The Fate of Blood and Chrome May Be Online

[heisenberg]

Did anybody see this coming? Apparently SyFy is showing a disturbing lack of faith in Sci Fi, the genre it purportedly champions, yet again. According to AOL TV, Blood and Chrome, the two-hour pilot for a possible series recounting the early days of William Adama and the first Cylon War is nearly complete and has been screened for SyFy execs. But instead of rallying behind the prequel to their critically-acclaimed Battlestar Galactica, word is that they are considering releasing the show on the web instead.
Although it was originally designed to be a series of webisodes to be shot on greenscreen, the production was upgraded to TV movie/pilot status when Syfy’s other BSG-related show, Caprica, was cancelled.
Word is that the script was quite good and there is certainly a lot of interest from the fan community in Blood and Chrome, yet it baffles us that the network does not see a place for it in their television programming schedule amongst their airings of WWE wrestling and SyFy’s own Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus sequels.

huh? This was totally unexpected.
Here is what I am seeing syfy is doing.
Either...
1.They are testing an experimental business model and hoping that more people will watch online rather than TV.
OR...
2.Syfy has zero faith in science fiction and don't really want to see a TV show being made.

Is it worth the risk?
http://www.cinemaspy.com/television-news/the-fate-of-blood-and-chrome-may-be-online-9963/

 

[Graybrew1]

Syfy=Total Fail

 

[SciphonicStranger]

Doesn't SyFy pay the same price to the producers either way?

 

[Illiterati]

They wouldn't want this show to interfere with their all-important wrestling and reality show channel format.

I mean, REALLY!

 

[Overmind One]

Wha? I think that Syfy has become the "junk drawer" of the internet.

huh? This was totally unexpected.
Here is what I am seeing syfy is doing.
Either...
1.They are testing an experimental business model and hoping that more people will watch online rather than TV.
OR...
2.Syfy has zero faith in science fiction and don't really want to see a TV show being made.

Is it worth the risk?
http://www.cinemaspy.com/television-news/the-fate-of-blood-and-chrome-may-be-online-9963/

What are they doing? They went from the Sci Fi Channel which aired great science fiction and a variety of other shows to being Syfy the wrestling, cooking, reality show channel. Now, they want to release something significant like Blood and Chrome which was hyped early, and release it ON THE WEB? Unless they plan to create an online presence like Netflix or Hulu+, it will fall flat. But they can save money on advertising. It could represent a transition to releasing shows on the web instead of on the air/cable. It could create a new distribution model too.

 

[Gatefan1976]

What are they doing? They went from the Sci Fi Channel which aired great science fiction and a variety of other shows to being Syfy the wrestling, cooking, reality show channel. Now, they want to release something significant like Blood and Chrome which was hyped early, and release it ON THE WEB? Unless they plan to create an online presence like Netflix or Hulu+, it will fall flat. But they can save money on advertising. It could represent a transition to releasing shows on the web instead of on the air/cable. It could create a new distribution model too.

And Bingo was his name O
All evidence points towards the Scifi crowd "abandoning" TV, why the HELL would you support it?? (scifi on a dedicated channel) This is a case of a network chasing the fans and you guys sledge it to an extent, WHY???

Seriously, I feel for these guys, they cancel what you think is "crap", they chase the market you want and It's crap as well??
What do you want??
All scifi every hour is a nice idea, and it works here because we pay crappy syndication costs for basicly being a year behind, but that doesn't work in the "consumer driven market" of the US.
Shit, you guys slag the introduction of WWE on friday nights, but when offered a freaking tailor made alternative in re-watches, no one shows up??
Really, what the hell do people want??
New Scifi??
Look beyond Syfy, and you all already do, so what is the prob??
Sheesh!!

