Rumors Abound on the New BSG

[koenigrules]

I posted this at MB, but I thought you guys would like to know this too.
My source for the latest BSG info (who wishes to remain anonymous) has indicated the following:
Plans appear to be underway to air a 3-hour edited version of the BSG miniseries on NBC sometime this fall of 2004.
Also rumored is that Sci-Fi wants a Season 2 of BSG to air as early as July of 2005. If that is the case, production would have to be underway by January or February of 2005. One of the reasons why a quick decision has to be reached re: a season 2 is so that they can get all the actors signed on early for another batch of episodes.
More details to come as these rumors get confirmed (or not)
KR

[BST]

I posted this at MB, but I thought you guys would like to know this too.
My source for the latest BSG info (who wishes to remain anonymous) has indicated the following:
Plans appear to be underway to air a 3-hour edited version of the BSG miniseries on NBC sometime this fall of 2004.
Also rumored is that Sci-Fi wants a Season 2 of BSG to air as early as July of 2005. If that is the case, production would have to be underway by January or February of 2005. One of the reasons why a quick decision has to be reached re: a season 2 is so that they can get all the actors signed on early for another batch of episodes.
More details to come as these rumors get confirmed (or not)
KR

Interesting news, KR. Although I'm not surprised that the Mini-Series will be editted for network viewing, they need to exercise care in what is trimmed from the original 4-hour show. It may not be the same show, after editting. Has RDM weighed in on the editting? Does he think that the show may lose some of its grittiness if too much is trimmed?


Is Sci-Fi's "season" now 13 episodes? I agree that Sci-Fi may be in a "rush" to lock-in a Season 2 but, doesn't it make sense to see how Season 1 goes first?

;)

[Bijou88]

I think, if this is true, Sci Fi is counting their chickens before they hatch. The new Galactica may very well bomb. I do not think they would commit to a second season before they see how the first one performs. That is not how things are done in Hollywood. As for rerunning the mini on NBC, I think it will have a harder time ratings-wise on the network than it did on a nice cozy cable channel.

[koenigrules]

Bijou88- remember BSG is airing in England in September.
I am sure they will be watching the ratings overseas first & if its a success there, that will weigh into their decision greatly. Of course, they will be watching the first few episodes on Sci-Fi too in January.
Given the track record of the other shows that Sci-Fi has invested some monies in this current year (SG-1, Stargate Atlantis), it seems a safe bet that the new BSG will pull in the ratings.
If it bombs, it won't be due to marketing- that's for sure. I am seeing the ads for it every Friday night.
And I'm sure as January approaches, even more ads will appear on Sci-Fi.
Remember, this is my guess- not anyone else's.
BST- As far as Season 2 goes, it would be another 13 episodes.
KR

[BST]

Thanks, KR.

Ya know, I remember the day when a season was 26 episodes. Guess I'm showing my age, huh?

:laugh:

[Bijou88]

Sci Fi Channel' Galactica is not in the same class as SG-1 or Atlantis. If Galactica maintains high ratings, it will be renewed for a second season. If the high ratings of the Mini prove to be a fluke, it will not survive beyond the initial 13 episodes. To speculate on the success of the new Galactice is very premature. It is best to wait until January to see how well it does. With this in mind I will make a small prediction:

I think that there will be a positive bump in the ratings when they air the episode with Richard Hatch. Even classic Battlestar Galactica fans who loath the mini will watch this episode to see Richard in action.

[Darth Marley]

KR beat me to the punch in pointing out that they will have ratings data from the UK airing.

I think that one of Aaron's comments in his thread here mentioned the likelyhood of a season two decision being made late Jan05 or early Feb05. It may have been somewhere else though.

As for the editing, it is irrelevant to me. I am hoping there is a lot of extra footage on the Reg 1 DVD release.

The 13 episode order is not unique to RM's BSG.

[BST]

As for the editing, it is irrelevant to me.

I understand what you're saying, Darth, but, it may be very relevant to the advertisers, on whom the networks depend.

