7TWO Transmission Discussion

[Skylover]

9 minutes ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

I imagine it costs a lot less to repeat an old game show than to pay royalties to actors, writers, directors etc.

Would they have to pay royalties to actors for repeat showings or would it just be built into their original contracts that the episodes could be repeated at any time?

What cast changes are shortly coming up which could explain the 'contractual issues'?

I'm surprised they got this far into the repeats, 8 years is good going so I'm grateful for that. I hope at some point down the line they change their minds. The petition was shy of 500 signatures, if it had reached 1000 we'd have had something to work with and 7 would have been more likely to change their minds. 

15 minutes ago, Shannon Found Skeletons said:

Promised the Early Years would return after a short break circa 2002. They never did.
Later said that due to "complicated legal reasons", The Early Years could never be repeated again. It was.
And have now lied numerous times about this.

How do you know that?

Thanks Dan for getting an answer.

[Shannon Found Skeletons]

11 minutes ago, Skylover said:

How do you know that?

I've been researching their reliability on this matter since the airings stopped. That's why I never felt that simply "getting an answer" from Seven was ever really that important - since a) it's not going to do anything and b) they're liars anyway. And that action was more important.

[CaptainHulk]

If they were gonna yank it off, they should have at least finished out '96. Not puss out not even 1/4 way in.

7 is as 7 does. At least we made it further than we did the last time they f***ed us.

I can't imagine the ratings dipping too much for the show, whatever BS they get to fill that slot probably won't do THAT much better.

Guess My final Big Hulking Review is on the horizon.

[Skylover]

3 hours ago, Shannon Found Skeletons said:

I've been researching their reliability on this matter since the airings stopped. That's why I never felt that simply "getting an answer" from Seven was ever really that important - since a) it's not going to do anything and b) they're liars anyway. And that action was more important.

Thanks for taking the time to research but that doesn't answer the question about how you know 7 said the early years would never be repeated again after the initial repeat in 2002 or the reasons given, what are your sources?

I do agree that action is more important than getting an answer which is why I started a petition but unfortunately there was not enough support to make a difference. We definitely would have needed over 1000 signatures at least to make a difference.

I'm still curious as to what the contractual problems are.

[Red Ranger 1]

4 hours ago, Skylover said:

Would they have to pay royalties to actors for repeat showings or would it just be built into their original contracts that the episodes could be repeated at any time?

Probably both: I imagine that by that time, the repeat showings would be included in the contract which would specify what fees the actors would get for every repeat.(Which is why I doubt there would be anything special about the next set.)

1 hour ago, CaptainHulk said:

If they were gonna yank it off, they should have at least finished out '96. Not puss out not even 1/4 way in.

Well, Shane's funeral is a better end point than Brad Cooper getting caught in a man trap while Chloe cowers nearby!

[Dan F]

I can back that previous claim up about them saying they could 'never' repeat them - that was a fair few years back now, and it was either the switchboard or a statement made in a Q&A on the official site. Point is that it was a claim made by those who weren't actually in a position to give a proper answer to the question anyway, and probably didn't make much attempt to find out.

The difference this time is, we have an actual person behind the statement, as opposed to a faceless switchboard operator telling people whatever answer they feel like giving today. So personally I wouldn't just dismiss it as a complete lie from the off.

1 hour ago, Skylover said:

I'm still curious as to what the contractual problems are.

The original agreement drawn up for the episodes had a restriction stating how many times they could be aired before a new agreement had to be made (presumably to cover residuals - the money paid to cast members etc.). They've already reached that maximum number for this upcoming batch, so to air them would mean negotiating new agreements and forking out more money.

It doesn't appear to be a case of any particular cast changes causing the issue, but I did realise that episodes due to be aired as part of this new batch on 7TWO next month, are the same exact episodes that started off a repeat run on ITV2(?) in the UK back in the early 2000s.

If it is indeed the case that the number of runs originally agreed on this batch of eps has already been reached, then that could be part of the explanation....? That's only speculation of course, but it seems quite coincidental otherwise. Whilst we didn't quite reach those episodes, they could well have known it was approaching and decided on an appropriate cut-off point (Shane's death). I know there's been earlier eras repeated before also, but we can't be sure that they had the exact same restrictions as those made for this batch in 1996 and onwards (possibly the beginning of the 1996 production cycle)

Now it does seem that a new agreement was reached in Australia last year for repeats, and whilst it only applies for new programming, it has also set up a framework which would simplify the process for re-negotiating contracts for archival programmes.There's an article here that backs up what has been said about old agreements having restrictions on playouts, and this article concentrates what it means for older programmes. Whilst it does mean that such processes are easier, it's still a lot of work for a show like H&A, which would require what I imagine to be a sizeable payout.

[CaptainHulk]

6 minutes ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

Probably both: I imagine that by that time, the repeat showings would be included in the contract which would specify what fees the actors would get for every repeat.(Which is why I doubt there would be anything special about the next set.)

Well, Shane's funeral is a better end point than Brad Cooper getting caught in a man trap while Chloe cowers nearby!

Like that raping scum didn't/doesn't deserve it...

Anyhooo...

I suppose it would basically be Blueballing us if it did reach that far... Maybe the end of the 1996 production cycle (which runs into April 1997 airings)

[Skylover]

Thanks for the info @Dan F. This bit interests me: 

42 minutes ago, Dan F said:

Now it does seem that a new agreement was reached in Australia last year for repeats, and whilst it only applies for new programming, it has also set up a framework which would simplify the process for re-negotiating contracts for archival programmes.There's an article here that backs up what has been said about old agreements having restrictions on playouts, and this article concentrates what it means for older programmes. Whilst it does mean that such processes are easier, it's still a lot of work for a show like H&A, which would require what I imagine to be a sizeable payout.

I would hazard a guess that if new contracts have to be drawn up for any upcoming early years episodes, those episodes will just never be repeated again. Network 7 literally get no reward for playing those episodes if they repeat them because the ratings will be low on 7TWO anyway and it will be expensive to boot. I don't think we'll ever see those episodes again. How depressing.

I think the only chance we have is if Channel 5 decide to start a repeat run but even if they did, they'd probably go for 2000 onwards as they already have those episodes, or from 1988 which we've already seen repeated. Seems like 1996-2000 will forever be lost to us then  

[Red Ranger 1]

42 minutes ago, Dan F said:

The difference this time is, we have an actual person behind the statement, as opposed to a faceless switchboard operator telling people whatever answer they feel like giving today. So personally I wouldn't just dismiss it as a complete lie from the off.

I don't think it's a complete lie, I think everything in the statement is true but I can't help wondering if there's details omitted which make the facts given in the statement misleading.

Your speculation is interesting though and it may well be something along those lines.Of course, again it's worth factoring in that Channel 5 have repeated isolated episodes from that era fairly recently...

[Shannon Found Skeletons]

Thanks for the info Dan - that's interesting. Does the limit on the number of times an episode can be repeated apply regardless of what country and what channel? Because I don't think 97-99 have ever been repeated on Seven? Which means if the limit has been reached, it must be because of repeats in the UK and elsewhere... I find that really weird as I'd have thought these channels would have paid separately for broadcast rights anyway?