From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V3 #48 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Wednesday, March 21 2001 Volume 03 : Number 048 Today's Subjects: ----------------- b/ny daily news article [meredith ] Re: b/ny daily news article [Dawn Friedman ] Re: b/ny daily news article [meredith ] b/entertainment weekly weighs in [meredith ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 21:34:47 -0500 From: meredith Subject: b/ny daily news article The latest news from the "will it stay or will it go" front: (from: http://www.nydailynews.com/2001-03-19/New_York_Now/Television/a-103829.asp) Monday, March 19, 2001 'Buffy' Exec Feels Slayed by 'Insult' By DONNA PETROZZELLO Daily News Staff Writer Claiming WB Network chief executive Jamie Kellner had insulted his show, creator Joss Whedon said he's ready to move "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" to another network. "It makes me angry to see this show belittled," Whedon told the Daily News. "For Jamie Kellner to call it a teen show and dismiss his own product angers me. It doesn't breed love." Tension erupted earlier this year when Whedon and "Buffy" producers at 20th Century Fox asked The WB to pay $2 million per episode for the show, effectively doubling the current cost of carrying it. WB execs said they would up their ante to $1.6 million per episode, but no higher, claiming that's all they could pay without losing money. The resulting impasse sent producers hunting out other homes for "Buffy" and star Sarah Michelle Gellar  including Fox Broadcasting, a corporate sibling of 20th Century. "If we end up somewhere other than on The WB, we'll be the exact same show, and producers at 20th Century Fox have supported us on everything," Whedon said. "I think the fans will find it." Still, Whedon said, he's hoping to keep "Buffy" on familiar ground. "I keep thinking it will be best for everyone if the show stays where it is, but ultimately, I don't know if that will happen," he added. Whedon directed his comments at Kellner, who has argued against paying more money for "Buffy," telling Entertainment Weekly that it's not the network's top-rated series and appeals mainly to teens. "It's not our No. 1 show," Kellner is quoted as saying. "It's not a show like 'ER' that stands above the pack." During its five years, "Buffy" has earned a loyal fan base, appealing mainly to viewers in their 20s, Whedon said. It also spawned a spin-off series "Angel." WB spokesman Brad Turrell defended Kellner's comments, saying they weren't meant as insults. "We have tremendous respect for Joss Whedon, Sarah Michelle Gellar, and everyone associated with the show," said Turrell. "They have delivered a consistently excellent program for five seasons." ======================== Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth ======================================= ***!!!GO UCONN!!!*** ======================================= http://www.smoe.org/meth/trajectory.html "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:10:30 -0600 From: Dawn Friedman Subject: Re: b/ny daily news article What *is* the WB's top-rated show? Somehow I doubt it's in the same ratings category as ER. What a perfectly pointless comparison. Dawn ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:18:07 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/ny daily news article Hi, Dawn inquired: >What *is* the WB's top-rated show? Somehow I doubt it's in the same >ratings category as ER. What a perfectly pointless comparison. I believe it's "7th Heaven" . That show absolutely blows away all other WB offerings in the ratings. "7th Heaven" is the type of show that would appeal to the type of person who keeps "ER" on top every week. Of all the WB shows, it's really the only one. ======================== Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth ======================================= ***!!!GO UCONN!!!*** ======================================= http://www.smoe.org/meth/trajectory.html "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:35:06 -0500 From: meredith Subject: b/entertainment weekly weighs in Here's what Entertainment Weekly has to say: 'Slayer' It Ain't So The WB's ''Buffy'' is still negotiating its future . EW reports on the chilling effects the outcome may have on network SLY FOX If the WB won't pay up, ''Buffy'' may still go to Fox Hundreds of ad buyers are crammed into a New York City ballroom, as they are every year, to hear what the WB has in store for fall. The room is plastered with posters of the network's personalities: Alyssa Milano, David Boreanaz, Jessica Biel, and -- wait a minute -- where's Sarah Michelle Gellar, the WB's No. 1 star? She's across town, in another ballroom, at a presentation by Fox, ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer'''s new crypt. That could be the scenario come May, when the networks unveil their fall schedule to advertisers. And it's a possibility that's set off a battle as bloody as any the Slayer has waged. the WB and ''Buffy'''s producers, Twentieth Century Fox, are fighting over the drama's future, and many in the business consider the possible and precedent setting outcome -- that the studio would yank its show from the WB, which launched it five years ago, and put it on its affiliate network, Fox (both are owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.) -- to be nothing short of industry shaking. ''It's the worst thing that could happen,'' says Marty Adelstein, a partner in the talent agency Endeavor. ''Fox (the studio) has a lot of shows on other networks and they do a lot of shows for their own network. They're good at spreading it around. But this would send the sign: Why pick up a show from a studio if it's going to eventually end up on its own network? It's bad for business.'' Or perhaps just for the way broadcast network business has been conducted up until now. Given the dramatic shifts in the TV landscape (megamergers; nets insisting on co-owning shows with producers), others argue that the rules must change. ''If Fox (the studio) did this in the old days, it