You're quite right, the startup costs are the biggest barrier to sci-fi (I think "speculative fiction" is a tautology since all fiction is speculative by nature, and if "sci-fi" was good enough for Asimov it's good enough for me, but it's really not important...a rose by any other name would still be a hydrocarbon emitting reproductive organ of the Rosa genus). The two genres you've chosen are a good comparison, since they both usually involve high tech gizmos, interweaving story lines and special effects.
Real spies are basically civil servants who work in fairly nondescript offices for the most part, so you don't need a war room style C&C centre unless you want a big screen for a cartoony supervillain to deliver an ultimatum (but when you do that every episode it just gets silly. Note that when they have a C&C centre in a Bond film it's borrowed from the military, not an MI6 asset, and for a one-off like that it's not too difficult to arrange a traffic control room or similar). A slightly tricked-out office space filled with computers loaned on a product placement deal and dimly lit around the edges to hide a lack of detail will do for the bookend set, maybe a nice conference room for briefings, and you can use real locations for bridging shots and exteriors. Costumes are standard modern day clothing (either second hand or more product placement), and makeup rarely goes beyond fake blood and moulage. In all, a good looking pilot can be done for about $150k, provided you leave the effects heavy shots and helicopter stunts until later in the season, but what we're really talking about here is a sophisticated cop show with some wire work and extra explosions (the BBC's "Spooks" is a good example, though "24" follows the same principle IIRC).
You lose all of those advantages with sci-fi, since technically it's period drama and you usually can't let the real world creep in; nobody will believe your ship's computer is a Dell running Windows 7, and a Seiko watch in the year 2400 is anachronistic even if it does pack an electromagnet, laser and circular saw. The sets have to be built from scratch if you want to avoid trainspotters*, which costs as much as any stud-frame construction with unique interior decoration, so you're looking at anywhere up to $70k for a single large set once you've paid the carpenters, electricians and fabricators. Space exteriors and other CGI assets have to be final quality to impress the commissioning editors (no matter what they say, they can't imagine the final product), so there's the modelling and rendering costs, the makeup has to be good enough to stand up in HD, and costumes are usually short run custom creations or one-offs. It's easy to go over $250k on a three-set piece before a single live action frame is shot.
Obviously the biggest difference is the sets, and savings can be made depending on the story. "Caprica" cleverly used a retro-near-future style which let them raid any period in the 20th century for props, costumes and architecture, "Sky Captain" was notable for it's entirely CGI world, and from memory much of "The Man From Atlantis" was shot in the back of a shaggin' wagon.
The figures I'm bandying about here are considered bargain basement, "Jason Of Star Command" level; seamless shows like "Space:1999" and "ST:TNG" cost around $1.5M per episode (adjusted for inflation) with the startup costs amortised across the first season, so the pilots would be closer to $6-7M in today's money (both of those shows were presold, however, so I'm not sure anyone knows the figure precisely).
Not really a conclusive answer, sorry, but there are so many variables it's hard to estimate accurately, and that's kind of the problem: other genres present a more certain profit margin for the networks on the same viewer figures, and like any business they're in it for the profit. Hey, ho.
*I'm one myself; when watching old Dr Who episodes I can't help but laugh at the
Ha! Sadly, no, I can't lay claim to a career that illustrious. I do have an IMDB listing, but I'd rather not link to it because (a) I like to preserve a little anonymity around here, and (b) it's rather embarrassing by comparison;)
Hi, I'm executive producer on four TV shows and I've pitched several that didn't get picked up, so I believe I can provide your explanation.
For a start, you've cherry-picked the biggest franchises, and completely ignored the hundreds of failures.
Many of the series you mentioned are cartoons, which are easily sold for morning timeslots or dedicated kids cable channels; consider the Tamagotchi series, and you'll understand how easy it is to sell even the most stupid idea in that market (as long as there's an action figure set to advertise). Sure, there's a crossover between the superhero and sci-fi audience, but that doesn't translate into advertising revenue, it's that base kids market that pays for most cartoons, some extra eyeballs in an adult time slot is just gravy. Hey, I like the wry humour in Batman: The Brave and The Bold, but it is aimed at audiences aged 7 and older, once you go PG you lose your main cartoon audience (what can I say, most people grow out of cartoons, but that's their loss).
