the issue you bring up with the actors, writers and producers is a legitimate concern., but I’m not sure it’s insurmountable in the cases of most of the shows that would wind up continuing on this network. I don’t think Michael C. Hall regrets spending the last 8 years on series that were in relative obscurity on HBO and Showtime. I doubt anyone working on those shows did either but I could be wrong.

What they DO own varies from contract to contract, and can lead to a lot of confusion and misunderstandings–and a few lawsuits, as in the current Project Runway case.

They may own right of first refusal, they may own right to noncompete (so it can’t be shown anywhere else without their permission), they may own right to first refusal on spin-offs….there’s a lot of variation.

But the same thing that allowed SCRUBS to eventually change networks is that ownership doesn’t belong to the network that shows the first runs of the first season.

There’s just no way that ABC could “contribute” X number of shows and CBS could contribute X number and all that.

So say you also get the studios involved. Now you have many more players, and who they are varies every single season. Their interests vary as well. The ones who don’t have new shows on the broadcast networks in that particular season might be interested–but the ones who do don’t want their older offspring who’ve already maxed out their potential competing with the fledglings who may have greater promise.

Beyond that, you have all the talent issues–actors who want to be free to work in shows with larger potential or do movies aren’t going to be sign new contracts for a mini-network, however romantic the appeal of continuing a fun character.

It’s unlikely that Nathan Fillian would want to have to turn down Castle because he was contractually stuck doing new episodes of Drive on the Cast Off Network.

Yes, 2 or 3 million people who have an interest in something should have a potential business upside. And it does, in DVDs and conventions and novels. And in a few rare cases, a movie. All things that don’t prevent the talent from moving on to new shows with new potential.

If the cast-off concept were viable, it would already exist.

But it is a pleasant idea to consider.

Nick C’s point about shows closer to syndication is a good one that also occurred to me, obviously for the financial interest the studios couldn’t not have, and it’d also indicate definite dedicated fanbases, but then most of these shows with cult fanbases don’t seem to make it nearly that far.

Also, a possible idea to get around the problem of fans of particular shows not subscribing year round: telemovies. Or really just extended standalone episodes that air a couple of months apart throughout the year when the truncated main season of a given show isn’t airing.

Finally, the world will be a much poorer place if Moonlight ever returns to TV! (I’ve decided Life’s pretty average too )

@Nick maybe

Someone mentioned the FNL deal earlier, get the channel started by offering to co-finance additional episodes in return for first run on cable, I’m not sure the counterargument that people wouldn’t want to pay for something that eventually would show up for free actually applies for the sort of fans that we’re talking about here. If there is a 6 mths or longer wait a large enough portion might be willing to pay up to see new episodes of a favorite show.

My cable company doesn’t do Sleuth yet, but the fact that it’s out there and surviving (along with the Encore Western channel I mentioned) indicates that if you had multiple studios providing programming, it would be even easier to fill a schedule.

Hit the genres like Starz and Encore do with their multiple channels. Just as there’s now an expectation for “Sci-Fi Friday,” create Western Wednesday and Murder Monday. or create a time block – westerns from 9-noon every Mon-Fri. The people who love those genres will find the programming block and watch. With DVR technology only increasing, this becomes a much stronger strategy than ever before. There are a lot of people out there like my mother who love medical dramas like Marcus Welby and Medical Center and Ben Casey that simply are not being served what they’d gladly watch again.

That’s your paradigm for your non-new episodes. As was said earlier, you negotiate with the studios, not the Networks. Once the network has cancelled the show, they should have no more stake in its continuance (unless they are also the studio producing it). And all the studios have series sitting on the shelf that they would love to see get some more play (if only to sell DVD sets if nothing else). Give them slots according to the number of shows they provide (more shows or shows with better demographics get more additional slots during the day and overnight to fill.

Since it’s a premium channel, you shouldn’t run into much difficulty with coverage agreements and local channels already showing some of the repeats.

and Encore/Starz is a good match. Encore Western channel already shows a lot of 50′s/60′s western shows like this. That’s how I got to re-watch the entire two seasons of Alias Smith and Jones last year, prior to season one coming out on DVD. They are currently showing Maverick and Cheyenne and all sorts of Western TV shows. So as a company, they are ALREADY negotiating with some of the production companies to re-run older shows.

