More On Save Enterprise Donations

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.

WHY give money to B&B?

[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.

Re:Wha?

[Kuro-Bishounen]

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)

Re:Well

[PhotoBoy]

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.

Re:Did this happen...

[carninja]

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.

Some more info...

[Malfourmed]

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.

Re:Wha?

[FidelCatsro]

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 years .
However i would far rather see a new season of Futurama , now there was some classic Sci-fi/comedy

Oh shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same stupid "argument" people use everytime someone is raising money for a cause they feel is less important than some other cause. If we followed your thought, we'd raise money only for the single largest problem on Earth (Cancer, AIDS, whatever) and ignore everything else.

If your cause has merit, people will choose to donate, but they should still feel free, and not-guilty, to donate to other things they care about.

Re:For God's sake people GET SOME PRIORITIES!!!

[carninja]

This isn't CNN, pal. Maybe you missed the "News for Nerds" caption under the slashdot logo. If I want to know about Iraq, Bush or the tsunami, I'd be reading CNN.com or something else.

Re:Um... no.

[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.

Re:Well

[Malfourmed]

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?

Re:Brings up a good question

[Malfourmed]

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.

Re:Where does the money go if they fail?

[cswake]

The $3 million is a pledge, so it will not be given until something "positive" happens. As for the rest of the contributions, they were done through Paypal and will be refunded to the donors if the effort does not succeed.

Re:Um... no.

[LordNimon]

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.

To answer the parent and grandparent

[maotx]

According to their site's FAQ [trekunited.com]:

2. About how much money are we talking here?
Actor John Billingsley (Enterprise's Dr. Phlox) stated that the production of one Star Trek: Enterprise episode costs about $1.6m. For 22 episodes of a full season, this boils down to $35.2m

3. What guarantee do I have that the contribution is safe and legal?
....."All contributed money is used for sponsoring Enterprise; only transactional fees charged to us by payment systems and banks (set to a flat 5% because of the varying payment methods and individual fees) are deducted. Furthermore, all potential excess in fees will be donated to the American Tsunami Relief Fund. If no agreement can be made with Paramount, your contribution will be refunded to you."

They currently have a total of $3,070,745.00 US contributed to saving the show.
I personally welcome the continuation of the show as I believe it is getting better. Originally when it aired I wasn't really that interested. Now I'm hooked on it.

I don't get UPN so I can't watch it so I have to go online and download the latest episode via Bittorrent. THAT is probably why their viewer ratings were so low. Checking the torrent tracker for this one episode totals 42,769.
If Paramount would release even a semi-high quality episode even with the commercials included I would rather do that to show my support. Hell, if they had a subscription not priced overly extremed I'd do it.

Online viewing is definalty growing more and more if they like it or not. Perhaps they'll learn from RIAA's mistakes and release an online "pay-per-download" setup. I'd join.

Re:Well

[sconeu]

Voyager was the first Trek to be non-syndicated

<PEDANTIC>
Second, actually. TOS was on NBC.
</PEDANTIC>

Re:They really got it together last season...

[Scrameustache]

I really like the into and theme.

Ah, let's make a distinction here!

The old intro video montage is great! Hell, it's much better than any episode I've seen... on mute. But that song man, argh! It's horrible. Lame, wishy washy country. We are trying to watch a show about spaceships and the planets they go to, the country western is ruining the mood!

So, my point: The intro video and the intro song are two different things altogether.

Although... I just googled, and I see there seems to be a new intro! [startrek.com]
The music is a lot less horrible, and they are using the "Space... the final frontier." speech... though, er, "no human"? Hello? How did they go from no human to no man to no one? Why not keep "no one"? Do they plan to have a sexism revival sometime between Enterprise and the T.O.S. timeframe??? And dont Phlox and T'its count?

Ameri-centric? Eurocentric, maybe.

[LetsGoVandy]

The opening credits do have the HMS Enterprize, the British warship. In addition, the social climate of the United States throughout the hey-day of NASA dictated that the majority of faces of aero- and astronautical progress would be of persons of European lineage. As NASA gives away film footage like candy to pro-space franchises such as Star Trek, this prior social order is reflected in the opening credits.

U.S. propaganda works SO WELL!!!

[Scrameustache]

NASA was first at every major achievement in space except the satellite, what else could be shown (up to the point where they show made-up stuff)?

WHAT?

First ballistic missile: Germans

First orbitting artificial satellite: Russians

First animal in space: Russians

First animal to survive reentry: Russians

First Man in space: Russians

First Woman in space: Russians

First robot lander on the moon: Russians

First "once around the moon": Russians IIRC

First robot on mars: I think russians...

Unless you define "major achievement" as including the word "american" after that "first" bit, you are extremely ignorant. If you do, you're just plain jingo.

Re:U.S. propaganda works SO WELL!!!

[Buran]

First "once around the moon": Russians IIRC

The first manned flight around the Moon was Apollo 8, in December 1968. The closest the Soviets ever came to replicating that feat was a few unmanned Zond craft. The N-1 manned lunar booster never successfully launched -- too many problems with the first stage.

The Russians have also never sent a working lander to Mars -- Mars 6 did land a vehicle in 1973, but it never sent back any useful data. First mission to make it was Viking 1 in 1976. Then Viking 2 that same year, then Pathfinder in 1997, and now we have the rovers.