 

[Atlantis]

Dear lord a sequels to Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus

No comments as for this, well I don't know it might or might not work. I doubt they care, do you think say in 5-10 years time Syfy will change its name because it won't be a Sci-Fi Channel anymore.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

Give me Blood and Chrome!
I want it.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

And Bingo was his name O
All evidence points towards the Scifi crowd "abandoning" TV, why the HELL would you support it?? (scifi on a dedicated channel) This is a case of a network chasing the fans and you guys sledge it to an extent, WHY???

Seriously, I feel for these guys, they cancel what you think is "crap", they chase the market you want and It's crap as well??
What do you want??
All scifi every hour is a nice idea, and it works here because we pay crappy syndication costs for basicly being a year behind, but that doesn't work in the "consumer driven market" of the US.
Shit, you guys slag the introduction of WWE on friday nights, but when offered a freaking tailor made alternative in re-watches, no one shows up??
Really, what the hell do people want??
New Scifi??
Look beyond Syfy, and you all already do, so what is the prob??
Sheesh!!

My, bro, you sound a little pissed here.
I don't think I'm really getting your point though.
What exactly is it that you are whipping "us" for?

 

[Rac80]

it worked for sanctuary...it was a web show before syfy picked it up. maybe they want to see if that will work again?

 

[Stonelesscutter]

it worked for sanctuary...it was a web show before syfy picked it up. maybe they want to see if that will work again?

Yes, but I don't think SyFy was involved in the webisodes. This time SyFy wants to start a new series and then later decides it might want to do it as webisodes.

 

[Rac80]

Yes, but I don't think SyFy was involved in the webisodes. This time SyFy wants to start a new series and then later decides it might want to do it as webisodes.

it worked for amanda tapping why not syfy..it's an inexpensive way to test out a show, I'm sure.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

it worked for amanda tapping why not syfy..it's an inexpensive way to test out a show, I'm sure.

Yes but I understood that they already forked out plenty of dough to create the pilot. Or did I missunderstand?

 

[Overmind One]

The prob is with the greedy studios, not the audience.

And Bingo was his name O
All evidence points towards the Scifi crowd "abandoning" TV, why the HELL would you support it?? (scifi on a dedicated channel) This is a case of a network chasing the fans and you guys sledge it to an extent, WHY???

Seriously, I feel for these guys, they cancel what you think is "crap", they chase the market you want and It's crap as well??
What do you want??
All scifi every hour is a nice idea, and it works here because we pay crappy syndication costs for basicly being a year behind, but that doesn't work in the "consumer driven market" of the US.
Shit, you guys slag the introduction of WWE on friday nights, but when offered a freaking tailor made alternative in re-watches, no one shows up??
Really, what the hell do people want??
New Scifi??
Look beyond Syfy, and you all already do, so what is the prob??
Sheesh!!

Netflix is getting hammered with high contract costs to air the shows they want to air. First by Sony, now soon by Disney. The problem is that the studios do not want to lost all that money they currently get by having people subscribe to cable channels they own, and it also cuts out the interstitial ads they sell which go BETWEEN the scheduled shows on TV programming (and it IS programming, just like a computer program). If they cannot control when things will be aired, they cannot create their neat sliding scales and pitch advertising slots based on audience participation in certain time slots, etc.

Like you said, basically everyone here and elsewhere in the scifi world is abandoning TV altogether in favor of watching things in their own collections or selecting their viewing from choices on Netflix or other on-demand internet based entities. Right now, there is no distribution model that would be acceptable to studios who are doing business the 20th century way. Its because they cant see how to MAKE MONEY doing it the 21st century way. Advertising is not going to cut it anymore. The new model will need to rely on subscription fees and/or pay-per-view models with NO advertising. The internet-based entertainment model will not be under their control, it will be the choice of the audience which will make or break shows. Social networking will spread the word on good shows as well as stinkers. The mainstream critics will have even less relevance than they do now. Even awards shows will change. How will the Academy awards include a CGI actor? What will become of the Screen Actor's Guild?

Its a paradigm shift. Its all good from where I sit...

