Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi Media Television

More On Save Enterprise Donations 636

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the so-many-mixed-feelings dept.
Malfourmed writes "TrekUnited.com today announced that three anonymous contributors from the commercial spaceflight industry have stepped forward with a $3 million pledge toward the campaign to ensure a fifth season for the recently cancelled Star Trek: Enterprise. The benefactors explained why they believe this campaign deserves such a substantial contribution: 'We think Star Trek and especially its latest incarnation, Enterprise is the kind of TV that should be aired more often. The people responsible at Paramount think this is just a show and we want to tell them, it is not. We are in the commercial space flight industry and would like to testify that at least one out of two of all the actual entrepreneurs involved in this industry has been inspired by Star Trek; and we are not only good at watching TV sci-fi , we are also good at writing checks, big checks. The people airing this kind of TV have a responsibility; inspiration.' " We reported on this a few days ago, but this is more info about the largest donors.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More On Save Enterprise Donations

Comments Filter:
  • Even on the long shot that they DO manage to squeeze another season out of paramount, I doubt that they'll be able to juice it for a full 7-season run like every other trek series (save the original series)
  • Well (Score:4, Interesting)

    by elid (672471) <eli.ipod@gmail . c om> on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:02AM (#11823143)
    Does anyone know how much a season of production costs? Even 3 million may not be enough....
    • Figure between one and two million per episode, so a ballpark number for a season would be thirty million.

      I wonder if three million is enough to buy out Berman's contract and get him to retire, which would really save Star Trek.
    • Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)

      by PhotoBoy (684898) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:09AM (#11823222)
      It's reckoned to be $1.6M per episode, so technically they need $36M to make a 22 episode season. But it all depends on how much Paramount want, they could accept $18M as enough to offset production costs or they could play hardball and raise the target to $50M.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:18AM (#11823334)
        If fans raise the money to get the show made, who gets the ad money, future royalties, etc? If they made a DVD set, would any money be paid back to the people donating?
        • by Malfourmed (633699) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:42AM (#11823642) Homepage
          Part of the TrekUnited charter was that all donations be made with no strings attached. Ie, donators give up all claims on profits or ownership.
          • by cashman73 (855518) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @11:04AM (#11823866) Journal
            So they're basically asking folks to just throw their money at Paramount to continue producing a television series with mediocre ratings. So that Paramount can then ultimately cancel it (let's imagine it actually makes it to seven seasons), and then start selling DVD sets of the show?!?!



            Last time I checked, amazon.com [amazon.com] was selling the
            first season of Deep Space 9 for $103.99!! Compare that to the price for the
            first season of Stargate SG-1 at $52.47,... Now, we all know the, "true cost" of producing DVDs these days, and given that, even the Stargate guys are making a buttload of profit off of their DVD sets ... think of the mad money that Paramount is raking in from TNG, DS9, and VOY (oh yeah, not to forget about thos original series back in the 60s),...



            Granted, I like Enterprise and all, especially now that the show is actually getting good this season (and not to forget about T'Pol's boobies ;-). But donating cash to a show/producer to produce a series that they're ultimately going to profit on like crazy in the long run is just insane. If Enterprise is to be saved, the fans need to make the clear case to Paramount that they want it to continue, without simply "donating" money to the studio. They need to convince the execs that the fan base is out there and they will be able to make money from advertising on the show. But I sure as hell ain't gonna donate money to a company that's practically ripping its fans off at the DVD store after the show!

            • Why is everyone convinced that the Nielsen ratings are perfect? Do you think it's a coincidence that most of the "Save XXX" campaigns that have succeeded ("Felicity", "Farscape") have been on minor networks? Why do you think they succeeded? Because they provided the networks with ammo for advertisers - "we have more viewers than the Nielsens show".

              The "3.0M viewers" from the Nielsens is likely crap. Take *all* small-market numbers from the Nielsens with a grain of salt - they don't have a large enough samp
      • Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)

        by Malfourmed (633699) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:38AM (#11823584) Homepage
        If a studio makes a TV show that costs $1.6M per episode then it might sell the first-run US broadcast rights to a network for (making up a number here) $1.2M.

        The network in turn has to make that amount by selling advertising slots, which are of course ratings dependent.

