• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

I do not understand SCI-FI's reluctance

D

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest
I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

I do not understand the SCI-FI Channel's reluctance to pick up B5:LOTR as a series. Reruns of B5 have done better (ratings wize) them most of their other original series. They pick up show like Black Scorpion and Jules Verne, which were worthless. But for B5 there is all this wait and see attitude. What more evidence do they need? Is it simply a question of money?

------------------
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

I've been saying that for the past month! Screw sci-fi.

------------------
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

Well let's NOT say screw SCI FI. If it wasn't for them there'd be no B5LR, this site wouldn't exist, and you all wouldn't be here right now. Oi, who said "I wish" at the back!
laugh.gif


But I agree, the reluctance on all this is very odd. They really are playing safe it seems. I will probably write an editorial on this soon.


------------------
Dreg: "Most beauteous and supremely magnificent one, this dark spell I hold in my worthless and scabby hand is our gift to you, most tingly and wonderful Glorificus..."
Glory: "Please, call me Glory. And get up, looking at you is hurting my neck."
Dreg: "Forgive me, shiny special one. I beg of you to rip out my inadequate tongue."
Glory: "Gimme."
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

I think they're being reluctant because B5 is, honestly, still seen as Star Trek's little sister who isn't as bright or glowing. We know how good it is - but the general public thinks, "Oh, isn't that that ripoff of DS9?"

I'll never understand studio executives. I'm glad that USA Sci-Fi is showing it; I'm very glad. I'm sad that you UK people will have a hard time...

but, WHY are they so reluctant? B5 is one of the best rated shows on SciFi (*aren't they even showing Crusade again because of that?)

------------------
Channe, Freelance Writer Extraordinaire and The Next JMS
--
B5 Synchroninity of the Day: I just found out that the new dorm I'm living in next year has been named Breen Hall.
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Screw sci-fi.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*sigh*
Very well. I should warn you that it'll take a loooong time.
laugh.gif


Seriously, Sci-Fi has a very serious business reason for doing this. Jules Verne and BS (heh-heh) were picked up for peanuts compared to the cost of a Rangers series.

They want to make sure the audience will stick with it. If they commit to a series before the evidence is in that fans will watch, they'd be opening themselves up to a huge loss.



------------------
"We are all Kosh."
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Well let's NOT say screw SCI FI. If it wasn't for them there'd be no B5LR, this site wouldn't exist, and you all wouldn't be here right now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh you're right Mr. President, my bias against Sci-Fi goes beyond B5-- my latest beef with them stems from yanking 'Now and Again' reruns after only airing 8 episodes. Their reluctance with B5LR, however, is very puzzling. Contrary to what JoeD stated a few months ago, the actors in B5LR ARE NOT under any contract. The longer Sci-Fi sits on their duffs, the more likely it is that Neal or some of the others might move on to other projects. Neal himself said that he has even turned down a series in anticipation of Sci-fi's announcement,

------------------
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> They want to make sure the audience will stick with it. If they commit to a series before the evidence is in that fans will watch, they'd be opening themselves up to a huge loss.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that 'looking before you leap' is a sound business decision, but I think that the evidence is already in on whether the fans will watch. Although I do not keep up with cable ratings, I remember seeing all sorts of posts awhile back preaching about how "great" the ratings for Crusade was awhile back. B5 is already a successful enterprise (no pun intended) which could grow to even greater heights with another well-written series. It just seems like a no-brainer to me.

------------------
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

I too am worried by SCI-FI's change of heart regarding Rangers.
Do they not like the pilot? Have they fallen out with JMS?
They must know that the B5 & Crusade audience will watch and support it.
Whats going on? Waiting until next year to confirm whether the series will run sounds like they have lost interest to me.

------------------
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>We know how good it is - but the general public thinks, "Oh, isn't that that ripoff of DS9?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they know it at all! And I'm afraid most of them don't...

First of all, I think we should remember that SciFi must have some confidence in the project, or they wouldn't have ordered it at all in the first place. This is a significant US$X,XXX,XXX.00 investment. I doubt they'd do this just to waste the money.

As far as SciFi picking up lousy shows, well they don't cost a lot, aren't on other channels, and don't represent a significant loss if they drop them -- and they can drop them or pick them up as needed, fillin a 2AM slot, etc., without worrying about continuity issues, etc.

Regarding how well Babylon 5, its movies, and Crusade perform in terms of ratings -- again, I'm sure this played a significant role in SciFi ordering the new movie.

What I'm not sure about, though, is to what degree Babylon 5, its movies, and Crusade expand SciFi's viewer base.