Oh, and you are in a better position to verify this than I am, but when the networks run cable originals on their networks, like NBC did with Monk and CBS with Dexter, don’t they get ratings similar to what is getting shows like Life cancelled? I would think there’s an argument there that it might work backwards if the network shows can carry over their audience to the cable network.

10% of network audience is a whole heck of a lot for a pay service network that would ALSO have ads on it.

I mean, Showtime is a great example. Based on the numbers that Robert is provide, showtime generates over 4 billion per year in subscriber fees. I understand that NN wouldn’t pay, and probably neither would I, but there I believe there are millions of people out there who would.

And I will tell you one think, I’d be a lot quicker to pay 6-10 bucks a month for 20 shows a week than I ever would be to pay 20 bucks a month for Showtime and it’s measley three or four. A subscriber AND ad based network could generate hundreds of millions on just a fraction of that Showtime audience.

And, NN, that just means you aren’t the target audience!

Last but not least there are no two shows currently on broadcast networks I’d pay money to see resurrected if they are cancelled, plenty of shows I’d pay money to see cancelled though

In my book one of the changes required for the future of tv is that more people learn to make quality shows that are financially successful for a cable audience ( ie. 2 mill. viewers or less ), as long as the big tv studios aims to make the next X-Files or Lost with the accompanying $10+ mill. pilots there will be a lot of cancelled shows, with no hope of resurrection. The many tv shows that turn into one season wonders are part of the price of the current business model.

The reason these shows can work on close to the same budget on the Castoff Net but not basic cable is because the budget for Castoff will be built around paying for these shows. There are ways to make it slightly cheaper without cutting everyone’s paychecks. Budgeting $2 mil per episode is close to or at what these shows cost on broadcast, but much more than a cable net would be willing it pay.

I also suspect that in some cases the existing owners of the IP will flatly refuse to deal, despite there being no revenue if a show is cancelled they might argue that they want to be able to resurrect the property themselves in 10 years or so and don’t want anyone else to pollute the waters until then. Reimagining things is a major part of Hollywood business after all

When you already have millions of people emotionally invested in something, getting into their wallets is a lot easier than if you are starting from scratch. And you only need a fraction of each show’s network audience to buy in for this to work. If only one percent bought in, that would be 50,000 or more people for each show 0n the network. For a 20 show lineup, that is 1,000,000 people right there. And I honestly believe that you would get a lot higher percentage than one percent. The cult shows that get canceled could easily net you five, ten, maybe even twenty percent of their audiences.

And all of that just comes from people who have already sampled your shows. It doesn’t count the other 300,000,000 people in the country that you can try and lure through the same means as any other new network.

Honestly, getting up to five million viewers could be a lot easier than even you think it is. People love them their television shows. They get seriously emotionally invested. Paying $1.50 a week to keep them would seem to be a price that they would deem worth paying.

Hell, I think you could make this happen with a lot fewer than all the nets working together. If two them joined in, it could be viable in just a couple of years. They all have enormous stockpiles of films that they could use to plug gaps until they get filled up with shows, much in the same way that channels such as TNT do.

And if it ever got up and running and profitable, then that would change the face of your broadcast network too, because now all of sudden you can look at show development with twice the chance that the show will be a money maker for you. It would take an enormous burden off the broadcast company. Your flops now become a feeder system for this entirely seperate revenue stream.

It’s a great idea, Robert. Someone should hire you away to make it happen.

“The average TV series costs $60M to make today for a full season. There is just no ‘Internet,’ solution … a small number of ‘independent,’ Networks…. the ‘filler,’ would be there … as well as provide some more ‘niche,’ movie programming by going after some true ‘Grind House,’ films … you’re not relying on the ‘fans,’ of the shows you bring back.”

It’s not, helpful after every, right, quote.

So TSCC could have gone through to 2011, then, depending on how the story and ratings went, could have died then gracefully or could have kept on.

Friedman had plans for seasons 3, 4 and 5, supposedly.

Problem was season 2′s “plan” killed the show.

I could come up with plans for that show in my sleep that would easily let it go four or five seasons and still come to a graceful end based on the fundamental logic of the franchise – like T-3, that contrary to the message John sent Sarah, the future IS set and Judgment Day had to happen. You really don’t want to try to contradict the new rebooted franchise movies.