        The $400K (or whatever it is) difference needs to be made up by international sales, second-run syndication rights, DVD/video sales and maybe even the "halo" effect a currently running series can have on sales of merchandising tie-ins such as toys or books. Then there's the need to make a profit of course.

        UPN apparently came close to covering Enterprise's production costs in the first three seasons but from what I understand reduced its payment to $800K per episode for season 4, due to low ratings. At the same time the show's budget was reduced (by moving to cheaper high-definition video), but still the gap between Paramount's costs and first-run revenues is now around $500K-$600K per episode, or around $10M per year.

        Some of this will be made up by the secondary rights, but I believe the gap is now larger than it was before.

        If the Save Enterprise campaign can close that gap by offering a substantial donation, then the financial equation for Paramount/Viacom could change from Enterprise running at a likely loss to a likely break-even or profit.

        I don't know what the size of the gap is, but a $3 million contribution (assuming the full amount can be passed onto Paramount) has to be a substantial addition to the bottom line. It represents an extra 8% (approx) return on funds (based on a $36M budget), which is a mighty fine bonus in anyone's book.

        But will it be a bonus big enough?

      • Yes, well my thoughts were that 3M is a drop in the bucket in a studio TV series budget.

        But it's still a lot of money, and if the donors are serious about promoting science fiction, they could do something really interesting with it.

        Have you seen what people can do with fan films these days? The desktop technology is nowhere near as good as modern studio quality, but far superior to the production values of TOS. Of course the stories and direction are incredibly amateurish.

        Now, what I'm thinking is, th
        • Fan Films (Score:3, Interesting)

          by PhotoBoy (684898)
          You mean something like these guys: New Voyages [newvoyages.com]? While the quality of the acting and story is debatable the authenticity of the sets and effects are quite stunning. :)
    • Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gl4ss (559668) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:25AM (#11823428) Homepage Journal
      well.
      actually...

      it's not the production costs that really matter in the end.. it's the money they think they can make with it - that's the reason to butcher up a show in the end anyways. a noisy minority that wants the show to continue doesn't bring in that much advertising revenue. and seriously speaking, if they brought out a new better show most of the enterprise fans would jump right in.

      as for responsibility.. bah. grow up. i don't think anybodys going to run out of inspiration anymore and it certainly isn't coming from enterprise.
    • I think their production costs run about $1.6M an episode. Or I could be making that number up. Regardless, you could do an entire season of Reading Rainbow for half that. And last I heard, they were hurting for funds. About a year ago, LeVar Burton (see, that's how I'm staying almost on topic) was out stumping for funds. You too could help [unl.edu]. Frankly, the best thing for the Star Trek franchise at this point would be a good 5-10 year hiatus. That and the resurection of Gene Roddenberry.
  • Wha? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by null etc. (524767)
    We reported on this a few days ago, but this is more info about the largest doners.

    What's a doner?

    • Re:Wha? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Kuro-Bishounen (859899) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:05AM (#11823168)
      It's a conically shaped mass of lamb meat, fat and spices, cooked unevenly then served up to drunken British students in heart attack temptingly mayonaisy sauce (with garlic)
      • So that's the thing they cut gyro meat from then? Wasn't aware they had a special name for it. Is it actually a Greek word? Is it actually pronounced like "donor"?
    • Re:Wha? (Score:2, Informative)

      by FidelCatsro (861135)
      a type of turkish kebab , Rather tasty and a dammed fined snack at 2AM.
      http://www.netcooks.com/recipes/Sandwiches/Doner.K ebab.html [netcooks.com]
      Also i would far rather spend my money on one than on a new season of Enterprise.
      I personaly thought it was the least enjoyable star trek ever , however there are far worse TV shows that havnt got canceld yet (anything involving reality TV).
      Come to think about it though , the worst star trek , is still rather good Sci-fi considering some of the other crap of the last few yea
      • Re:Wha? (Score:3, Insightful)

        Whoever modded you just doesn't understand how important a decent kebab at the right time can be. Much better than Enterprise.

