What We Left Behind - Documentary Update Confirms *Some* HD Remastering

[tomswift2002]

Second-run syndicated series do not generate the level of ad revenue you're thinking of. It appears most of the money is generated from the sale of the rights to a specific station to air the series: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Syndication

There's also the case of "barter time," where stations sell ad space to the studio, rather than buy distribution rights to a less-than-popular series: http://filmescape.com/how-does-tv-syndication-really-work

You are way off there.

Firstly, the $123,000 is a national average, because not every city charges the same rate. Secondly the price is charged on a Cost per Thousand basis. So if Deep Space 9 was airing on a station in Los Angeles, the rate would be higher than a station in Kansas City (about $18 per 30 seconds per 1000 vs. $7.50). So in LA, the cost to run in 30 second national ad (I.e Pepsi) would be about $17,000 (over $250,000 for seven minutes) if the station said you would reach about 500,000 people vs about $3,800 (over $53,000 for seven minutes)in Kansas City.
Plus there’s other factors to consider, such as time of year—-it’s more expensive in the September to December period because of Christmas. Also airing on cable channels (Syfy) offers higher ad rates than on broadcast channels (WXYZ ABC Detroit). Geographic location (airing in L.a. will cost more than airing in Watertown, New York).

Since TNG debuted Paramount and CBS have been using the barter system—-but they give the shows to the stations for free, and the retain the majority of the ad time to sell themselves to national companies like Pepsi, while the station has a small amount for local ads, unless they’ve worked out a network deal like Bell has for DS9 on SPACE here in Canada where the series is exclusive and Bell handles all the ad time.

Suffice it to say, DS9 in HD would be profitable for CBS.

 

[kkt]

You are way off there.

Firstly, the $123,000 is a national average, because not every city charges the same rate. Secondly the price is charged on a Cost per Thousand basis. So if Deep Space 9 was airing on a station in Los Angeles, the rate would be higher than a station in Kansas City (about $18 per 30 seconds per 1000 vs. $7.50). So in LA, the cost to run in 30 second national ad (I.e Pepsi) would be about $17,000 (over $250,000 for seven minutes) if the station said you would reach about 500,000 people vs about $3,800 (over $53,000 for seven minutes)in Kansas City.
Plus there’s other factors to consider, such as time of year—-it’s more expensive in the September to December period because of Christmas. Also airing on cable channels (Syfy) offers higher ad rates than on broadcast channels (WXYZ ABC Detroit). Geographic location (airing in L.a. will cost more than airing in Watertown, New York).

Since TNG debuted Paramount and CBS have been using the barter system—-but they give the shows to the stations for free, and the retain the majority of the ad time to sell themselves to national companies like Pepsi, while the station has a small amount for local ads, unless they’ve worked out a network deal like Bell has for DS9 on SPACE here in Canada where the series is exclusive and Bell handles all the ad time.

Suffice it to say, DS9 in HD would be profitable for CBS.

I wish that was the case, maybe it will be someday. But for now, I have to say that the best evidence that it wouldn't be profitable is that CBS hasn't done it. I'm sure they know more about their business than any of us.

 

[Tosk]

"They have given you your answer."

 

[tomswift2002]

I wish that was the case, maybe it will be someday. But for now, I have to say that the best evidence that it wouldn't be profitable is that CBS hasn't done it. I'm sure they know more about their business than any of us.

I would say that that is very weak circumstantial evidence. CBS has not said a single word since 2012. And when I look back to posts on this forum from the time inbetween TOS-R and TNG-R, many of the same people who have been saying that TNG-R was not a success, were saying that TNG-R would be too expensive and that we would not be getting TNG-R.

And for the documentary, sure the documentary producers are getting HD verisons of scenes to include in the show, but how do they know if CBS is not working behind the scenes and are preparing a test disc, like The Next Level, or an HD version of Emissary or a couple of episodes to release on the date that the documentary will be released. Again, CBS is not talking.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

CBS has not said a single word since 2012.

And there's your answer. If DS9-R is ever forthcoming, there'll be an announcement.

 

[kkt]

If CBS were working on it, how many people would be in on the secret? How many people can keep a secret in Hollywood?

 

[dub]

I'm just excited about the possibility of seeing some portions of DS9 in HD in the documentary. I'll take it.

 

[Michael]

A couple of minutes ago we were shown some of the remastered HD footage they did for the documentary at Ira Behr‘s panel at Destination Star Trek. It was all stuff from the pilot if I‘m not mistaken. And what can I say, it looked absolutely gorgeous! Even on the weird big screen they have set up here. It was presented in full widescreen format, which added to the new and fresh feeling of the footage.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Did they give any estimate on when the documentary will be ready for release?

