SciFi's latest spin on the Farscape cancelation

[jeffrabb]

I don't know if this is old hat or not, but I've just read the newest edition of SciFi mag and I'm steaming. I've just posted this message on Compuserve's Farscape BB, but I thought you all would like to hear this:

Ok everybody,

I just pulled the Feb, 2003 edition of SciFi magazine off the magazine rack(gee and I thought it was still December<g>).

SciFi has the gall to have an entire article telling how great the finally 11 episodes are under the article "Farscape Fever". Then to add insult to injury in the final paragraph of the first page it goes....and I quote: "It wasn't what had been planned for those episodes. Although SCIFI and The Jim Henson Co knew a fifth season was in doubt for several months, negotiations to continue the series were ongoing until Friday, the same day that principal photography was to be completed on episode 22, the season finale."

Hello? "...in doubt for several months..."? Please SciFi, please define "several months". I don't know what SciFi's definition of it is, but mine is 3 or more months. Let's see, let's do some arithmetic here. The show was canceled when? 6Sept? Hmmm....back up Aug...July....June. They were having doubts about the show at the beginning of June. Excuse me, Season 4 didn't even start showing till the first week of June. So what is this talk by SciFi that Farscape could not expand its viewer base? A drop in ratings? They by their own admission in their own magazine they admit that they were looking to possibly cancelling the show before the first episode of Season 4 was even broadcast. They had no intention of going through with the 2 year contract even BEFORE it went into effect. I'm sure that they have themselves covered legally on this but to me that is borderline on breach of contract. Certainly a breach in faith with both The Jim Henson Co and the fans of Farscape. I'd say SciFi deserves no more loyalty from the rest of us the moment Farscape leaves the airwaves. I couldn't care less that they, in a moment of sanity, did change their minds and went ahead with Season 5. My loyalty to them is spent. They can rot in corporate H*** as far as I'm concerned.

Jeff
<a very furious fan>

[GrandAdmiralThrawn]

Wow. It sounds to me like they're just trying to shift the blame for ending the series on a cliffhanger to anyone but themselves. By saying 'oh they knew that the fifth season was in doubt' it makes the sci-fi execs seem innocent. Its more like 'even though we garaunteed everyone a fifth season, we expected people to realize that would screw them over and blow off commitments and refuse to honor our promises. So does anyone believe that Jim Henson Co. figured what the hell....lets end our flagship series on a cliffhanger and piss off thousands and thousands of loyal fans. Nice try skiffy.

[Deanna T]

YEEEEEAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!

I am so frelling furious. I mean, we all suspected foul play on behalf of SciFi at least once each. But to have it there, in frelling writing, ****, they really know how to alienate a core audience, don't they.

~ Deanna T struggles with composure ~

Deep breaths.

Ok, so here's a plan. Keep in mind it was written during bouts of intense anger.

SciFi has quoted three conflicting statements (unintentionally), at three different times...
1: "We're so happy to sign Farscape up for both Season 4 and 5 since it's our highest rating show, yadda yadda yadda promotion jargon"
2: "Farscape was axed due to a decline in ratings" (This would be in season 4, as I believe that ratings were rising in S3)
3: "We were planing to axe Farscape even before S4 aired" (Stated here)

Ok, so Skiffy's stuff up could turn into one of our biggest weapons.

Imagine this info in the hands of the media. "SciFi channel deliberately misleads its most supportive fans". How's THAT going to sound.

Now obviously its not a good idea to make a fuss about this now. We wouldn't want to tick SciFi off, when we're putting so much faith in their goodwill when we get that 2.0. Also, I wouldn't want to hamper the efforts of groups like the Viewer Consortium by creating more anomisity between the channel and fans.

But still folks, just sit on these statments. Then, if the time comes when our goal is to actively promote Farscape to other networks, then it may be useful to let people know (politely) that Farscape was doomed from the beginning, and that the nimrods at Skiffy obviously believed that Farscape fans couldn't count or add up simple numbers. It may be nice to remark that Farscape deserves to be shown on a channel that makes use of simple morals and ethics.

