The big cost after season 5 is usually related to actor salaries. For the most part, actors sign 5 year deals when they join a series and those deals usually favor the network since networks hold all the cards in most of those cases. That is to say that if you're not a name actor who they are courting, they can just go hire someone else who is willing to work for what they are willing to pay. But after that initial contract wears out, actors have far more bargaining power because they have been a part of the series' success. So they are usually able to renegotiate for higher pay and they usually only agree to sign one year deals from that point on so they can keep renegotiating for more money each year.
I'm not sure that that was applicable to Atlantis though as when Torri Higginson was let go it was said she had a 6 year contract. So it's possible that the others had 6 year deals too. In any case, the real big issue that was discussed at the time of the cancellation was the rising value of the Canadian dollar. Basically, they weren't saving as much money as they used to by filming in Vancouver to take advantage of exchange rates and with the ratings being what they were, after the show was thrown into the fall slot without a proper programming block, they weren't making as much money either. With it being unlikely that new viewers would suddenly be attracted en mass to a show of that age, the show ended up getting canceled in favor of a new concept that they hoped they could build an audience with.
Although, their logic was flawed because Atlantis wasn't a show that was in an optimal programming slot. If they moved it back to the summer where it didn't have as much competition and if they built a proper programming block around it instead of expecting it to carry the night on its own, it could have had higher ratings. This is evident by what happened with SGU (and Battlestar Galactica beforehand) as three shows died under those same conditions and the Sci fi channel did nothing. They claimed that they did with SGU by moving it to Tuesdays and pairing it with Caprica for a brief spell. But pairing it with an always poorly rated show and moving it to a night of even heavier competition is not trying. Also, they failed to mention how they gave it re-runs of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" as a lead-in and how the move away from Fridays was actually to make room for wrestling.
They also kept blaming people who DVR'd the show. Their excuse was that they had more tech savvy viewers that a lot of other networks and so they were being in hurt in the live ratings. Unfortunately, at the time, advertisers were refusing to take DVR ratings very seriously and so a lot of shows got wiped out during that time (DVR ratings carry more weight and bring in more revenue today though). But the Sci fi channel seemed to refuse to accept that they weren't helping things with their idiotic programming decisions. If people are shifting more to recorded viewing you have to increase incentive for people to watch live and instead they just kept putting certain shows up, alone, against heavy competition because they wanted to maintain this idea of "year round programming" even though they didn't have enough original programming to make it work.
reply
share
11 years ago
[deleted]
Xaeden
11 years ago
What you feel like the case should be and what is the case are two very different things. Actors, writers, and producers from all manner of TV shows have talked about the classic 5 year contract over the years and how that impacts the life of a TV show. Basically, there are often incentives within a multi-year contract where actors can get pay bumps, but no, they don't generally have negotiating power within a multi-year term contract and the reason for that is because the industry is pretty firm on the ~5 year contract model. So if an actor wants to work in TV that's what they have to commit to.
Granted, in rare instances where a show is extremely successful, the studio may agree to an early renegotiation because they want to keep a particular star happy, but most actors infamously have no such luck. I say infamously because these contracts are well known to favor studios by locking actors into salaries when they don't have the kind of star power that they do as a successful series progresses. If you don't believe me, you're welcome to google it.
Here, just a super quick google search brought up information like the following. You should have no problem finding more verification if you want to put in a little more effort.
2. RENEWALS DON'T EQUAL BIG RAISES: Pay bumps for second and third seasons used to be 5 percent. Now it's 3 or 4 percent.
One-sided contracts increasingly finagle in the fine print over raises,
2. RENEWALS DON'T EQUAL BIG RAISES: Pay bumps for second and third seasons used to be 5 percent. Now it's 3 or 4 percent.
PHOTOS: The Faces of Pilot Season 2014
3. … OR EVEN A RAISE AT ALL: Bumps in season two used to be automatic, but new deals require episode minimums. Says the lawyer: "Some places, if you haven't gotten to 22 in season three, you still don't get a raise."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-actors-no-leverage-get-68184 1
8. They don't understand how long the contract may last.
In the case of a test option agreement for a television show, the broadcaster may have the option to engage the actor at a preset price for a number of years (six years is not uncommon). Make sure you understand how long the agreement may tie up your precious time.
http://www.backstage.com/advice-for-actors/business-of-acting/the-top- 10-mistakes-actors-make-when-they-sign-a-contract/
reply
share