In other words, we love Babylon 5, and we already watch SciFi. That means they've already "got" us. There's another thread on the site that discusses long term how well B5 has done with ratings and why on SciFi. The general drift was that it is trending down -- for whatever reasons.

Now, it's important to SciFi that it increase viewership. One part of that is maintaining existing viewers. Another has to be atracting new viewers. Granted, just about all the American B5 fan base will tune in to watch B5LR. But exactly how many people is that? How many of them are new viewers?

To what degree will B5LR bring new viewers (and hence advertisers) to SciFi? Will it attract anyone is isn't already hooked on B5? If not, is there a reward to SciFi?

Now extend that to a new series. SciFi already has us hooked and booked. What will another show, much more expensive to them, do for them if they already have the existing viewers? I really doubt that's enough for them.

Further, if they thought they could replace B5 with something that could add more viewers than we do, they would. I think that
B5 has done well enough that merely its time would change at first; but once they can get more ratings doing something else -- even if it's Xena Battles the Temple of Attack Sluts, they will.

So, the question is: can we do anything to show SciFi that B5LR will add more viewers than they already have (i.e., us); and that a B5LR series would build on that growth?


------------------
"What's up, Drakh?"

Michael Garibaldi
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>So, the question is: can we do anything to show SciFi that B5LR will add more viewers than they already have (i.e., us); and that a B5LR series would build on that growth? [/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's no way to show really... they just have to see those viewship figures.

However, something will be coming in November that will help us do our part in boosting them numbers!



------------------
Dreg: "Most beauteous and supremely magnificent one, this dark spell I hold in my worthless and scabby hand is our gift to you, most tingly and wonderful Glorificus..."
Glory: "Please, call me Glory. And get up, looking at you is hurting my neck."
Dreg: "Forgive me, shiny special one. I beg of you to rip out my inadequate tongue."
Glory: "Gimme."
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by impycat:
I do not understand the SCI-FI Channel's reluctance to pick up B5:LOTR as a series. Reruns of B5 have done better (ratings wize) them most of their other original series. They pick up show like Black Scorpion and Jules Verne, which were worthless. But for B5 there is all this wait and see attitude. What more evidence do they need? Is it simply a question of money?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reruns of B5 did very well for SCI-FI when they were initially shown. Such ratings certainly would have been one of the reasons that Rangers was commissioned as a back-door pilot.

Unfortunately, those ratings have not kept up. The show is now down to the .5 levels. That's not particularly good at all. By comparison, Now and Again, with similar ratings, was quickly dropped from SCI-FI's primetime schedule. An interesting comparison will be how Farscape does in strip mode next week.

The decrease in B5 ratings happened at about the time Rangers was prepping to shoot. Unfortunately, the B5 universe seems to like to repeat this phenomenon: The same thing happened on TNT just as Crusade was starting to shoot as well. We heard reluctance to commitment to Rangers at the upfronts.

As for Jules Verne and Black Scorpion, SCI-FI saw the error of their ways very quickly and pulled them into slots where they wouldn't do any harm and off the air as soon as possible. So looking at those two shows wouldn't be what that to which any Network would aspire. A better comparison would be the 1.2's that Chronicle and Outer Limits got last week and the 1.5 that Farscape received. This week Outer Limits had a 1.5. First Wave, which has been hovering around .9, is cancelled.

SCI-FI would need Rangers, the series, to receive 1.2+ just to be even with what they already have.

Money is always an issue in buying shows. It comes both in the cost of acquiring a show and in the revenue that the Network can get from advertisements on the shows. Ads on cable are not sold by the individual program (e.g., SCI-FI Friday is sold as a unit). SCI-FI needs to be able to show it's worth the premium (comparatively) that they want an advertiser to pay for that versus a "normal" primetime ROS. SCI-FI, also, needs to look at what is available for it to buy versus its budget.

Best,
Alyson


------------------
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

I think we need to tell SFC how much we want another B5 spinoff. Maybe they should be made aware of b5lr.com, too. If anything cold prove to them that the B5 fans still care, this site is it!
smile.gif


Tammy

------------------

"We're in here! Can anyone hear us?"
"I hear you." [giggle, laugh]
"In here!"
"We are here." [giggle, laugh]
-- Londo and G'Kar in Babylon 5:"Convictions"

Tammy's Station
http://community.webtv.net/gkarfan/TammysStation
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

The questions you ask about the SciFi network apply equally to SPACE in Canada. On the whole they have been pretty good about listening to their viewers, but they do tend to stick to the old tried and true for their main thrust, the various Star Trek series, X-Files, and campy old movies that seem to be pretty popular with a certain percentage of the fans. We get a number of short term British imports which may or may not be very good, but are probably not too expwnsive.