Pushing Daisies is WB not ABC, bad example, and none of the other canceled ABC shows has a fan base worth considering. Besides Fuller is busy over at Heroes planing on killing half of the characters, so it becomes a show about his only subject, Death, and he cuts costs achieving it.

As for serials, any serial needs a “plan,” and it needs to be detailed. They need a planned end. If anyone is to green light a serial they should hear the beginning and the end of the plan. Too many serials get started with no plan. X-FILES was one, and FRINGE is another. It doesn’t mean they can’t do well, but it sure doesn’t help with closure.

I noticed recently that my HD channels now include an MGM one, which like SleuthTV, seems to air series and movies made by MGM.

By the way, I, too, subscribe to Showtime pretty much just for some of their series. I don’t always like all of them, but every year there’s at least one that I really like, and for which I don’t mind the price that I pay. But that’s because I can afford it, and because I really enjoy smart tv series. If this economy bites me in the butt, my cable will definitely go.

Jericho could possibly last more than one season, but I think the writers need a finite time length which they have to have planned out ahead of time. But I think the Jericho fandom is still dedicated enough that they would be a good place to go to if Firefly is not available yet.

Of course if you do comedies… I’d think about LUCKY LOUIE extremely fast. That show had to be the funniest thing on TV maybe ever. Comedies are generally very cheap and provide more content, plus their syndication abilities. Although I don’t think LUCKY LOUIE could ever be syndicated.

JERICHO is dicey. It fits and it doesn’t fit. The 2nd season of JERICHO ended in a mess. I’d have to see a real layout of what they thought they could tell story wise. If they can make a legit plan for multiple seasons that looks good, let them at it without the interference that ruined the show.

If CASTLE ratings drop I’m sure a deal could be reached with Disney. Get FIREFLY going and promise Disney you’ll resurrect one of their shows like PUSHING DAISIES.

So you go with Life, with a plan to keep it around for a few season, and Jericho with a finite, possibly one season, wrap up plan. The Jericho fans will love the chance to see a real ending to the show, and will hopefully jump right on the plan.

Second season, Castle and Chuck will have been canceled, so perfect time to bring in Firefly to replace Jericho, which was given a very satisfying ending. More fans jump on. You may be ready to add a second night by the third season.

You should have an idea if there is QUALITY there, and then you just go with it. That is why LIFE fits. It’s high quality and generally liked by critics. It’s likely cheap to produce too, and could easily improve based on non-FCC regulations.

I wasn’t angry or even disappointed about Chuck’s ratings. I can’t do anything about the ratings, it’s beyond my control. I watch the show and enjoy it. If it doesn’t get renewed, I’ll be a little disappointed but that’s about it. I know Life on Mars isn’t going to be renewed (because ABC announced it) and I am just as certain Life won’t be renewed by NBC even though it hasn’t announced it. I watch the episodes anyway and I enjoy them. I am not upset by the ratings and I am at peace with their fates.

The purpose behind this post was a potential alternative that could save shows like that, I agree with the broadcast networks that they shouldn’t keep shows with bad ratings.

It’s not the cast so much as the writers. Ben Edlund is far more important than any of the actors but Fillion.

But the point still remains that if you want to bring back the shows ten you SHOULD bring back the actors… some of which havent been waiting for their show to come back from the dead..

[edit] one way to accommodate it is to take the slow ramp Nick suggests. In the first year, you pick up two shows that you hope would make sense for at least 3 years. You’d never have more than 8 shows anyway max but if shows your brought on in the first year were not on the schedule in the fourth year, I think it would be OK (not great, necessarily, but OK).

I was taking a shot at you for doing something I think is dopey.

The idea at a minimum has the benefit of addressing a consumer demand that already exists. As opposed to the blizzard of new businesses that often are just cool ideas that somehow have to manufacture a *new* consumer demand from nothing.

Don’t you have a JJ Abrams show to bash or Dollhouse to save. I don’t think Robert needs you to have his back.

I think I’ll quote you and say “If it hurts you that we like show X, get over it.” Quality has nothing to do with ratings. Then again, I didn’t think I’d have to tell you that. *rolls eyes*