Serenity without Firefly

[Russell Nash]

And let me guess, they only aired 5.

According to IMDB it ran 14 episodes.

[Leon Kensington]

Must not have been on Fox.

[ClintMemo]

Must not have been on Fox.

Actually, I think it was on fox.  I remember the title.

[Listener]

Must not have been on Fox.

Actually, I think it was on fox.  I remember the title.

It was on Fox.  Four episodes aired.  14 were filmed.

[ClintMemo]

Must not have been on Fox.

Actually, I think it was on fox.  I remember the title.

It was on Fox.  Four episodes aired.  14 were filmed.

4 of 14?  Wow! That has to be a record - even for Fox!   

[Listener]

Must not have been on Fox.

Actually, I think it was on fox.  I remember the title.

It was on Fox.  Four episodes aired.  14 were filmed.

4 of 14?  Wow! That has to be a record - even for Fox!   

They only aired three of "Skin" (Ron Silver as the porn guru, plus there was a DA trying to fight porn, and their kids were Romeo-and-Juliet-ing it).  But ABC FTW! with only two of "That Was Then", a show about a guy who, whenever he hears a certain song ("Do It Again" by The Kinks), he was sent back to high school with the opportunity to change things -- sequentially, though, so like he hears the song, he changes something, he comes back, he's in a new reality, he hears the song, he goes back to right where he left, etc etc.

Anyway, only two episodes and then WHAM.  Gone.

[Russell Nash]

I don't mind networks canceling a show.  I don't think there is a single person who watches TV who wouldn't want to axe at least 10 shows. 

The problem is when they destine a good idea to fail.  Some of these shows get no advertising, are so hard to find it's like they're in the witness protection program, and are put on with the idea of only showing the first couple of episodes.  Meanwhile crap like "Dancing with has beens" gets mega ad budgets and the best time slots.

[Listener]

I don't mind networks canceling a show.  I don't think there is a single person who watches TV who wouldn't want to axe at least 10 shows. 

The problem is when they destine a good idea to fail.  Some of these shows get no advertising, are so hard to find it's like they're in the witness protection program, and are put on with the idea of only showing the first couple of episodes.  Meanwhile crap like "Dancing with has beens" gets mega ad budgets and the best time slots.

People want to see other people acting stupid, and they want to see people fail miserably and break down about it.  It makes them feel better about themselves.  The only way to consistently get good TV is for the good shows to stop letting themselves be sold to networks (especially Fox) and get on basic cable.

[Mr. Tweedy]

I don't mind networks canceling a show.  I don't think there is a single person who watches TV who wouldn't want to axe at least 10 shows. 

The problem is when they destine a good idea to fail.  Some of these shows get no advertising, are so hard to find it's like they're in the witness protection program, and are put on with the idea of only showing the first couple of episodes.  Meanwhile crap like "Dancing with has beens" gets mega ad budgets and the best time slots.

People want to see other people acting stupid, and they want to see people fail miserably and break down about it.  It makes them feel better about themselves.  The only way to consistently get good TV is for the good shows to stop letting themselves be sold to networks (especially Fox) and get on basic cable.

I look forward to a new subscription-based distribution model, currently being pioneered by things like, you know, Escape Pod.  I hope that in the future the whole TV model will be dumped completely in favor of one that lets users actively choose only the content they want to see.  I'm already doing that: I have no TV at all.  If I want to see something, I download it or get it on DVD.  A system like that would goes a long way toward encouraging quality shows, and it doesn't really cost any more than paying for cable.

Pipe dream: I've got this idea in mind for a 100-episode fantasy serial.  100 episodes at one hour a piece, no commercials.  Download only.  Pay-per episode or use donations (like EP)?  I don't think that could be profitable today, but in ten years it might.

[Listener]

I don't mind networks canceling a show.  I don't think there is a single person who watches TV who wouldn't want to axe at least 10 shows. 

The problem is when they destine a good idea to fail.  Some of these shows get no advertising, are so hard to find it's like they're in the witness protection program, and are put on with the idea of only showing the first couple of episodes.  Meanwhile crap like "Dancing with has beens" gets mega ad budgets and the best time slots.

People want to see other people acting stupid, and they want to see people fail miserably and break down about it.  It makes them feel better about themselves.  The only way to consistently get good TV is for the good shows to stop letting themselves be sold to networks (especially Fox) and get on basic cable.

I look forward to a new subscription-based distribution model, currently being pioneered by things like, you know, Escape Pod.  I hope that in the future the whole TV model will be dumped completely in favor of one that lets users actively choose only the content they want to see.  I'm already doing that: I have no TV at all.  If I want to see something, I download it or get it on DVD.  A system like that would goes a long way toward encouraging quality shows, and it doesn't really cost any more than paying for cable.

