Submitted by Lasciviouslibation t3_11v1jyn in television
I have recently suspected that it's not all entirely on the streaming or Television company that has a say in the development of another season. I would imagine it's more meticulous with contracts, and the individual actors all wanting to continue to engage in the material. I don't know much about the industry, but I will admit with the ongoing transparency brought by the social media of the industry has piqued my curiosity.
Patrick Stewart famously signed onto Star Trek The Next Generation for seven seasons, after being told it would only go one; nobody wanted a spinoff of a beloved show from the 60s. He didn't plan on staying in LA that long.
IIRC he's mentioned that he didn't even really unpack his bags for six months.
"Chaos on the Bridge" is a great documentary on the disaster zone that was the creation of Star Trek TNG, and the first couple seasons of its production before it found its footing.
Producers are able to decide when a show ends if the studio wants to keep making it.
Popularity helps balance the scales.
> Producers are able to decide when a show ends if the studio wants to keep making it.
Yes and no. Producers can leave but the studio can try to keep going without them.
That’s true if they own it. I was basically talking about the owners as the producers but I know it’s more complicated than that.
HBO can keep making unlimited shows based on Game of Thrones but I’m pretty sure D and D had the right to conclude the main story which is why it was so controversial to have a conclusion to a story that the author didn’t have a conclusion to.
Its pretty uncommon now for the studio to not at least own a piece of it.
Right but that partial ownership may not extend to keeping the show going.
It would just require them to still get paid.
I don't know that D&D had that right. Rather, HBO does not want to do the "crass" network TV thing where you keep the show going even if the creators want to leave because you want to make more money. They are supposed to be a place for 'creatives,' after all.
So basically, let’s say a show get the green light for another season, if the producer doesn’t want to continue the show, it’s effectively cancelled?
> if the producer doesn’t want to continue the show, it’s effectively cancelled?
Not necessarily.
Supernatural went on for 10 additional seasons after its original producers left following season 5.
So who owns the the actual playwright? Does an OG producer sell these rights to another? Or does the studio basically have all ownership?
> So who owns the the actual playwright?
Do you mean copyright?
>Does an OG producer sell these rights to another?
Generally the corporation that pays for a movie or tv show is considered to be its author or owner.
1st example:
Jim Gavin wrote the pilot for a show he called Lodge 49.
Paul Giamatti and Dan Carey read it and loved it.
They got the script to Susie Fitzgerald at AMC.
Susie Fitzgerald convinced her bosses to film it as a 10 episode series.
Even though Jim Gavin created the show and oversaw its writing, AMC became the author/owner of the series when it agreed to underwrite its cost. However, Gavin has used elements of the show to brand and promote his publishing house. He's negotiating with AMC for permission to publish a series of novels based on elements of the show.
2nd example:
Louis CK wrote a 10 episode series.
He hired actors/etc and filmed it.
He released it to his people who were subscribed to his website.
After a period of time, he sold it to Hulu.
Hulu became the author/owner of the series.
>Or does the studio basically have all ownership?
In both cases these creators signed contracts with the studios who produced/bought their shows. These contracts refer to "rights." Creators' rights to the work they create follows the terms of a contract.
3rd example:
Ben Edlund created a comic book character called the Tick in the mid 1980s.
He signed a contract with New England Comics - who've published several hundred comic book titles based on Edlund's ideas over the last ~35 years.
In the early 1990s, Edlund signed a contract with Fox to produce an animated adaptation of the Tick. It ran for 3 seasons. Fox promoted the show with fast food items, t-shirts, toys, a video game, a board game, and other sundries. This was all negotiated in Edlund's contract with Fox.
In the early 2000s, Edlund signed a contract with Fox to produce a live action adaptation of the Tick. It ran for 10 episodes. Edlund's contact for the animated show prevented him from using several of its most prominent characters so he invented new ones.
In the mid 2010s, Edlund signed a contract with Amazon to produce another live action adaptation of the Tick. It ran for 20 episodes and featured a new slate of supporting characters.
In each case, Edlund retained control over certain elements while the corporation underwriting production controlled others.
The catch is that all of this is negotiated by executives working for the corporation and agents/lawyers working for the creative team. The bigger or more expensive the project, the more complicated this negotiation becomes.
4th, final example:
Steven Conrad created a tv show called Patriot for Amazon. When Amazon cancelled it, he got one of its stars to record an audiobook version of the book that actor's character had written as part of the show. Conrad did this without any permission from Amazon.
I don't know if that helps clarify. I can say that one indelible part of Hollywood culture is that people rarely share details of these negotiations. I guess it is considered gauche.
> In the early 1990s, Edlund signed a contract with Fox to produce an animated adaptation of the Tick. It ran for 3 seasons. Fox promoted the show with fast food items, t-shirts, toys, a video game, a board game, and other sundries. This was all negotiated in Edlund's contract with Fox. > > In the early 2000s, Edlund signed a contract with Fox to produce a live action adaptation of the Tick. It ran for 10 episodes. Edlund's contact for the animated show prevented him from using several of its most prominent characters so he invented new ones.
so fox blocked fox from airing the old characters?
No.
Disney bought Fox's animated programming block in 2001 and refused to let Fox use some of the characters.
Defledermaus became Bat Manuel.
American Maid became Captain Liberty.
Etc.
This was excellent, thank you for your explanation. It does seem quite involved to say the least. 😅
Depends on the contract. HBO wanted another season of Watchmen, Lindelof said no, so no second season. Gilmore Girls did not renew the contract of the show's creator and head writer after season 6, but still did a 7th season without her.
The producer always wants to continue the show; they’re literally going to make money when they do and not if they don’t
The CAST sometimes leaves the show, it it’s extremely rare and would take some sort of burned out success level for a producer to quit or shut down a production. If anything they would move up to EVP and let someone else do the real work.
The studios are canceling shows. They have the money. Everyone else wants a job.
You could argue it has to do with the associated costs of production. I would surmise studios low ball producers to create their shows.
In the simplest form yes.
However if the contract called for more seasons, then they may be in breach. Many times the showrunners just get switched.
However if the contract is over the creators are not required to negotiate a new one.
No, the producer gets replaced
I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if a canceled show can decide to not be canceled? Like a “both parties must agree to the break-up” situation? That’s not how it works. A show can’t continue if there’s no network to fund it and air it. But a show can decide to end on its own terms before being canceled if the showrunners think the story has run its course.
Yes, the latter. I figured as much, because despite shows being “good” to suddenly be cancelled makes me believe there were two sides in the negotiations, perhaps.
Also "good" and profitable are different.
But typically mutually inclusive. Although generally it comes down to semantics.
>But typically mutually inclusive
Its inherently subjective but hard to show that.
Mike Schur ended The Good Place by his own choice after four seasons, because he felt he'd told all the story he wanted to, and anything else would be filler.
[deleted]
To a certain extent, they do. If they feel that it's time for the show to go out on a high, the network often doesn't try to force them to continue. In the case of Stargate SG-1, that was a decision to call it a day and because Amanda Tapping still had a year on her contract, she was moved over to Atlantis.
The producers and cast most definitely wanted to continue. There was a huge backlash at the cancellation, and SyFy actually decided to reverse their decision. But at that point the crew/production side had already moved on to other work, so it wasn’t feasible to continue.
[deleted]
testingtor t1_jcqx0gw wrote
Actors are locked in to multiyear contracts before season 1, usually seven seasons but its expected to renegotiate after 3 or 4. Creators usually can leave if they want but the network almost always has the right to continue without them.