Until then...

YEEEEEAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!

~ Deanna goes and bangs head against wall ~

[Dominar of Action]

Unfortunately, this just confirms what we already suspected--that Sci Fi had lost interest in supporting FS long before S4. As for the contract, I think it's clear from comments from DK, BB, etc. (check out latest Farscape magazine) that the S5 "commitment" was in fact only an option to renew, which is in fact pretty meaningless. Henson and everyone involved behind the scenes knew that. What bites of course is that *we* didn't know that and were affirmatively led to believe something else entirely, hence a goodly portion of the anger towards Sci Fi for its promotional gimmick. (Hmmm, "gimmick" and "Sci Fi" in the same sentence ... who'da thunk it?)

[Eve11]

I have also heard from different places that season 5 was in doubt for a while. I suspect it comes down to bad blood b/t DK and SciFi. I've heard from different places that the FS creative team kind of ignored SciFi's "suggestions" for their episodes and instead did what they wanted to do (Like, not putting in any cabbage-head "catch-up" material for the premiere but instead just throwing everyone in, sink or swim). Networks don't particularly like that. OTOH, it's fine with me.

Also remember that DK mentioned he and Brian Henson had been negotiating for a while, and that before the cancellation people were working under the impression that there would be a season 5. This never struck me as "SciFi abruptly cancelled the show with no notice", it struck me as "Things were rocky, SciFi and Henson were in negotiations for a while, people knew things were up in the air but had thought an agreement had been reached, and then things went to yotz for some reason." Speculation: It could be that SciFi started rumbling about cancelling the show when the ratings for the first few episodes came out in June. That's "a few months."

So at any rate this news doesn't surprise me, and I don't think it paints either side as lying per se. In the real world, it's not black hats and white hats. Everybody's got a hat, and they're all gray. DK and company may have obscured information from us at the start because they needed us to react and react quickly... SciFi could be waiting until now to strategically inform us at a key time period and dampen our spirits. Who knows? Everybody wants something. We define ourselves by what we want -- and we keep in mind the shades of gray.

[Deneba]

This wasn't the first time Sci Fi said that they were in discussion for several months on the future of Farscape prior to the cancellation. It's been fairly clear from almost the beginning that there are other factors beside ratings at play here.

I personally think it has more to do with costs of production for a money-strapped company and change in direction from "space-based" shows. Before anyone blasts me for the advertising budget for "Taken" -- I know. It sucks they spent so much on that. But dude, it's Spielberg. Name recognition alone brought in the numbers of viewers they needed to boost the ratings for that particular event. That's their business; to show the advertisers what a popular venue they are to boost their demand for spots and potentially their rates.

My hope in all this is that they are positioning themselves as a good purchase candidate. Science fiction without space??? WTF??

Keep thinking Viacom . . .

D.

[Mike@Pilots Chamber]

Alright, this is annoying. And it's annoying on many levels -
1 - Sci-Fi have cancelled the show due to the lack of ratings
2 - Sci-Fi have said that the last 11 episodes are the best ever, yet don't seem willing to re-enter negotiations or anything
3 - Even if the last 11 episodes get amazing numbers of viewers, I think Sci-Fi will stick by their word and keep the show cancelled
4 - It now seems they've been planning to get rid of Farscape for a while before series 4 aired
5 - All this is done by a US company and I live in the UK. Our media would do nothing about it because it's US
Another thing about the Farscape mag - somewhere in it Dave Kemper (I think) said that the REAL story behind Farscape's cancellation will make for an extra on the final season 4 DVD.

[BritAngie]

Dk and co have been a darn sight more forthcoming about the whole situation than Sci fi. Farscape is their baby-they would not want to kill it! Also as far as they were all concerned S5 was a go-they got the notice it was all over *by letter*.. on the last day of shooting almost.. Dk says in the latest mag it's due to managerial changes at Sci fi..the only thing that has changed in the whole equation over the last few years are the bodies at sci fi pulling the strings..My money is on sci fi being the guilty party. I'm not saying our guys are whiter than white..but I think Sci fi have 99% of the responsibilty for this current situation. Everyone else was ready to go-they were not.