would be out of business with one third of its clients,'' says Pax TV CEO Jeff Sagansky, former head of Entertainment at CBS. ''Now there are so many networks. Even if the studio were to lose the WB as a client, there are plenty of other places to sell shows.'' Adds another studio head: ''Why not let Fox put it on their own network and reap the benefits of the advertising revenue?'' Self dealing, as it's often called, is still akin to sacrilege for the WB's Jamie Kellner, who, in effect, raised ''Buffy'': ''Nobody wanted the show; it didn't perform (at first but we stuck with it.'' The position of the WB's founder (and, as of this month, CEO of Turner Broadcasting, a division of AOL Time Warner, Entertainment Weekly's parent company) is that his fledgling network is finally on target to make a profit next year -- unless forced to pay ''Buffy'''s studio, Twentieth Century Fox, its $2 million plus per episode asking price. Kellner is offering $1.6 million. ''It's not our No. 1 show,'' he argues. ''It's not a show like 'ER' that stands above the pack.'' Such statements set Joss Whedon's blood boiling. Granted, ''Buffy'' isn't No. 1 (that would be ''Seventh Heaven''), but, as the Slayer's creator points out, his show ''put the WB on the map critically,'' and it continues to be the network's most acclaimed series. ''For the WB to be scrambling to explain why it's not cost efficient -- it's their second highest rated show,'' says Whedon. ''They need to step up and acknowledge that financially.'' It's not like the studio expected to make money before now. Producers routinely lose millions in a show's first five years -- and that's assuming there is a first five. Up until then, the network pays a nominal licensing fee -- anywhere between $900,000 and $1.1 million for a drama -- and the studio swallows the deficit. (the WB currently pays $1 million to air an episode of ''Buffy,'' less than half of what it costs to make.) But after the fifth year, a hit show's studio can generally get the networks to cough up big bucks (''Friends'' and ''Frasier'''s licensing fees, for instance, both skyrocketed when their contracts were up). Kellner is arguing that (a) ''Buffy'' isn't enough of a hit, and (b) the rules for an emerging network are different than those for a mature network. To which Twentieth Century Fox has replied, tough luck; if you can change the rules, we can threaten to do the same, and take our show to another network -- even if it's our own. Thanks to a clause in ''Buffy'''s contract (allowing the studio to move the show to any network if it reaches an impasse with the WB), Twentieth Century Fox may do just that. Though studio insiders have floated ABC as a possible bidder, sources there say reports of the Slayer moving to Alphabet City are unlikely. Which leaves Fox. What sort of fallout does the studio anticipate? ''I don't believe moving 'Buffy' will have any impact at all,'' says Gary Newman, president of Twentieth Century Fox TV. ''I have been assured by network heads that they fully understand our position. They understand we have a business to run.'' ''Buffy'' might, in fact, be a better fit on the older skewing, male dominated Fox. (Certainly it will have a champion in Fox Entertainment prexy Gail Berman, who helped develop the show while working for Sandollar Productions and still claims an exec producer credit.) One of Kellner's biggest arguments for keeping ''Buffy'''s licensing down is its fans; rather than sucking in new teens -- the lifeblood of the WB -- the show attracts increasingly older viewers. When the drama moved to Tuesdays in 1998, it averaged a 19 share among 12 to 17 year olds; now it's lucky to get a 12. Conversely, ''Seventh Heaven'' is averaging a hefty 18 share. ''Our audience is a younger audience,'' says Kellner. ''Maybe what we should be doing is to not stay with the same show for many years, and refresh our lineup.'' "The idea that 'Buffy' viewers are getting too old now is a spurious argument for not paying for a show that has as much to do with the WB being the WB as anything else,'' counters Whedon, who, in fact, has never bought the argument that his show is for teens. ''We were told the median age of our viewers was 26 to 29 years old in year 2 of the show.'' Whedon acknowledges a debt to Kellner (''There's no other place where 'Buffy' could have happened'') but considers it paid in full. ''There are advantages and disadvantages,'' he says of leaving. ''Other networks reach more people, but other networks also have more hit shows they need to promote. We could be exposed to a new audience, but we could also be buried. But if we decide to move, I'm fine with it.'' Keeping close tabs on ''Buffy'' is Columbia TriStar Television, which could have a fight of its own next season when ''Dawson's Creek'''s contract is up. Like ''Buffy,'' ''Dawson'''s was a landmark show for the WB, and its production costs have also risen dramatically over the years. Columbia fears Kellner may hardball them, too. ''It's increasingly difficult to get shows on the air and to make them financially successful. Networks need to realize that,'' says Len Grossi, Columbia TriStar's president. ''Deficits are large, and even with a big hit, returns are shrinking [because of increased overhead and sharing profits. Something's got to give.'' ''Buffy'''s fate must be decided before May's up fronts. For those who believe the Hellmouth will open should the studio choose its sister net, Sagansky says phooey. Good as ''Buffy'' is, it's always going to have limited appeal; it won't make or break either network. ''This is not a game changer, he says. ''It's not a 'Seinfeld.''' (Additional reporting by Mary Kaye Schilling) This article is printed in its entirety from Entertainment Weekly's March 23, 2001, issue ======================== Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth ======================================= ***!!!GO UCONN!!!*** ======================================= http://www.smoe.org/meth/trajectory.html "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V3 #48 ****************************