Killing a show prematurely (and since DM had decent numbers for the Syfy channel, barely dropping audience compared to S2, it may well be considered premature) does send a message to potential viewers though: don't count on this channel to finish the stories it started, even if the viewership remains reasonable. Which in turn may discourage potential viewers from trying new shows on that channel, on account of anticipation that it will be cancelled anyway. Maybe they should change their slogan to "...it's a fiscal thing!". One has to take into account they have been trying to rebuild an image with SF fans, between The Expanse, Killjoys and Dark Matter. Cutting out one third of that may not be a great move. How long will The Expanse, their flagship show, last? Netflix apparently has been showing some interest. They have rights to stream the first three seasons, and now with Discovery in their line-up this would be another carrot for SF fans. Any deal would need to be made quickly, though, and the various rights (Prodigy, Space, Syfy, maybe others) are probably quite complicated.
I'm sure the others involved with the funding and production of Dark Matter wouldn't see in their interests to play silly buggers over the rights. To my thinking they could either a) play silly buggers and not get much more return on their investment (which might not have been all recouped) or b) they could faciliatate a move to the Netlifx or who ever and see more production and more money coming in. Not sure syfy would have much of say. They've cannned it thus showing no further interest. Of course they could play silly buggers to make sure no-one else can do anything else with DM but then if they got a reputation for that sort of behavior it could bite them down the track.
^^^ Um, that's not how it works. It depends on whatever agreement SYFY had with the production company and they still might get a piece of the profits depending on whatever deal was made. Example: Just because CBS canceled 'Enterprise' <--- That didn't mean they lost control of the Star Trek franchise. Again, yes, it could be SYFY now has no say - but again, that depends on whatever was in the contract they made.
UPN cancelled Enterprise. At the time ENT was cancelled, the corporation that's now known as CBS Corporation was still called Viacom, and its TV production arm was still called Paramount Television rather than CBS Studios. UPN, the network, was also owned by Viacom, so it was a Viacom-owned studio selling the show to a Viacom-owned network, but the production company and the network were still functionally two separate businesses with different needs. A production company makes money by selling its shows to networks (or syndicated stations, streamers, etc.). A network makes money by selling airtime on those shows to advertisers, and by earning residuals on later syndication and video sales. If the ratings are too low and the network can't sell enough airtime, then it can no longer afford to buy the show from the production company, and that's what cancellation is. But the production company still owns the show -- in this case, Paramount Television, which was renamed CBS Studios the following year.
But as Christopher points out - Enterprise (and all modern trek) have been pretty much produced in house and have been commissioned in house. Dark Matter was sold to Syfy - they didn't commission it or produce it - merely broadcast it. Had they been more involved they would have potentially made more money from the series and that leads to the reason they cancelled it. They weren't getting a big enough slice of the revenue pie for their taste and at the end of the day that's fair enough. If you don't put in the money, why should the you reap more of the benefits over those who did?
Well, not exactly. Again, the production company and the network are two different businesses, even if they're both owned by the same conglomerate. Paramount Television produced Voyager and Enterprise. They sold those shows to UPN, which was also owned by Viacom and thus gave both the studio and the network certain benefits due to that common ownership. But they were required by law to offer the shows to any network that was willing to bid for them, because it would be anti-competitive and monopolistic (or I guess monopsonistic, the case where there's only one buyer) to shut out the other networks. So it's not "in-house" as far as the studio or the network was concerned, only as far as the corporate conglomerate that owns them both is concerned. The studio and the network have different and often opposing needs -- for instance, the studio needs to maximize the money the network gives it to make the show, while the network needs to minimize the money it gives the studio to make the show. If the network has an ownership stake in the show, that helps compensate them for the loss they take in financing the show, which is why it often happens these days, and why shows with that ownership stake are more likely to get renewed than shows without it. But that still doesn't mean the studio and the network are the same entity. And of course, TNG and DS9 weren't sold to a network at all. They were syndicated by Paramount to individual stations nationwide.