        Hear hear! Bring back Futurama. Now there's a series genuinally in need of resurrection.
  • by Rocketboy (32971) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:03AM (#11823154)
    I think it's nice sentiment but ultimately ineffective. You're trying to tell arrogant people with enormous egos that they're wrong. They don't want to hear that. Unless their board is energized by powerful stockholders, they don't have to hear that. Good try, though.

    Rb
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:03AM (#11823158)
    ...but I can't bring myself to pay to keep hearing that horrible opening theme. If they would promise to get a new theme, I would cough up some duckets.
    • Oh, come on. What's wrong with the opening theme. It's a break from the traditional themes, shows what the show is about, and goes well with the intro.
      • Oh, come on. What's wrong with the opening theme.

        Where to begin?

        It's a break from the traditional themes

        There's that. Star Trek had a tradition of grand orchestral "space opera" music. This breaks it.
        The song is "faith of the heart". Lesse...

        Space, the final frontier, this is the faith-based initiative of the starship Bleeding Heart...

        Nope, doesn't do it for me.
        And as you can see from my .sig, it's not like I have a strict "no country in sci-fi openers" policy or anything. The Enterprise theme jus

    • Yo, AC. In this here new-fangled 21st century we have some tools to help you: 1) "Remote control" channel flipping 2) Mute button 3) TiVo or VCR, then "fast-forward"
    • I cannot believe that people are defending the opening song. It is awful! My girlfriend can tolerate me watching ST:TNG, but not Enterprise, just because of that cheesy song.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Why not give the money on the condition that they're gone? That'd be better for the future of Trek than anything else.
  • Um... no. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by datastalker (775227) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:04AM (#11823162) Homepage
    "We think Star Trek and especially its latest incarnation, Enterprise is the kind of TV that should be aired more often."

    Have they watched it? If so, have they ever seen things like ST:TNG, Babylon 5, Firefly, or even Battlestar Galactica?

    If they had, they'd realise there's better things to do with their money, no matter how much "better" this last season was.

    • Re:Um... no. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FireBug (83228) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:21AM (#11823378) Homepage
      Have they watched it? If so, have they ever seen things like ST:TNG, Babylon 5, Firefly, or even Battlestar Galactica?
      If they had, they'd realise there's better things to do with their money, no matter how much "better" this last season was.


      I don't know about anyone else, but I personally have always felt the Star Trek franchise is more oriented towards "exploration" and general scientific curiosity. Don't get me wrong here, Enterprise and TNG had (have?) plenty of soap-opera-ish drama , but there's just something about them that appeals more to the curiosity than the rest.

      Battlestar Galactica is a great show, but the premise is "run like hell and save our asses". I loved Firefly and Babylon 5 just as much, but only Babylon 5 ever really explored the interactions between cultures/species. Star Trek generally always explores "strange new worlds" and "new life and new civilizations" in some way or another. That's what appeals to me, and I believe those who donated money think along the same lines. Star Trek stimulates the mind and brings out the curiosity in us --- that's why it's "needed".
      • Random complaint. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Scrameustache (459504)
        I personally have always felt the Star Trek franchise is more oriented towards "exploration" and general scientific curiosity.

        I'd just like to point out that time in Enterprise's first season when they landed on a "rogue" planet that had escaped it's sun and therefore was in permanent darkness.

        They landed in a JUNGLE full of PLANTS with LARGE LEAVES.

        These people should have had a tad more scientific curiosity in highschool biology when the teacher explained what leaves are for.
        I mean, nitpicking is one
    • Re:Um... no. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      fuck off, im tired of elitests like yourself telling people what they should do with thier money. WTF do you care if someone donates money to save Enterprise? So *YOU* don't like the show, dont give any money to save it then. Obviously these donators HAVE seen the show and enjoy it so much they're willing to give a large sum of money to keep it going. I'm sorry if that gets your panties in a bunch.
      • I think most people are choosing to do exactly that--not give any money. It's okay to talk about why we're not giving money.