[Darth Marley]

A fair point. Advertisers would also want the show to conform to broadcast network's standards & practices though. Remember the mini ad boycott initiative?

Looks like a 3 hour edit would put it on one night iso two.

[BST]

Yeah, I remember it. It was not too unusual a course of action, though. Just a means of sending a message. This type of thing has been done before and will probably be done again. Maybe just not on a scale such as the boycott.

I wouldn't hesitate to raise a concern to an advertiser regarding support of a tv show/film or a company regarding their support of a controversial project in my area. It's just a way of making sure that "they" see the whole picture of public opinion.

[Darth Marley]

I am not criticising the tactic.

I suspect they would get consumer complaints if they didn't edit it for content is what I am meaning.

Depending on just how risque the series is, it might cause a perception of "false premises" if kids watch the network version, and parents get a shock when they tune in for the series.

[BST]

Sorry, Darth. Guess my vision got a little foggy, there, for a second.

I agree with your follow-up regarding the content. While I've heard the remarks about "they're showing risque stuff already on the networks", one would not necessarily expect to see it on a science-fiction show. I also agree that NBC's showing (and probable editting) of BSG, quite probably does not thrill Sci-Fi. I realize that we're just talking about a re-airing of the mini, at this point but, looking long-term, everything that Moore is aiming for, might be an exercise in futility for him, if NBC exerts greater control over the property. Now that I think about it, that may not be such a bad idea.

*evil laugh

:)

[peter noble]

In regards to nuGalactica running on Sky 1, I believe it's now being aired in October.

[koenigrules]

Even if its October when the series airs on SkyOne, there will be enough info on ratings for Sci-Fi to make a decision by January.
I also read somewhere that SkyOne is footing half the bill for each episode, so how it does in the UK is very important- probably just as important as how it does here.
KR

[CommanderTaggart]

I'd edit out about 4 hours. But that's just me. This kind of lame-brained thinking I would expect from Bonnie Hammer and the Horror Channel, but I am disappointed with NBC. It doesn't bode well for the quality of work we can expect to be churned out by NBC-Universal.

And, yes, I know I sound like Lang. ;)

[koenigrules]

I'm quite comfortable with a 3-hour version of the mini- anything for greater exposure of the show.
And I did not think there were so many objectionable scenes as some might think- certainly Farscape & B5 has had its share.
So what if they edit out a few scenes, as long as it builds interest in the premiere of the series which is the tactic here.
And if there's talk already re: a Season 2, I think the NBC-Universal joining is probably an effective one. By the way, NBC is the only one to try out two horror/fantasy ventures as mideseason replacements on its network. Plus The Dead Zone & 4400 have become very profitable ventures too. So all in all, I believe NBC will continue to make the commitment to sci-fi in the years ahead.
KR

[Darth Marley]

KR,
Any insight as to why you think a potential season 2 would only be 13 eps?
Seems RDM has a 5-7 year story arc plotted.
Is the 13 ep seasons part of the original plan, part of a cable trend, or something else.

I would figure that the number of new episodes would be comparable to SG:A if slated for a July airing on SFC. How many eps of SG:A are in the can?

[koenigrules]

Darth:
Hi there...yes, RDM has a definite story arc in mind extending over 5-7 seasons.
So the final episode of Season 1 will be a cliffhanger of sorts.
Atlantis & SG-1 are different and have 20 episodes for this season- no word yet on a pickup for a 9th season of SG-1 and a 2nd for Atlantis.
As BSG is airing overseas, they are doing episodes more in line with a season over there. Dr. Who is slotted for 13 episodes too.
Hope this helps,
KR

[CommanderTaggart]

KR Wrote:

So all in all, I believe NBC will continue to make the commitment to sci-fi in the years ahead.