It's a great thought, subscription or a la carte TV, but I doubt the FCC will really ever allow it, given the whole broadcast-flag debate and all the union battles over people getting paid for internet retransmission.

We've been beating the drum for a la carte cable for years to no avail.  The thing is, cable conglomerates know that if (and these are only examples and are not necessarily the case) Versus and Lifetime Movie Network were dropped from the lineup, no one would care, and those companies would go out of business.  The companies that own the stations create must-carry rules -- you want ESPN, you have to take LMN, TCM, and TVOne.  Stuff like that.

Plus, people who run TV up at the very top are slow to embrace change -- if they ever do at all.  In college, in I think 1998, my teacher told us we'd be required to go fully digital and dump our analog TVs by mid-1999.

Now the government says 2009.  And I bet that gets pushed back too.

There's no way to win, unfortunately.  Not on a wide scale.

[Mr. Tweedy]

FCC?  Big networks?  Unions?  Who cares?  That's the whole point of DYI, and what makes the direct subscription distribution model so cool.  Steve doesn't have to get anyone's permission to produce EP.  He just does it, same with all the other DYI producers out there.  I don't know how much of a profit EP makes, but I understand that there are a few people who are already managing to make a living by publishing their own stuff.

Take the "TV" out of your thought stream.  Forget ESPN and Fox and the FCC and everybody.  Imagine a system where the consumer buys the programming directly from the producer.  If you want to watch "Lost," you don't turn on ABC at a certain time, you just buy Lost and ABC can go screw themselves.  It isn't hard to imagine, since you can already do it: You get EP direct from the producer, no middle man.

If you wanted to see my fantasy serial, you would go to my web site and buy an episode.  It would download onto your hard drive, and $2 or whatever would go into my bank account.

It's already happening on a small scale, and I think it's going to get huge real fast.  And I think that is GREAT because it takes control away from Disney and Viacom and puts it directly in the hands of the artists and consumers.  There doesn't need to be any short-sighted, profit-gorging, lowest-common-denominator-promoting mega company supporting Firefly.  You support Firefly.  Directly, and if enough geeks are willing to subscribe, there isn't any company in the world that can cancel the show.

Capitalism is beautiful.

[Listener]

It's already happening on a small scale, and I think it's going to get huge real fast.  And I think that is GREAT because it takes control away from Disney and Viacom and puts it directly in the hands of the artists and consumers.  There doesn't need to be any short-sighted, profit-gorging, lowest-common-denominator-promoting mega company supporting Firefly.  You support Firefly.  Directly, and if enough geeks are willing to subscribe, there isn't any company in the world that can cancel the show.

I hope you're right about that.  I really do.  From a TV person's perspective, I'm just coming in with a lot of pessimism and doubt.

[Russell Nash]

It's already happening on a small scale, and I think it's going to get huge real fast.  And I think that is GREAT because it takes control away from Disney and Viacom and puts it directly in the hands of the artists and consumers.  There doesn't need to be any short-sighted, profit-gorging, lowest-common-denominator-promoting mega company supporting Firefly.  You support Firefly.  Directly, and if enough geeks are willing to subscribe, there isn't any company in the world that can cancel the show.

I hope you're right about that.  I really do.  From a TV person's perspective, I'm just coming in with a lot of pessimism and doubt.

The big problem is front end money.  You need money to make a show before you can sell it.

[DKT]

The big problem is front end money.  You need money to make a show before you can sell it.

Especially one that would cost the money Firefly, Space Above and Beyond, Harsh Realm, or any other decent SF series would.  (I got burned on all those series, save Firefly, which I didn't even get to watch until it came out on DVD.)  Tim Minnear definitely seems to keep getting screwed.  Firefly, Wonderfalls, and Drive?  Poor dude.

There's some stuff out like that now, like Earl Newton's Stranger Things vidcast, but it still has a ways to go.

[Mr. Tweedy]

I don't know.  Who here saw Pi or Primer?  Those were both made by some guy who saved his pennies, and they have both been hugely successful, if consider the tiny amount of money that went into them.

The technology keeps getting cheaper and cheaper.  (Anyone been to red.com?)  $50,000 is all you'd need to outfit a simple movie studio.  CG is getting easier and cheaper every day.  Heck, you can download CG apps for free that are as good as what the pros were using ten years ago.

I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that what makes production cost so much are the same things that make everything cost more than it needs to: Taxes and unions.  I believe that the Screen Actor's Guild demands the equivalent of $92 per hour minimum for all members.  Look at the credits for any movie: Tons of needless extra labor.  Can't the actors comb their own hair?  Do they each need a stylist sucking up $500 a day?

From everything I've read about film and video production, the processes are monumentally wasteful and inefficient.  Thrifty DYIer could do the same level of work on much smaller budgets.