Also I've heard various bits of info that is probably posted on here that Sci fi were trying to broker a deal paying less for the show per ep.. It just wasn't feasible..My gut feeling as the above article pretty much implies is that they were out to kill it.. :(

[Heater72]

It comes off as just another sign that no matter what the ratings in January Sci-Fi won't be bringing back Farscape.

But I don't know how many of us would want to be back with Sci_fi after all they've put us through. While a new network would be very hard to convince, high ratings turn heads. When it comes right down to it, that's all they are looking for.

If they're high enough and stay that way for all 11 eps, even Sci-Fi would happily eat every word they have ever spoken, and bring back Farscape claiming to be its savior. No matter how resolute they may seem to be about anything, they'd flip in a second, if they thought the ratings would be there.

[Eve11]

I agree Angie, but I guess I just want to be careful. I guess the only thing I want to beware of is Scapers getting up in arms without knowing the whole story, and looking bad if the whole story isn't what we thought. I also am inclined to think that SciFi isn't being entirely forthcoming, but I'm also biased toward sticking with the Farscape crew, since I'm a fan. If it comes out in the wash that SciFi deliberately sunk Farscape, well we've got some serious fodder for our cannons. But if it comes out as more murky than that, I don't want to be in a position where that revelation takes all the wind out of our sails.

I guess I'm just hedging until I can find an unbiased source that gives it to us straight. Not the SciFi camp and not the Farscape camp.
I suppose I'll be hedging for a long time.

[BritAngie]

but who is an unbiased source? Whoever is inside on the dirt/truth will be biased one way or other.

I can only base my judgement on the behavior before and after the cancellation and say I feel the cast and crew have more integrity as it's *their* jobs at stake. Their livelihoods. To sci fi it's just another show..

Sci fi on the other hand have been vague, disembled and or refused to comment. This is not the behavior of an entity that has nothing to hide or be ashamed of.

Also over the years we have never got the idea that the crew have ever been a problem. Sci fi on the other hand have given little advertising,made inappropriate advertising or just made a mess if it. They've shown spoilers and shown a blatant disrespect for it's core audience and customers. I know for a while I've noticed them dropping their interest..online and off..

[blue]

I can't help thinking that all the anger toward the SciFi channel as an entity is too simple. It seems to me there are people and politics involved behind the scenes. SciFi is owned by a bigger company, and wasn't there talk of Barry Diller not liking space shows. We don't know for sure who in SciFi may be for or against Farscape, but not in a position to make decisions.

[Dominar of Action]

That's OK, blue. I've got enough anger to go around ;)

Seriously though, I don't hate anyone -- that's too harsh, especially when I don't know what went on behind the scenes prior to the cancellation. But I do hold Sci Fi, as an entity, to blame for making very public promises that they have now decided not to keep for whatever reason(s), for apparently deciding that our goodwill is worthless to them, and for apparently standing in the way of FS finding another home. (Even if we assume that no other network was/is interested, how hard would it have been to cooperate with the effort like Fox is doing with Firefly?)

These are not the type of decisions that are made at the top level. Yes, Barry Diller or who-knows-who may have given the order to kill FS, but the *manner* in which it was done, and their conduct since then (their apparent intent not to announce the cancellation until 2003, interfering with chats and the Dom BB, the so-called FAQ, the request to restrict our comments to a single address where they could be easily ignored, the dismissive comments about their existing viewer base...?), can and should be laid at Sci Fi's door.

[rabensam]

Originally posted by blue
I can't help thinking that all the anger toward the SciFi channel as an entity is too simple. It seems to me there are people and politics involved behind the scenes. SciFi is owned by a bigger company, and wasn't there talk of Barry Diller not liking space shows. We don't know for sure who in SciFi may be for or against Farscape, but not in a position to make decisions.