There's a big difference between SciFi and quality SciFi. NBC is the network of Star Trek and Quantum Leap, but if they think nuGalactica is worthy of a Network audience, then I just can't think that bodes well for quality SciFi programming. The sad truth is that intelligent programming, especially when it comes to SciFi, has an extremely short life-expectancy on TV. The fact that Firefly, which, I'm sorry, was exponentially better than the RDM show, wasn't even given a full season... and there are rumors of a season two for the RDM show already... just underscores that belief.

NBC used to be a quality Network... but I fear this partnership with Universal will bring NBC down, rather than NBC building Universal up, as I had hoped. The RDM show's suit-and-network level support and Firefly's cancellation have jaded me very much as I ponder the immediate future of televised SciFi.

[Mike Wright]

I should imagine that SG:A will get the pickup. The ratings on the pilot went through the roof.

Did anyone catch "38 minutes?" Man, for something that just *sounded* like a boring concept, it sure had me on the edge of my seat.

But that gives me hope for RM's BSG, because SG1 and SGA are pulling in all these ratings, and that's when they are advertising it. So its not like people won't know its coming.

I'm just hoping we get a season 2 so we increase our chances of seeing the Pegasus and new takes on some of the older episodes. And I sure hope to high hell we get to see new Battlestar designs.

And if we're really lucky, they'll tin can every Cylon ship design from the Mini and design something that DOESN'T look straight out of Star Wars Episode I. But that's hoping too much I guess.

[thomas7g]

I really think they should take STargate away from SciFi and its small audincebase and put it on Network TV. It would garner alot more viewers on network then it ever could on any cable network. Which of course means more money. And that's why we have shows, to get as many people as possible to watch the sponser's commercials.

:)

Personally, I'm done with hating the new BG. And I am glad for people who like it. I bear no animosity towards them or their show succeeding.

But I am happily anticipating the return of the one we ALL like. The old one IS coming back. The new show is not an impediment for it. The Movie will forge its own completely unique path with its own danger and pitfalls. But given looong looong amounts of time...it will overcome all obstacles.

:D

[Darth Marley]

I am pretty sure that SFC has to pay hefty licencing fees to MGM for SG:1.
They have already been bounced from, what, Shotime?

Does anyone know if MGM holds the strings on SG:A, or is SG:A cheaper for SFC to air?

[thomas7g]

I just thought of something. MGM was the producer of the original show. But the SonyBono law gives rights to the creator of the movie. Also Maj Carter was not in the movie so the right of her character may belong to Showtime.

Hollywood is such a maze of lawsuits whenever ANYTHING good is produced.

:D

[Darth Marley]

I'm no expert on this Sonny Bono law. I'll report back in a few days.

I think that "creators" can still sign their rights to the studios, and have to do that to get the shows aired.
The development of the series from the movie would have involved a licensing arrangment.

I think the rights to "Carter" would be retained by MGM iso Shotime.

[Darth Marley]

Well, I do not concider myself an expert in copyright law yet, or the Sonny Bono provisions especially.

However, I cannot find anything that supports the meme that the mini had to be created to "maintain the franchise."

Can anyone point out the section of the act that would cause such behavior or support such an agrument?

It is counter-intuitive that the entertainment industry, which essentially wrote the act, would compel itself to revive copyright in such a manner every 25 years. The impact on minor Disney characters alone would be overwhelming.

[Charybdis]

Heck, back in the day (before I was even born) in the 1950s and 1960s, the TV season was 40 weeks!!!!!

[justjackrandom]

I also make no claims to be an expert on either television scheduling practices or copyright laws, but I can make the following observations:

Very early television, shot in 30-minute episodes, could run to over 50 episodes per season. The Lone Ranger (1949 – 1956) ran three seasons of 52 episodes each, one of 26 and one of 39.

Bonanza (1959 – 1973) seems typical of the late 50’s and through the 60’s. The show’s first 9 seasons had between 32 and 36 episodes each. Seasons 10 and 11 had 29; season 12, 28; season 13, 26; and in its last season 15 episodes. This shows the trend toward a smaller number of episodes per season that we now see in today’s T.V.

The Bob Newhart Show did 24 episodes in all of its six seasons but one.

