5 ms·

Sci Fi shows are expensive to make period - which is why there aren't usually a lot of them on TV. Just think about it: for a normal sitcom or drama, costumes c

by exelius 11y ago

Sci Fi shows are expensive to make period - which is why there aren't usually a lot of them on TV. Just think about it: for a normal sitcom or drama, costumes can be bought off the rack and shots can be done on location or on a sound stage with easily-sourced furniture / decoration / etc. Everything on a Sci Fi (or fantasy) show has to be custom-made; from the costumes to the wall decorations to the light fixtures to the furniture. Custom making these things isn't easy, because they first have to be designed so they look like they "fit" stylistically, then built. A show like Star Trek will also have extensive makeup / prosthetics to depict the many different races. Besides, Star Trek is an active franchise with two recent, very successful movies. No studio exec would ruin a franchise like that with a half-assed, underproduced web series. Because you can't do Sci Fi cheaply without becoming B-movie quality, this show will have to have at a minimum Stargate Atlantis levels of production value. They may just be putting it on the web because the Star Trek demographic doesn't watch network TV and the web is a better way to reach the core audience for the show.

baldfat 11y ago
> Sci Fi shows are expensive to make period So never saw the Dr. Who series int he 1970s and 1980s :) Personally I loved the campy Dr Whos a lot. BBC - "Your almost Out of Budget and you have 3 part series to finish" Producer - "No problem we will put a trash can over that guy and tape up a few trash bags, throw some kids paint on it and there is our new monster." "We will also call the gravel pit see if we can use it as a location during there lunch breaks."
- exelius 11y ago
  Yeah; I'm excluding the campy Sci Fi from this -- any of the low-budget movies that the Syfy channel made, for example. They weren't intended to be good or even draw a large audience, and they did pretty well considering their budgets. But they didn't have the baggage or expectations that the "Star Trek" name brings with it. And even with Dr. Who, most of the action takes place in the present day -- which helps with saving money on costumes and sets.
  - KingMob 11y ago
    Let's not forget all the Doctor Who episodes that take place in the past, which effectively means they can raid the wardrobes of whatever BBC period drama is being filmed that week...
- toxican 11y ago
  Final episode of the series then features a monster that looks suspiciously like a pile of gravel.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    Or it looks like the monster from 3 years ago that they found in the back closet. Seriously I think I would have loved working on those shows, or really really hated. I can't decide which.
- DrBazza 11y ago
  My friends' fathers (plural) worked on the "SFX" in Dr Who in the 70s and Blake's 7. The ray guns were from an old chandelier they had in their living room. Good times.
dogma1138 11y ago
Shows are expensive to make period it just depends what is your "catch", drama's can be also very expensive to make especially historical ones Broadwalk empire has nearly the same budget as GOT, Rome (the HBO & BBC one) was the most expensive show ever made besides friends which had a budget of over 10M$ per episode because much of the cast was being paid over 1M per episode. It's not always the budget it's also the production Firefly managed to make very good use of VFX with relatively "small" budget, BSG didn't had an explosive budget either, Star Gate had also a relatively small budget with the VFX heavy episodes having less than 400,000$ effects budget they just used it rather well. On the other hand you can have very high budget shows looking like B-movie quality, Terra Nova, Falling Skies and Fox's attempts at scifi Almost Human (which was a freaking amazing show and Fox exec's need to pay in blood) and their current Minority Report shows are very expensive but have very low quality looking effects. And if you want the best example of how budget can easily be misused well then Agents of Shield had a 14M budget for the pilot and even the per episode budget was considerably lower it was still pretty damn high and they still managed to completely cock it up both in the visuals and the story/plot departments. IF they'll build a solid production team hopefully there are some folks at Paramount Television that worked on previous shows and are still either alive and or working in TV production and give them budget and creative freedom to work then we might get a good product, if this is going to be brand managed like AOS then it's going to be completely bonkers. AOS is tethered to the cinematic Marvel's universe and it's it's biggest flaw, it's plot is completely dictated by the movies and it spoiled Cap 2 for me and just became a running joke. Agent Carter was considerably better because it was set back enough in the past that they can do anything without having to tie it in with the movies. And this is my biggest must have for this show, either put it in the original canon, reboot it again, or throw it so far away from the movies that it couldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole or don't make it at all.
- exelius 11y ago
  Yeah; any period dramas, fantasy or sci fi shows are just going to be ridiculously expensive. Sitcoms and ensemble dramas are a little cheaper; but eventually if the show gets popular, the cast will demand to be paid. But at least for the first couple seasons the show is cheap to produce, and if it builds an audience, it's easier to justify the increased cost. Sci Fi shows are the most expensive in their first season, because you have to design the universe up-front. A network exec doesn't know if the show is going to pull an audience, but he does know he's got to drop a whole lot of money to even find out. Which makes other options a lot more attractive, and explains the lack of high-quality Sci Fi on TV right now. And like it or not, the cinematic tie-ins and continuity within the universe are what make Marvel appealing as a brand. DC has done a terrible job at this; the upcoming Batman vs. Superman movie has different actors and takes place in a different universe than the last (or really, any) Batman movie. Having multiple Batman characters confuses audiences, and Marvel has done a really good job keeping things consistent.
runako 11y ago
>> for a normal sitcom or drama, costumes can be bought off the rack and shots can be done on location or on a sound stage with easily-sourced furniture / decoration / etc. Worth noting: for sitcoms, staff costs are often as high/higher than the SF shows that make it to the screen. For example, actors on _The Big Bang Theory_ are rumored to earn $1m per episode each. Ditto other shows like _Modern Family_. Likely there are relatively few Sci Fi shows because the Sci Fi writ large has yet to figure out how to connect with audience sizes beyond a niche. If they achieve mainstream reach, the cost of the sets will not matter as much.
- exelius 11y ago
  The staff costs for sitcoms don't get to be that high until the show has already established itself as a ratings draw. So as a network, you can invest in 10 shitty sitcoms, pay tons of money to the 2 or 3 shows that actually build an audience and come out ahead. You have to invest a lot of money into a Sci Fi show before it even makes it in front of an audience, which means it's a riskier bet. TV executives hate risk, so there aren't a lot of Sci Fi shows on TV right now.
peeters 11y ago
Sometimes plot creativity can get you a long way on a small budget (think Firefly). But yeah as soon as you introduce alien worlds, having high quality on a small budget does get difficult.

