Fans Attempting to Pay for Enterprise 847
An anonymous reader writes "What started of as a suggestion to pay for season 5 of Enterprise has actully snowballed into a project that no one has ever attempted before, that of getting fans to pay for the production costs of a tv series. It has brought on board a raft of people including lawyers. I wonder if the quoted $50 to $80 million is reachable." I gotta say that Enterprise has been better this season, but I feel like it's still only mediocre. Battlestar Galactica might be the best SciFi airing right now. And I woulda chipped in for more Firefly in a heartbeat.
Proposal doesn't go far enough (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, they really do run that many commercials in a "one hour" show.
already paying for cable... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Never? (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't somebody try the same for Farscape?
IPO or Bonds to take it to syndication (Score:5, Interesting)
On the operational side, a good comparison might be that show with McGiever going into the portal to fight minorities on other planets (can't recall the name). It started as a movie, then it was on one of those extra-pay pr0n channels, then it got to sci-fi channel. And somewhere along the way it might have also been showing new episodes through syndication.
Model for Post Bittorrent world..... (Score:5, Interesting)
If Paramount would provide a Bittorrent of the Show WITH the commercials on the site AND make sure the quality of the video is as good or better than what can be gotten off of bittorrent web sites, they might be able to get people to watch.
Here is how it would work. You make it freely available but make users go through a page that informs them that by getting the video from an offical Paramount site they (Paramount) can prove to their advertizers that people are watching the show with ads (arguably...how do you know if people are ACTUALLY watching them...but then they don't know if nielson watchers actually watch the ads either).
By publicly advertizing that if people want to support the show they can download it from the their torrent (or web link) would provide an incen tive for people to get it from them instead of off of some offshore web torrent site.
They could update the commercials evey now and then if they wanted.
The KEY though is that the video HAS to be better than what is being distributed right now! If what is on tvtorrent or tvswarm is XVID HDTV 5.1 surround then they need to match or exceed it.
Fans of the show could then DIRECTLY support the show. People who get the non-advertzing version off of some peer to peer network are people who don't give a rats ass about the show making it anyhow.....but give people a way to pay (without money) and they'll take it (My theory of course!)
Why isn't more TV like this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Screw ads, screw broadcast, screw the networks/middlemen/etc... let me buy my shows directly from the people who make them! Even just releasing everything to DVD immediately after it airs would be good enough for me-- if I wasn't paying for DirecTV, I'd have a nice monthly budget for buying just the shows I like on DVD or via download.
As it is, I'm paying for a lot of channels I never watch, PLUS watching ads, just to get the handful of shows I enjoy. The system could be a thousand times better if "broadcasters" and "channels" went the way of the dodo and left us buying our shows directly from the people who make them.
Re:Let it die... (Score:3, Interesting)
charity should be voluntary. and those who are charitable should not use that to make snide comments about those who are not.
Who owns it? Who approves scripts? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who owns those episodes?
Who gets the money from DVD rights? Broadcast rights? Commercials?
More importantly -- who approves the scripts? If I was paying for an entire run of a TV series, I'd at least want to read the scripts. Get a bunch of Star Trek fans involved with a script approval process and you'll have a riot.
Paramount would be wise to just let it die a respectable death.
Re:Sad! Man this is Sad! (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't know "The Man" was after the bottom of our feet...I will be sure to keep my socks on at night.
Seriously though, what gives you the right to tell people how to spend their money. Gone to or rented a movie lately? Why don't you donate that money to cancer research? Going out to dinner? You should eat in and send the savings to cancer research. Posting on Slashdot? Why waste time when you could be earning more money for cancer research. Do you see what I am saying? Just because you think that how these people spend their money is stupid, you ought to look at your own life and look at all the crap you buy that you could donate to charity.
While I defend people's right to waste money as they choose, I do think this is pretty crazy. I watched the show a few times and it was just plain bad. The Captain is just a female version of Kirk. I say that because she just isn't a very good actress. The one think Kirk did have was charisma. A bad actress with no charisma as the main character? eh, I'll pass. I love sci fi as much as the next dork, but I would be surprised if this show would garner that much support.