The number of episodes per season seems to have stabilized in the last 20 years or so at 20 – 26 per season, with mid-season replacement shows given 12 – 14 episodes to reach an audience. Most “made for syndication” shows, such as Buffy, Angel, Andromeda, and SG-1 have established 22 episodes as the season norm, while Trek used a 26-episode season.

British television, while showing a similar trend toward smaller numbers of shows per season over the last 50 years, seems to have stabilized at seasons of 6 – 16 episodes.

I would guess that season 2 of RMBSG would be more than 13 episodes.

And Darth, I can also find nothing in the SB revision of the copyright laws that suggest that the new series was made simply to maintain rights because of copyright law. If it was made to protect possession, then my guess is that it was pursuant to a contractual or settlement agreement rather than a copyright provision.

my 2p,

JJR

[shiningstar]

I really think they should take STargate away from SciFi and its small audincebase and put it on Network TV. It would garner alot more viewers on network then it ever could on any cable network. Which of course means more money. And that's why we have shows, to get as many people as possible to watch the sponser's commercials.

:)

Personally, I'm done with hating the new BG. And I am glad for people who like it. I bear no animosity towards them or their show succeeding.

But I am happily anticipating the return of the one we ALL like. The old one IS coming back. The new show is not an impediment for it. The Movie will forge its own completely unique path with its own danger and pitfalls. But given looong looong amounts of time...it will overcome all obstacles.

:D

If it weren't for the NETWORK EXECS who would try to sabatoge Stargate the
way they tried to do to BSG .........I'd agree with you.

One example of what I'm talking about with BSG is STARBUCK ........Take
away the swagger, the stoke and the manner of Starbuck they said .........
Dirk Benidict and Larson and Desanto refused ...........therefore Starbuck
remained .........and succeeded inspite of the threats of FIREING that
ACTOR .......

Do you really think they'd let Stargate remain as it was MEANT to be?

I doubt it ...........

[Dawg]

And Darth, I can also find nothing in the SB revision of the copyright laws that suggest that the new series was made simply to maintain rights because of copyright law. If it was made to protect possession, then my guess is that it was pursuant to a contractual or settlement agreement rather than a copyright provision.

my 2p,

JJR

JJR, if memory serves, the copyright protection angle of the RDM production was confirmed by Broomstick Bonnie herself in an early interview. I can't find it, now, so I can't link you to it, but it does stick in my mind that "copyright protection" was part of the answer to a "why now" question.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Darth Marley]

And Darth, I can also find nothing in the SB revision of the copyright laws that suggest that the new series was made simply to maintain rights because of copyright law. If it was made to protect possession, then my guess is that it was pursuant to a contractual or settlement agreement rather than a copyright provision.


Thanks for that observation JJR, it does make some sense.
Wasn't there a lawsuit over the property involving Larson several years ago?

[bsg1fan1975]

as for my opinion, I hope the whole thing goes right into the flusher!

[Darth Marley]

JJR, if memory serves, the copyright protection angle of the RDM production was confirmed by Broomstick Bonnie herself in an early interview.

I think the remark that you are looking for involves the prhase "to maintain the franchise."

This appears at Cinescape http://cinescape.com/0/Editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Television&action=page&obj_id=35364

but no mention about it being necessary to retain copyright due to the SB provision of US copyright law, or in regards to an undisclosed legal settlement or judgement.

I am thinking that there is no relation to the SB law, and this is just a misconception that has arisen around the topic.