When they are asked about the possibility of picking up B5LR the movie they say, we'll wait and see how it goes. In other words, they don't want to stick out the old neck because funds are limited.

I know SciFi in the US has more money than SPACE but it is not unlimited and they probably don't care if they lose the original cast of Rangers, they can be replaced in a series. It's been done before.
crazy.gif


------------------
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

One slight nitpick about the premise of this thread is that we don't know for sure that SFC is going to wait until January to make their decision. The June (or was it July?) quote from Bonnie Hammer sure made it sound that way, but Gideonsmine recently reported that SFC would be having a meeting in November on programming for 2002. It's entirely possible that they'll make their decision then rather than wait until January.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>In other words, we love Babylon 5, and we already watch SciFi. That means they've already "got" us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't be so sure about that. I know plenty of people (including myself) who are fans of B5 but don't watch the umpteenth rerun of every episode on SFC. I know some fans who have watched the SFC just a few times in their lives. For them, B5 ended in 1998, and they're not going to go out of their way to watch a show that they've already seen.

I definitely think there's a market for new B5 material that's larger than the market for existing B5 material. I don't know how much larger it is, but I think people will generally be surprised by the ratings for TLaDiS.


------------------
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

There's also probably a sizeable population of viewers who will not watch the Rangers show because it is related to B5. Either they never saw B5 and think they would be out of the loop, or they did see some of it and didn't like it (calm down, it is possible).

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AntonyF:
But I agree, the reluctance on all this is very odd. They really are playing safe it seems. I will probably write an editorial on this soon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say that they're playing safe because of Crusade failing. They probably understand that TNT messed it up, but they still want to see what happens with the the Telemovie. If it does well the they'll put it into a series. If it doesn't then they will have saved some money by not having to fund a new show (I'm guessing that a TV show would cost more than just a Telemovie lol).

------------------
Noone here is exactly what he appears.
Babylon 5
G'Kar - Andreas Katsulas
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

"Unfortunately, those ratings have not kept up. The show is now down to the .5 levels. That's not particularly good at all. By comparison, Now and Again, with similar ratings, was quickly dropped from SCI-FI's primetime schedule. An interesting comparison will be how Farscape does in strip mode next week."


But that's comparing a show's (B5) ratings now in it's 4th run through of reruns to new original programing and first run reruns....
Hardly fair or the same....



------------------
"Faith Manages"
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

Hopefully it will do as well as In the Beginning did the first time on TNT - a whopping 4.1 rating.

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison qouting Gustave Flaubert

[This message has been edited by drakh (edited August 23, 2001).]
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>But that's comparing a show's (B5) ratings now in it's 4th run through of reruns to new original programing and first run reruns....
Hardly fair or the same....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Fair" has nothing to do with this. Television is a business, not a popularity contest or an encounter group. You have "X" number of time slots to fill each week with a mix of new shows and reruns. You want to fill each one, of whichever kind, with shows that will get you the maximum ratings (and therefore advertising dollars) that you can. This is how everyone in your organization gets paid, this is what determines if you hire additional staff or lay people off, this is what determines if your network stays on the air.

If B5 reruns in the 5th or 6th go-'round aren't pulling their weight you drop them (or move them) and put reruns of something else in the 7 PM timeslot that is apt to get you better ratings. Period. The problem with the B5 ratings fall-off vis a vis Rangers is that it reduces the overall value of the franchise in the eyes of the network.

And Rangers ratings won't be compared to any of the shows or movies that Sci-Fi is running but to the new series, movies and mini-series that the network airs. As Alyson rightly points out, it is going to have to do pretty well to keep up with Farscape and The Chronicle. If it doesn't, it will be gone, just like Black Scorpion and Jules Verne because Sci-Fi will try to find a series that can match the ratings of its other original series.

That's life in the TV biz, and pretty much any other biz. You don't lose money on something for sentimental reasons, not if you have a boss and stock holders and employees that you're responsible to. "Fair" is not a concept that applies here. (Or in very many other areas of life, as you may come to notice.)

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

[This message has been edited by Joseph DeMartino (edited August 23, 2001).]
 
Re: I do not understand SCI-FI\'s reluctance

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
The problem with the B5 ratings fall-off vis a vis Rangers is that it reduces the overall value of the franchise in the eyes of the network.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would however say there's a fair chance they'll increase a bit should Rangers be given a series.



------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison qouting Gustave Flaubert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 57 (members: 0, guests: 57)

Share this page

Back
Top