Re:We can save money (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean, like this [mac.com]?
Re:Standard Setting (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope this never happens for a show just because of the standard it would set.
You're missing out on the big picture. Right now the studios are servants of their advertisers and their networks. Fan owned syndication would mean the fans themselves are the ones with the money and they'll be the ones setting the rules. There are many questions which would need to be answered as the organization rises up to fill the role as distributor. They could cut out the studio entirely and only provide DVDs to members, for instance.
The only trick is putting the restrictions on the fan organization so it doesn't rise up to become just another self-serving money making company. As long as it follows the will of its fan base it will be focused on providing those fans with new episodes, not lining it's own pockets.
Re:Proposal doesn't go far enough (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, they've seen them now, they rehashed pon far, and decided to meet the gorn (as well as play with the romulans) cause gosh gee darn, Archer did it all first! (Then forgot to update all the rest of the federation on how to deal with Those tellerites. We all know what a rube Jean Luc was when Riker had to explain how to deal with them...
Berman and Braga just don't care about the timeline. "Ren and Stimpy" pissed off the long time hard core fans, and that's why Enterprise is struggling.
It didn't have to be that way, they could of done the clone wars right - the orions right, and not gone with a half assed cheap shot of the vulcans being evil and demonstrative of the liberals view Bush Administration.
Time for the long Sleep Enterprise, It indeed will be the only star trek series I won't waste cash on for the dvd's..
And who gets the profits? (Score:1, Interesting)
The Romulan Wars & Birth of the Federation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not really a true argument (Score:3, Interesting)
And what's so special about the tsunami anyways? People are starving every day, dying from easily cured diseases. The tsunami was a tragic event, certainly, but people were dying who needed our help before the tsunami, and they're still dying after the tsunami.
BitTorrent - Enterprise's downfall (Score:5, Interesting)
As a result, supposed two shows air at the same time. Given the choice of downloading one and watching/recording the other, I chose to download Enterprise. Why?
1) Enterprise is popular. It typically has the largest BT swarms, and often the best S/L ratio (another testament to the types of users who watch Enterprise - geek types are more likely to leave the torrent running after completion.)
2) Given a choice between recording CBS and recording UPN, I choose recording CBS. UPN needs to petition the FCC for a transmitter power increase in the NYC area. Sad when your flagship station's transmitter is a piece of shit and your signal crashes people's MPEG encoders.
3) Higher quality from the Torrent. A combination of signal issues and the fact that UPN's HD signal in the NYC area is shit.
Why stop with Enterprise? (Score:2, Interesting)
I pay around $50 a month for Comcast cable. Assuming that each series costs an average of 10 million a season, and I only watch shows that appeal to at least 1 million viewers who are also willing to pay, that means I can purchase rights for private viewing of a series of shows for $10. I could afford to pick 60 series a year to sponsor for the same cost as my cable. Commercial free and delivered over my broadband. Why get it any other way?
http://injoke.org/index.php?title=privately_funded _media [injoke.org]
Re:Not really a true argument (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that there will always be needy people, no matter how much you individually give.
Right. I guess the question has morphed into: "Are these fans setting up a charity for out of work Star Trek cast members, or are they trying to pay for something they enjoy?" I think it's a little of both. The show has already failed in the market, and they are attempting to revive it using their own money. Is that paying for a good that they want, or is it needless selfishness?
The more I think about it the more I think I'm going to have to think about it.
And what's so special about the tsunami anyways? People are starving every day, dying from easily cured diseases.
It's an example of a great tragedy. There are, unfortunately, many to choose from.
Nice in theory, but it won't work (Score:3, Interesting)
But then again, if they could actually generate a million dollars in that short a short time, the sucess of the effort alone may clearly indicate to Paramount that the show is worth saving, and the money could then be donated to a charity of Paramount's choosing.