There hasn't been a TV series of Star Trek for 9 years, Stargate's last spinoff has just been cancelled (and the first TV series came as a result of the movie anyway, so all the props and sets were already paid for), the last English language live action Spiderman series finished in 1978 and Batman in 1967 (both cancelled after two seasons), and there's never been a Star Wars live action TV series, so all of those examples are exceptionally bad if you're trying to argue that TV sci-fi is commercially viable today.
In the case of the movies, Batman, Spiderman and Star Trek all had long existing fan bases to build from, and unlike the Flash Gordon movie and cartoon from the 80's, were done well enough to stand on their own merits and attract new fans (not counting Batman Forever or Batman & Robin, of course). If you're trying something new you're starting from a fan base of zero, so there's no word-of-mouth promotion, no nostalgia factor, any publicity buzz has to start from scratch and the show has to be good enough to overcome that inertia. Besides, the economics of movies and TV are different: in television there are no ticket sales, the only source of revenue is indirect (until the DVD release, but if you do that before the show airs the networks won't touch it).
You can't throw your typical half assed TV schlock at it and expect it to work
And there's the problem in a nutshell. To make a successful sci-fi series you need a premise that isn't rubbish (which means you're not appealing to the network's imaginary core audience of idiots), intelligent writers, actors who can babble convincingly (it may surprise you to learn that most actors aren't scientists, they really have no idea what they're talking about even when the science is accurate) and a budget for props, sets, makeup and special effects sufficient to create a consistent and believable universe for the characters to inhabit.
That's not impossible on no budget, as Starship Exeter demonstrates, however because everyone involved in that is donating their time the production progresses as fast as their free time allows; in other words, not very fast at all, certainly not fast enough to fit a 13 week season's production schedule into a single year, and TV networks can't operate with shows that turn up occasionally.
I'll close with the piece of advice I give to everyone I meet trying to get into film and television who hit these brick walls in reality: if it was really as easy as you think it is, everyone would be doing it.
There's this awesome thing called a sense of humour, that lets people realise when someone's being facetious, all by themselves. It's a crazy concept, I know, but it just might be worth a try.
If homosexually is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality).
The notion that homosexuality is a biological imperfection is based on the assumption that it is desirable for 100% of a population to reproduce. This isn't necessarily so; for example, most species of primates have a social hierarchy in which a dominant male which sires the majority of offspring, while subordinate males and non-reproducing females assist in raising the young. By contrast, humans pair bond, and in early society where life expectancy was much shorter and grandparents a rarity it would make sense for a certain percentage of the population remain free agents to assist the reproducing couples in child rearing (and a third gender, half way between male and female, might well be better suited to this role). The importance of this would certainly have declined as society and technology developed and life spans increased, and it's entirely possible that either there hasn't been sufficient time for this gene to disappear, or it has been kept alive by the rise and fall of civilisations.
Whether or not the above is correct, it should be up to the individual to decide whether they want to be "fixed" or not, otherwise you open the door to some extremely nasty social engineering. And I've never heard anyone suggest pedophilia or bestiality have a basis in genetics.
I read the headline and immediately thought a mad scientist was about to unleash an army of things resembling a cross between Spiderman and the Terminator, and we should all cower in terror in our makeshift basement bunkers awaiting our inevitable destruction.
But TFA revealed it's just a smartphone hack.
All we need is a brand of toilet paper called "Flying Car" and my disappointment with the 21st century will be complete.
Slashdot Mirror
You're quite right, the startup costs are the biggest barrier to sci-fi (I think "speculative fiction" is a tautology since all fiction is speculative by nature, and if "sci-fi" was good enough for Asimov it's good enough for me, but it's really not important...a rose by any other name would still be a hydrocarbon emitting reproductive organ of the Rosa genus). The two genres you've chosen are a good comparison, since they both usually involve high tech gizmos, interweaving story lines and special effects.
