> >Rob Jensen sent the following on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 18:21:16 -0500:
> >> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:37:30 -0500, Jim G.
> >> <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> >> >Rob Jensen sent the following on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:24:38 -0500:
> >> >> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:00:45 -0500, Jim G.
> >> >> <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> >> >> >In any case, even at the correct count of 1.13M, my point stands with
> >> >> >regard to Syfy's decision-making. They seem far more interested in costs
> >> >> >than in income these days.

> >> >> Keep in mind that no basic cable channel (or advertiser) gives a shit
> >> >> about total viewers. All they care about is the target demos.

> >> >When you start out with 1.13M *total* viewers, aren't you already in
> >> >trouble even if 100% of your audience is in a target demo?

> >> Not these days. Keep in mind, too, that SyFy owns Warehouse 13 (which
> >> *is* high-rated) and Alphas.

> >EUREKA wasn't owned by Syfy?

> >> Shows that the given channel
> >> owns/produces itself have a lower threshhold for profitability because
> >> the channel isn't sharing any of the profits -- not just from the
> >> original broadcasts of the episodes, but also from all the ancillary
> >> revenue streams such as DVD and foreign -- with an outside studio.

> >> I know that because Eureka *was* cancelled due to its enormous (for
> >> basic cable) budget

> >I keep hearing that, but it's not as if Syfy has ever shared payroll
> >numbers with the audience, or anything. Are you basing this on
> >scuttlebutt, or on something legitimate that you read in a reputable
> >source?

> I certainly don't have any inside information but it is possible that
> the salaries had gone up some just due to the series being in the
> fifth season. Obviously they couldn't demand the huge bumps that
> someone on a #1 show could get but I could see them requesting more
> than what they had been getting just for being jerked around (off air
> for 1.5 years) the way SyFy did.

> >Yeah, I mentioned soon after the start of the final season that the
> >EUREKA folks weren't doing themselves any survival favors by adding cast
> >members and jacking up the effects budget (as seemed to be the case).
> >That's why, especially after the final horrid (but visually impressive)
> >season, I realized that it was almost as if they were *begging* to be
> >dropped. It's not a good combo when the writing quality nosedives even
> >as the expenses rise. And, frankly, I've never been a fan of what I call
> >"stunt casting," which in this case meant the addition of fanboi faves
> >Wheaton and Day--and especially Day, who sucked from start to finish.
> >(Or maybe it was mostly her Holly character, but either way she sucked.)

> Stunt casting isn't a bad thing if the casting is good. I didn't have
> a problem with Wheaton showing up as a nemesis for Fargo when it was a
> one off thing. Even having him show up a couple times a season
> wouldn't be bad, but adding him in as a regular cast member messed
> with the cast dynamics in a way that didn't work well for me.

> >Then write out the actors who insist on trying to break the budget when
> >contract time rolls around. The show survived and did well after Stark
> >left, after all, and he was clearly a major player at the time. Heck,
> >sometimes a change in cast also gives the writers a chance to change
> >direction in certain ways, which itself can keep a show fresh. For
> >example, I would have hated to see them write off Carter, but I could
> >also see how someone new in place of Carter would give them a chance to
> >break away from the somewhat tired pattern of the the dumb-but-nice guy
> >who saves the day every week.

> I don't think he means that someone was requesting a huge bump in
> salary. More likely it's just due to the sheer numbers of people on
> the show. Think about how many people showed up in just about every
> episode plus all of the cast they had in the background. That large
> cast would create a large budget even if they were just getting scale
> (especially by the fifth season since scale salaries go up as the
> years go by.)

> Very true. Smart writing can avoid a huge regular cast.