        I'm choosing to do that for a good reason: I'd get nothing for my donation. When I donate money to my local community radio station, a far more cash-poor outfit than Viacom, I get a t-shirt or a CD. Gifts like these are small but nice (this is a common way for the organization to say thanks to their donors). Even though my community radio station is incorporated, I get something f
    • I'm not a faithful Enterprise viewer, but by all accounts this past season has been much better than previous ones, due in large part to Manny Coto being the show runner this season.
    • Re:Um... no. (Score:5, Informative)

      by LordNimon (85072) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:58AM (#11823802)
      We are in the commercial space flight industry and would like to testify that at least one out of two of all the actual entrepreneurs involved in this industry has been inspired by Star Trek

      It's more than that. James Doohan, the actor who plays Scotty, was given an honorary degree in Engineering by the Milwaukee School of Engineering where over half of the students polled said they were inspired to study engineering by his role in "Star Trek".

      Let me repeat that: half of the engineering students were inspired by one Star Trek actor. Granted, I don't think that anyone will be inspired by Trip, but it still speaks volumes to the power of Star Trek.

    • by SuperBanana (662181) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @11:04AM (#11823867)
      You missed the better quote:

      The people responsible at Paramount think this is just a show and we want to tell them, it is not.

      Somebody's forgetting that television shows were developed not to entertain, but to keep people around for the ads. That has not changed for half a century, except in its sophistication.

      These people exemplify the worst trait of science fiction TV show fans- they don't realize that it is JUST A TV SHOW. It's not a religion, or a philosophy. It's a TV show. Made by a business. Played out by actors.

      • by Scrameustache (459504) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @12:08PM (#11824614) Homepage Journal
        These people exemplify the worst trait of science fiction TV show fans- they don't realize that it is JUST A TV SHOW. It's not a religion, or a philosophy. It's a TV show. Made by a business. Played out by actors.

        Does it have to be?
        Does it have to be just a television program? Can't it grow into something more? Can't it be a movement? Can't it be a means to spreading a message of hope and logic and tolerance?

        Star Trek was all these things, once. Paramount has been letting Rick Berman kill all of that, they want it to be a cash cow, not a symbol.
        I thought they'd suceeded in killing it, but those campaining fans seem to still feel "it".
    • Re:Um... no. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by grumbel (592662)
      ST:TNG, yes, thats probally better then ST:ENT, however ST:ENT is the closest we get to TNG at the moment and reairing the same TNG episodes again and again sooner or later gets boring.

      Firefly, while a great show, is something complete different then StarTrek. StarTrek is about exploring space, go where no man has gone before, Firefly is more or less a Buffy-In-Space. The surrounding doesn't matter all that much, its just there to give some initial starting point to drive the characters and drama in that s
  • Did this happen... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kunwon1 (795332) <dave.j.moore@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:05AM (#11823171) Homepage
    ...when TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager were cancelled? I mean, I know that the fans have almost always been unanimous in their objections when one of the Treks have been cancelled, but are these huge monetary donations precedented?

    My point is this:

    Are people concerned about the series being cancelled, or are they concerned about the series being cancelled without another Trek incarnation on the horizon?
    • by carninja (792514)
      TNG, DS9 and VOY weren't cancelled, their series was ended. That's like saying "Seinfield" was cancelled. It was simply time to move on. Only TOS got cancelled.
    • by HexRei (515117)
      It's worth keeping in mind that this is the first Trek since TOS that is being cancelled without another Trek series launching.
    • by snooo53 (663796) * on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:23AM (#11823412) Journal
      I think people are more concerned that the series is being cancelled just as it is starting to get good. All the other series, except for TOS, had a good run and were then gracefully let go rather than cancelled. For a perfect example of what happens when you let a series go too long just look at X-Files. After the 7th season, the two main actors hardly wanted to be in it anymore, and the producers start adding gimmicks like throwing a baby into the mix; the one thing guaranteed to kill a show.

      I think that people aren't so concerned about the lack of another Trek series on the horizon, but the fact that this one is being cancelled just as we are getting good plots and good characterization. Yes, B&B made some tremendous mistakes the first 3 seasons, but the show should be judged on the merits of *this* season, not the mistakes of the past.

  • Ahhhh....It's a dupe! I thought I stuck in a spatial distortion cause by a port lacelle malfunction that caused a rift in the space time continuum.
  • by Raleel (30913) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:06AM (#11823190)
    to keep the show, and not enough to keep the title song
  • So.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:07AM (#11823199)
    What TV shows did Neil Armstrong and Gene Kranz get inspired by to ACTUALLY GET TO THE MOON!?
  • If this is true, Star Trek should sit on the bench for a good 15 years or so.