by exelius 11y ago

baldfat 11y ago

> Sci Fi shows are expensive to make period So never saw the Dr. Who series int he 1970s and 1980s :) Personally I loved the campy Dr Whos a lot. BBC - "Your almost Out of Budget and you have 3 part series to finish" Producer - "No problem we will put a trash can over that guy and tape up a few trash bags, throw some kids paint on it and there is our new monster." "We will also call the gravel pit see if we can use it as a location during there lunch breaks."

exelius 11y ago
Yeah; I'm excluding the campy Sci Fi from this -- any of the low-budget movies that the Syfy channel made, for example. They weren't intended to be good or even draw a large audience, and they did pretty well considering their budgets. But they didn't have the baggage or expectations that the "Star Trek" name brings with it. And even with Dr. Who, most of the action takes place in the present day -- which helps with saving money on costumes and sets.
- KingMob 11y ago
  Let's not forget all the Doctor Who episodes that take place in the past, which effectively means they can raid the wardrobes of whatever BBC period drama is being filmed that week...
toxican 11y ago
Final episode of the series then features a monster that looks suspiciously like a pile of gravel.
- baldfat 11y ago
  Or it looks like the monster from 3 years ago that they found in the back closet. Seriously I think I would have loved working on those shows, or really really hated. I can't decide which.
DrBazza 11y ago
My friends' fathers (plural) worked on the "SFX" in Dr Who in the 70s and Blake's 7. The ray guns were from an old chandelier they had in their living room. Good times.

