sf/f TV development news - 2013

[Temis the Vorta]

Not interested in the OUAT spinoff (and without Sebastian Stan bringing in his fanbase, I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for it, assuming it ever gets to air) but the Wachowski-Straczynski collaboration interests me a lot!

Netflix will allow them to have quite a bit of creative freedom since they probably can get by with 2-3M viewers, which means they can appeal to oddball niche tastes and create something unique.

As for the broadcast vs Netflix debate, keep in mind that Netflix is in the brand-building phase of its existence and might consider HoC an investment in their future as opposed to making $$$ right now. Netflix needed something that demonstrated they can play with the big boys, and they did that. Wall Street loved them for it. Mission accomplished.

The game is far from over and I expect Amazon to counterpunch with something big (haven't seen indications of that yet), but Netflix has opened up a big lead in the image/branding contest.

So it's not at all Netflix vs broadcast but rather Netflix vs Amazon vs some other major competitor who might be launched with a lot of money behind it, because now everyone must be aware that either Netflix or a competitor is the future of TV, and nobody can afford to be left behind.

 

[DarthTom]

So it's not at all Netflix vs broadcast but rather Netflix vs Amazon vs some other major competitor who might be launched with a lot of money behind it, because now everyone must be aware that either Netflix or a competitor is the future of TV, and nobody can afford to be left behind.

I'm surprised that Apple hasn't jumped in as well. They've got several hundred billion in the bank right now and Wall Street has not been thrilled lately with their lack of creativity since Jobs passed away.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Yeah Apple or Google could spoil the party pretty quickly...

What I don't like about NFLX, is that contrary to the bull thesis, there are no significant barriers to entry. In fact, I do not view the NFLX moat as wide at all. It's really a matter of other companies deciding to spend just a bit more money for content. Moreover, I'm very confident if not outright positive that either AAPL or GOOG or both will create content delivery services for video that will be "good enough" or even superior to what NFLX is currently doing. When that is evident, NFLX will be fighting for not just growth but its very survival. Back to that in a minute.

What I do like about NFLX is that again, they do have a big lead in how they package the service and how much content they provide. While this costs them a lot of money and future payment guarantees, it's also "The Thing" that the competition has thus far not been willing to match. Contrary to what many think, I find the company's moxy to pay the premium dollars for the content has given NFLX its decided edge.

...

With regard to AAPL, I'm nearly certain that the new TV will not only come with gesture/touch based controls as I first described well over a year ago (see my report on Apple TV) but more importantly, AAPL TV could likely come with a new video streaming and content delivery powered by my predicted "media content search" capability. And the day this happens, I personally would not want to be long NFLX stock and in fact, I plan on being short the name.

The bottom line, NFLX has a great service for a great price and what looks like a strong lead. But I don't view that lead (or moat) being nearly as large as many of the bulls currently believe. And we might only be a few months away from seeing a true platform competitor for NFLX.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

WTF SyFy...

The untitled project, from Fox TV Studios and Ross Fineman’s FtvS-based Fineman Entertainment, starts off with a meteorite striking a plane. The only two survivors find themselves sleepwalking and waking up with no memory of their actions. On the run from the government, they must figure out what happened to them and prove their innocence.

So wait...the government thinks they brought down the plane using a meteorite, which somehow also caused them to sleepwalk? Sounds like the kind of TV show my brain creates when I go to sleep after eating too much pizza.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

Paul Reubens To Voice The White Rabbit In ABC’s Wonderland-Themed ‘Once’ Spinoff

 

[Vendikarr]

Paul Reubens To Voice The White Rabbit In ABC’s Wonderland-Themed ‘Once’ Spinoff

I hope he uses his Peewee voice.

 

[Christopher]

^Reubens has a lot more to his range than that. He's done effective voice work as a rather malevolent Bat-Mite on Batman: The Brave and the Bold and as the even more malevolent Pavel on TRON: Uprising. I'd rather hear him expand his range even further than demand that he limit himself to a role he was known for decades ago. (Not that I have any interest in the show he'll be doing.)