I posted a message along these same lines at http://www.watchfarscape.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5788

I fear that some on that thread may have mistaken my comments as criticizing people for feeling anger, or even defending the Sci Fi Channel, neither of which were my intention. There's a lot to be angry about. Not even so much that a good show we all love was cancelled for dumb reasons -- good shows are cancelled for dumb reasons all the time -- but that we have good reason to believe the channel lied about it. Some offical spokesperson has said that viewership went down and production costs went up, and both of these claims are demonstrably false. And now, as this thread says, they're still trying to spin this rather than being straight about the real reasons.

But hey, here's an encouraging thought -- no one would be trying to spin this and put a good face on a bad decision if public opinion didn't matter at all. The campaign has had enough of an impact that they've felt the need to answer it more than once. And that's an accomplishment in itself.

[Stargate2077]

As someone said earlier in this thread, I believe we should compile official statements from the Sci-Fi Channel and the executives who work there in case the need arises to show the world how contradictory the Sci-Fi Channel can be. I am also planning to post this in the Frell with the FWA section.

[Cynicat]

Originally posted by Mike@Pilots Chamber
(snip)
5 - All this is done by a US company and I live in the UK. Our media would do nothing about it because it's US

I feel the same way here in Oz, I feel useless. Postcards to US network people will only have so much impact, since we in Oz have no effect on their ratings (which seems to be all they're really concerned with) and letters to the cast and crew can only do so much, since - again - it won't help the ratings. The cast and crew know we love and support them, but it's the networks we have to convince. And the Aussie media just isn't listening.

The Australian media have done nothing to support the show since it started - channel 9 flogged it when it was first released, but due to it's "If it don't rate through the roof in the first two episodes we kill it" policy, the show was shunted around the timeslots and gradually beaten out of existance. They've never re-run the first season, and played the second season while they were certain no-one was watching (most likely to fulfil a contractual agreement that they had to show it sometime).

The whole production was lauded at first - "what a wonderful opportunity for the industry", "all the money it's bringing to the economy", "showcasing Aussie talent" etc etc. The only big OS production being done around the same time here was the Matrix, and at the time almost no-one knew about it. Now look at the industry - everyone wants to film here, no-one wants to go to Canada anymore, they're all coming here. Farscape really started that - they showed what could be done with the Aussie talent pool, in front of and behind the cameras - and we're spitting on it for that. The media was so thrilled when the show started, but now they've abandoned it in it's time of need. No-one is coming forward to support the show. The closest thing we've had to support was Foxtel buying up first-air rights to season 3 and beyond, but that was before news of the cancellation came through. I don't think the industry is aware of what they've lost, my only hope is that they'll become aware, and do something about it.

[robosapien]

Originally posted by Heater72
If they're high enough and stay that way for all 11 eps, even Sci-Fi would happily eat every word they have ever spoken, and bring back Farscape claiming to be its savior. No matter how resolute they may seem to be about anything, they'd flip in a second, if they thought the ratings would be there.

No - as long as the current management is in control, they will never put Farscape back on the air. If only because of the huge egos involved. But this goes beyond Farscape. They are trying to change their "brand" image, to make it more "human" and "relatable", whatever that may mean. They think they'll get bigger audiences with their new paranormal and horror shows.

But most importantly, they don't own Farscape. It is an expensive show for them, and the only way to recoup the investment is by advertising alone. They don't get anything from DVD/video and overseas broadcast. Look at all their new shows - produced and owned by themselves, or the larger parent company. For example, Tremors is being made by Universal, and with Taken, they have ALL US rights including DVD/video.

The problem is the usual corporate mantra of "more, more, more!" combined with a few people (or just one person?) who want to change the image of the channel, and/or really do have a prejudice against "space and alien" shows. Instead of operating comfortably as a niche station with good genre programming, the orders come down for more proft! more money! No one here knows what Sci-Fi's ledger says, so we can't say for sure wether they made money, lost money, or just broke even with Farscape, but certainly, at best it wasn't their most profitable show. Instead of treading water with, or to some degree subsidizing a critically acclaimed flagship show like Farscape, more and more has to be wringed out of each show. There was an article linked to on this board that said Sci-Fi's programming expenses for this year were just over $200 million, with income from subscriber fees and advertising around $280 million (I think, don't remember the exact number). But that isn't enough, so they have to grow grow grow, and they think they will grow with a different style of programming.

