[Waragainstsleep]

Does anyone else think it needs to change sometime soon?

It seems odd to me that networks have such absolute power over shows.
If I owned a production company and I wanted to make a TV show, I think I'd prefer to take matters in to my own hands and run it a bit more like a movie by securing finance to make it with first. Sure, the starting point might be to sell it to a US TV network, but then I could factor in repeats, DVD sales, merchandise, and sales to networks in other countries followed by repeats there and DVDs etc. It seems crazy to me that some shows get cancelled altogether and seemingly without negotiation because the network says so. Surely they could just reduce their offer and the production company could then see if it could cut any costs or raise extra cash elsewhere?

I heard a rumour that Netflix were considering paying for their own original content. Does anyone think Apple have considered it as an option? They certainly have the cash going spare.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Does anyone else think it needs to change sometime soon?

Everyone thinks this, even the people in charge of networks. The problem is no one who runs a network is willing to have it happen "on their watch".

[Waragainstsleep]

So whats it going to take? Who is going to take the plunge? Or rather, who is going to start shoving people over the edge?

[subego]

Louis C.K.

[reader50]

I'm still rooting for the Browncoats.

[ghporter]

A "major television series" requires studios, equipment, catering, etc. just like a motion picture. The problem is that these things are very expensive to buy and rather expensive to rent for short terms or in small quantities for smaller productions. The "studio system" of the golden age of Hollywood was successful for, among other reasons, the studios OWNED all those things, from the buildings to the cameras to the kitchens. A TV show that's filmed still needs the things that studios have, and that is one reason the networks and their parent companies have a lot of control.

Now let's look back to Joss Whedon and what he did during the last SAG strike. He made "Dr. Horrible," remember? Without studios, without union anything, etc. Modern digital cameras are less expensive than they used to be and make production functions a lot quicker and less expensive themselves. It still takes an investment, but a production company (as opposed to a studio) CAN afford this equipment. With the kind of production work on a "Law and Order" type series, that sort of thing is very doable.

Now for the down side. Distribution still requires a network or a network-like entity. See reader50's mention of the Browncoats. A "network" called Fox bankrolled production of Firefly and distributed it. But the suits at Fox couldn't figure out that they had a success (and a cash cow) on their hands, and since they didn't get it, and they didn't ask for the right ratings demographics to support it, they cancelled it. Their loss was ours too.

[Eug]

Personally I think the sci-fi geeks bring up Firefly way too often. While I enjoyed the show, I am not the least bit surprised it was cancelled.

By the way, I saw an interesting interview with Terri Tatchell, one of the screenwriters for District 9. What she said was that yes technology has improved to the point that you can now make a feature film (or TV show I guess) with small cameras and then laptops for post, but it's become a lot harder to get that content distributed via mainstream methods. Everyone and their dog can create the stuff, but it's the big players who get things done. ie. District 9 would not have happened without Peter Jackson and Sony.

Then there's Sanctuary. They tried the internet release route but that was a failure. They themselves said there was no effective method to monetize the web releases, but managed to get somewhere by going to a network, in this case SyFy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

A "major television series" requires studios, equipment, catering, etc. just like a motion picture.

Mmmmm... catering.

[Waragainstsleep]

So maybe Apple should build a studio and get all the gear together and invite people to come and make shows then? The question then becomes, do they have enough clout to sell a TV show solely on iTunes and make it profitable? Can they push it enough so that people will see the trailers and watch the show, then can they do the same with more than one show at a time?

It seems like they would need a very highly thought of show to start the ball rolling. They'd need to get a select few influential people to really rave about it while swearing them to secrecy about the details. Then they'd need to try and choose a time and date to make it available to download worldwide simultaneously so that as many people as possible could watch it ASAP and then go on Facebook and Twitter and talk about it.

[subego]

That doesn't pass the "Apple's a hardware company" test.

[BadKosh]

Unions too. Ugh!