 

[YoshiKart64]

Nobody has found a way to make money by simply creating a show for online consumption. People won't pay per show, and even if they did it wouldn't gather anywhere near as much money as advertising does. If network/basic cable falls though, there simply won't be as much money to make TV shows and what's left will be hideously expensive.

We moan at a lot of what these big companies do, but it's because of these casual shows and adverts that the money is actually in the business. Web based content is all low budget and I can't see how that will evolve; the only people able to put out shows when they want is the premium cable companies. And you really have to pay a lot for that per network.

Could somebody start a premium network for Sci-fi shows that included online access (even the BBC monitors it's excellent iplayer service and counts viewers as equal) and operated purely based on subscriber levels? Yes. Obviously right now the people with money believe that we won't pay for that kind of service.

 

[Overmind One]

Nobody has found a way to make money by simply creating a show for online consumption. People won't pay per show, and even if they did it wouldn't gather anywhere near as much money as advertising does. If network/basic cable falls though, there simply won't be as much money to make TV shows and what's left will be hideously expensive.

PRECISELY. Thats the problem, not the technology and not the audience. Its all based on studios making money producing shows. But that WILL change. The magical world of CGI (winking at OMNI) puts the power of production into individuals who are not associated with studios or advertisers. I dont see a way to do these shows using any 20th century model. But the pay-per-view model does work for that. I would pay a nominal fee per view for something like the latest Planet of the Apes movie or even a series if I knew there would be no advertising and I could watch it when I want. Its coming for sure...

We moan at a lot of what these big companies do, but it's because of these casual shows and adverts that the money is actually in the business. Web based content is all low budget and I can't see how that will evolve; the only people able to put out shows when they want is the premium cable companies. And you really have to pay a lot for that per network.

That will change. Audiences ALREADY have alternate choices. The independent filmmakers will get a shot at it for once. It has already happened to the music industry.

Could somebody start a premium network for Sci-fi shows that included online access (even the BBC monitors it's excellent iplayer service and counts viewers as equal) and operated purely based on subscriber levels? Yes. Obviously right now the people with money believe that we won't pay for that kind of service.

EXACTLY. But somebody will come up with a model just like what is on cable. And when that happens, it will have to be with NO ties to greedy conglomerate studios. The Sanctuary model is a great example...its almost what things need to be, with lots of independence and low cost green screen technology and limited location shoots. Right now, Netflix is being strong armed because they are airing shows produced by these studios. But if the content becomes heavily independent, then they will not have to rely on any studios, and all deals will be made with the producers and effectively cut out the big fat greedy studios.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Netflix is getting hammered with high contract costs to air the shows they want to air. First by Sony, now soon by Disney.

Yes they are, because the netflix system from what I understand is a very poor business model. I seem to recall saying as much on a thread some months ago, even before the sony pullout happened. Actually, "realisticly" it's not such a bad model, the owners just picked a niche market where the "big boys" can just pwn them at will. I predict that within a few years tops the studio's will have thier own "netflix" style net services for thier own material only. After that, EVERYTHING will come down to who really owns the internet infastructure across the world.

The problem is that the studios do not want to lost all that money they currently get by having people subscribe to cable channels they own, and it also cuts out the interstitial ads they sell which go BETWEEN the scheduled shows on TV programming (and it IS programming, just like a computer program). If they cannot control when things will be aired, they cannot create their neat sliding scales and pitch advertising slots based on audience participation in certain time slots, etc.

Huh??
Can you clarify here please dude??

Like you said, basically everyone here and elsewhere in the scifi world is abandoning TV altogether in favor of watching things in their own collections or selecting their viewing from choices on Netflix or other on-demand internet based entities. Right now, there is no distribution model that would be acceptable to studios who are doing business the 20th century way. Its because they cant see how to MAKE MONEY doing it the 21st century way.