    (Found this on a random messageboard)
    Oh Fuck it...Trip dies at the end and the episode is a holographic program on the holodeck of the Enterprise-D (yes...D as in how DUMB can you get!)which Riker and Troi are observing. The series itself is not a hologram program, but the likelihood of bringing it back after this bullshit is practically zero. You may now commense your saber rattling. Q

    -carl
  • I am a Trek Fan (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drewzhrodague (606182) <drew.zhrodague@net> on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:10AM (#11823241) Homepage Journal
    Yes, I have been inspired by Star Trek, but I do not work on space vehicles, or even pieces of them -- I wish I did.

    Star Trek, and other Sci-Fi shows have influenced me since I was a small kid, with images of Captain Kirk and the Gorn duking it out. My Pop and I would watch, and have discussions of the future all throughout my childhood, adolescense, and (whatever excuse for) adulthood.

    Trek is Trek, and I appreciate even Captain janeway and her personal issues to shows depicting people less interesting than I with their goofy friends.

    Because of Star Trek (in any format), my goal is to help build the future.
  • Some more info... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Malfourmed (633699) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:10AM (#11823244) Homepage
    At this post at the TrekBBS forum [trekbbs.com] one of the campaign organisers reveals that the donor is not Richard Branson (as was speculated by some) "but funny you should mention him", that two more Fortune 500 companies were interested and that the 'set' at paramount already knew the news before it was made public.

    Later in the thread that the above post appears in it's explained that although the funds were not actually transferred to the campaign (can you imagine the Paypal fee on three million bucks?!), a contract was signed formalising the pledge, hence the reason for the delay in announcing the donation.

    • "At this post at the TrekBBS forum one of the campaign organisers reveals that the donor is not Richard Branson (as was speculated by some) "

      We will have to see about that, when Season 4 starts and there is a big red "V" on the hull of the ship. The despised theme song at last is replaced with "Tubular Bells" (pronounced Chewbular Bells by Branson).

      • The despised theme song at last is replaced with "Tubular Bells" (pronounced Chewbular Bells by Branson).
        And, y'know, 60 million other English people.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    .. a fool and his money are soon parted.

  • The NoAd probe (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If the fans manage to cough up enough to pay for another season of Enterprise, does that mean it will air with no commercials?
  • True. Very True (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eno2001 (527078) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:13AM (#11823272) Homepage Journal
    Star Trek the Original series is where I first learned the word "computer" when I was a three year old (c. 1973). The next week I tried to build one using all my wind up toys, string and the legs of the kitchen table. My mom asked what I was doing and I said, "building a computer". It was an obsession that continues to this day. At that age, Star Trek posed the concept to me of a machine that could figure anything out and answer all my questions. What child wouldnt' be inspired by that?
  • While i applaud the intentions of these donors, indeed the entire "save enterprise" foundation is an amazing initiative of fans attempting to keep a show they love alive.

    However, Enterprise is horrible... Voyager was bad... but Enterprise is REALLY bad. I know im really drawing straws between determining which one is worse... but that really is non releveant to the point.

    The show was and is very terribly made and is even contradictory to what the intentions of gene rodenberys universe were. It's lost it's multi-culturalism, the founding principle and indeed the trademark difference star trek brought from it's very first iteration throughout the rest of it's tenure. "Enterprise" is nearly an all-white western crew with the exception of a black driver and a vulcan.

    This is NOT the vision of our future Gene painted, and it is NOT star trek.

    I understand the fans love this show for some strange reason, or maybe they simply love the Star Trek universe and will bear the burden of this worst incarnation just to keep it going... but i believe their efforts... and money.... would much better spent on getting paramount to create a new quality star trek true to its roots.

    Abandon the scot bacula, the country western intro, the nearly all-white and all-western crap of a show theyve created, and return to what star trek was supposed to be.

    If you havent forgotten, Trek was supposed to be about a HOPE for humanities united front against "the final frontier". At last mankinds differences werent as great as the difficulties in facing a diverse and strange universe beyond our little backwater pond of a planet.

