"Sci Fi a movie monster"

[MediaSavant]

Daily Variety
July 1, 2003, Tuesday
HEADLINE: Sci Fi a movie monster

BYLINE: JOHN DEMPSEY

BODY:
NEW YORK --- "Snakehead Terror," "Ghost Monkey" and "Bugs" are three original TV movies that probably won't make the final cut when the Emmy committee announces its nominations for best telepic of 2002-03.

But the Sci Fi Channel commissioned the three genre pictures, along with almost two-dozen other movies and miniseries this year, propelling the network to a unique position in showbiz: Sci Fi generates more original movies each year than any other network in the U.S., broadcast or cable.

Sci Fi prexy Bonnie Hammer separates the network's firstrun movies into two basic categories.

There's the 22 pure-action movies, costing a skimpy $ 2 million or so apiece, like "Snakehead Terror" that it schedules every Saturday in primetime. And there's the expensive, big-event miniseries aimed at the broadest audience, such as "Taken," the 20-hour Steven Spielberg-produced epic that quadrupled Sci Fi's primetime Nielsen average last December, and the six-hour "Children of Dune" in March.

Sci Fi will continue to push both categories because the network's viewers have embraced them.

Even the low-budget Saturday-night flicks harvested an average of 22% more viewers than acquired theatricals in the last nine months, and 26% more adults 25-54, Sci Fi's target demo.

On Saturday after Saturday, these movies routinely outperform the network's primetime average, despite the fact that fewer people watch TV on Saturday than on any other night.

Saleable sci-fi

Avi Lerner, head of Nu Image, the movie company that will produce five of Sci Fi's movies this year, said he's eager to work for the channel because sci-fi movies, unlike comedies or serious dramas, are saleable in a sluggish international marketplace.

Although Hammer declined to discuss dollar figures, Sci Fi typically pays $ 750,000 in license fees to the suppliers of each of its original movies, who then have to chalk up the rest of the $ 2 million production cost from foreign territories.

"Sci-fi movies cross boundaries better than almost any other genre," said Paul Hertzberg , president of Cinetel Films, which supplies up to three movies a year to the network. "Creature pictures and disaster movies are our bread and butter."

But Cinetel's profit margins have shrunk, he continued, because "there are no more German pre-sales and the Japanese market has weakened. We have to piece together deals through our longstanding relationships with buyers from places like Spain, the Benelux countries and France."

Hertzberg said he often shoots Cinetel's sci-fi movies in Canada to take advantage of the country's subsidies and tax breaks. Buttressed by extra Canadian hires, these subsidies can offset as much as 20% of the budget of a Cinetel made-for.

Self-control

Jeff Beach, president of UFO Films, another steady supplier of product to the network, said he's able to squeeze out a profit on the movies because "we control everything in-house. We operate a mini-studio in Burbank, which includes our own special-effects division. We can create 250-300 effects in a movie at a fairly low cost. And we even have writers on staff."

Sci Fi gets involved in the genre movies from the earliest script stage and works with the supplier on casting and budgets, said Tom Vitale, senior VP of program acquisitions for the network.

Beach said Vitale wanted "Phantom Force," now shooting in Bulgaria, to appeal to a younger audience, so UFO cast a regular on the WB's "Felicity" series, Tangi Miller, as the female lead.

In exchange for its license fee, Sci Fi gets the world premiere of the Saturday-night movies. After a three-month window, Sci Fi or the supplier will distribute the movie on cassette and DVD.

Building a library

Because it's looking to build a library of programming to fill a 24-hour-a-day schedule, Sci Fi tries to negotiate an exclusive license term that's as close to in-perpetuity as possible.

As for the big miniseries, Hammer said she can't wait until December when Sci Fi will premiere "Battlestar Galactica," the four-hour sequel to the ABC series (1978-80). If "Galactica" makes an impact in the Nielsens, Sci Fi is ready to go back into production with it as a full-fledged series.

[SuperScaper]

Originally posted by MediaSavant
On Saturday after Saturday, these movies routinely outperform the network's primetime average, despite the fact that fewer people watch TV on Saturday than on any other night.


It should tell the Sci-fi network something about its programming and original series when the terrible, low budget movies that it plays on Saturday nights recieve higher ratings then the series that it shows during primetime. :(

[mfa96]

:hork: :hork: :hork: :hork: :hork: :hork:


:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

[Selena]

I think our newest smilie says it all :bonnie:

[tedbragg1]

Paint-by-number movies do not interest me.

I'd be more impressed if these flicks actually had better writing and acting. For the most part, the film direction and costuming are fairly good.

But this is GOOD news, despite the blandness of the flicks; Sci-Fi is credited for keeping these people working when no other networks or synidcation markets would even consider them.

Second stringers deserve a chance to shine, too y'know.

It's great Skiffy is doing this, and it'll only bring them good luck down the road.

But for us? And Farscape? I think we need to look elsewhere. Too bad Space Channel is too small to finance FS.

[Shipscat]

Well, you know-who cares?

It doesn't matter what they're doing since I won't be watching.