[shiningstar]

JJR, if memory serves, the copyright protection angle of the RDM production was confirmed by Broomstick Bonnie herself in an early interview. I can't find it, now, so I can't link you to it, but it does stick in my mind that "copyright protection" was part of the answer to a "why now" question.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

"BROOMSTICK BONNIE"

I know alot of WICKETS who will be upset that you raised her 'up' to THEIR level :nervous:

[Gemini1999]

"BROOMSTICK BONNIE"

I know alot of WICKETS who will be upset that you raised her 'up' to THEIR level :nervous:

SS -

I think you mean Wiccans, not Wickets - a wicket is another name for a croquet mallet.... Then again - it has a long wooden handle like a broomstick and it's also got a big knobby end on it - just like Bonnie's head! :D

Best,
Bryan

[shiningstar]

SS -

I think you mean Wiccans, not Wickets - a wicket is another name for a croquet mallet.... Then again - it has a long wooden handle like a broomstick and it's also got a big knobby end on it - just like Bonnie's head! :D

Best,
Bryan

:blush: :blush: :blush: :blush:

So I did

:blush: :blush: :blush: :blush:

[Dawg]

I think the remark that you are looking for involves the prhase "to maintain the franchise."

This appears at Cinescape http://cinescape.com/0/Editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Television&action=page&obj_id=35364

but no mention about it being necessary to retain copyright due to the SB provision of US copyright law, or in regards to an undisclosed legal settlement or judgement.

I am thinking that there is no relation to the SB law, and this is just a misconception that has arisen around the topic.

Thanks, Darth - that was the quote, I think - but I also think I saw it elsewhere. Can't prove it, though.....

The phrase "maintain the franchise" is kind of loaded, though; "franchise" as in money-making vehicle. If, as is suspected, the ownership rights were about to revert to Larson, then "maintaining the franchise" takes on a very mercenary meaning, in that Universal did this so that ownership rights could not revert. If she didn't intend to give that impression, though, I'd wish she'd chosen her words a bit better.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[shiningstar]

Thanks, Darth - that was the quote, I think - but I also think I saw it elsewhere. Can't prove it, though.....

The phrase "maintain the franchise" is kind of loaded, though; "franchise" as in money-making vehicle. If, as is suspected, the ownership rights were about to revert to Larson, then "maintaining the franchise" takes on a very mercenary meaning, in that Universal did this so that ownership rights could not revert. If she didn't intend to give that impression, though, I'd wish she'd chosen her words a bit better.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

I truelly DOUBT that she cared whether or not she was hurting any one
with her words and the fact she wanted to make certain Larson didn't make
one CENT off of the MINI ........shows how MERCENARY she truelly WAS and
STILL IS.

[Darth Marley]

Actually, Larson did make money from the mini. The cowriter credit under a pseudonym.
I don't recall where it was decided that he was entitled to this (upon further review, this is a WGA stipulation won through arbitration), but it is part of the history of the mini. Also, Larson was given a "consulting producer" credit.

I don't know if there was some legal mechansim that would allow control of the property to revert to Larson, but I see absolutely no evidence that the SB law would cause that to happen.

[thomas7g]

I don't know if there was some legal mechansim that would allow control of the property to revert to Larson, but I see absolutely no evidence that the SB law would cause that to happen.

Larson sued for ownership of the BG property. I remember the judge said that if Universal didn't create something under the Battlestar Galactica name within the 25 years after the airing of the show, then he would consider that Universal had abandoned the property and the ownership will transfer to Larson. Had 2003 passed without the airing of a new Battlestar Galactica, then Larson would have owned it.

That's why the miniseries was created. To prevent Larson from owning Battlestar Galactica. Its also why they made so many changes, to weaken Larson's claim that this was his creation.

[Darth Marley]

Aha!
That sews it up, and doesn't involve the ghost of Sonny Bono.
Thank you.

Although, I bet they could have just created the mini, and not aired it, and still maintained control.

[thomas7g]

My pleasure. I'm glad you made me think about it and put the pieces in order in my head. You may be right about Sonny Bono's law. It seems to have less to do with artist rights so much as its to prevent copyrighted material from falling into the public domain.

:)

[shiningstar]

My pleasure. I'm glad you made me think about it and put the pieces in order in my head. You may be right about Sonny Bono's law. It seems to have less to do with artist rights so much as its to prevent copyrighted material from falling into the public domain.

:)

I think you're right about that Thomas!

[thomas7g]

((HUGS))

I guess that's another law that don't help us! ;)