As long the current management is in control, Farscape season 5 will never air on Sci-Fi. Right now I'd just like to know what really happened with the so-called negotiations, but I doubt we will ever be told the whole truth - by either side.

[RescueFarscape]

ABOUT CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS!!!

Does anyone have the link to the point by point rebuttal on SCI FI's Farscape Cancellation FAQ? I have it printed out, but I really do NOT want to retype it all.

It was very VERY good. Called Spin and Counterspin, I think.

[RescueFarscape]

MediaSavant, you wrote some of the points. Wanna help?

[Dominar of Action]

Spin and Counterspin can be found at www.farscapeweekly.com, I believe.

[MediaSavant]

At this point, I feel I know more about SciFi's needs than I know about Henson's.

I believe that if SciFi had gotten a certain price, they would have agreed to 13 episodes.

But, what does Henson need at this point to start anything up again? All I've heard from them is that month's old statement from Juliet Blake that they weren't actively pursuing UPN.

Relative to what a production company has to do, the network's job is easy. They pay some money. They put the show on air.

It's the production side that has to rent the studio, negotiate with the actors' agents, hire a crew, hire writers, make the sets again.

I feel I don't know enough about what Henson needs at this point to do all that. Do they need to see higher ratings just as much as Sci Fi does?

[GrandAdmiralThrawn]

Originally posted by blue
I can't help thinking that all the anger toward the SciFi channel as an entity is too simple. It seems to me there are people and politics involved behind the scenes. SciFi is owned by a bigger company, and wasn't there talk of Barry Diller not liking space shows. We don't know for sure who in SciFi may be for or against Farscape, but not in a position to make decisions.

Hmmm....in charge of a sci-fi network and dont like space shows. That has to be one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. Why dont they just swallow there pride and tell us the truth: We've decided we're not going to do sci-fi anymore.

[RescueFarscape]

I've wondered too about Heson's stand on all this. I haven't read anywhere that they are actively pursuing another network. Disappointment that FS was cancelled, but nothing else. Wonder if they are checking out network options?

Man, that would make our job a whole heck of a lot easier.

[GrandAdmiralThrawn]

Yeah, you would think that a name like Henson would be able to create some interest.

[DangerWillRobinson]

How can "low ratings" be a factor when Season 5 was in doubt even before season 4 started? If ScFi is going to be tossing out allot of dren on the reasons behind the cancellation they should at least try to make a story that doesn't have any holes in it.


I hope we include this in our counterpoint when we issue press releases to the media.

[rabensam]

Danger -- or may I call you Will? -- as a member of the group working on press releases, I can personally confirm that the points from Joan's "Spin and Counterspin" article are being sent out to the media, along with other things which cast doubt on the accuracy of Sci Fi's spin. There are contradictory statements, there is shading of data to produce a certain result...plenty of stuff worth sharing.

And in the interest of working with the facts, I have to echo what MediaSavant said upthread: I also wish we knew more about Henson's needs and how they factored into the failed negotiations. It would definitely help.

[CMScaper]

>As someone said earlier in this thread, I believe we should compile official statements from the Sci-Fi Channel and the executives who work there in case the need arises to show the world how contradictory the Sci-Fi Channel can be. I am also planning to post this in the Frell with the FWA section.<

I think that a list of these quotes would make a nice ad in a newspaper somewhere as a parting shot when Skiffy doesn't come through after a 2.0.

[Farsight]

DK has mentioned that Farscape simply cannot be made on a 13 episode commitment w/ a 9 episode option. This is likely because of Henson's high investment in the show. With much of the costs of the show wrapped up in fixed pre-production costs, what SciFi was really asking was for Henson to shoulder a MUCH higher percentage of the costs than the 50% they already cover.