So who knows?
Re:yeah, i believe it (Score:4, Interesting)
I won't give money to PBS.
The local station only shows the shows I want to watch when they're doing a beg-a-thon. And they interrupt those shows every 15 minutes to beg some more.
If they showed them outside of the beg-a-thon, I might consider it, but they don't. So screw 'em.
Enterprise ... grr. aargh. (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, watch out for Joss Whedon. The man knows how to produce and write good shows. He knows how to hire good writers to back things up for him. Really, character development in his shows was good enough that even us geeks gloss over the plot/science holes.
Now if the gorram T.V. execs would pull their heads out.
Let it die the death it so richly deserves (Score:2, Interesting)
TNG: first seasons wildly uneven. Cheesy opticals (FX), unclear story lines, characters were thin at best. Season 5 was generally good. In the end, okay, but cut out about half the episodes. Lesson: quantity does not equal quality.
DS9: A great idea, indifferently executed. The whole Bajoran gods idea could have been a fantastic bit of sci-fi, but in the end they just were used as deus ex machina. The introduction of the war story arc (although probably a response to Babylon 5) rescued it and made me actually want to tune in. Lesson: go somewhere with your big idea by giving the writers a framework.
Voyager: Interesting idea (lost, out of touch), horribly executed. Janeway was in need of serious medication, as she was at a minimum bipolar. I wouldn't follow her as a leader for a month, much less years. The producers introduced ideas and at the end of the episode would use the "magic reset button" of time warp, tech change, or the jargon of the week. The ship acquired technology which gave it advantages, then the next episode it would be gone and might as well have never existed, to say nothing of frequently suffering damage which should have required time in dock. Utterly uncompelling and frustrating. Lesson: there's no point in having a show if it's not going anywhere with the characters, story or even the technology.
Enterprise: I knew that when I heard who would produce that it would be garbage. When I heard the theme song, after cleaning up the vomit, I knew my worst suspicions were nowhere near what they should have been. The time-machine reset button, the unbelievable screwing with the canon, the notion that a ship could be remote controlled all the way from the Romulan Empire...
Just...let...it...die, folks. The idiots who produce it are incapable of doing good work. It's just a money machine to them. Giving them your money is counterproductive. Find someone talented like Joss Whedon or Strasczinsky (sp?) instead. Don't save Enterprise.
Re:They expect to raise 50-80 Million? (Score:1, Interesting)
Let's put that $2.50-$4.00 in perspective: 42 minutes x 13 shows = 546 minutes of content, or about 5 movies worth. To see 5 movies in a theater would cost you $45. To buy 5 movies on DVD would cost you $75.
lessons from MMORPG (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the near future of Star Trek lies with the MMORPG that's supposedly in development. You can see from http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/000891.ph p [nickyee.com] that gamers spend less time watching TV than other people and honestly if I wasn't playing an MMO game so much I would probably still make some attempt to watch star trek.
So they (Paramount) have an opportunity here to capture a lot of their old star trek audience and maybe make more money off us. If they (game developers) can find a way to make the game (or a portion of the game) episodic and involve actors in it, that would be extremely compelling for me. Personally I have no faith in star trek games, but you know. Prove me wrong, developers.
Re:Misapproriated Funds (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: FARSCAPE (Score:2, Interesting)
Consumer-owned TV (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah good idea, no wait, erm (Score:3, Interesting)
I do think this is an interesting way of funding films, although I reckon it could be done on a far lower budget - actors, once they get their face in it know that the fans want them and they are essentially well paid hookers who eat out most of the money (COUGH Friends COUGH) and unfortunately that's going to happen to absolutely every actor so there's really no way around it. production work however, certainly for something like star trek would draw massive interest from people willing to donate their time - both professionals and amateurs who want to get into the industry (deep down everyone wants to get into tv). I see a big future for films paid for this way if you can get the right mix of donated budget, good, focused volunteers and people who can act without getting up themselves - guess who is absolutely missing from this loop? ill give you a clue, they do allot of coke and get allot of head.
