An unlikely claim

[Big Brother]

Beckymonster said:

For example - the 'claim' (all my emphasis btw) that Sci-fi are now 'lowering' their expectations for the ratings. What were they expecting beforehand?! Same as say (shows utter ignorance of non-SF American TV here) CSI? Desperate Housewives?.. what?

'Scuse me?!
It nearly broke SG:Atlantis' record for highest debut on the network, missing by 0.1 million.
It's rated as the highest of the cable shows on a Friday night, since it started.
You could even argue that it's just claimed one hell of a scalp (though, technically, that honour belongs to SG-1 as it airs at the same time... though I think that they'll be magnanimous and share!
It's been getting good ratings on UK cable/satellite, not to mention funding from said organisation too (which is more than what the SG's get )

What more do they want?
Critical raves? - got those. A move to repeat it on the 'parent' channel in the summer - pinch of salt rumour.

Why would they be asking for six new scripts if they weren't willing to stick their necks out for a second series? Something doesn't quite add up here... unless I'm not looking at the whole picture here?

Completely confused here!

Maybe the train of thought went like this...

Hmmm...the pilot episode of the old series was watched by 65 million people in the USA alone. The theatrical release of it made more box office money than Jaws II. If we get just one out of ten of those original viewers, that's 6.5 million viewers...or 2-3 times as many people as watch Stargate SG-1. Theatrical releases are a bit tougher to pull off these days, but the DVD market alone should cover our production costs. We'll give it roughly the same production budget that Andromeda or SG-1 get, spend twice that much on promotions (most of that on our own networks and cross-media outlets so it goes out of one corporate pocket into another), and make our money back in a week and a half! Then we re-run it forever and ever and all that revenue will be pure profit!

See, network executives are mainly people who wanted to be writers, actors, directors, and producers...but who didn't have the talent. Think Leo Bloom in The Producers. So they endlessly want to meddle in the shows they greenlight, to finally prove that they have "creative talent". Most of these efforts are more destructive than creative (witness Galactica 1980), but the occasional success (witness early reality TV, and a few of the changes made to the original Galactica) is held up as an excuse for the insanely high salaries and bonuses such executives get. To justify those salaries, they try for the most profit they can get out of the least expenditure. There's nothing wrong with that in principle, and it's a great way to run, say, a car-parts factory. But the problem with TV and movies as a business is that it's an art form, and the problem with that industry as an art form is that it's a business.

The original Galactica made a sizeable profit for both the network and the producers. Production companies in those days commonly lost money in the initial run of a show, but made big profits over several years off syndication and overseas sales. Galactica was unique in that the pilot movie was edited into a theatrical movie and shown in Canada, Europe, and Japan...and that made enough money to cover the entire production cost of the first season of the show, before the pilot was even shown in the US on TV (or, later, in theaters, making even more profit). The fees paid by ABC to Universal were pure profit for Universal.

For its part, ABC paid about the same per-hour for Galactica as it paid for most of its Hollywood movies and Monday Night Football...but got to show each Galactica episode twice, while those other shows were once-only deals. Galactica beat most of those movies and did about as well as Monday Night Football. This despite the rival networks aggressively scheduling against Galactica with good movies and specials. ABC made a profit off Galactica.

But simply making a profit ain't sexy. Profits must always go up, or someone will claim to be able to make them do so, and take the jobs of those already running the show. Galactica was the most expensive show to produce, and ABC wasn't getting any of the theatrical-release or merchandising money, which was substantial. They were just getting commercial advertising revenue.

Perhaps they could have negotiated a better deal with Universal, getting a slice of the merchandising dough or cutting the per-episode cost. But Universal didn't want to let go of their cash cow, and was probably ticked at ABC for jerking Galactica around with last-minute scheduling changes and so forth. Besides, letting ABC get away with forcing a better deal would set a precedent with other shows they were producing, and they couldn't have that. So Galactica died because ABC network suits thought they could make more money with much cheaper shows that got slightly worse ratings. This is the same phenomenon driving the glut of reality TV today: such shows are incredibly cheap to make, so even crappy ratings are enough to make a substantial profit.

Galactica also suffered from high expectations. In the wake of Star Wars, every sci-fi property was expected to do as well, but few managed it. Only the revival of Star Trek via theatrical movies can really be said to have done as well at riding Star Wars' coattails as Galactica did. If Galactica had held that initial 65 million audience, it might have been renewed...or perhaps not. Probably only a growing audience (a rarity in TV, but TNS seems to be doing it) would have satisfied the incredible expectations it had. It was the most expensive episodic show on TV, it needed to be the highest-rated show to justify that expense in the simple, rat-like minds of network suits. It came in fourth over the first few episodes, but dropped to 24th by the end of its first season. That would have been enough to get any other new show renewed, but Galactica had failed to meet excessive expectations.

I read a story in today's paper that Amazon.com's profits quadrupled last quarter, but their stock went down 13% on the news because analysts had predicted it would be even more of an increase. Even good news is not good news if you were expecting better news.

[Beckymonster]

BB - that's facinating (no, I'm not being sarcastic - as I was only about *cough* years old when Star Wars came out) and thanks for sharing that but pardon me for being a complete ignoramous, what's that got to do with TNS?