 

[Vendikarr]

^Reubens has a lot more to his range than that. He's done effective voice work as a rather malevolent Bat-Mite on Batman: The Brave and the Bold and as the even more malevolent Pavel on TRON: Uprising. I'd rather hear him expand his range even further than demand that he limit himself to a role he was known for decades ago. (Not that I have any interest in the show he'll be doing.)

I know he has range, I just think the Peewee voice is funny.

 

[JD]

WTF SyFy...

The untitled project, from Fox TV Studios and Ross Fineman’s FtvS-based Fineman Entertainment, starts off with a meteorite striking a plane. The only two survivors find themselves sleepwalking and waking up with no memory of their actions. On the run from the government, they must figure out what happened to them and prove their innocence.

So wait...the government thinks they brought down the plane using a meteorite, which somehow also caused them to sleepwalk? Sounds like the kind of TV show my brain creates when I go to sleep after eating too much pizza.

Yeah, not quite sure what to make of that. What exactly do government agents and sleepwalking have to do with a meteorite? Usually I try to give SyFy the benefit of the doubt but what they've revealed here doesn't even make sense.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

I think the deal there is that a meteorite really brought down the plane but the government thinks it was a terrorist attack. This stuff is written by PR hacks so they may be somewhat off in describing the premise. The original description for Revolution said that all forms of energy stopped working which isn't the case since people are still alive and fires still ignite.

 

[Christopher]

Of course a 2-sentence summary is not going to represent the entire concept. And of course they're not going to want to give away too many details in the initial press release. So don't mistake deliberate vagueness in the initial publicity for actual vagueness in the creative process.

 

[xortex]

I think the deal there is that a meteorite really brought down the plane but the government thinks it was a terrorist attack. This stuff is written by PR hacks so they may be somewhat off in describing the premise. The original description for Revolution said that all forms of energy stopped working which isn't the case since people are still alive and fires still ignite.

I think they mean all forms of electricity. Fire is another element. The supernatural though is capable of making things that must work not work and things that don't work or shouldn't work, work. See King's 'The Langoliers' for fire that doesn't work. But let's face it, JJ doesn't know what he's doing or not doing, so.. as evidenced by Lost and Fringe.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yeah, because Lost and Fringe were canceled after half a season. Oh wait, they weren't. And of course JJ's involvement in both was pretty limited after the initial launches.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I think the deal there is that a meteorite really brought down the plane but the government thinks it was a terrorist attack. This stuff is written by PR hacks so they may be somewhat off in describing the premise. The original description for Revolution said that all forms of energy stopped working which isn't the case since people are still alive and fires still ignite.

I posted that description because I enjoy incoherent series descriptions. We'll find out eventually what they really mean - assuming the show goes to series.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It's April, spring is in the air and broadcast pilot buzz has begun. Just focusing on the genre stuff (cuz everything else is completely boring), here's the rundown so far.

ABC
S.H.I.E.L.D. - considered a lock
Big Thunder, Gothica - contenders
The Returned - dark horse

FOX
Sleepy Hollow - contender
Inhuman* - possible
Delirium - nothing yet
*Not sure if that's the final name - that's the JJ Abrams robot cop show.

CBS
Intelligence - contender

NBC
The Sixth Gun - early front runner
Believe - contender
Wonderland, Bloodline - nothing yet

CW
The Originals - considered a lock
The 100, Oxygen, The Selection - contenders
The Tomorrow People - nothing yet

My horses this year are S.H.I.E.L.D., Inhuman, The Sixth Gun and Oxygen (terrible title, I hope they change it). Hopefully me rooting for them won't be the jinx it usually is.

Anyone else want to pick their ponies? Descriptions can be found here.

To gauge how accurate last years' April buzz was, check this out.

 

[JD]

Yeah, because Lost and Fringe were canceled after half a season. Oh wait, they weren't. And of course JJ's involvement in both was pretty limited after the initial launches.