[Strj500]

I really don't care to watch any of those crappy B-grade made for tv movies. Their money could be better spent elsewhere.

[DRD2001]

:pissed: I was bored a few weeks back and surfed into something called "Reptilicus" or some nonsense like that. No joke people, bad bad bad movie. I watched for 30 minutes and had to change the channel. The script was bad, the acting was bad, the special effects were horrible and the "science fiction" was laughable. It only confirmed my belief that there is nothing of any interest for me left on that network. I will certainly think twice before every stopping to watch a movie there again.:hork:

[grapeshot]

So....who exactly is this audience that routinely is larger than that of most of their prime time programming? This isn't the same audience that led them to think that making a series out of Tremors would be a good idea, is it?

[blueassbitch]

Originally posted by MediaSavant
There's the 22 pure-action movies, costing a skimpy $ 2 million or so apiece
...and it shows. :hork:

[PrairieScaper]

Originally posted by SuperScaper
It should tell the Sci-fi network something about its programming and original series when the terrible, low budget movies that it plays on Saturday nights recieve higher ratings then the series that it shows during primetime. :(
Bingo, SuperScaper.

I'm wondering what it takes for a movie to be considered a Sci Fi original? Sci Fi has a deal with the production company Creative Light Entertainment for 2 movies, which I think came to Sci Fi with a script and a star (Bruce Campbell) already in hand. :confused: Tom Vitale says Sci Fi is involved from start to finish. Hmmmm. :shrug: Oh well, guess the movies could be as original to Sci Fi as FS was -- a product created by another company and sold to Sci Fi. Not that Sci Fi had no influence over the finished product, but -- wait a minute, why am I spending even a few of my waking moments pondering this? Sheesh, time to go drink a beer and reeeeeelax.

[SuperScaper]

PrairieScaper

I was also wondering what it takes for SciFi to consider something original programming. I began to wonder this the first time that I heard them refer to SG1, a series that started on the Showtime Network, an original series :shrug:

[Clarsax]

Perhaps they consider original anything on thier network that recieves high ratings and that they want to promote.

[Atana_Mirtai]

And your purpose in posting this on the bboard of the show it cancelled was.... What exactly?

[vhsiv]

from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monster
n. mon·ster

1. An imaginary or legendary creature, such as a centaur or Harpy, that combines parts from various animal or human forms.
2. A creature having a strange or frightening appearance.
3. An animal, a plant, or other organism having structural defects or deformities.
4. Pathology. A fetus or an infant that is grotesquely abnormal and usually not viable.
5. A very large animal, plant, or object.
6. One who inspires horror or disgust: a monster of selfishness.

adj.

Informal. Extremely large; monstrous: a monster hit at the box office; ate a monster steak. 'Montser' anything does not imply 'good', 'bad','ugly', 'beautiful' or anything else, unless you've been watching only 'Frankenstein' movies your whole life, and never bothered to pick up a book or take an English class. But I'm talking real folks here, not TV Executives, who tend to live in the stratosphere of their own clichés and preconcetions.

So, SG-1 is hovering at a 1.3 rating for last week's airing, and all of those B-movies and re-runs are nipping at it's heels with 1.0 ratings.

This, from MediaLife.com (http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2003/jun03/jun30/3_wed/news5wednesday.html):

TOP 10 AD-SUPPORTED CABLE SHOWS
Adults 18-49
Week Ending June 29

Rank PROGRAM NET (000)

1. BET Awards Show BET 3350

2. WWE Entertainment TNN 3050

3. Bring It On USA 2402

4. WWE Entertainment TNN 2382

5. Trading Spaces TLC 2055

6. Real World XIII MTV 2034

7. Bet News BET 1872

8. Monk USA 1791

9. Osbournes MTV 1754

10. Law & Order: SVU USA 1695

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see a Skiffy 'plum' anywhere in that mix, even though those 'SciFi Originals' are supposed to be doing so well.

[Frag_Cannon]

And your purpose in posting this on the bboard of the show it cancelled was.... What exactly?

Probably to show how clueless the Sci-Fi execs can be. Speaking of the Sci-Fi movies, has anyone notice how much better their movie commericals are than the actual movies? :grr: Maybe it is time transfer that talent. Later.

[SuperScaper]

Originally posted by Frag_Cannon
Probably to show how clueless the Sci-Fi execs can be. Speaking of the Sci-Fi movies, has anyone notice how much better their movie commericals are than the actual movies? :grr: Maybe it is time transfer that talent. Later.

That is something that I have noticed as well. The commericials always seem to make the movie look like it will be really awsome then the movie turns out to be boring and poltless. SciFi definately needs some :help:

[Frag_Cannon]

Hey, they almost got me tempted to watch waterworld once. Back to the article, that is pretty sad when B-rated (I am not counting the mini series which can be pretty decent) movies are rated even with your prime time programs.

