Orci says ST series talk "getting real"

[BillJ]

Sindatur wrote:

---

Probably really unlikely that CBS would be the ones airing it, so, wouldn't their main expense be the Pilot, and then they would shop it around, and whoever was interested would pay the licensing fee and pick up alot of the Production Budget? Or would the Production Budget still be on CBS' head?

Would it really be as much as $5M per episode? That seems kinda high considering Enterprise ended with an $800K per episode budget (Per psot above), not even 10 years ago. Sure, the Pilot would be expensive, and you'd need start costs for sets, so S1 would be pricier, but, once you get some sets built throughout S1, $5M per episode just seems really exhorbitant. Isn't CGI getting cheaper rather than more expensive?

I'm going from memory here, but I believe Enterprise was at 1.8 million an episode during season four. The $800,00 was what UPN was paying for the right to air it, which was a substantial decrease from the other three seasons.

CBS would obviously have the option of licensing Trek to another production company. But if they produce it, they would be paying the production budget but also collecting home video and syndication profits as well. But it also is a much longer cycle to get a return on thier investment.

[Sindatur]

BillJ wrote:

---

I'm going from memory here, but I believe Enterprise was at 1.8 million an episode during season four. The $800,00 was what UPN was paying for the right to air it, which was a substantial decrease from the other three seasons.

CBS would obviously have the option of licensing Trek to another production company. But if they produce it, they would be paying the production budget but also collecting home video and syndication profits as well. But it also is a much longer cycle to get a return on thier investment.

OK, so 1.8Million, and Babylon 5 got by very well on 1M per episode. How could a budget requirement raise by 150 - 200% in so short a time, when $1M - $2M per episode produced some great effects for so many years? CGI should be cheaper, or bang for buck the now then it was in the Mid 90s and early 2000s

[Therin of Andor]

Sindatur wrote:

---

CGI should be cheaper, or bang for buck the now then it was in the Mid 90s and early 2000s

If you want a TV show that looks like it was made in "in the mid 90s and early 2000s".

[BillJ]

Sindatur wrote:

---

OK, so 1.8Million, and Babylon 5 got by very well on 1M per episode. How could a budget requirement raise by 150 - 200% in so short a time, when $1M - $2M per episode produced some great effects for so many years? CGI should be cheaper, or bang for buck the now then it was in the Mid 90s and early 2000s

While its going to be inflated a bit due to location shooting, CSI: Miami costs $3.5 million an episode...

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb...ation-20110216

This site lists current production costs of TV series as anywhere from $2-10 million dollars an episode.

http://orient.bowdoin.edu/orient/art...section=4&id=4

It really cost one million an episode to make B5? It had some great stories, but the sets and effects looked like shit.

[Temis the Vorta]

CBS will become interested when someone with credibility makes a viable pitch that includes a good argument for Star Trek being on Showtime, or Netflix, or sold to FX or whatever the plan is.

That's the biggest hurdle, where is it going to go and why should CBS believe it will make enough money to be worth bothering with? I'm sure there are many different ways a viable pitch could be constructed. Someone just needs to decide on a plan and pitch it.

Waiting to confirm that the second movie is a hit, is a good plan. That will make the case to CBS better than anything else I can envision. Everyone buy ten tickets apiece, even if the damn thing is about Khan!

[BillJ]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

CBS will become interested when someone with credibility makes a viable pitch that includes a good argument for Star Trek being on Showtime, or Netflix, or sold to FX or whatever the plan is.

And convinces them why it's a good idea to further devalue their back catalog of episodes.

[Ryan8bit]

BillJ wrote:

---

At possibly five million dollars an episode it'll have to be placed somewhere where as many eyeballs as possible can see it.

Game of Thrones has an even higher budget than that, and they seem to get along fine on HBO. Maybe Showtime doesn't get as many viewers though? I don't think any Star Trek show really would.

Even the Star Wars live action show planned was supposed to have a budget of 2-4 million per episode, but last I heard they were having financial troubles since their target market was general cable.

I'm guessing that Star Trek could get by on 2 mil or even less, but the question is if the studio wants to sink down the quality to match the target audience. That was part of the reason for Enterprise's cancellation, that Paramount didn't want to make anything look budgeted.

But this is all talk for a live action show. An animated show would probably cost less, although I'm not sure I'd prefer it.

[Temis the Vorta]

BillJ wrote:

---

And convinces them why it's a good idea to further devalue their back catalog of episodes.

Why would it devalue its back catalog as opposed to creating a new audience for old episodes?

[BillJ]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

Why would it devalue its back catalog as opposed to creating a new audience for old episodes?

There are seven hundred episodes you add another series and that one less slot for something in the back catalog to air in down the road.

[MacLeod]

^I was just think the same Temis, a new show might re-vitalise interest in the older shows. Leading to possible DVD/BR sales and network interest in running older shows.

[BillJ]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

Game of Thrones has an even higher budget than that, and they seem to get along fine on HBO. Maybe Showtime doesn't get as many viewers though? I don't think any Star Trek show really would.

Even the Star Wars live action show planned was supposed to have a budget of 2-4 million per episode, but last I heard they were having financial troubles since their target market was general cable.

I'm guessing that Star Trek could get by on 2 mil or even less, but the question is if the studio wants to sink down the quality to match the target audience. That was part of the reason for Enterprise's cancellation, that Paramount didn't want to make anything look budgeted.

But this is all talk for a live action show. An animated show would probably cost less, although I'm not sure I'd prefer it.

Food for thought...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/476472.../#.UAb-7mt5mSM

[Temis the Vorta]

BillJ wrote:

---

There are seven hundred episodes you add another series and that one less slot for something in the back catalog to air in down the road.

The new series would air on Showtime or maybe Netflix where the reruns don't air anyway, no competition there. On Netflix, time slots are moot. And on other channels why couldn't the new series and reruns complement each other, by running back to back, enhancing the ratings for both? And a new series would be a great merchandising boost in general by raising public awareness, just as the movies have done.

[Sindatur]

So, how does one go about measuring Piracy?

[BillJ]

Sindatur wrote:

---

So, how does one go about measuring Piracy?

I'm guessing one method is to gauge the number of times a show is downloaded on file-sharing services.

[Temis the Vorta]

There's a site that tracks piracy stats like the neilsens, forget what it is, but easy to google. Movies and TV shows are pirated more or less in proportion to their general popularity but sci if gets hit harder, which means piracy is inhibiting sci if more than other genres.