Unfortunately there are some big downsides to this: Things with big fan bases - star trek, star wars etc are owned by the crack addicts and they're not gonna let fan episodes start getting made. It needs good film ideas/scripts etc that people can really get into and most people are going to want to sell their good scripts/ideas to movie studios for shit loads of cash (i certainly would) thats capitalism for you, its a bitch until you're actually making the shit loads of cash and then you don't give a shit about stupid volunteer films. Ok i need to make some millions..
Subscription, Trek and Firefly (Score:3, Interesting)
There's little more than crap on TV. If I can subscribe to shows I'd like to see then who cares if Fox executives don't like it or it ticks off some group of bluehairs? Subscription will mean better quality - shows won't have to cater to the lowest common denominator. Even 1 million subscribers is probably enough to cover the production costs for a good scifi show. TV syndication will probably be where you get the profit.
As for Trek, I gave up. Compared to FireFly, Enterprise just doesn't cut it. There was something interesting now and then and lots of eye candy, but overall I consider the quality of Enterprise to be poor.
Your mileage may vary, batteries not included, etc.
Depends... (Score:2, Interesting)
I pay a ridiculous price for cable right now. I watch several shows on a semi-regular basis, and record That 70's Show and Battlestar Galactica weekly. My wife watches a little bit more. My daughter watches lots of children shows. I feel I get my money's worth. If I were a single guy, I wouldn't have cable (and when I was, I didn't).
A Netflix type system might work, but there are some shows I would probably like to own. Netflix doesn't allow for that, unless you rent it first, and then pay more money to buy it somewhere else. I think I'd rather just purchase it outright for a fee more than Netflix and less than (Netflix + DVD).
I'd like to see something like iTunes or allofmp3.com for film. Let me download not only the shows I want, but the individual episodes. How wonderful would it be to never see another clipshow again because no one would buy it? Even better if they give me the option to purchase on DVD, and to specify the encryption rate, et cetera. I can watch what I want, when I want, commercial free. I can burn it to DVD, play it over the network to my laptop, or whatever.
I would probably save money at $3-5 an episode. Especially since my daughter has no qualms about watching the same episode of one of her shows 3 or 4 hundred times.
But when you take it all into account, even if it cost slightly more it would be okay, because I could watch when, where, and how I wanted to watch. I would save boatloads of time not watching or fast forwarding through commercials. And the quality would be improved, because if it wasn't, bad episodes wouldn't sell.
Re:Not really a true argument (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, using traditional advertising revenue models the show is unsuccessful. But that model doens't necessarily accurately reflect the demand of the viewers, in that it doesn't reflect how much value the viewers place on the program. The traditional model reflects a market between the studio and advertisers with not a market between the studio and viewers.
Let's say advertisers are willing to pay $.50 per episode per viewer. To each viewer, however, each episode has a $5 value. With $2/viewer/episode required to produce the show. There is more than sufficient demand for the show, all it would take is for a shift in revenue sources.
The world is filled with products and services that failed in their initial offerings/markets/models but became big hits once different strategies were developed.
but the facts are... (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly, what they mean by saying that the show is cost prohibitive is that there aren't advertisers willing to back it. You'd probably have better luck buying advertising time than paying for the production of the show. I'm sure some advertisers would stick it out and the rest of the commercial time would be filled with Trekkies screaming for other Terkkies to send more money because the next season is coming fast. It'll look like PBS with freaks instead of Lawrence Welk.
And I know I sound trollish. Sorry. The fact is that there is tons of sci-fi works that have merit and a fanbase that have no chance in hell of ever getting network time. I'm not saying it's a bad idea but it still won't work, good intentions aside.
Lastly, it must have been a slow news day to post this up.
Re:Why isn't more TV like this? (Score:3, Interesting)
And yet, these other forms of entertainment seem to do just fine in allocating resources (or, at least, no worse than TV).
Television networks are obsolete.