Surely it did not cost as much as TOS to do? I mean, yes, it looks expensive and given the fluctuations of the currencies (you would not believe how much of an effect the strength of the Canadian dollar has on these things ) but surely that would have been factored in, etc.

Not only that but we're talking about Sci-Fi here - which seems to have the same market penetration as Sky does in the UK (i.e. not much) but TNS still managed to make it into the weekly top 10 cable/satellite programmes (according to the Times 'Culture' section whenever I looked here in the UK.

Perhaps I'm having a blonde moment here but... as far as I can see - Sci-fi have a show that is critically and commercially doing very well for itself, hell it seems to be increasing it's ratings... what's the problem?!

[Big Brother]

The point is that if the Network suits were looking for an audience of 6.5 million people (one in ten of those who watched the first ep of TOS), then they only got the 2 to 3 million or so that they've been getting for the first several eps so far, that they'd consider the show to have fallen far below expectations and quite possibly cancel it.

Rumor has it that ad time for the first several episodes at least of TNS was sold to advertisers with an expected audience share of 2.4, which means the ratings so far are at or above that level. Which would seem to be a good sign, but if the network execs were, in their heart of hearts, looking for a bigger share than it actually got, it might still be cancelled. Perhaps they sold the ad time at a conservative estimate of the expected audience, since if memory serves shows that don't meet the expected ratings may be forced to refund a portion of the advertising fees. On the other hand, shows that get significantly higher ratings than for the rates charged may be able to charge a retroactive added fee to at least some advertisers. Probably not for the full difference between the standard rates, but at least some added incentive for shows to exceed expectations.

In the end, it's not important that a show simply make money. In an age of 500 cable channels, DVD sales, and merchandising, pretty much any sci-fi show will make money eventually, even if it takes a decade of reruns and DVD sales to do so. Firefly probably didn't make money on its initial run, but its DVD sales are strong enough that they're getting a continuation theatrical movie with the full original cast. If that movie makes money, or even comes close to breaking even, they may very well make sequel films or a new season of the TV show.

What's important is that a show makes as much money as the big suits think it should have made.

As I understand it, there are three parties who pretty much all need to agree to renew the series...

1.) The Sci-Fi Channel. This means Bonnie Hammer. She and I have had a love/hate relationship for years. She saved MST3K when it got cut by Comedy Central...then canceled it herself 3 years later. She picked up Andromeda...after it was already sucking so much I wasn't watching any more. Her track record for developing shows (Black Scorpion, anyone?) and cancelling good ones at the slightest provocation (Invisible Man, Farscape, the list goes on) is not good. If the show is not picked up, chances are it will be her to blame.

2.) SkyOne. They're picking up the tab for probably about half the production costs. If they say yes but Sci-Fi says no, the show will still be cancelled, most likely. But if they say no, the show will likely also be cancelled, because as good as ratings are, I sincerely doubt they're high enough for Sci-Fi to shoulder SkyOne's half of the production costs as well.

3.) The studio making the show, which means NBC Universal. Unlike what happened with TOS, this time the studio owns the major network. Perhaps Bonnie Hammer's bosses at the corporate parent can over-ride her, for good or ill. But as DVD sales and foreign syndication sales both look quite good for the series, I think the studio will be more likely than either of the networks to take the long view and realize that BSG will be a valuable franchise for decades to come, and that the best way to protect and enlarge on that legacy will be to make another couple of seasons of high-quality TNS episodes.

If any of these three groups say "cancel", the show is dead. But if all three agree, we get more shows. So the question is...is the show living up the the disparate expectations of all three groups?

[Darth Marley]

BB is right on, and his analysis has loads to do with a few things Sandy may be right about.

We are dealing with the networks that canceled the original Trek, Farsacape, and numerous other shows taht the suits couldn't figure out the success of, or tried to "Hammer" out a better deal for.

One thing that isn't lost on me: the geeks that "interpret" the ratings for SFC also produce those ridiculous monter movies.

If I were in the position of making product for SFC, and also in the position of telling the suits what the ratings meant, you can guarantee that I would be stressing how much cheaper my product was, how my show was a better "bang for the buck" and how the network would be much better off canceling other shows to fund my silly little movies.

Another element. The merger/accusition casues corporate strife.

If you take a look at some of the reports on Enterprise long before it got the axe, you will see references to how the Viacom buyout had an effect on the show.

With NBC stepping in as new owners, there are different voices in the mix. Turf battles are being waged.

[Daliden]

I had a nightmare of sorts last night.

I dreamt of reading a report that "Battlestar Galactica will conclude in an epic three-hour miniseries" . . . bleh.

[ladyrheena]

Daliden said:

I had a nightmare of sorts last night.

I dreamt of reading a report that "Battlestar Galactica will conclude in an epic three-hour miniseries" . . . bleh.

Frak me! Did you get one of those waking in a cold sweat moments? I'm okay with miniseries conclusions, but after ONE SEASON?

[Daliden]

It wasn't pretty, lemme tell ya!