No one can nail that one down Bro, and the people who do are gonna be stinking rich. Netflix as an entity right now i justs not viable, it is subject to the whims of studios as you noted and with no product to sell, they go "tits up" I see netflix as an "experiment" by the studio's to see if what amounts to "direct marketing" via the internet will work, with all the benifits of being able to kill the experiment at any time and without having to front the costs or the consumer.

Advertising is not going to cut it anymore. The new model will need to rely on subscription fees and/or pay-per-view models with NO advertising.

Not gonna work bro. You are making the classic mistake of assuming that Television and television shows are part of the "entertainment industry" where in reality they are not. Television exists to provide advertisers a way to easily mass market to people, the shows are just a means to and end, no more. Thats not to say that the people MAKING the shows think that way (at least initially), but that is the hard truth.

The internet-based entertainment model will not be under their control, it will be the choice of the audience which will make or break shows.

Not under who's control??
As to the choice by the audience, they already DO make or break shows. Sure it may not be a straight line under the Neilson system, but the audience do very much make or break shows.

Social networking will spread the word on good shows as well as stinkers. The mainstream critics will have even less relevance than they do now. Even awards shows will change. How will the Academy awards include a CGI actor? What will become of the Screen Actor's Guild?

Yes, social networking will become the new focus of marketing, I would have thought the whole "experiment" of SGUS would have made that entirely clear to people, especially us "old timers". the problem is that it has not been embraced directly in alot of shows. Tell ya what OM, one night, DVR Monday night RAW, don't watch the wresting stuff (just FF that stuff), but look at the the way it is sold to the consumer in "talk spots", post ad return messages and icons on screen. The WWE flogs the living crap out of itself in social media by having an "annonoymos GM" who communicates via E-mail, banging on about what the wrestlers twitter or FB, having a PPV dedicated to what the fans want who vote via FB/twitter/email. For a bunch of "low rent hick's" thier marketing dept kicks nine shades of crap out of most programming

Its a paradigm shift. Its all good from where I sit...

Indeed it is a paradigm shift, but I don't think it will turn out the way scifi fans like us may like.

 

[Overmind One]

Yes they are, because the netflix system from what I understand is a very poor business model. I seem to recall saying as much on a thread some months ago, even before the sony pullout happened. Actually, "realisticly" it's not such a bad model, the owners just picked a niche market where the "big boys" can just pwn them at will. I predict that within a few years tops the studio's will have thier own "netflix" style net services for thier own material only. After that, EVERYTHING will come down to who really owns the internet infastructure across the world.

I remember that discussion! Thing is, if the studios do that and they stick advertising in there, many many people will not pay for such a service. Research has shown that people are willing to pay a premium to eliminate all advertising from their entertainment. Its the original marketing incentive they used...no advertising, no commercials. It lasted commercial free for about three years until slowly the ads started creeping in. Now, people are PAYING for the same experience that used to be free on broadcast television in its heyday.

Huh??
Can you clarify here please dude??

This?

The problem is that the studios do not want to lost all that money they currently get by having people subscribe to cable channels they own, and it also cuts out the interstitial ads they sell which go BETWEEN the scheduled shows on TV programming (and it IS programming, just like a computer program). If they cannot control when things will be aired, they cannot create their neat sliding scales and pitch advertising slots based on audience participation in certain time slots, etc.

Im saying that Disney and Sony and others who own cable channels and/or studios do not want entities like Netflix to become the preferred means of watching movies because they cannot pitch time slots to advertisers. How can there be a lucrative timeslot if people are chosing when they want to watch what they watch? The interstitial ads that happen between shows accounts for LOTS of advertising revenue. In an on-demans model, such an interstitial period between shows does not exist. They might use the beginning of the movie to show them, but after that it would be considered a commercial break, and many people would and do find that unacceptable in a paid service. On-demans programming destroys much of the advertising revenue machine. Hope that clears things a bit.

