What are V and BSG??

V is the science-fiction TV series shot in Vancouver, BC.

?url? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/04/DDC21H21PN.DTL&type=entertainment?/url?

BSG is Battlestar Galactica.

Galactica had a huge following despite being to expensive to produce
in 1978. The 2003 miniseries was hugely popular and basic cable takes
more chances than network TV. The 2004 series was a big money maker
for Sci-Fi.

The 1983 V miniseries was not a failed series - it was a very popular. A
sequel miniseries was produced in 1984. the one hour series was done
on the cheap and failed but there was still a huge fan following. As with
many movies and TV of the 1980's studio exec's see the potential in
remaking what the kids and teens of the 80's loved.

Studios are more willing to take a chance on something familiar.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

Much like what has lately been happening on Broadway; rather than producing fresh new musicals, producers are going for revivals (Little Night Music, Chicago) and fail-safe Disney fare (Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Mary Poppins, Little Mermaid...). When economy is bleak, you invest in stuff that is familiar enough to a good number of people, so that they can market it for you.

If both had not failed, then that's my answer. And, yes, I do agree that the studios have become conservative.

Both series were very expensive, that is the only reason they "failed". They couldn't be made at that budget without an even larger audience than they got. Glen Larson tried to make Galactica on a reasonable TV budget and the result was the horrible Galactica 1980. Things changed with cable as was stated above, the audience didn't need to be as large, and I suspect special effects costs also came down.

RJSchwarz

Yes, I distinctly remember BSG being too expensive. As you said, the economics have changed in the decades since, so it was worth a risk to try again.

Side question: I was told that a typical episode would cost between $2 to 4 million for a SF series. What's the typical budget for a series like "Mad About You" or "Boston Legal", where there're no big explosions, car chases, or special effects?

Not including talent (which drives the costs way up) a typical 3 camera
half hour comedy is in the $500,000 range and a one hour drama in
the $1,500,000 range.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

Not including talent (which drives the costs way up) a typical 3 camera
half hour comedy is in the $500,000 range and a one hour drama in
the $1,500,000 range.

---

That's my impression. Why would an hour-long drama be 3X as expensive as a half-hour one?

Just my two cents--studios love remakes because there is ANY kind of built in fanbase rather than no built in fanbase with something new. I mean, they're now remaking remakes. It's so crazy they had to invent a new word for it: "reimagining".
With those two series, I think certified investigator has got it exactly right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aspiring mogul
Why would an hour-long drama be 3X as expensive as a half-hour one?

---

Without having direct experience or knowledge, I'd guess because 3-camera sitcom is shot almost exclusively on sound stage, while single-camera drama gets a fairly decent percentage of location shots in every episode.

On the streets around my office building (in Manhattan), not a month goes by that I don't see at least three city blocks taken up by those "Haddad's" trucks and trailers. If it is not "Gossip GIrl", it is something else, most often those one-hour drama shows. IT is very clear that these drain the budget quite rapidly.

Good point - I never thought of that. And, yes, that makes sense. "Three's Company" is almost always in their apartment, but "LA Law" is shot in quite a few places.

A Studio or Network Executive who says YES to a known entity (like a previous movie, tv show, or successful novel) will likely keep his job regardless of whether the new project succeeds or fails.

A Studio or Network Executive who says YES to an UNknown entity (like a script from a "nobody/wanna-be") will likely LOSE his job if the new project fails.

It all boils down to money. If the studio Execs think that they can make money off of a project and/or the person attached to it.. .AND KEEP THEIR JOB IF IT FAILS.... then they might say "yes!"

But if the studio Execs think that a project is not a safe-bet because it's an unknown entity and/or an unknown person is attached, then the likelihood of that person/project getting financed is small to none.

That's why we see so many sequels and why there is almost always a "movie star." Taking the safe bet over unknown helps to ensure that the Exec can keep paying alimony to wife one, keep his trophy wife happy, and buy that third vacation home and fourth Ferrari in the driveway.

It is ALL about the money.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aspiring mogul
"Three's Company" is almost always in their apartment, but "LA Law" is shot in quite a few places.

---

Wow, man! Seriously, the 80's?? I would have thought, "Two and a Half Men" vs. "Law and Order LA"...