I don't think Hollywood-level production could be done with the kind of a cash a menial newspaper employee like me could save, but I think it could be done with the kind of cash 100 people like me could pool, if we really wanted to.

Look at EP.  Steve pays $100 for stories=$5200 a year.  I'm assuming he takes money home too (yeah for capitalism!) but EP must be pulling in a bare minimum of $5200 a year through free-will donation.  That's not chump-change.  If the current listener base for EP could be convinced to invest just $10 a piece in a project, you'd have over $90,000, and that would probably be enough for thrifty folks to make a pilot episode, even for an effects-heavy show.  If I liked an idea enough, I'd chip in $10 to see it get made.

I don't think it would easy or cheap, but I do think it would be possible to get quality programs going with relatively little front-money.  Provided, of course, that you had some doggedly determined people with the passion and grit to actually get it done.

Or take a scenario like this: EP continues to thrive.  9000 listeners turns to 90,000.  The money increases accordingly and finally Steve has enough that he can finance full-blown AV production of the stories, instead of just reading them.  This draws an even bigger audience.  More money comes in.  Eley Studios is founded.

I'm not saying that stuff like this is going to happen.  I'm saying it is happening.  It has to start small, which is what you're seeing now, but I think this is the future.

[DKT]

Well, I hope you're right.  I'd love to see smarter, better SF on TV or whatever the alternative is. 

However, there's a huge discrepancy between film/TV and podcasting.  It's a bigger collaborative effort.  Instead of a story, a reader, and a producer there's a script, actors (plural), a producer, a director, effects, cameraman, boom operator, editor, etc.  Some of these jobs can be combined but it's not a one man thing. The guy who made Sky Captain spent 5 years of his life making 5-10 minutes by himself, IIRC.  He ended up getting help from a studio because he realized he'd die before the project was finished if he kept going at that rate.

The other contrast between the two is that, with Steve and Escape Pod, he was able to build a fanbase on a relatively low budget.  (I think Escape Pod started off paying $20 for their short stories.  I could be wrong.  I know it wasn't $100.)  Steve paid a sum of money for a story because he wanted quality.  With the film/TV alternative is going to need a bigger budget upfront to get that same kind of quality, because there are more people involved.  And because it takes more time.  So the question is how does an alternative film/TV company come up with that kind of money, just to start out?  It's not like Steve Eley's asking for my money.  I'd give it to him because I trust him and his track record.  But an unknown TV/film company trying to make a quality SF/F product with nothing to their name is going to have a tougher haul and loads more money to raise.

Finally, I've got to take a little bit of issue with you bagging on SAG.  SAG and other unions (like the SWGA) may seem like a pain to you but they really do take care of their members and help protect them.  It's not about Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, it's about my buddy from college who's only managed to land bit parts in films but is able to get some kind of working compensation while he pursues his dream.

Like I said, I really hope it happens but I haven't seen it yet.  I'm a big fan (and sponsor) of Stranger Things but I don't think they've hit their stride yet or could really battle with the networks.  I actually don't know if I think there's going to be a battle.  I don't think TV networks are going anywhere.  I just think there will be more alternatives (and maybe even, for shows like Firefly, a chance at a second life).

[Mr. Tweedy]

The problem with extant unions is that they are huge and monolithic and as such only companies that are huge and monolithic are able to deal with them.  I.e. if I were going to make an indie film with the $30,000 I have in the bank right now, I could not hire any SAG actors, even if they wanted to work with me: Their union membership demands that they be payed a higher salary than I could possibly afford.  SAG members can only work in big-budget productions by huge wealthy companies who can afford to pay union wages.  Hence they are effectively barred from doing any DYI.  (Notice that the [excellent] reader for "Ej-Es" had to get special permission from the Guild to work for free; she isn't allowed to just do stuff: The Guild has to okay everything.)

Same with any union: Ironically, unions push the "little guy" out by demanding so much money that little guys can't afford to hire them.  A union, by its nature, is ill-suited to deal with small projects and employers.  A big union needs a big business.

In a system where a few mega-rich companies control everything, then unions have utility: We've seen in the past how workers can get stomped on.  But in a system like we see emerging now, where lots of "little" people are able to do their own projects independently, unions simply have no place.  Unions are a part of the old system where Disney and Viacom run everything.  If Disney and Viacom loose power, then unions will loose power in proportion.

(Gee this is a fun discussion!  Go EP forums!)   

[DKT]

While I understand where you're coming from, I want to point out that SAG isn't there for the little indie movie maker.  SAG is there to make sure that the members of its guild (actors and actresses) get paid decent wages for the movies they participate in.  Nothing states SAG actors have to work in big budget films.  Sure, Robert Rodriguez couldn't pay anyone in SAG when he did El Mariachi for $7,000.  On the other hand, I don't remember hearing of any problems Bruce Willis and John Travolta had for doing the relatively low budget (by Hollywood standards) Pulp Fiction. 