Real spies are basically civil servants who work in fairly nondescript offices for the most part, so you don't need a war room style C&C centre unless you want a big screen for a cartoony supervillain to deliver an ultimatum (but when you do that every episode it just gets silly. Note that when they have a C&C centre in a Bond film it's borrowed from the military, not an MI6 asset, and for a one-off like that it's not too difficult to arrange a traffic control room or similar). A slightly tricked-out office space filled with computers loaned on a product placement deal and dimly lit around the edges to hide a lack of detail will do for the bookend set, maybe a nice conference room for briefings, and you can use real locations for bridging shots and exteriors. Costumes are standard modern day clothing (either second hand or more product placement), and makeup rarely goes beyond fake blood and moulage. In all, a good looking pilot can be done for about $150k, provided you leave the effects heavy shots and helicopter stunts until later in the season, but what we're really talking about here is a sophisticated cop show with some wire work and extra explosions (the BBC's "Spooks" is a good example, though "24" follows the same principle IIRC).
You lose all of those advantages with sci-fi, since technically it's period drama and you usually can't let the real world creep in; nobody will believe your ship's computer is a Dell running Windows 7, and a Seiko watch in the year 2400 is anachronistic even if it does pack an electromagnet, laser and circular saw. The sets have to be built from scratch if you want to avoid trainspotters*, which costs as much as any stud-frame construction with unique interior decoration, so you're looking at anywhere up to $70k for a single large set once you've paid the carpenters, electricians and fabricators. Space exteriors and other CGI assets have to be final quality to impress the commissioning editors (no matter what they say, they can't imagine the final product), so there's the modelling and rendering costs, the makeup has to be good enough to stand up in HD, and costumes are usually short run custom creations or one-offs. It's easy to go over $250k on a three-set piece before a single live action frame is shot.
Obviously the biggest difference is the sets, and savings can be made depending on the story. "Caprica" cleverly used a retro-near-future style which let them raid any period in the 20th century for props, costumes and architecture, "Sky Captain" was notable for it's entirely CGI world, and from memory much of "The Man From Atlantis" was shot in the back of a shaggin' wagon.
The figures I'm bandying about here are considered bargain basement, "Jason Of Star Command" level; seamless shows like "Space:1999" and "ST:TNG" cost around $1.5M per episode (adjusted for inflation) with the startup costs amortised across the first season, so the pilots would be closer to $6-7M in today's money (both of those shows were presold, however, so I'm not sure anyone knows the figure precisely).
Not really a conclusive answer, sorry, but there are so many variables it's hard to estimate accurately, and that's kind of the problem: other genres present a more certain profit margin for the networks on the same viewer figures, and like any business they're in it for the profit. Hey, ho.
*I'm one myself; when watching old Dr Who episodes I can't help but laugh at the
Ha! Sadly, no, I can't lay claim to a career that illustrious. I do have an IMDB listing, but I'd rather not link to it because (a) I like to preserve a little anonymity around here, and (b) it's rather embarrassing by comparison ;)
Hi, I'm executive producer on four TV shows and I've pitched several that didn't get picked up, so I believe I can provide your explanation.
For a start, you've cherry-picked the biggest franchises, and completely ignored the hundreds of failures.
Many of the series you mentioned are cartoons, which are easily sold for morning timeslots or dedicated kids cable channels; consider the Tamagotchi series, and you'll understand how easy it is to sell even the most stupid idea in that market (as long as there's an action figure set to advertise). Sure, there's a crossover between the superhero and sci-fi audience, but that doesn't translate into advertising revenue, it's that base kids market that pays for most cartoons, some extra eyeballs in an adult time slot is just gravy. Hey, I like the wry humour in Batman: The Brave and The Bold, but it is aimed at audiences aged 7 and older, once you go PG you lose your main cartoon audience (what can I say, most people grow out of cartoons, but that's their loss).
There hasn't been a TV series of Star Trek for 9 years, Stargate's last spinoff has just been cancelled (and the first TV series came as a result of the movie anyway, so all the props and sets were already paid for), the last English language live action Spiderman series finished in 1978 and Batman in 1967 (both cancelled after two seasons), and there's never been a Star Wars live action TV series, so all of those examples are exceptionally bad if you're trying to argue that TV sci-fi is commercially viable today.