Asuume Farscape costs $33 million for a season (that's $1.5 million an ep * 22 eps). Under that arrangement, SciFi and Henson each pay $16.5 million, or $750k an episode. Now, according to DK, Farscape's costs are primarily pre-production costs that are fixed, meaning they cost the same for 13 eps, or 22. So let's assume those costs are $22 million.

What SciFi was asking was to reduce THEIR costs to $9.75 million ($750k * 13 eps), with an option for the other 9 eps at $6.75 million. But Farscape would still cost 28.5 million to make 13 eps, meaning that Henson would be shouldering nearly 19 million dollars of the costs, or 2/3rds of the total cost!

Those numbers are just rough estimates based on the data available, but whatever the actual numbers, the math would look similar. This is why it is likely accurate to say that SciFi offered Henson a deal they knew would be refused, and made the offer only for PR purposes. If Henson accepted the deal, SciFi would get a great show for almost no cost to them. When they refused, SciFi could say that they tried to make a deal.

If Henson had accepted that deal, their only options would have been:

1) Pay the extra money. They'd be hoping SciFi picked up the extra 9 episodes to cover their costs, which would be extremely risky. Combined with the financial problems of their parent company, I don't see how they could have managed to front that much extra money.

2) Cut costs. To get their investment back down to the $750k an ep they could afford, Henson would have had to cut Farscape's budget by about 33%. That's a LOT. That means firing cast members and crew, reducing effects, and limiting the style of the show to long shots by a fixed camera. The Henson Co. found this to be an unacceptable compromise of quality, which I would have to agree with.

---

I'd say Henson does need higher ratings, simply to make it easier for them to find a partner willing to make a fair deal. Whether the show is percieved as a ratings success in January will likelt determine how much attention other networks (and even SciFi) will pay to it as a viable programming option. The fact that Farscape is such a bargain at $750k an ep has to help their efforts as well.

[jeffrabb]

I've been doing some thinging about the wording of SciFi's spin in this magazine article. Does anybody remember REAL early in the campaign in September where some guy at a on-line tech magazine kinda tried to rain on our parade. I know we discussed this over on Compuserve's BB. We came to the conclusion over there that it was most probably a person from SciFi itself writing to try to throw water on the campaign or to confuse us. However, I remembered it because of the very same contradictions in it to SciFi's FAQ as I pointed out with this latest article. In fact, the wording is IDENTICAL. Could it be that that little article way back then trying to belittle us was actually a trial balloon by SciFi to see what kind of reaction they would get so that they would have a better idea to *officially* release it when they sooner or later had to, to try to wiggle out of the hole they had dug themselves into over the series ending on a cliffhanger?

Just food for thought. These days, I can believe SciFi will try anything.:et:

Jeff

[LadyCrais]

For those of you collecting contradictory statements, I was surfing and came across an interview with Thomas Vitale by Mary Wood on Farscape World at the end of last March. Just a very small example:

______________________________
Q. So one of the first things we were wondering was about the contract negotiations. We know it was kind of unusual to do two seasons instead of one season. How unusual was that and how involved was that?

A. It's unusual. Not unprecedented, but unusual. You've gotta remember, we did three seasons of First Wave right from the beginning. With Farscape, we had always wanted to do more than one season at a time and there were certain business reasons why we were doing one season at a time. And this year we had the opportunity to do two seasons and to really lock the show in. And everyone on both sides wanted to do that. We wanted to know that we'd continue to have the show for two more years, they wanted to know that they could continue to make the show for two years. So when both sides of the negotiations have the same goal, it makes the negotiation easier.
__________________________________________________

It gets worse. Just reading this interview, it's impossible to describe the emotions I feel in response. I can't even name them properly, it is such a blend of anger, pain, sadness and tears. I know Vitale is one of the good guys, but he's got a pretty frellin' important position and his words should have been trustable as representative of Scifi as a whole. Anyway, have at it you quote collectors if your stomachs and emotions can handle it. The link is:

http://www.farscapeworld.com/interviews/int/scifitom.shtml

[Farsight]