 

[Michael]

Did they give any estimate on when the documentary will be ready for release?

No specific date, unfortunately, but Ira Behr confirmed that he would like to release it by the end of the year, because of the anniversary. He wouldn‘t say it definitively, but he said he knew how to work with a deadline.

BTW, they also presented some very interesting and funny outtakes from the documentary, about filming „Rocks and Shoals“, „Trials and Tribble-ations“ and the finale, where Avery Brooks accidentally (?) hit Marc Alaimo for real. His recounting is priceless.

 

[dub]

It was presented in full widescreen format, which added to the new and fresh feeling of the footage.

That's interesting that it was presented in widescreen. I thought they typically had gear, etc., in the areas beyond the 4:3 safe area because it was never intended to be shown in widescreen. Unless they just showed space scenes - which obviously could be re-built/rendered in 16:9. Either way, I so wish I was there to see it!

 

[The Nth Doctor]

No specific date, unfortunately, but Ira Behr confirmed that he would like to release it by the end of the year, because of the anniversary. He wouldn‘t say it definitively, but he said he knew how to work with a deadline.

Damn. During the Indiegogo campaign, they were hoping to have it out early this year, but I'm guessing with all of the HD work and additional interviews has pushed that expectation much further down the line. I'm sure it's worth the wait, but it sucks nonetheless. Thanks for the report!

 

[DS9forever]

I don't mind waiting a few months more for what I'm sure will be the definitive documentary about any television series.

 

[Michael]

Sorry for posting this so late. Obviously we weren't really allowed to film any of this, but I did manage to make photos with my iPhone and since I had the Live Photo feature turned on, it captured a few frames of the remastered footage in motion. Here's a short YouTube clip of what we saw. Maybe this gives you an idea of what it looked like …

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I tried to compare this to the corresponding footage from the DVD version of “Emissary”, but interestingly it seems to be from another take than the one they ended up using in the actual episode.

 

[tomswift2002]

Wow, even from that tiny video, those scenes from Emissary look a lot better than the DVD's.

 

[Relayer1]

Not a very 'businesslike' view but why would it need to make a profit ?

If it only broke even, they would end up with a fresh, pristine, futureproofed product going forward and provide employment for their own staff, effects houses and the like at no cost overall.

If someone agreed to do it for nothing, you can bet they would go for it. What's the difference ?

 

[kkt]

Not a very 'businesslike' view but why would it need to make a profit ?

If it only broke even, they would end up with a fresh, pristine, futureproofed product going forward and provide employment for their own staff, effects houses and the like at no cost overall.

If someone agreed to do it for nothing, you can bet they would go for it. What's the difference ?

You think CBS is a charity? They're a company, they have stockholders who want dividends. Stockholders can sue, and sometimes win, lawsuits against directors for not doing their utmost to make money.

You make it sound so antiseptic. Where's the bargaining? Where's the scheming? Where is the greed?

 

[Relayer1]

You think CBS is a charity? They're a company, they have stockholders who want dividends. Stockholders can sue, and sometimes win, lawsuits against directors for not doing their utmost to make money.

Oh, I get that, but there IS a benefit to the company.

It might not make a profit from the HD conversion, but it gets a shiny new ASSET that it didn't have before. And covers some of its staff costs for a while.

 

[MacLeod]

You think CBS is a charity? They're a company, they have stockholders who want dividends. Stockholders can sue, and sometimes win, lawsuits against directors for not doing their utmost to make money.

Sure companies want to make money but sometimes it can take years to get a Return on Investment. So sure it might cost them more to re-master then they get back in profit in the year they do it but what about ten years down the road, 15 years etc..?

 

[Firebird]

It might not make a profit from the HD conversion, but it gets a shiny new ASSET that it didn't have before. And covers some of its staff costs for a while.

I assure you, that is not how any studio thinks. Warner Bros, MGM/United Artists, etc all have gigantic backlogs of films in dire need of restoration, but they can't get to them because a lack of funds, and the revenue from home video sales would never generate enough of a profit. This is why WB still hasn't gotten around to Raintree County or Around the World in 80 Days, and why MGM refuses to touch The Alamo. Even something like the HD master for The Big Country has turned into somewhat of a liability for the distributor (Kino Lorber) about to release it next month on blu-ray. There's a problem with stretching in the image they've had to go through the extra expense to correct, and they've publicly stated they would've passed on releasing it if they discovered the issue earlier.

In a perfect world, the need to preserve all assets owned by studios would surpass financial concerns, but these are money-making entities, and profit comes before restoration.