Michael Shanks Interview Feb 9, 2010

[Briangate78]

I see three possibilities here.

a) You know as much about MGM's finances as they do, and also know how to run their business better than they do.

b) MGM don't want to make money from SG-1 DVD's.

<mod snip>

I wonder which is true...

I don't know what you said, which is probably a good thing. I really only know SyFy's end, since I talk to people who go to those meetings and whatnot. Sadly, I need to be careful what I say.

You have to understand from a financial point of view that Stargate SG-1 and SGA were still working. The reruns continue, because they are cheap to run and people watch them. The SG movies did far better than that BSG: The Plan, and ready for this...........Continuum which aired on SyFy did better than "Justice", Sanctuary's season finale, Caprica's series premiere, and about the same as the last 4 or 5 episode average of SGU all on a live+SD basis.

Now to use common sense, if SyFy were to air an exclusive SGA movie, and call it a mini-series, it would pull in at least 2 Million viewers live. Why? Because SGA for it's big eps have done in the area for live. An SG-1 movie would also do well.

No offense to you, but I think at this point anybody could run MGM better, since they are in bankruptcy, up for sale, and billions of dollars in debt. I doubt anyone could do worse than that, lol.

[tinerin]

If it's "common sense", then why doesn't SyFy just pay for the movie?

[Briangate78]

If it's "common sense", then why doesn't SyFy just pay for the movie?

Because MGM has to pay for the distribution for the DVD.

[tinerin]

Because MGM has to pay for the distribution for the DVD.

You were talking about airing the movie not a dvd...so why can't SyFy pay for the movie and air it?

[jelgate]

You were talking about airing the movie not a dvd...so why can't SyFy pay for the movie and air it?

SyFy doesn't have the fiscal means to pay for a whole show

[Briangate78]

SyFy doesn't have the fiscal means to pay for a whole show

^^ What he said. SyFy was only splitting the costs with MGM.

[Skydiver]

and it'd come down to who's paying how much for which rights.

does scifi only have first airing rights, or do they get a cut of the dvd sales? how long after the airing can dvd's be sold, etc.

[12OzMouse]

MGM owns the rights to the Stargate franchise. It's been a fairly profitable division of their business. It's doubtful that they would be interested in divesting themselves of any part of it. I think that the original production budget for Stargate: Continuum was about 7 million dollars. In the US alone, sales exceeded 8 million dollars. At first glance, I don't have the worldwide numbers, but, The Arc of Truth grossed about 34 million worldwide.
From the beginning there have been a number of different production deals that have been negotiated with MGM, so it's not like they aren't willing to move forward with a project. Plus, I've been reading that because of SGU, new interest has been spawned in both SG1 and SGA. This is a benefit that has been surprising to a lot of people. It was long believed that fans of SG1 and SGA would hopefully follow SGU. That's happened, for the most part, but surprisingly, new SGU fans are showing interest in SG1.

The interest is there and I see where MGM is developing other projects. I can't understand how MGM's financial situation could affect a Stargate movie any more than it does other projects. There must be something else. If indeed they decide not to make a movie, I sure would like to know why?

[KEK]

Because MGM has to pay for the distribution for the DVD.

Right, and instead of the lack of movement having something to do with the complexities of the financial situation MGM are in, it must just be because they're idiots?

[Briangate78]

Right, and instead of the lack of movement having something to do with the complexities of the financial situation MGM are in, it must just be because they're idiots?

Can we cut out the sarcasm? Thanks.

[Skydiver]

How about everyone take a mellow pill?

A) we already have word from Darren that this is an old interview

B) Let's put things in perspective. A quarter million people died in Haiti (and counting), the east coast is buried in almost five FEET of snow, the west coast is getting slammed with killer rain.

yeah, if there's not a movie, it'll suck. But it ain't the end of hte world.

so....just mellow a bit please.

Sucks, yes, tragic, no.

[majorsal]

A) we already have word from Darren that this is an old interview

when did darren say it was an old interview?

B) Let's put things in perspective. (snipped)

oh yes, that totally mellows me out now.

[Skydiver]

It's not an interview with Alan, it's a reprint of comments Shanks made to SciFi Wire:

http://scifiwire.com/2010/02/why-mic...is-history.php

The original article's title is a bit unfortunate, but IMO the title of Alan's piece is misleading. Shanks didn't say anything close to "SG-1 is as good as dead" (though the author of the SciFi Wire article did). He said that the more time passes since Continuum, and as the cast and producers continue to busy themselves with other projects, it seems less and less likely.

There's really nothing new here, other than Michael went from "waiting to hear" to "gee, been waiting quite a while now ..."

right in this thread sally.

[majorsal]

right in this thread sally.

i'm not trying to be argumentative with you, sky, but if the 'old' part is ms doing an interview to promote his hawkman roll on smallville, the ep just aired, so it can't be 'that' old, i'm sorry to say. and i really am sorry to say that. :/

[Skydiver]

i know sally, but also, he's not saying something that he hasn't said before...the longer it goes on without a contract and confirmation, the less the chances get.

my gut tells me right now a lot of projects are 'paused' while mgm sorts out their finances. Once that levels off, projects will get the go ahead.