[futureworldruler]

I hope the fate of the show isn't decided by unrealistic board room expectations. Too often great shows are destroyed by poor management from above - look at what happened to Firefly, with episodes aired out of order, poor promotion, bumping, etc. The show is a moderate success right now, which for the Sci-Fi network is a big accomplishment. They would be silly not to renew the show, and to support it however they can, but silly things have been done in the past...

Oh, and comparing this series ratings to the old series is not fair.
Back when the original aired there was so little competition - 3 channel universe, no VCRs, DVDs, internet, etc. Any show that couldn't capture 1/3 of the primetime viewers (maybe 20 million to 30 million people) was doing something wrong.

the best shows on TV today are usually lucky to draw 5 or 6 times as many fans as BSG, and they are on major networks with huge promotional budgets.

[Ziptie]

Would someone care to tell me who this Sandy guy is and why anyone gives a sh*t about what he thinks or says?

I have no axe to grind on the pro/anti TNS thing, and read his article with an open mind. He comes across as a fantasist/borderline loon in a total state of denial about the success of the new series.

What he writes bears no relation to what's been heard from other sources, and his insinuation that Sci Fi are somehow unhappy with the viewing numbers just isn't credible.

It certainly looks as though he's a die-hard TOS admirer trying to grab onto the last vestiges of hope for a continuation. If someone knows better I'd really like to know!

[Blade Runner]

Ziptie said:

Would someone care to tell me who this Sandy guy is and why anyone gives a sh*t about what he thinks or says?

I have no axe to grind on the pro/anti TNS thing, and read his article with an open mind. He comes across as a fantasist/borderline loon in a total state of denial about the success of the new series.

What he writes bears no relation to what's been heard from other sources, and his insinuation that Sci Fi are somehow unhappy with the viewing numbers just isn't credible.

It certainly looks as though he's a die-hard TOS admirer trying to grab onto the last vestiges of hope for a continuation. If someone knows better I'd really like to know!

WTF

[antelope]

Ziptie said:

Would someone care to tell me who this Sandy guy is and why anyone gives a sh*t about what he thinks or says?

I have no axe to grind on the pro/anti TNS thing, and read his article with an open mind. He comes across as a fantasist/borderline loon in a total state of denial about the success of the new series.

What he writes bears no relation to what's been heard from other sources, and his insinuation that Sci Fi are somehow unhappy with the viewing numbers just isn't credible.

It certainly looks as though he's a die-hard TOS admirer trying to grab onto the last vestiges of hope for a continuation. If someone knows better I'd really like to know!

Sandy is the creator and former owner of cylon.org, more commonly referred to as the Cylon Alliance. He is well connected with people in the Battlestar production world.

He is currently "taking a step back" from the Battlestar web world but felt a desire to post this information. It was not posted here but reposted by a member from another board.

In general I have found him to be very passionate about Battlestar and also volatile. He does not like the new version but does mention things from time to time he finds interesting. He tends to bump heads with those that have an opposite view to him and those exchanges can get very heated.

In general his "sources" seem to have very interesting insight into what people are saying behind the scenes. His "sources" however have never claimed a show was either cancelled or greenlighted prior to the actual announcement. From his sources you get some nice background but I do not believe they are close enough to the actual decision makers to give much beyond that.

I hope he takes no offense to what I said about him. I respect him and think this is a fairly accurate view one would get of a man you never met but read on regular basis in the web world.

[Ziptie]

Show me where the manual is BR and I'll read it!

I was actually being a little sarky with my original post, I get the idea who Sandy is. I justl think he's talking a steaming pile of b*ll*cks and don't see why anyone cares.

I just read the full thread on cylon.org. It's full of rabid anti-TNS TOS fans trying to stick their heads in the sand and pretend the reality ain't happening.

While I'm sure such folk take great comfort from articles like this Sandy's, and while he obviously feels very important for giving them what they want to read, I still don't see the point.

[redspine]

The series so far has seen its ratings increase with each episode this must be a good thing. When the USA see's the last episodes (hand of God onwards) it will blow their socks off! Even Spider was praising the special effects in episode 4.

BTW the new icons are a little freaky

[Harvester]

For those who are unfamiliar with Sandy here's a good link to check out:
www.allgalactica.com/AboutMe-01.html

Actually the allgalactica.com website is a pretty cool resource for those interested in the backstory and evolution of Battlestar Galactica. I'd recommend going through it.

Sandy can be confrontational as someone else posted above, and his exchanges with Michael Hinman and koenigrules make my eyes glaze over, but he does know a lot about goings on with BSG. While the TNS fanbase views the numbers for the series as a huge success he is correct in pointing out that our interpretation of the numbers may not be in line with what the suits want. There hasn't been any announcements as of yet, so nothing can be clearly stated or refuted.....unless you're from the Universal boardroom
People from the BSG fanbase do ask Sandy frequently for information about BSG and he did post his thoughts on a board that he founded....it's not like he went to a TNS board to post to cause trouble.

The bottom line is that no decision has been made public and we're only guessing what criteria will be made for the decision.

Wait it out. We'll see. I hope TNS gets renewed.

[waerth]

anyway when you read the info at that link you see he is not all that bad!

Waerth