Right, except what are the odds we can raise $150 million a year, consistently, year over year?
My point is that the price that people are willing to pay for content decreases as you create more content. People might be willing to pay $50 to revive a movie from a long-dormant property, but would they pay the same $50 for the equivalent amount (2-3 episodes?) of a regular-run show?
My bet is on no, at least for now - this may change in the future.
This applies to more than just shows IMO - Chris Roberts (of Wing Commander fame) was able to raise a tremendous amount of money for his revival of the space sim genre - would he be able to raise even close to that amount if he went by, say, a yearly release?
I don't agree that people are willing to pay less over time.
Even if they did, that's EACH person you're talking about - if the content is popular, its base of consumers has gone up dramatically. If you double your viewers, but each is willing to contribute 40% less, that's still a net gain.
I think this could very easily be done directly from the fans.
The main obstacle in the case of something like Harry Potter would be that big funding sources would be stumbling over themselves to fund it anyway.
Somewhere in there, there's a crossover point to where the venture's profitability is obvious even to those not interested in the content.