No one can nail that one down Bro, and the people who do are gonna be stinking rich. Netflix as an entity right now i justs not viable, it is subject to the whims of studios as you noted and with no product to sell, they go "tits up" I see netflix as an "experiment" by the studio's to see if what amounts to "direct marketing" via the internet will work, with all the benifits of being able to kill the experiment at any time and without having to front the costs or the consumer.

Somebody will...it will be a new marketing model and in order for it to really be successful, it will need to be INDEPENDENT of all major studios and advertising entities. The studios will have to make money in a different fashion, and the rise of independent, smaller studios will become a trend. All of this assumes that the studios dont own Netflix...is there something ablout Netflix I am unaware of?

Not gonna work bro. You are making the classic mistake of assuming that Television and television shows are part of the "entertainment industry" where in reality they are not. Television exists to provide advertisers a way to easily mass market to people, the shows are just a means to and end, no more. Thats not to say that the people MAKING the shows think that way (at least initially), but that is the hard truth.

EXACTLY. We had this discussion before and I agree. The sole purpose of television was to deliver advertising to the masses. It has been that way since the very first broadcast, and it is what drove the development of telision for the masses in the first place. But now, television is INFRASTRUCTURE. It is used for data transmission, to do business, to shop, to sell...it has become an appliance. Advertising will take a back seat to this new technology because advertising is not needed to have an internet or to pay for it.

Not under who's control??
As to the choice by the audience, they already DO make or break shows. Sure it may not be a straight line under the Neilson system, but the audience do very much make or break shows.

The studio's control. No studio dictates what I watch or when I watch it. The mainstream laps up all the reality shows and wrestling and soap operas, and its only the "niche" audiences who lose. As long as the percentage of those who watch the low cost crap remains largest in the mainstream, that audience will drive what the studios make and the size of that mainstream audience will still be the darling of advertising dollars. Neilsen will fall as well...they cannot compete with computers and statistics keeping by website owners which can get hyper-accurate data that Neilsen will never be able to get. And no "Neilsen box" will be needed. Netflix already has an impressive new system in place to tell what people are watching, and they have a verified database.

Yes, social networking will become the new focus of marketing, I would have thought the whole "experiment" of SGUS would have made that entirely clear to people, especially us "old timers". the problem is that it has not been embraced directly in alot of shows. Tell ya what OM, one night, DVR Monday night RAW, don't watch the wresting stuff (just FF that stuff), but look at the the way it is sold to the consumer in "talk spots", post ad return messages and icons on screen. The WWE flogs the living crap out of itself in social media by having an "annonoymos GM" who communicates via E-mail, banging on about what the wrestlers twitter or FB, having a PPV dedicated to what the fans want who vote via FB/twitter/email. For a bunch of "low rent hick's" thier marketing dept kicks nine shades of crap out of most programming

Indeed it is a paradigm shift, but I don't think it will turn out the way scifi fans like us may like.

Its all changing rapidly, and in 10 years the landscape of the entertainment industry will look much much different than it does today.

 

[Gatefan1976]

I remember that discussion! Thing is, if the studios do that and they stick advertising in there, many many people will not pay for such a service. Research has shown that people are willing to pay a premium to eliminate all advertising from their entertainment. Its the original marketing incentive they used...no advertising, no commercials. It lasted commercial free for about three years until slowly the ads started creeping in. Now, people are PAYING for the same experience that used to be free on broadcast television in its heyday.

Yes people are willing to pay a premium to get rid of advertising, this is true, HOWEVER, how much is "joe public" willing to pay?? Would *You* (specific you) pay 100 bucks a month to get access to 5 channels only (at 20 bucks a throw) because if not, the system will pretty much fail. I would lay odds that "premium channels" if they are picked up by subcribers *right now* recieve a "greater percentage" of the subcription fees purely because some want only the premium channels. I don't think it is as "A to B to C as you are making out here buddy
(and yes I also remember all the "ad free" promises that came with cable "back in the day" )

This?