    This money should be spent creating a show with better writers, a better cast and crew, and something far more canon than they have been. I would much rather see the rise of anything at least on the level of deep space nine, than any continuance of this voyager "enterprise" drivel.

    3 million could at least hire better writers, and change the cast.

    Lastly, these guys hit it on the head when they said that star trek's important role in our society is inspiration, there is no doubt it's had a cultural impact of untold magnitude by instilling the grandest dreams in our children of decades ago to even now with the belief that we could at least try to make this great society of our future. An earth united, and the stars at our footsteps... let us not let it be so easily trampled upon by cheap writers and bad marketers.

    --Vision
    Just my 2c.

    • So, you don't like "Enterprise" because of the skin color of the actors? So much for "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character", even if the characters in this case are cardboard.
    • with the exception of a black driver

      And there's Chekov and Sulu, down the front, both driving, they both had steering wheels! Too many steering wheels... but you never saw them in the morning, when they came in to the starship Enterprise, going, "Oh, get the engine on, Chekov! It's fucking freezing in here! Boy!" (mimes starting up ship) You also never saw them backing up either, Chekov going... (mimes backing up) "Captain Kirk, put your head down a bit."

    • "Enterprise" is nearly an all-white western crew with the exception of a black driver and a vulcan.

      Then again, Star Trek TNG in season 1 was a nearly an all-white crew with the exception of a black driver and an andriod, and look what they managed to do.

      But you do have good points... especially about the cost per episode and the type of writing it's buying. If I had spent 3 million of my own money to produce a star trek show, I'd be pretty pissed off if I got almost any of the episodes in seasons 1-3.

    • However, Enterprise is horrible... Voyager was bad... but Enterprise is REALLY bad.

      That's totally a matter of taste. You don't care for the show. Obviously the donors do. No one is putting a gun to your head and telling you to donate to help save a show you don't like. You have the right to spend your money how you choose, and so do they.

      Abandon the scot bacula, the country western intro, the nearly all-white and all-western crap of a show theyve created, and return to what star trek was supposed to
  • Perhaps they should change the slashcode to append "We reported on this a few days ago, but this has more info." to every story summary.
  • The only way to explain this is that Captain Archer was sent here from the future to ensure the time line. He must convince some Trekkies that the Star Trek Universe will actually happen. Without a second season, Cochrane's grandfather will never buy the T'Pal doll that will later inspire Cochrane to finally finish college and develop the warp drive. Otherwise, there will be a fork causing an instability in the fabric of space and time, leading to a new show: Babelstar Androgenous.
  • I hate the theme song too, but I understand the message that it sends out. The spaceflight entrepeneurs have stated some very important things that we as a culture should consider. From Star Trek many things have been inspired by the show. I think Enterprise is getting really good this season, and it would be a shame to close it off without a fight. People want this show to live... I don't want to see it die either. That's why I donated my paltry $15, but hey, it'll pay that camera guy for 1/2 hour of
  • "We think Star Trek and especially its latest incarnation, Enterprise is the kind of TV that should be aired more often."

    I agree that I'd like to see more Star Trek and alikes in TV. But why on earth should it be "especially" the worst of all the five ST series?

    If only those 3 millions would be used to create a sixth series that ties up to the mark TNG has set, instead of wasting them on the ENT crap.
  • What a load (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jasko (684642)
    I for one was begging for this show to be cancelled after the first few episodes.

    And I don't hate Trek. I'm a huge fan of ST:TOS. I liked what little I saw of ST:TNG and ST:V. Never cared for ST:DS9 (Hey, let's sit here and wait for adventure to come *to us*!), but I know lots of people who did.

    But ST:E? Feh! When the communications officer whined for the first couple of episodes, I thought, "Uhhh...aren't there a million qualified people who would *kill* for this post? Step down and get out of the way!"
  • Pledges are great, cash is better.

    Fundraisers know that not everyone who pledges actually follows through. I wouldn't expect any network to revive Enterprise based solely on promises to send money. Cash in the bank would be more persuasive.