In the case of the movies, Batman, Spiderman and Star Trek all had long existing fan bases to build from, and unlike the Flash Gordon movie and cartoon from the 80's, were done well enough to stand on their own merits and attract new fans (not counting Batman Forever or Batman & Robin, of course). If you're trying something new you're starting from a fan base of zero, so there's no word-of-mouth promotion, no nostalgia factor, any publicity buzz has to start from scratch and the show has to be good enough to overcome that inertia. Besides, the economics of movies and TV are different: in television there are no ticket sales, the only source of revenue is indirect (until the DVD release, but if you do that before the show airs the networks won't touch it).
You can't throw your typical half assed TV schlock at it and expect it to work
And there's the problem in a nutshell. To make a successful sci-fi series you need a premise that isn't rubbish (which means you're not appealing to the network's imaginary core audience of idiots), intelligent writers, actors who can babble convincingly (it may surprise you to learn that most actors aren't scientists, they really have no idea what they're talking about even when the science is accurate) and a budget for props, sets, makeup and special effects sufficient to create a consistent and believable universe for the characters to inhabit.
That's not impossible on no budget, as Starship Exeter demonstrates, however because everyone involved in that is donating their time the production progresses as fast as their free time allows; in other words, not very fast at all, certainly not fast enough to fit a 13 week season's production schedule into a single year, and TV networks can't operate with shows that turn up occasionally.
I'll close with the piece of advice I give to everyone I meet trying to get into film and television who hit these brick walls in reality: if it was really as easy as you think it is, everyone would be doing it.
Not according to legend. Besides, 100 Euros will buy you just about anything on the Reeperbahn...
...and not one reference to Dutch boys putting their fingers in dikes. Those Swedish prosecutors must be scary...
I thought blonde socialites were defenceless pets. I certainly haven't seen a practical reason for their domestication...
Can't say I have. The last joke I made about bestial dwarf porn got modded up pretty quickly.
If Taco has any smarts at all, he'd let kdawson go.
I believe there's a law against releasing defenceless pets into the wild.
Is their company run by an evil troll who punishes all those who implement innovation and progress?
Yes, and MBA's don't appreciate being called names.
Lighten up :)
There's the problem: you can't detect sarcasm in typing either.
There's this awesome thing called a sense of humour, that lets people realise when someone's being facetious, all by themselves. It's a crazy concept, I know, but it just might be worth a try.
[citation required]
Not disputing you, I just want to see some video of one in action
As a target, yes.
If homosexually is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality).
The notion that homosexuality is a biological imperfection is based on the assumption that it is desirable for 100% of a population to reproduce. This isn't necessarily so; for example, most species of primates have a social hierarchy in which a dominant male which sires the majority of offspring, while subordinate males and non-reproducing females assist in raising the young. By contrast, humans pair bond, and in early society where life expectancy was much shorter and grandparents a rarity it would make sense for a certain percentage of the population remain free agents to assist the reproducing couples in child rearing (and a third gender, half way between male and female, might well be better suited to this role). The importance of this would certainly have declined as society and technology developed and life spans increased, and it's entirely possible that either there hasn't been sufficient time for this gene to disappear, or it has been kept alive by the rise and fall of civilisations.
Whether or not the above is correct, it should be up to the individual to decide whether they want to be "fixed" or not, otherwise you open the door to some extremely nasty social engineering. And I've never heard anyone suggest pedophilia or bestiality have a basis in genetics.
Too much is never enough, eh?
I type with one hand.
Too much information right there.
Mmmmmm.... doorknobs.
Best placed inside a sock and applied liberally about the head and body of tech pundits.
That's NASA's problem: no sense of drama.
Apparently nobody at Microsoft has seen Wrath of Kahn, otherwise they'd know what a bad idea it is taking Enterprise to the cloud.
...but at some point it will be possible to build vehicles that are self-aware.
"I'm a Hyundai...please end my misery!"
Not as much as Ron Jeremy.
He cited China's ability, the world's first, to build high-speed tail in high mountain area...
I'll declare that mission accomplished, though I was aiming for both simultaneously...
They wouldn't be able to tell if you were coming or going...
I read the headline and immediately thought a mad scientist was about to unleash an army of things resembling a cross between Spiderman and the Terminator, and we should all cower in terror in our makeshift basement bunkers awaiting our inevitable destruction.
But TFA revealed it's just a smartphone hack.
All we need is a brand of toilet paper called "Flying Car" and my disappointment with the 21st century will be complete.