Money Talk.. Why no new series?

POSTED BY: seryn
UPDATED: Saturday, January 7, 2006 02:16
VIEWED: 2903
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE

SERYN

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 10:21 AM

That is apart from Fox still holding the rights on the name 'Firefly'.

I'm just looking around though and the general opinion is that its more likely to be another movie than to be another series if we get a continuation of the 'verse at all.

But i'm genuinly interested in why the economics don't point to another series - if an episode costs 2 million, that means you can get 20 episodes for the price of a movie (especially as sequels tend to cost more) I'm pretty sure that t.v. advertising costs less, even if magazine/billboard advertising would be the same.

Plus as, someone else on the site pointed out, television DVD sales are on the up, and you can charge much more for them.

Quote:

Consider, the only field of dvd sales that has seen an increase (and a remarkably sharp increase at that) is television dvd sales. While the dvd market for movies has flattened out and failed to see a growth. (Look it up if you don't believe me :)) And few enough movies are making a profit in the theaters as to be no nevermind. People are willing to spend the 40-50 bucks for 14 to 24 hours plus over the 20 bucks for two hours (and as many hours of often useless extras as can be dreged up).

A quote from CBS news online ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/23/opinion/main676006.shtml ) "Today the average movie costs $4.2 million to distribute and nearly $35 million just to advertise." That's not even the cost of making the movie - whereas a tv show is the advertisement of the upcoming dvd release that I am willing to bet, cost less than 35 million to make. But again, I'm sure someone can work up the actual numbers.

Anybody got an idea?

-------------------------------------------
"She's a mite whimsical in the brainpan."

TOMSIMPSONAZ

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 2:17 PM

I honestly have no idea, I think it is just going to take awhile until the right exec stumbles onto a computer and sees the following.

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by seryn:
...I'm just looking around though and the general opinion is that its more likely to be another movie than to be another series if we get a continuation of the 'verse at all...

All of the internet polls I've seen show that a majority of fans would prefer the TV series (in some form) over another movie.
If you are talking about which one most people think is more feasible - maybe people are wrong?
Guess we have to wait though for the final numbers on the movie dvd sales. The info you cite along with the tv series amazing dvd sales sure make a strong case for another series... not unlike the way SciFi presents BattleStar Galactica (altogether now!).

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.net

DONCOAT

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 3:02 PM

One big problem is that Joss (for excellent reasons) doesn't want to work for Fox Entertainment again.

That really leaves only a couple alternatives:

1) Someone who Joss is willing to work with buys the TV rights from Fox;

2) The franchise continues in some form other than TV.

You have to wonder a bit about the grey areas, though. For example, if a series of Firefly episodes were to be made and sold by subscription (direct to DVD), would that violate Fox's TV rights? What about a direct-to-DVD movie sequel?

Maybe there's an entertainment-industry lawyer among us who can clarify exactly what it is Fox owns, and how the movie-rights deal worked between Fox and Universal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.

SERYN

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 9:11 PM

ah, so does FOX hold the rights to the content and not just the name in a tv show format?

So Joss couldn't just use the same 'verse in a show of a different name?

oh, poot.

How do things stand on mini series and stuff like that?

Its simply that although the film was marvellous and one of the best tv to film adaptions i'd ever seen done, 90 minutes can't serve the characters or the 'verse itself in the way that a series could, the whole thing has so much potential and if it only get a movie every two years (or less)... the words 'damn shame' don't nearly cover it.

-------------------------------------------
"She's a mite whimsical in the brainpan."

DANIELFYRE

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 9:16 PM

This may or may not be a stupid question but: is the Sci-fi channel a subsidiary of FOX? I'm guessin yes since it can run the eps...am I right?

-Dan

Ain't that just shiny?

FOLLOWMAL

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 9:18 PM

The way I understand it is that SciFi is connected to Universal and NBC.

I've read that somewhere online here, but I sure couldn't point you to the thread... sorry, not too bright about such things yet.

"There's obstacles in our path, and we're gonna deal with them, one by one. We'll get through this."
Malcolm Reynolds

DC4BS

Thursday, January 5, 2006 2:50 AM

I'm not a lawyer but from what I "think" I understand, it seems to me that any network can broadcast any show simply by entering (a) contract(s) with the current owner of that show in order to obtain the permission (rights) to do so.

The networks involved don't need to have any affilliation other than the contract(s).

It's possible for a network to buy a show from another network outright but this is rare. Usualy it's licensed rather than purchased

If I'm completely off base here, someone please educate me. I could use some edumacatin...

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, January 5, 2006 3:02 AM

Ok here's my question.

First the premise, if this is wrong please tell me.

The reason for weasel words and fine print in commercials and other advertisements is that the laws against false advertising in the US are at least harsh enough for large corporations to avoid breaking them.

Fox explicitly said in an official manner that they would in no way stop another network from making Firefly. (Someone who knows where to look should check this.)

The possibility of a continuation (which is what Fox's statement amounts to) (probably) affected DVD sales.

So, the question:

Can Fox legally stop the series from coming back on a new network?

-

Every time I have asked this before the thread was abandoned.

RKLENSETH

Thursday, January 5, 2006 3:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Ok here's my question.

First the premise, if this is wrong please tell me.

The reason for weasel words and fine print in commercials and other advertisements is that the laws against false advertising in the US are at least harsh enough for large corporations to avoid breaking them.

Fox explicitly said in an official manner that they would in no way stop another network from making Firefly. (Someone who knows where to look should check this.)

The possibility of a continuation (which is what Fox's statement amounts to) (probably) affected DVD sales.

So, the question:

Can Fox legally stop the series from coming back on a new network?

-

Every time I have asked this before the thread was abandoned.

Yes, because 20th Century Fox owns the rights to anything related to Firefly/Serenity that goes to TV.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

1 2 NEXT PAGE