    No matter what, I don't think we'll ever see Trek again on UPN. The network decided last year that they don't want the kind of audience Trek attracts. So, for Enterprise, status quo meant cancellation.

    Better to redirect any collected cash to independent production a
  • Regardless of the debates over the suckiness of "Enterprise", the opening of "Enterprise" seems to be a mozaic of aviations finer moments. I think footage of Space Ship One should be included--definately a milestone in mans quest for space and fitting to the opeing mozaic of Enterprise. Maybe get rid of the footage of the flying submarine thing and add Space Ship One.

    Fans got the first shuttle named "Enterprise"--a great honor to a great show. The least the Star Trek producers could do is return the fav
  • Give me $3,000,000 and I'll let you watch me play Wing Commander over my shoulder. I'll even put on red pajamas with a golden pledge pin if it makes you happy.

    Seriously, if you have $3M to blow on crap like this, you have about $3M too many dollars.
  • by Migraineman (632203) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:43AM (#11823657)
    For $3M, I'd be demanding some measure of control. The Trek franchise isn't a charity ... it's a business. They should consider this an infusion of capital, and as such, it has strings attached.

    The economics go well beyond just dumping in money to fund the creation of episodes. The studio has to arrange for a timeslot on someone's cable or broadcast network. The network execs have an expectation that they'll be able to draw N-million viewers to justify the advertising rates. Advertisers have to believe that folks will actually watch, or they'll put their money elsewhere. Sure, the studios could release stuff direct to DVD, but that doesn't support the recurring revenue model they want. The opportunity cost is too high - for a given amount of effort and expense, they want to maximize the return. Trek is a relatively expensive series to produce, so they have to expect that it'll have greater returns than something cheaper.

    Enterprise may be doomed by the economics. Simply shoring it up with contributions probably won't save it. They'd need to make a serious set of changes to be successful, and I'm not convinced that the folks in control of the creative aspects are prepared to be told "sorry, but what you're doing now sucks."
  • Sounds great!!!!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by UES (655257) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:47AM (#11823696)
    Now, how much are they going to pay me to watch it?

    I watch Stargate-SG1 for free. So do a lot of other people. Some of them buy DVD sets. So many people watch Stargate-SG1 relative to its cost that they have a spinoff show, Stargate Atlantis. The fine folks at Stargate-SG1 are also going into Season Nine (a feat no Star Trek has ever achieved), with no cancellation in sight, despite having switched networks and being on a cable channel rather than broadcast (which AUTOMATICALLY means a smaller potential audience).

    Enterprise does not need deep-pocketed donors to be a success. It needed more viewers. UPN/Paramount will not run a "subsidized" show not only because of the myriad rights issues, but because they can put something that could be more successful in the timeslot. They ALREADY KNOW Enterprise cannot draw an audience. It's worth the risk if they can get the next 'American Idol' or 'Desperate Housewives' in the slot instead.

    The now-revived Family Guy had extremely robust DVD sales and a good syndication deal with TBS and Cartoon Network. Let's see how many people buy the Enterprise DVDs. If it's only the usual gang of sad anoraks(which it likely will be due to pricing alone*), Star Trek will be dead for a long long time.

    For those of you arguing that Enterprise was 'screwed' by the network, I would ask why is it that a show with the #1 genre franchise name (Star Trek), starring a good actor with a fan following (Scott Bakula), on broadcast TV with a wide audience, failed? The short answer is: crap show.

    Battlestar Galactica is based on a laughable cheesefest from 1978, is on cable, is a 'downer' show (mostly sad endings), and lacks a strong franchise fan following. Yet, is is very successful. Why? It's a good show with interesting scripts and good acting. No one EVER reverses polarities, engages in Temporal Cold War (whatever the fsck that is), or deals with spacial or temporal anomalies. Star Trek is giving its hardcore fans exactly what they want. Too bad everyone else is bored with it.

    * If you want to buy the Original Series, Next Generation, or DS9 on DVD it's US$100 per season. Compare with Buffy/Angel at US$50 per season, and The Simpsons at US$40 per season.

  • Kebabs? (Score:3, Funny)

    by BenjyD (316700) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @12:09PM (#11824628)
    but this is more info about the largest doners.

    What have kebabs got to do with it?

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...