I'm not even sure how involved he is with Revolution. As far as I know Supernatural creator Eric Kripke is the showrunner, and I don't think I've really heard JJ Abrams mentioned very much anymore. In fact I don't know if he's ever really been that involved in the story or world building, pretty much everything I've read discussing them seems to indicate it is Kripke coming up with the majority of the stuff.
Other than the beginning of Lost, I don't think he's been very involved with the creative aspects of any of the show's he's produced the last few seasons.

 

[Christopher]

Other than the beginning of Lost, I don't think he's been very involved with the creative aspects of any of the show's he's produced the last few seasons.

He did write and/or direct a few Fringe episodes, but not many. For the most part, these days his personal focus is on movies, and while he may co-develop Bad Robot's shows and often co-write or direct their pilots, he's not the main creative force behind them anymore. It's just that his production company makes them.

 

[xortex]

Yea, that's because he has no idea what they're about really, and once again we get another guy that didn't really like Trek or TOS and didn't know those characters and in the hands of his hired guns. I think my plumber can do that. He's just a hideously clever uber nerd bloviating on one topic to the next without any real plan or anything behind him except mindless insideous writers all because he's a popular son of a suit.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yea, that's because he has no idea what they're about really, and once again we get another guy that didn't really like Trek or TOS and didn't know those characters and in the hands of his hired guns. I think my plumber can do that. He's just a hideously clever uber nerd bloviating on one topic to the next without any real plan or anything behind him except mindless insideous writers all because he's a popular son of a suit.

No, it means he's an in demand director and producer. He's in demand because he's successful.

Liking and knowing Trek and TOS is no guaranty of success and quality. Though, not all the "hired guns" at Bad Robot are unfamiliar with TOS and Trek and I'm pretty sure the "hired guns" who worked for Gene Roddenberry on TOS didn't know the characters either. Back then hire guns made up the bulk of a TV shows writers.

You complaining about someone bloviating is the height of irony. You've often demonstrated a complete lack of understand of the writing process, television production and the film industry, yet will go on and on about them in an endless stream of nonsense.

Again, his "popularity" is based on success not being a "son of a suit", what ever that is.

 

[Christopher]

Liking and knowing Trek and TOS is no guaranty of success and quality.

Right. It's common knowledge that Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer weren't that familiar with Trek before making The Wrath of Khan, and while I'm not crazy about that one, most people consider it one of the best Trek movies ever. And of course you can go on Fanfiction.net and find countless people who love Trek passionately and know its minutiae intimately but whose stories are still utter crap. So the notion that there's any correlation between one's love for Trek and the quality of one's writing is just plain silly.

Though, not all the "hired guns" at Bad Robot are unfamiliar with TOS and Trek

Indeed not. Roberto Orci is a devout fan and Damon Lindelof is a moderate-to-strong fan, and I think Alex Kurtzman is moderately familiar with it. The strength of Abrams's "Supreme Court" is that it includes a whole range of perspectives from devoted fan to disinterested outsider, which helps them craft movies that work for audiences at both ends of that same spectrum.

and I'm pretty sure the "hired guns" who worked for Gene Roddenberry on TOS didn't know the characters either. Back then hire guns made up the bulk of a TV shows writers.

Again, absolutely right. You don't need prior familiarity with a subject to write a good story about it, because there is a thing called research that writers do all the time. If you need to write about a subject you're not familiar with, you study up and learn what you need to know. TV series have documents called writers' bibles whose purpose is to familiarize freelance writers with the basics of a show. Often freelancers are given copies of episode scripts or sent videos of sample episodes so they can get a feel for the show's format and style, character voices, etc.

And of course the show's own writing staff rewrites freelance scripts to make them fit the characters and continuity better. On TOS, Roddenberry himself rewrote the scripts to give them a consistent style and continuity -- which is why there was more out-of-character writing in the third season when Roddenberry stopped participating directly in the production.

Again, his "popularity" is based on success not being a "son of a suit", what ever that is.

I suppose he's referring to the fact that both of Abrams's parents are or were producers of TV movies. But of course you're right -- it's nonsense to think that that alone would make him popular. After all, the viewing audience doesn't care (or even know, for the most part) who his parents were, they just care whether they like his shows/movies or not. And lots of people do like them.