That makes my nomination for “worst movie you ever saw in a theater”. Seriously, I remember going to see that, and everyone just looked at each with this WTF? expression as we were leaving the theater.
I think that most channels fill their time slots with content that has already been produced – old movies, reruns, etc – by other production companies. As they do this, they produce quality original content, building up a backstore of material that they can slowly use to replace the stuff that was created by others.
I don’t understand why some of these actors and crew, rather than let their shows get cancelled and thus put them out of a job, don’t just say “fine, don’t give us raises, whatever”. I mean, I’m sure Colin Ferguson isn’t raking in the same kinda dough as, say, David Caruso, but it can’t be too bad if he’s managed to live on it for this long.
Sure, there’s still the SFX budgets, but it could still make the difference between being profitable enough to pick for another season or not.
Oh, I do. If they weren’t against quality stuff, you’d see it cropping up occasionally in those movies.
And I note that “quality” doesn’t mean "expensive. A lot of the old Twilight Zone stuff was done on a budget. There have been science fiction movies without lots of expensive effects – Creator and Panic in Year Zero and The Man from Earth had nothing beyond a glass painting among the three. Nowadays you can crank out inexpensive effects on a computer. With a little effort, it won’t even look irredeemably cheap.
Which need to be paid for - it’s cheaper than producing their own stuff, but it’s still an increase to their budget. Their own old stuff can be put on for free (save any residuals they need to pay), but that was part of my point - they already drive anything they have the rights to into the ground. Driving it even deeper because they’ve run through their budget on one show isn’t going to be good for profits.
That depends. Are we talking Stacy Keibler or Triple H?
If it’s cheaper than producing their own stuff, why are they producing their own stuff? As example, assume the following breakdown:
A $10m per hour - Self-produced, original, quality entertainment
B $1m per hour - Self-produced, original, schlock entertainment
C $10k per hour - Non-self-produced, non-original, quality entertainment
D $0 per hour - Self-produced, non-original, quality entertainment
I could fill 24 hours with B (24 * $1m = $24m) or I could fill it with a mix of 1 A and many Cs ($10m + $10k * 23 = $10.2m), up until the point where I could flop out all of the Cs with Ds ($10m + 0 = $10m).
Both $10.2 and $10 are less than $24.
Exactly. Look at movies like 12 Monkeys or Children of Men or The Road - intelligent science fiction movies that didn’t rely on special effects.
I don’t mind that they make cheap crappy movies. What bothers me is that $1m (which I believe is the usual budget Asylum gets for their productions) should be enough to get it above average-to-decent, instead of rock bottom shite.
For example, the Librarian films had only a little higher budget and they used most of it for locations. If similar productions had no fancy locations or sets and instead paid the actors and crew to do better work, it’d boost them to watchable.
You have completely missed the point of the post you are replying to. It doesn’t have to do with ‘Syfy production vs buying outside productions’ it has to do with ‘spend our entire budget on one production, then scrounge, or resort to reruns out the ass to fill other other hours, or spread it around’.
They’ve got, again, as an example, $10,000,000 to fill 20 hours of program time.
It makes sense to spend that on 20 hours of programming, rather than blow it on 2, and hope they can scrounge up something to fill the other 18 hours and will actually get enough people watching to make up for the fact that they’re now spending another several million more than they were going to spend. There’s no profit in it.
Even if they just move $8,000,000 to a single production, they’ve still cut down the money they have for the other 18 hours by 3/4, and thus the quality/popularity of what they can purchase, and thus the ratings it’ll likely get, and the money they’ll get back.
Wrong, they could roll it to blocks of 6 hours, run 3 times and then the local cable provider runs infomercials in the last 6 hour block [2 am to 8 am] You do the original style of cable programming where you run the 6 hour block 3x per day, or even in this case mix up the 6 hour programming blocks. You get a heavy repeat, but watchers would deal with it Look how heavily the movie channels put movies in rotation, I saw Lord of the Rings 1 5 times in one day spread out on 3 channels of IIRC Cinemax.
If you put on quality SF programming, it will get watched. May not be print your own cash profitable, but I bet you could get sponsors enough to stay afloat.
That, of course, is the issue. Almost certainly the Powers That Be in charge of Syfy want to maximize profits, not promote the mission of Good Science Fiction Programming.
I’m not saying that it has to be that way, or that it ought to be that way. It’s just that we’d need a Controlling Directorate that was committed to that end. This sort of thing has happened before. Mad Magazine existed as an effectively independent entity for a long time because of William M. Gaines, who kept it afloat (without advertisements!!!) for decades. I’m still amazed that the magazine is still around, when most other humor magazines have died. Jay Ward, the mad genius behind Rocky and Bullwinkle (among others) was another such. An individual of strong opinion is probably needed to lauvnch and maintain something like this, and that seems less likely today for television. But it might not be for webcasting, say.
But I think there’s an important lesson there. One of the main reasons Mad has survived is because it found its own unique niche. What did it have to compete against? Cracked? Crazy?
Now look at FHM (the American edition). It tried to compete it the men’s magazine market. There probably was a lot more issues being sold in that market but it was competing against Maxim and GQ and Esquire and Playboy and Front and Men’s Health and Stuff and King and Smooth and Hombre. FHM was successful but it wasn’t the top seller. So it ended up stopping publication.
This is what SyFy needs to think about. It should stop trying to be a second-rate Discovery Channel or A&E or TLC and look for its own niche. It would be better off as the number one science fiction channel rather than the number six general interest channel.
If they have low budgets, they should embrace them and go all out. Make another Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace, maybe 
Like me!!
Ok guys, so the plan is:
-
Get Rich
-
Buy sci-fi channel
-
Sack the idiots who make cheesy movies, except for one who I will keep around as my lackey.
I’m on it!
I wonder if the decline of the Sci Fi channel is due to the nature of the cable industry.
When C Band satellite began, the huge 10’ dish antennas, most of the stuff was free. Someone (the cable guys) found out you could make money. For a while you could buy individual channels like Sci Fi. Soon you had to buy packages. At that point, the industry would put unpopular to advertiser channels in a package with something popular and expensive. So channels changed to be more popular with advertisers. The decline of Sci Fi programming coincides with the rise of small dish satellite and large, expensive packages.
If I paid five bucks a month for just Sci Fi, if was because I liked it. To be put in a package or not be available at all on cable or small sat, they had to be more popular with advertisers. Hence wrestling and crummy, cheap movies.
We were watching Giant Squid Vs. Mega Shark and Each. line. spoken. was the worst line ever uttered on film.
Until the next line…
Really, It got funny after a while. I think someone else may have made this point in the past but It’s true regardless.
My rule of thumb is I never watch a poorly made monster movie unless Misty Mundae is naked in it.
We really ought to have a thread that writes this movie!!!
Yer missin’ the point. It’s not just Cracked and Cray that went out of the humor business. So did National Lampoon. So did Spy (a really sophisticated humor mag, but humor nonetheless). So, for that matter, did the ancient and respectable Punch in Britain.
And that’s not to mention things like Panic and Sick and comic humor mags like Plop! and Not Brand Ecch and a myriad others.
Humor mags have a high mortality rate. I’m amazed that Mad has managed to survive at all, not that it beat the competition, but that it hasn’t died as so many others have. The choice hasn’t been “Mad or Cracked?”, it’s been “Mad or spend on something else?”