I'm not saying unions are perfect.  As a former teacher, I think they have a lot of flaws.  But I think it'd be unwise to blame Hollywood's issues on SAG.

And yeah, this is a funny discussion for the EP forums.  I guess I'm a bit off topic now...I'll try to stop.

[Chodon]

The problem with extant unions is that they are huge and monolithic and as such only companies that are huge and monolithic are able to deal with them. 

Living in Michigan I see a great example of this in the UAW.  After working with them, I can say from experience unions are bad for everyone but those at the top of the unions, and people who need their job protected.  It's stops free market exchange, because now these people can't exchange their skills for whatever price they choose.  It artificially inflates their wages and decreases productivity of the entire workforce.  My wife's uncle likes to brag about how little he does, how much he gets paid for it, and how much he costs the company he works for (it's one of the 'big 3").  He spends most of his day watching movies!  That's just a messed up mindset.  I like to brag about how much I save my company!  But, I digress....

I think Tweedy's model could work (maybe) but it depends on generosity, when most good financial models are based on greed.  I think it would work okay, and you might even be able to break even at it, but the average person will not donate if they can get something for free. 

It would be interesting to hear from Steve the ratio of paying vs. unpaying listeners. 

[Russell Nash]

It would be interesting to hear from Steve the ratio of paying vs. unpaying listeners. 

Well let's see… 40,000 downloads per episode times $5/month basic donation is $2.4 million/year.  Steve hasn't moved to Hawaii and bought a Porsche, so, I guess, we can say the percentage of donators isn't that huge.

Not having the money in my "fun fund" to donate is why I help out as moderator.  Just wanted to help somehow.  I figured if everyone donated or helped out at just one of the non-professional podcasts they listened to, it would make the whole field profitable to the ones that do quality 'casts.

[Mr. Tweedy]

It would be interesting to hear from Steve the ratio of paying vs. unpaying listeners. 

Well let's see… 40,000 downloads per episode times $5/month basic donation is $2.4 million/year.  Steve hasn't moved to Hawaii and bought a Porsche, so, I guess, we can say the percentage of donators isn't that huge.

Not having the money in my "fun fund" to donate is why I help out as moderator.  Just wanted to help somehow.  I figured if everyone donated or helped out at just one of the non-professional podcasts they listened to, it would make the whole field profitable to the ones that do quality 'casts.

40,000?  The little ticker at escapepod.org says "9000."  Is the ticker low?

[Russell Nash]

It would be interesting to hear from Steve the ratio of paying vs. unpaying listeners. 

Well let's see… 40,000 downloads per episode times $5/month basic donation is $2.4 million/year.  Steve hasn't moved to Hawaii and bought a Porsche, so, I guess, we can say the percentage of donators isn't that huge.

Not having the money in my "fun fund" to donate is why I help out as moderator.  Just wanted to help somehow.  I figured if everyone donated or helped out at just one of the non-professional podcasts they listened to, it would make the whole field profitable to the ones that do quality 'casts.

40,000?  The little ticker at escapepod.org says "9000."  Is the ticker low?

40,000 is a number I heard from Steve and it was on the Periodic table of Internet sites and a couple of other places.  If that number is wrong I'll redo the math, but It's the best I have.  I believe the 9,000 you see is only direct downloads through that link and doesn't include things like iTunes.  Once again note the "I thinks". 

[DKT]

Russell, what's the number in (parenthesis) next to each episode where it says download?

[Russell Nash]

Russell, what's the number in (parenthesis) next to each episode where it says download?

I was just about to edit my last post, but you beat me to it.

I don't have specifis knowledge of how the main site works.  Steve told me the stuff for the forums and that's it.  I looked at the last several stories and the number in parenthesis seems to be the total downloads from all sources.  That number for the last several episodes is between 20,000 and 40,000.  If we call it 30,000 and redo the math we end up with $1.8 million/year.  Still in the Porsche and Hawaii realm.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Well, that's cool!  That means EP has between 3 and 5 times more listeners than I thought.  Encouraging, since I'm think direct-distribution like this is a very good thing.

If you think that in two years a DYI program like EP can go from 0 to 40,000 with absolutely no corporate backing of any kind, that's really kind of amazing.  If it keeps growing at this rate, you'll have 100,000 listeners after five years.  You're entering commercial territory there, the territory where EP could be a self-supporting business, not just something some people do on the side.

If 100,000 listeners donate an average of only $1 per year, that would be enough to pay writers $350 a piece for stories, pay professional readers $200 an episode to perform them and still leave plenty for the Editor to live comfortably.  It would be a full-fledged (and influential) magazine, started from nothing.

I think the future looks like that.   

I only wonder if the donations-only model will endure.  It seems like a subscription-based model will be necessary, if DYI productions are to become adequately profitable.