<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Joe, whilst I enjoy reading your posts, I can't help but think that you are speculating just like the rest of us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course. But there is a difference between
informed speculation and wild guesses. I’ve been “studying” the way American television works since the early 1970s. I communicate with people connected to the business in various ways, who are nice enough to correct me when I get something wrong. If I extrapolate from a situation, or try to use logic to get from two known facts to a third, unknown, one, I’m at least starting with facts and some idea of how things “tend to work.”
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Details about a possible series between the two companies would have been discussed before SCI-FI invested in a pilot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If they
had been, the cast would have been signed to options for the series. They weren’t. Something didn’t go the way things normally go. And “discussed” does not mean “settled”
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>JMS was told that it could become a series once the pilot had been filmed. When it was in the can, SCI-FI went cold. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
JMS was
also told (see above) that it could become a series after the pilot
script was approved, after the rough-cut was assembled, after the final cut was screened, or after the movie aired and the ratings were in hand. He was told (and posted about) all of these possibilities before they even started
shooting the pilot.
If Sci-Fi had “gone cold” after seeing the finished film, why did they schedule it and advertise it as one of their major “events” for the month of January. Why did they run commercials on other networks, and run a theatrical trailer (previously only done for the
major project
Dune)? It doesn’t make sense. The pilot wasn’t
that expensive, the cost of two episodes of some of their other series. Presumably they could have made their money back with a couple of airings of the film, without investing in a huge advertising campaign.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>The costs of a potential series would have already been considered by both parties. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, but if a decision on how to
pay those cost hadn’t been reached, or if Sci-Fi were insisting that they own a piece of the show, a
deal may not have been. Or both sides may have wanted to see how the ratings looked so they’d know how big a pie they would be dividing.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>If these 'complex' agreements were such an obstacle then I don't think the pilot would have been made period. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why not? Sci-Fi still gets a TV movie that will appeal to the
B5 audience. Warner Bros. still gets a TV movie that can later be resold to other networks and released on home video. And if things go
well both might get a series out of it. Classic win/win situation.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Of course American TV politics and mechanics is complicated but then so is UK TV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But they are also
different. So knowing something about the one does
not mean that you know anything about the other. I wouldn’t presume to comment or even speculate about British television broadcasting, because I’m aware that I know nothing about it. (I have learned a
little about the British video market, and the pre-cable and pre-satellite TV business that shaped it, but that’s all.)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>
Warner Bros. already wants to produce a series.
Do they? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A question in return – why
wouldn’t they? One of the major ways that WB makes money is by selling TV series to networks. Another is by selling said series overseas, and into secondary domestic markets (reruns). As long as its costs are covered there is no reason for WB
not to want to produce this series or any other.
B5 has been returning steady, if not spectacular, profits to the studio for years. They’d be fools if they didn’t want to replicate that success. As long as the terms of the deal are acceptable.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>What if, having seen the rough cut of the movie or tried in vain to reach some sort of option agreement with WB, SFC just decided that they were not interested in a series and it was always going to be just a one-off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Possible, but again, why the huge ad campaign? Both the rough and final cuts were screened
months before that cranked up. If you have a disappointing pilot why air all of the {presumably better) existing
B5 films leading up to it? Won't that just make it look worse by comparison? Why spend a ton of money promoting it? They had plenty of time to scrap that after seeing the movie for the first time.
Does anybody seriously think that
Bonnie Hammer - the President of the
network - would go out and get her
car wrapped to promote a movie she had already judged a failure? And to have pictures of herself and said car posted on the interet? Does anybody think she is
stupid enough to publicly associate herself with a "busted" pilot that the network had no further interest in?
Common sense alone should show that
this scenario isn't terribly likely.
I don't know what's going on at Sci-Fi, or what kind of chance
Rangers has of becoming a series. But I do think we could all invest our time in something more positive than
inventing reasons to be gloomy out of whole cloth. And that's exactly what all of this "they hated the film when they saw it, they sky is falling" talk is. The production history, JMS's contemporary posts and the advertising campaign all clearly show that whatever
did happen, this
didn't.
Regards,
Joe
------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net
[This message has been edited by Joseph DeMartino (edited January 29, 2002).]
