Text 9353, 65 rader
Skriven 2006-10-13 19:33:41 av KoshN
Ärende: Re: Further B5:TLT update from jms
==========================================
From: "Mac Breck (KoshN)" <macthevorlon@yahoo.com>

Joseph DeMartino wrote:
> Mac Breck (KoshN) wrote:
>
> > If Crusade could be made today, with CGI on par with Battlestar
> > Galactica (2003+), the results would be amazing.  Instead of some of
> > the effects tending to take the viewer out of the show, the the viewer
> > would be drawn in, and feel like they were there, actually witnessing
> > the battle.  Wonder what the Battlestar Galactica budget is per
> > episode, and how Sci-Fi is affording it.
>
> Sci-Fi doesn't pay "BSG's" production budget, Universal does, they're
> the studio producing the series.  Sci-Fi pays a license fee to air the
> show.  Typically the license fee falls well short of the actual
> production cost, so the studio makes up the difference and tries to
> cover the deficit by selling into overseas markets or from eventual
> syndication revenues.  (And nowadays through home video sales, although
> until the advent of DVD that wasn't much of an option for U.S. shows.)
>  "B5" and "Crusade" were exceptions to this rule.  WB's mandate for all
> the PTEN series was that they pay for themselves as they went, while
> Paramount was losing a small fortune on the various "Treks" until they
> went into syndication and went out on home video.  ("Trek" having been
> one of a handful of American dramatic TV series to actually enjoy
> success on VHS and laserdisc.)
>
> In the case of "BSG" Universal has a production partner covering at
> least part of the costs - Britan's SkyTV.  Sky in turn has part of its
> contribution covered by the license fee it charges its subsidiary to
> air the program in the U.K.  Between the British contribution and
> Sci-Fi's fee, Universal is probably at least breaking even on the
> series, and if it isn't, that's what the DVDs are for.  (Contrary to
> something stated in another reply Universal's corporate sibling NBC is
> not involved with "BSG".)   Universal and Sci-Fi are corporate
> siblings, of course, in a much more integrated company than
> Time-Warner, but everybody still has to watch out for his/her budget,
> even if the profits all ultimately end up in the same place.  "Heroes"
> is similalry cross-financed between Universal Television, which
> produces it, and the NBC network, Sci-Fi and USA, all of which pay
> license fees to air it.
>
> Remember that the *major* reason Sci-Fi passed on the "Rangers" pilot
> was ownership and ancillary revenue sharing, not ratings.  Sci-Fi
> wanted to own a piece of the show and the eventual foreign, syndication
> and DVD revenues, WB has a policy against doing that sort of thing.
> With "BSG" its all in the family, so to speak , so Sci-Fi basically got
> the "B5"-style arc-drive space show that it wanted all along, only it
> got one that its parent company owns and controls.

It's too bad that Time-Warner isn't in a position to do something
similar, but all the dysfunction and policies prevent it, and work
against Warner Brothers shows like B5, Crusade, etc.  Can't Time-Warner
see that this puts Warner Brothers shows at a disadvantage? i.e. If
they aren't willing to sell or share ownership, and don't have their
own outlet for a show (The CW, TNT, etc.), it pretty much eliminates a
shows marketability.  Yeah, I know, dysfunction rears its ugly head and
the result is that they probably don't care in the least.

Wonder how close we can get to BSG level CGI with B5:TLT.

Mac Breck (KoshN)


--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
 * Origin: *READ ONLY* rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (3:640/1010)