Unfortunately, power struggles occur within networks all the time. It appears that the people within SciFi who valued and respected Farscape and it's audience (we'll call them the "smart people") lost the latest power struggle. The ones who "won" (I'll refrain from calling them anything, but you can probably fill in the blank) don't seem to like science fiction at all, and have shown very little respect for the audience that SciFi already had, throwing that audience away in pursuit of some mythical beast called "mainstream success". :)

[scaPer boi]

Originally posted by RescueFarscape
I've wondered too about Heson's stand on all this. I haven't read anywhere that they are actively pursuing another network. Disappointment that FS was cancelled, but nothing else. Wonder if they are checking out network options?

Man, that would make our job a whole heck of a lot easier.
I haven't heard ANYTHING from henson at all, maybe they've just given up on farscape?

[jeffrabb]

Not likely. My guess is they're just keeping their cards close to their chests for the duration until the final ratings for the final 11 episodes are in.

Jeff
:think:

[Farsight]

Henson is unlikely to say anything new until there is a final outcome to this situation. Networks like to be able to toot their horn, and if there were a negotiation going on, Henson letting that slip to the public could destroy the negotiation immediately.

So, while it's frustrating not to know exactly what's happening behind the scenes, we have to understand, and keep working hard until the fat lady sings (Furlow?)... :)

[DocCamille]

Henson is likely to be sold before the new episodes air, or so I have heard in the news. So what position they decide to take will probably depend on who wins the bid. The last I heard the Saban Brothers were the likeliest candidates. They are the folks who made their very large media fortune by bringing Mighty Morphin Power Rangers to the United States.

Doesn't encourage me that we will see a lot of quality television from Henson if they buy it, but I don't know what else they've done.

DocCamille

[blue]

or Disney--in the last day there have been reports they may be about to make an offer.

[DZ_Crasher]

*shudders at the thought of Mickey Mouse stalking Crichton like Harvey*

Though if it means I get Farscape I'll accept the mouse.

Adi

[wmdopple]

Ya know, that's the thing... on the one hand, Disney definately has the power and money to make Farscape a successful (mainstream-wise) product. On the other hand, I shudder to think what would happen to Farscape in the hands of people who look at creativity entirely in terms of "product".

I can almost picture a Farscape cartoon, where Crichton finds himself in the uncharted territories and ends up paired up with a small, fuzzy, talking, wise-cracking creature (as Crichton ends up being the straight guy in the comedy team...). Then the pair of them engage in wacky adventures every episode, while running away from the kid-friendly version of Scorp (like the cartoon version in Revenging Angel, only less scary (?!?)). Crichton always stays one step ahead of Scorp, always saves whatever race he meets from certain disaster, always outwits Scorp's plans because of some character flaw in Scorp, and always, *always* ends each show with an "educational message".

Gah... now I'm gonna have nightmares...

[blue]

Aren't they (the Farscape guys, not Disney) already talking about or planning an animated series as well as a movie?

[DZ_Crasher]

Yeah but only if our campaign fails and they were talking anime, not cartoons.

Adi

[cincygal]

Want official statements?

I have them listed as part of my 'saga click here' link in my auction here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2150056228&rd=1

the direct link can be viewed by clicking here (http://farscape.sweepstakesnetwork.com/ebayfarscape.htm).

As you can see, I even included at least ONE clickable link in one of the statements, that points right back to Skiffy's website.

[BritAngie]

up...not by a long chalk! The fact they are keeping a low profile must mean something? Remember what Kimbr told us about network behavior? All I can suggest is that when Hensons know it's fate we inundate their new owners with good wishes and a respectful request for new Farscape. ;) Remember if these guys don't want to make it -it doesn't matter who wants to buy it network wise..

[wmdopple]

Originally posted by blue
Aren't they (the Farscape guys, not Disney) already talking about or planning an animated series as well as a movie?