Yes

Im saying that Disney and Sony and others who own cable channels and/or studios do not want entities like Netflix to become the preferred means of watching movies because they cannot pitch time slots to advertisers. How can there be a lucrative timeslot if people are chosing when they want to watch what they watch? The interstitial ads that happen between shows accounts for LOTS of advertising revenue. In an on-demans model, such an interstitial period between shows does not exist. They might use the beginning of the movie to show them, but after that it would be considered a commercial break, and many people would and do find that unacceptable in a paid service. On-demans programming destroys much of the advertising revenue machine. Hope that clears things a bit.

It does, however, It's not gonna work. "networks" as a concept exist for advertising they are selling adspace. If the net becomes the "primary trunk" instead of television it will be used for adspace as well. That is an inescapable fact, no matter what we think of ads, and the fact that cable could not sustain it's initail promise of "Ad free TV" just goes to prove it.

Somebody will...it will be a new marketing model and in order for it to really be successful, it will need to be INDEPENDENT of all major studios and advertising entities. The studios will have to make money in a different fashion, and the rise of independent, smaller studios will become a trend. All of this assumes that the studios dont own Netflix...is there something ablout Netflix I am unaware of?

AFAIK, netflix IS the indie people were hoping for, yet it is subject to the vagaries of studio decisions. Indie simply Won't work in this industry because of that, and the fact that "local licencing laws" all but prevent a sanctioned organization from doing what you want "netflix" to do. Not only that, one you introduce the idea of an organization having "free reign" to pick up it's money from anywhere in the world, you introduce the all too real idea of the cyperpunk-esque "megacorp".

EXACTLY. We had this discussion before and I agree. The sole purpose of television was to deliver advertising to the masses. It has been that way since the very first broadcast, and it is what drove the development of telision for the masses in the first place. But now, television is INFRASTRUCTURE. It is used for data transmission, to do business, to shop, to sell...it has become an appliance. Advertising will take a back seat to this new technology because advertising is not needed to have an internet or to pay for it.

NO!!
TV is no longer the infastructure (for some of us), it is the concept, the NET is the new infastructure, hence my comment on those controlling the internet infastructure/hardware having the ability to do what they want. Do you think it is strange that a company like comcast is buying MASSIVE companies like NBC?, or owning ISP's like verizon? They see where this is leading and they are ahead of it. We think we are"oh so clever" sometimes but they are YEARS ahead of us, they are just "milking the font" for all they can.

The studio's control. No studio dictates what I watch or when I watch it. The mainstream laps up all the reality shows and wrestling and soap operas, and its only the "niche" audiences who lose. As long as the percentage of those who watch the low cost crap remains largest in the mainstream, that audience will drive what the studios make and the size of that mainstream audience will still be the darling of advertising dollars. Neilsen will fall as well...they cannot compete with computers and statistics keeping by website owners which can get hyper-accurate data that Neilsen will never be able to get. And no "Neilsen box" will be needed. Netflix already has an impressive new system in place to tell what people are watching, and they have a verified database.

Nuff said!

As to the Neilsons, really dude, they are a statistical organization paid to produce statistics on "X point" and so they do. Are they "100% accurate"? HELL NO, but that is not why they exist. Website hosters CAN provide much, MUCH more detailed information than the neilson system, but no one will use it because it is "raw data". EVERYONE wants to put a spin on stuff, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to spin thier line of BS. You are trying to apply a formulaic aproach to something that flat out denies formula, and the best you can hope for is an "average," and at the moment, the "average" lies with the "masses"

Its all changing rapidly, and in 10 years the landscape of the entertainment industry will look much much different than it does today.

This I do agree with

 

[Joelist]

I suspect Starz and Sony will eventually rue their decisions. If they try to market their stuff in their own streaming pipelines the pricing they charge won't attract enough subscribers because the content is heavily limited. The beauty of a Netflix is they all have their stuff together, in one place. Then the monthly fee becomes worth the cost.