[LiLOrion]

Originally posted by Atana_Mirtai
And your purpose in posting this on the bboard of the show it cancelled was.... What exactly?

a. To show us how clueless the SciFi execs can be (in terms of picking and sticking with quality shows, not in making money for the network - cause they seem to know how to do that).

b. To show us that even though Farscape is "gone" (as far as Skiffy is concerned save for reruns) that SciFi is still the "talk of the town", making money, and patting itself on the back for all its "good" work. :D

c. To see how many of us would quote statements from the article and complain. :)

d. Maybe a little bit of a, b, and c. :)

e. None of the above (only Mediasavant knows the REAL reason). :)

-----------------


It just goes to show us all here that it doesnt matter WHO you attract (in terms of intelligence or available money to spend), but how MANY bodies you can attract to your network so you can make millions in advertising, even though most of the people watching probably dont have the intelligence to make the money required to buy most of the products that are being advertised on your channel. :D
SciFi obviously picks MONEY MAKERS regardless of their quality over INTELLIGENT, CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED, TO-DARN-HARD-TO-FOLLOW SCIFI series. But we all knew that didnt we?

This is just my opinion of course. :cool:

[Frag_Cannon]

SciFi obviously picks MONEY MAKERS regardless of their quality over INTELLIGENT, CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED, TO-DARN-HARD-TO-FOLLOW SCIFI series. But we all knew that didnt we?

Sci-Fi is the neighborhood crack dealer of the air waves.

[mfa96]

I think part of the problem is that skiffy is the only network that deals exclusively with "sci-fi" and therefore people listen to them when they talk about it because there is no one else out there to dispute it and nobody else trying to do better...

[uisceboo]

pure-action movies, costing a skimpy $ 2 million or so apiece

You know, they can stick to the "pure-action" format and shave off a lot more money if they switch to porn.

[generic_screenname]

I think Sci-Fi put their money on the wrong fighter in the battle of Quality vs. Quantity.

[Sunderflame]

I guess it was bound to happen sooner than later. Skiffy has sunk to the lowest common denominater....really, really bad movies. Man O man. This sucks big time.....I knew FARSCAPE was a lost cause to come back on Skiffy; but I'm sure of it now. We need to find a home for the future of FARSCAPE, or we are all farbot, frelled and we'll never find out the true meaning of drannit.

As for Skiffy's commercials, they've been quality for a long time. I noticed how good they were poduced and actually made comments to my husband about it. I feel like we are doomed.... I quit watching sci lie a long time ago. I channel surf at times and noticed how bad the programming had become. Giant snakes, alligators, bats, spiders, the original blob or body snatchers would have made better tv.

Love the new emotions.....:shrug: :faint: as for bonnie hammerhead.....gag me with a spoon:bonnie: she even has her own little unemotion ahahahahahaha

[Darth Buddha]

I used to give those stinkers a chance now and again, but I've learned better.

Wonder if this effect will generalize, i.e., Scifi runs this dren long enough and people will realize it is crap without trying it, and the ratings will drop?

[SuperScaper]

One can only hope

[waltersgirl]

You know, they can stick to the "pure-action" format and shave off a lot more money if they switch to porn.

:lol:lol:lol

[Jaime99]

I only turn on SciFi to watch one show...Farscape. That channel definately needs competition from a new "real" Science Fiction Channel. Run by people that know and appreciate SciFi and quality programming.:ewink:

[LadyCrais]

Originally posted by Jaime99
I only turn on SciFi to watch one show...Farscape. That channel definately needs competition from a new "real" Science Fiction Channel. Run by people that know and appreciate SciFi and quality programming.:ewink:

Has anyone ever looked serously into the concept of what needs to be done to allow the Space channel to be picked up by the satellite and cable providers? Do we have to write to our congressmen or the FCC and get laws changed? Do we write to the cable and satellite people and ask them to fight for the change? Just what is the reason we aren't allowed to have channels from Canada and/or Mexico? Seems like they have a our channels. We bemoan that it's too bad that Space isn't a big enough channel to pay for Farscape. But it seems like if we broadened their market to North America, it might have the size and income required.

[vhsiv]

Originally posted by LadyCrais
Has anyone ever looked serously into the concept of what needs to be done to allow the Space channel to be picked up by the satellite and cable providers? Do we have to write to our congressmen or the FCC and get laws changed? Do we write to the cable and satellite people and ask them to fight for the change? Just what is the reason we aren't allowed to have channels from Canada and/or Mexico? Yeah - maybe NAFTA can serve a purpose other than that of exporting manufacturing jobs South of the border.

If US broadcasters were threatened by Canadian broadcasters, maybe they'd become competitive again.

[Davesnothome]

I know this is going to be hard for many here to accept, but the problem trully seems to be the Canadian's fear of the US entertainment industry and media influence gaining in roads into Canadian television and wiping out the original Canadian movie and television industry. So in whatever situation it's legally possible, Canada tries to protect there own programming and networks from the theat of what it percieves as the 800 pound gorilla, it sees as the US entertainment media. In return the US PTB return the favor and keep the Canadian broadcast channels and cable networks from entering the US market.

So it's more likely that the Canadians are preventing the Space channel from being allowed in the US, by the restriction of US networks and programming in Canada.

Dave