The thing is, I trust Disney a lot less with that job than I would trust the current Henson. :)

[scaPer boi]

Originally posted by BritAngie
up...not by a long chalk! The fact they are keeping a low profile must mean something? Remember what Kimbr told us about network behavior? All I can suggest is that when Hensons know it's fate we inundate their new owners with good wishes and a respectful request for new Farscape. ;) Remember if these guys don't want to make it -it doesn't matter who wants to buy it network wise..
Not all negotiations are made public, they could easily be talking to a network behing closed doors and will only make an announcement if they can close a deal

[GTRShredder]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=599&ncid=762&e=9&u=/nm/20021224/media_nm/industry_jimhenson_dc

Ex-UPN Executive Wins Deal on Henson's Muppets
Tue Dec 24, 6:17 PM ET Add Entertainment - Reuters/Variety Industry to My Yahoo!


NEW YORK (Reuters) - German children's programming giant EM.TV said on Tuesday it agreed to sell 49.9 percent of Jim Henson Co. to an investment group led by a former TV programming executive, helping it to pay down debt while retaining majority control of the renowned Muppet maker.
Dean Valentine, the former chief executive of Viacom Inc.'s United Paramount Network, won the stake in the creator of Big Bird and Kermit the Frog. His group received financial backing from Europlay Capital Advisors, a private equity shop that specializes in media and entertainment.
The companies said they had signed a letter of intent on the deal. Terms of the proposed transaction, which is expected to close in January, were not disclosed. EM.TV was not immediately available for comment. A person familiar with the matter said the Valentine deal included rights to Henson's characters, TV shows and movies and was worth about $30 million. EM.TV was continuing talks with other suitors in case the Valentine agreement fell through, the person said. Valentine, who ran Walt Disney Co.'s Touchstone TV and animation unit overseeing the creation of hit shows "Home Improvement" and "Ellen," expects to build the Henson brand, which has suffered under Munich-based EM.TV. "We feel there is enormous potential for growth, not merely from Kermit and the Muppets, but from the expansion of the Henson brand into all areas of family entertainment," Valentine said in a statement.
Valentine will run Henson with a management team that includes Mort Marcus, the former chairman of Miramax Television and Video, a Disney subsidiary, and Nick Van Dyk, former executive vice president of Artisan Entertainment. Valentine, who joined UPN in 1997, left in January, a month after Viacom yanked control of the fifth-largest network from Paramount Television Group and put it in CBS' hands instead. A month later, Valentine reached an undisclosed settlement with UPN over a lawsuit he had filed concerning his $22 million employment contract. EM.TV paid $680 million for Jim Henson Co. in March 2000, purchasing it from the Henson family. EM.TV began shopping it less than two years later after selling rights to the Sesame Street characters, like Big Bird, to Sesame Workshop for $180 million and its stake in Crown Media Holdings Inc. for about $100 million. Disney was recently planning a $135 million bid for all of Henson, people familiar with the situation said. It was unclear, however, whether that offer was submitted, or whether EM.TV simply opted to sell a minority stake instead. At least three other suitors had been interested in buying Jim Henson Co., sources said. One person familiar with the matter said that EM.TV separately was trying to sell its London-based Creature Shop, which creates characters and special effects for films.
It also aimed to raise about $35 million immediately by selling rights to $70 million in payments still owed over a number of years by Sesame Workshop, the person said. If EM.TV received $35 million in a swap for the payments due from Sesame and $30 million in the Valentine deal, it could pay off a 64 million euro ($64 million) loan. That loan, proceeds of which were used to buy a 50 percent stake in Junior TV Joint Venture, was due at year's end, but EM.TV said it got an extension from lenders over the weekend. The Henson empire was founded in 1958 by Jim Henson, who combined the workings of marionettes and traditional puppets to create Muppets. He died suddenly in 1990 amid negotiations to sell the business to Disney.
Disney walked away from the deal, fearing that Henson's inventive mind was the primary basis for the company's success. Henson's son Brian subsequently took over the company.