View Single Post
Old March 6 2013, 05:18 PM   #20
Vice Admiral
RAMA's Avatar
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote:

Um, those are 2012 numbers, not the numbers from ten years ago when ENT was on. An episode of ENT back then cost (on average) around 2 million dollars each, the same price as many shows back then with bigger name stars. Sure, there are a few shows that cost more than ENT, but usually those shows were delivering very high ratings to justify their cost.
Yes, I stated that...TODAY they make LESS because of the lower demand for network TV. More actors made $500,000+(Some $850,000-1 million+) in the last few decades than they make now. Even so, there are some who make about half of what ENT cost per episode. In fact the 4th season of ENT actually avged a budget of about $850,000 per episode, slightly more than Ashton Kutcher makes per ep.
In other words, ENT was on par with network shows that had bigger name stars.
Let me summarize:

Shows in ENT's time with big name stars had much larger budgets because they paid so much to the big name stars. Consequently they still had to pay for the rest of the show on top of those salaries, god forbid there was more than one actor making more than 500,000. An example might be Friends, where the 6 cast members EACH made $1 million per HALF HOUR episode for the final season (omg, that's 6 million per ep before you pay for anything else!). Charlie Sheen recently was making $2 million per episode. Several actors still make $500,000 an episode DESPITE the decreased a 10 is good. STNG avged a 12-13 in it's final seasons by comparison.

Yes, the shows had bigger ratings and so on than Enterprise but ST probably had better syndication deals (better ad revenue) and ENT probably made more in it's UPN network deal as well. Still, it has to be known shows like ENT cost more, but to produce, not to pay out to big names, so the money actually goes INTO the production of the show...more bang for the buck.

Today, with lower ratings but some actors still making large salaries, I think you can make a case for a sci fi show like ST, on a niche network or syndication-type deal or even streaming outlet doing well enough to warrant a good budget....knowing you don't need to score a 20 rating to be popular. A streaming series might get away with a budget of $1 million, and with 12 episodes, would cost less than the 25 episode seasons of past Trek. H+ the excellent, ward winning webseries by Bryan Singer cost $2 million to produce for 255 min, featuring FX, international locations, etc. Drone, another praised webseries cost a fraction of that and looks better than almost any studio produced network series.

A model:

Christopher wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
Star Trek's budget on TV is likely to be less than a network show with "big names" and the budget they do have can go into the look, at least until the cast becomes popular.
Actually if a show has "big names," then a higher percentage of its budget will go to cast salaries and that means less of it will go into production values. So maybe that's not the best comparison to make.

TNG was definitely a big-budget series compared to its contemporaries. Its cast wasn't very well-known at the beginning; British audiences were very familiar with Patrick Stewart, but to American audiences the most famous cast member was LeVar Burton. But because the Trek movies were performing so well at the box office and bringing Paramount so much profit, combined with the ongoing success of TOS reruns in syndication and home video, the studio saw ST as its most profitable property and thus was willing to invest top dollar in the new series, wanting it to be as prestigious as possible.

The first Abrams movie did quite well at the box office. If the next two perform similarly, that might create the same incentive for Paramount and CBS to invest in a big-budget Trek TV series.
I think you misunderstood me, see the post above. Hopefully I was clearer.
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote