Posted by PTravel on 09/12/06 16:58

"Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
news:4506e28d$0$577$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> PTravel wrote:
>> "Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ee6fdh$jff$1@news.ucalgary.ca...
>>> nobody special wrote:
>>>> I had a friend try to pitch a show to them. Discovery has a small
>>>> number of "favorite son" production companies that feed product into
>>>> them. Your only real hope is to go thru one of them, and once you do,
>>>> they basically make you sign over the idea and most of the control over
>>>> the idea to them (as well as most of the profits). You get a small
>>>> piece of it unless you can retain some producer credits on it.
>>> This is probably the only route to go, but I don't think it is the
>>> "death sentence" you make it out to be.
>>>
>>> Firstly, if you look at what is needed to make a documentary of the type
>>> which appears on Discovery, National Geographic, etc, its pretty obvious
>>> you need a full production team. For the "average" documentary of this
>>> quality you'll need:
>>>
>>> Film crew(s) + audio crew
>>> Researchers
>>> Audio technicians/editors
>>> Video technicians/editors
>>> Host(s) and/or narrator(s)
>>> Script writers
>>> Animators
>>> Lawyers (for licensing, releases, and so forth)
>>> Music composition (or licensing)
>>> Someone to keep everything on track (Producer)
>>> Plus directors to keep all of the sub-groups organized
>>>
>>> Although one person can do all of these jobs (I've done all of this for
>>> some of my own work) it is doubtful one person could do all of these
>>> jobs well enough for Discovery-level production. Not to mention the
>>> vast amount of time it would take to make a single episode.
>>>
>>> But this doesn't mean that you'd have to give up control, or make very
>>> little $$$ from it. For example, if your documentary involves a
>>> technical field you could easily work not only as a creator, but as a
>>> researcher/consultant. If you're decent at writing you may also be able
>>> to do work as a writer. Any stock footage you may have may also be
>>> used - either for the planning of the footage they shoot, or used
>>> directly in the production. All of these would give you additional
>>> input into the work, and probably get you a little more $$$.
>>>
>>> Another option to consider is approaching a smaller (i.e. local)
>>> broadcaster first. This would give you the opportunity to develop the
>>> show, be it with fewer resources, but this would give you greater
>>> control over the project. This way you have the opportunity to develop
>>> the show, work out the bugs, develop a small team, etc, before you
>>> approach discovery or a larger production studio. You're far more
>>> likely to be taken seriously if you come to them not with an idea, but
>>> with a project that has some history - even if its just a small show
>>> which runs on a local station.
>>>
>>> Bryan
>>
>> I appreciate your taking the time to post this, but to pull it back on
>> track (and as I posted originally), this is not an idea for a full-length
>> episodic program, nor is it something that requires a full production
>> team. I don't intend to say any more about it because I don't wish to
>> disclose the idea, but I'm perfectly capable of executing it myself (in
>> SD, for which my prosumer gear is completely adequate) and without
>> additional crew (beyond what I already use). As for clearances, I only
>> need music, I have a source for that, and I'm a lawyer who does
>> licensing, so legal formalities are not a concern at all, as I will
>> handle them myself.
>>
>>
>>
> He gave you good advice.

Neither he nor you know what the project is. His advice is completely
inapplicable.

> I bet my mortgage that you don't get anywhere close to getting your
> programme made and aired on Discovery.

Quite likely. This is a long shot.

> Without wishing to be rude I've seen your travel videos on your website
> and I don't think that level of quality should ever be seen on TV.

No offense taken. My travel videos on my website aren't the project.

> You cannot edit for toffee.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

> If you show any of those videos you'll be shown the door. I promise you
> that.

I'm sure you're right, which is why I have not intention of showing any of
those videos.

So many assumptions, here. So many of them wrong.

>
> Climb down off your high horse and listen to Bryan's advice.

Bryan's advice is inapplicable to my project. Even if I wanted to, there
simply isn't anything for all those production people to do. One of the
first things a lawyer learns is, before giving an opinion, find out all the
facts. That's good advice, too.

>
> Have you even rung Discovery Channel to ask about submissions?

No, I thought I'd start here.

> A simple phone call should be sufficient to determine how a pitch or
> submission should be made.

An a simple post is simpler.

> You should be aware that Discovery has some extremely fierce requirements
> you have to adhere to.

Which you could have shared with me, I suppose, in response to my post.
Instead you chose to lecture me about my project and my talent, neither of
which you have sufficient information to judge.

>
> The best advice anyone will give you or should have given you is to leave
> it to the pros.

What should I leave to the pros? What was my project again? Oh, yes -- you
don't know have any idea at all.

>
> Take the idea to a production company and they'll be honest with you as to
> whether the idea is a goer or not. They may even be able to run with the
> idea, come at it from a different angle, sell the idea to Discovery and
> get it aired. You play a part in the making of it, get a broadcast credit
> and paid. Otherwise the idea however good it is may never reach the
> screen.

As I said, you don't know what the idea is -- it is not suitable for taking
to a production company.

>
> I've never seen a credit roll with one person's name on it. Its for a
> reason.

This project isn't one that entails credits. However, please feel free to
keep making judgments based on assumptions and no information whatsoever.

[Back to original message]