to compete with the grandiose of location shoots and big budget productions.

SIDEBAR: As a kind of aside your not suggesting that green screen replace location shoots? I love the way real locations look. Certainly green screen has it's place but it has an undeniably different feel that I really wouldn't want in some types of shows.

This was a good response. It makes sense. However, the ultra bloat cannot and will not continue. As the venue of theaters continues to shrink in terms of an audience (because of bloat on the consumer level at the theaters), online offerings will make things more competitive. Small cable providers or future web providers will not be able to afford to air the bloated stuff from the studios. Granted, the product may be superior, but how much of a premium will they be willing to pay?

As far as location shoots, I love them too and I dont feel that green screen can ever replace it. But to see how they do it is disgustingly wasteful. Like you said, they have the money right now so why change it? I just hope that some creative producers start taking advantage of what is available to make some exception entertainment. I do not advocate dismantling or nationalizing the Industry!

 

[shavedape]

THANK YOU. You know, I wouldnt be talking about this subject from this viewpoint if I had not also seen much of what you describe. Granted, I am usually only in these Industry locations to set up computer equipment or troubleshoot stuff, but I talk to these people and I have been on location shoots setting up computers. I see the waste. I see the catering trucks, the Starbucks gallon containers, the incredible waste of time and personnel. I was at a location in Manhattan Beach about a month ago, and watched as some of the people just made trips to the catering truck and sat and watched everything. Talking to one of them, I found out she was a production assistant and she was whining that she had to be there because "the Agreement" said she had to be. What I dont get is where Yoshi and OMNI are getting the idea that all of this bloat is necessary. I do not expect that movies will be made on cellphones next year, but to say that the current bloated methods and culture of the Industry is in any sense efficient or cost effective is RIDICULOUS.

And yet they accuse you and me of not knowing what the hell we're talking about when it comes to the realities of budgets and simple mathematics. Yup, that's right, neither of us has ever had to manage budgets for staff and payroll so clearly we don't know what the hell we're talking about.


As for our experience with dramatic productions, anyone who has ever had a passing association with any sort of large scale production, be it stage or screen, quickly learns the reality associated with costs. Your anecdote about the production assistant that was whining because she had to work due to the agreement is true. I know it's true because I've seen that very thing when producing concerts with a friend (don't even get me going about the unnecessary catering requirements). I've also dealt with large scale plays that required the same staffing bloat due to union/venue requirements. Nothing like paying people to stand around and chew gum for 8 hours a day; more for overtime which is now based on going over 8 hours in a day, not over 40 hours in a week. God forbid the unnecessary clock-watcher have to "work" for a whole 9 hour shift. Heaven forfend!

Yup, we're just two ignorant blowhards who can't possibly understand that Sanctuary can't possibly find ways to make budget cuts and requires upwards of 3 million to produce each episode. Surely there is no fat that could be cut there, at least none that matters because you can't make a super cool show (or even a mediocre one apparently) without spending tons and tons of money on needless "support" staff and sundry peripheral crew. I don't know about you OM1 but I, for one, am ashamed of my ignorance when it comes to understanding simple economics.

 

[shavedape]

Shows struggle with the renewal process because anything performing under the ratings average is seen as expendable. Regardless of how many people are watching, some shows will always be at the bottom end of the scale. The article at the start of the page already answered your sanctuary question. It's privately funded, unlike nearly every TV show out there right now. Ironically the idea of smaller companies making cheaper shows through their own means is exactly the type of approach you were propagating. Only this shows the types of problems that go along with that.

Renewing a show is not a simple 'does it make money?' If yes, renew', it's all about rating averages. If it was about making money that CBS wouldn't need to cancel any of it's shows right now. And again, the production companies are still getting paid for the shows even if they get cancelled.

As for the ultra-bloat, well the money is still rolling in for those companies so they are hardly in a position of worry. When they can throw $200 million at Transformers and get a $1.1 billion dollar return they ask for more where that came from. When big budget shows like Game of Thrones wins big, HBO is hardly likely to settle for cheap looking green screen productions.

As for your very last point; is there a market for really cheap shows? Maybe, but until Netflix finds a way to monetize it we're left with technology that is simply unable to compete with the grandiose of location shoots and big budget productions.

SIDEBAR: As a kind of aside your not suggesting that green screen replace location shoots? I love the way real locations look. Certainly green screen has it's place but it has an undeniably different feel that I really wouldn't want in some types of shows.

The sheer ignorance with which you pridefully bloviate in your posts is so egregious that in a way I almost respect you. It takes effort to completely deny reality the way you do. Kudos sir, kudos!

M'kay, sorry to pop your balloon (again...again) but money and ratings are synonymous. You're trying desperately hard to make them mean something that they don't but the fact is that ratings directly translate to money. That's pretty much their function; they are a scale the networks use to determine value, i.e. money money money.

What's sick (and therefore fascinating about your psyche) is that you, being the typical ignorant Leftist that you are, refuse to recognize facts of reality such as the one I have just laid out. You think by being vague and obfuscating and slithering around words that that somehow makes the fantasies in your head become reality. You truly believe that ratings don't translate into dollars because that way you can frame your argument to make your point. How "sickitating".

Also, your belief that all production companies get paid in full and always make a profit regardless of the ratings outcome would be laughable if it wasn't so incredibly delusional. Again, I almost respect the way you make these erroneous statements because they are so outlandish and audacious in the way you present them. The only thing keeping me from actually complimenting you on them is the fact that they're, well, erroneous. You'd know this if you ever managed a budget for a real job let alone simply observed the facts of objective reality. What you conveniently fail to recognize is this:

Production companies take risks in producing material; their investors take risks. It's called "up front costs" and anyone who has ever run their own business knows this simple fact of reality. You need start-up capital and that money is almost never made back in the first year. Just because a studio and/or network reimburses a production company for a product that is no guarantee that their up front costs (producer's paycheck, equipment, facilities, crews, transportation, insurance, basic overhead, etc.) are covered. So what if Syfy pays me for only 3 episodes of a failed show I produced for them (GateFans -- the series!). That payment for 3 episodes can't possibly cover my out of pocket costs for starting up my production business to begin with. The lease on my production offices doesn't end just because the show I produced for SyFy was cancelled. My car and truck payments don't end. The money I've spent on production equipment doesn't get magically recouped by Keebler elves as it sits collecting dust in my warehouse, which also has a lease that needs to be paid. The bills for a production business don't stop coming in when the show one is producing is canceled.

And if you're going to argue that one could simply produce something else and get paid from the studio/network then please explain how easy it is to secure funding when one has a failed track record? And please explain how I, as a producer, manage to pay my bills during the interim between projects? Perhaps you'll be so kind as to send me some cash from that money tree that grows in your mom's back yard. :roll:

Seriously Yoshi, you're arguing things that you really don't understand. The fact that you conveniently avoid discussing the economics of producing anything proves that you are just talking out of your ass. You've clearly never managed a budget in a working environment. You've clearly never worked in, or had any tangible experience with, the stage or cinematic industry (other than reading ratings blogs online, which isn't "tangible" experience, that's just fanboy masturbation). Conversely I have tangible experience in this field. I know what it takes to economize a budget. I've also worked in the dramatic and musical arts industry. I have direct experience with producing professional stage acts. I also have experience in the writing industry and have met and associated with myriad industry professionals from Broadway producers to Disney channel writers to Broadway photographers, etc. I may not be an expert on the TV or movie industry but I do know a thing or two about how things are produced. I also know that you're Pollyanna belief that production companies get away unscathed financially regardless of ratings (i.e. money) is laughably erroneous.