Did you even read my post? I ask because all I said was: "It depends on whatever deal SYFY had with the production company." SYFY COULD own an actual stake in any future production or continuation or they MAY NOT - BUT IT DEPENDS ON THE DEAL THAT WAS MADE (IE If SYFY was fronting some costs of production, etc. Example - In addition to airing BSG2003 back in the day, Sci-Fi (as it was know back then) put up about 1/2 of the show's production budget (Co Produced it with the BBC.) I have zero clue what there deal was for Dark Matter, but it IS possible they own part of the show itself. Again, it depends on the deal they made. It seems like the show had a number of different 'partners' involved - and that's why SYFY received a smaller share of the profits; and a main reason they decided not to renew. But again just because they decided not to renew - they MIGHT (or MIGHT NOT) still actually 'own' a part of the IP itself.
Binged through the season over the week, I don't mind cliffhangers in general, but this was just ridiculous. I really don't get the showrunners, it's nice to have faith in your show to go all the way, but it's also a responsible thing to do in current TV climate when one doesn't know if the show will be renewed to think of your audience and make sure that there's at least some closure at the end of each season. Which really shouldn't have been such a problem if the entire show was preplanned...
And then what happens when your show gets renewed but you've tied up all your plot lines (possibly in a hurry). Season 5 of Babylon 5 is a good example. The Shadow War was supposed to continue into S5 but they weren't sure if there was going to be an S5. So the Shadow War gets it's conclusion early and they grasped a bit for plot lines for S5 so we got a number of different min-arcs (the Telepaths on B5, the Minbari civil war etc) and a final episode that while good didn't reference the final season at all.
Because it was actually shot as the final episode of season 4 when they thought they were being cancelled. When they were picked up for season 5, they shot a new season 4 finale and held back "Sleeping in Light" until the end.
I never suggested they should have tied up all the plot lines, or any, for that matter, just that they shouldn't have left everything, both character arcs and all the various plot arcs hanging in mid air. This season's Killjoys finale is a good example of how to do it right. It also ends on a cliffhanger, but the episode resolved some season long threads, and if the show was cancelled, sure, it would have sucked not to see what happens next, but there's at least some closure there.
I think what I read on Mallozzi's blog or somewhere is that they weren't certain they'd get renewed, but they had a plan for a 5-season arc and didn't think they could do it justice by changing it materially to avoid a cliffhanger. It's worth remembering that many shows in the past have done the same thing. Making a TV series is always a gamble. Lasting all the way until your preferred ending point is a luxury, not a routine expectation. But writers and audiences like continuing stories, and season-ending cliffhangers have been proven to work, so a lot of shows still use the technique even without the certainty of renewal. If they weren't willing to gamble, they wouldn't be in TV in the first place. They do it because they feel the potential benefits to the storytelling if they do get renewed outweigh the drawbacks if they don't. Of course, some producers plan out their seasons to have closure as a hedge against cancellation, but different creators make different choices, and some prefer not to do it that way.
That's called Chuck. They were always on the bubble so they had one big plot that got resolved with the episodes they were given, then the rest of the season gets picked up and they fill it with crap because they weren't prepared.
Oh, that has nothing on Sledge Hammer! That was a sitcom parodying Dirty Harry and other tough-cop characters, and they were so sure they were about to be cancelled that they ended the first season with a finale where Sledge has to disarm a nuclear bomb, spouts his catchphrase "Trust me -- I know what I'm doing," and as usual doesn't know what he's doing and ends up nuking the whole city. ...And then they got renewed. We spent the whole summer wondering how they'd resolve that impossible cliffhanger. They opened the second season by recapping the previous finale, then announcing, "The following season takes place five years before that nuclear explosion." They retconned a five-year gap between the last two episodes of season 1 and put their stories in there. This time, they were giving themselves plenty of room for a long-running series. So naturally they were cancelled 18 episodes later.
Ah, never mind then. Honestly, if you're show is even somewhat popular it might be a good idea to end on your season cliffhanger, even if you're not getting renewed. If you can get enough fans upset enough, you might be able to get a save our show campaign which convinces another network/streaming service/whatever to pick it up.
Of course, "Woody's Roundup" also ended on a cliffhanger and didn't get renewed. Why didn't anyone demand that a conclusion be made?
https://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/september-23-2017-the-end/ Mallozi throws in the towel. September 23, 2017