dogma1138 11y ago

Shows are expensive to make period it just depends what is your "catch", drama's can be also very expensive to make especially historical ones Broadwalk empire has nearly the same budget as GOT, Rome (the HBO & BBC one) was the most expensive show ever made besides friends which had a budget of over 10M$ per episode because much of the cast was being paid over 1M per episode. It's not always the budget it's also the production Firefly managed to make very good use of VFX with relatively "small" budget, BSG didn't had an explosive budget either, Star Gate had also a relatively small budget with the VFX heavy episodes having less than 400,000$ effects budget they just used it rather well. On the other hand you can have very high budget shows looking like B-movie quality, Terra Nova, Falling Skies and Fox's attempts at scifi Almost Human (which was a freaking amazing show and Fox exec's need to pay in blood) and their current Minority Report shows are very expensive but have very low quality looking effects. And if you want the best example of how budget can easily be misused well then Agents of Shield had a 14M budget for the pilot and even the per episode budget was considerably lower it was still pretty damn high and they still managed to completely cock it up both in the visuals and the story/plot departments. IF they'll build a solid production team hopefully there are some folks at Paramount Television that worked on previous shows and are still either alive and or working in TV production and give them budget and creative freedom to work then we might get a good product, if this is going to be brand managed like AOS then it's going to be completely bonkers. AOS is tethered to the cinematic Marvel's universe and it's it's biggest flaw, it's plot is completely dictated by the movies and it spoiled Cap 2 for me and just became a running joke. Agent Carter was considerably better because it was set back enough in the past that they can do anything without having to tie it in with the movies. And this is my biggest must have for this show, either put it in the original canon, reboot it again, or throw it so far away from the movies that it couldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole or don't make it at all.

exelius 11y ago
Yeah; any period dramas, fantasy or sci fi shows are just going to be ridiculously expensive. Sitcoms and ensemble dramas are a little cheaper; but eventually if the show gets popular, the cast will demand to be paid. But at least for the first couple seasons the show is cheap to produce, and if it builds an audience, it's easier to justify the increased cost. Sci Fi shows are the most expensive in their first season, because you have to design the universe up-front. A network exec doesn't know if the show is going to pull an audience, but he does know he's got to drop a whole lot of money to even find out. Which makes other options a lot more attractive, and explains the lack of high-quality Sci Fi on TV right now. And like it or not, the cinematic tie-ins and continuity within the universe are what make Marvel appealing as a brand. DC has done a terrible job at this; the upcoming Batman vs. Superman movie has different actors and takes place in a different universe than the last (or really, any) Batman movie. Having multiple Batman characters confuses audiences, and Marvel has done a really good job keeping things consistent.

runako 11y ago

>> for a normal sitcom or drama, costumes can be bought off the rack and shots can be done on location or on a sound stage with easily-sourced furniture / decoration / etc. Worth noting: for sitcoms, staff costs are often as high/higher than the SF shows that make it to the screen. For example, actors on _The Big Bang Theory_ are rumored to earn $1m per episode each. Ditto other shows like _Modern Family_. Likely there are relatively few Sci Fi shows because the Sci Fi writ large has yet to figure out how to connect with audience sizes beyond a niche. If they achieve mainstream reach, the cost of the sets will not matter as much.

exelius 11y ago
The staff costs for sitcoms don't get to be that high until the show has already established itself as a ratings draw. So as a network, you can invest in 10 shitty sitcoms, pay tons of money to the 2 or 3 shows that actually build an audience and come out ahead. You have to invest a lot of money into a Sci Fi show before it even makes it in front of an audience, which means it's a riskier bet. TV executives hate risk, so there aren't a lot of Sci Fi shows on TV right now.

peeters 11y ago

Sometimes plot creativity can get you a long way on a small budget (think Firefly). But yeah as soon as you introduce alien worlds, having high quality on a small budget does get difficult.