More On Save Enterprise Donations 636
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.
5 Seasons does not a trek series make (Score:2, Interesting)
Well (Score:4, Interesting)
Did this happen... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Enterprise cancellation did not deter Berman (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a Trek Fan (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Did this happen... (Score:2, Interesting)
True. Very True (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Um... no. (Score:1, Interesting)
To be fair, however, EVERY one of the trek series aside from TOS have had a pretty lame first three seasons, so many people are simply afraid that they are giving up on enterprise just a little too early.
Besides, maybe scifi fans have just gotten cocky since SaveFarscape squeezed a miniseries out of the whole shebang.
Brings up a good question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Trying to herd cats (Score:1, Interesting)
Especially when they are right.
Enterprise sucks. Sorry.
Re:Um... no. (Score:5, Interesting)
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".
Re:Well (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Did this happen... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Um... no. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am so sick of this red herring fallacy. There is always something more worthwhile to spend our money on. How can the government give money to the military when our schools and hospitals are so desperately in need of cash? How can they fund public television? Why don't they just raise taxes, and give every last cent to foreign aid, completely eliminating all funding for all other programs? I mean, how can anyone cash their unemployment/social security check with a clear conscience, knowing that there are people starving somewhere?
We should balance our funding. Yes, of course we should provide money to other causes, but your argument is the top of a slippery slope that ends with the conclusion that we should devote ALL our money to the most worthy cause, with NO money for any other cause. This is clearly silly. Other programs are important too. Just because they're not as important as other programs doesn't mean they should forfeit their funding, it merely means it should be balanced and justified.
Plus, it's THEIR MONEY. They can spend it however they want. Would you want someone coming to your house and criticising you like that? "Do you really need a TV, an internet connection, and name-brand groceries? Why don't you take the bus instead of owning a car, and give the difference to charity? Do you really need a house? Couldn't you get by just fine in a small apartment, and instead donate that money to charity? Why are you buying new clothes instead of just borrowing from others? Why are you drinking beer, when that $5 would innoculate an African child against several life-threatening diseases? How can you not hate yourself for not feeling the guilt you should over your outrageously self indulgent lifestyle, with your 'groceries' and '50 channels of TV'?"
Re:Oh shut up (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly, the argument is not only that there are many causes more worthy of their several million dollars, but that this particular cause has no worthy or socially redeeming value at all! They are using donations to prop up a for-profit enterprise (ahyuck! I made a funny!). If they wanted to take that money, produce a sci-fi show, and give it away to the general public, that would be worthy.
What a load (Score:2, Interesting)
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!" But when the captain (whom I loved in Quantum Leap and was really geeked about seeing in SF TV again) took his *dog* down to the first alien world they encountered...I just gave up.
This show blew chunks from the get-go.
Where were those big checks when Firefly needed them? Now *that* was some inspiring space TV. And a hell of a lot more entrepreneurial in spirit than the Treks.
Add Space Ship One to Opening of Enterprise (Score:2, Interesting)
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 favor.
BTW: I'm not intersted in debating the suckiness of "Enterprise". Keep your "Enterprise sucks" comments to yourself please.
Some measure of control (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
Re:They really got it together last season... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:For God's sake people GET SOME PRIORITIES!!! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Did this happen... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sort of. Bottom line was, the actors didn't really want to do the show anymore. In each case, the actors stuck around a couple seasons longer than they wanted to because the money was so good, so insofar as the actors might have continued on if he were offered a billion dollars an episode, it could be said that "they couldn't afford to pay the actors". However, with the example of Seinfeld, the larger issue was that Seinfeld was very vocal about not wanting to do the show anymore, wanting to end it before they ruined the show, and he didn't need the money, so it's not clear that any amount of money would have gotten him to continue any longer.
Sounds great!!!!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
1 out of 4 for me (Score:2, Interesting)
After I saw the first few episodes of season 1, I quit watching, disgusted, then I caught one of the season 3 episodes and have been hooked ever since, though season 4 is a hit and miss prospect at best.
1 season out of 4. Hmmm...
John
Admin
The Lyzrd's Stomp [lyzrdstomp.com]
Fan Films (Score:3, Interesting)
better quote- "not just a TV show" (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Well (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Um... no. (Score:3, Interesting)
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 show. You could have let Firefly play on a sailing boat or on a farm and it wouldn't be much different.
Same with Battlestar Galactica, its not about exploring space, its about the running away from the Cylons, some religous vodoo and some Cylon mind-games. Nice show, but not a StarTrek replacement either.
Babylon 5 might be the only one to get a bit closer to StarTrek, but I haven't seen enough of it to comment on that.
The point is to save StarTrek, not to get a good show in space into TV.
Re:Brings up a good question (Score:3, Interesting)
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 sample size to correctly measure things in the 'off prime time and secondary network' market. Simple math can show that relatively quickly.
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
Enterprise is on UPN. This is Paramount (and Viacom's) choice - which means it gets joke advertising revenue. Paramount probably isn't making much money on it at all right now.
There are enough viewers for Enterprise to survive on a more major network off prime time. Certainly there are other options for Viacom/CBS/etc, so you're right there. They *would* make a profit on it in the long run.
The problem is there isn't enough time. Once the sets are destroyed, it's virtually guaranteed that it's over. So the smartest way to handle it is to simply donate a small amount of money (say, $20 for each viewer) to make Paramount reconsider.
Personally, I don't mind. Many people don't get Enterprise on TV at all, and need to download it. (UPN wasn't even available on *cable* in the previous location I was at, and it's not broadcast strong enough here). In this case, all I feel I'm doing is paying Paramount just like I'd pay a cable company. You pay for cable, which subsidizes some shows (on HBO, it subsidizes a large portion of the show). What's so wrong about paying a small-broadcast network for a show?
Re: grow up ! (Score:2, Interesting)
I bet if the show was 50% funded by contributions, not only would the authors be able to say to the advertisers: We are making the show people actually want to watch, they would also attract better advertisers, because they would realise that there is a serious fanbase that's willing to pay good money for what they want (and that's who advertisers are trying to reach in the first place).
I also think that show writers will spend a little more time getting ideas and feeling the waters from the forums rather than in the board rooms, the quality of the show will skyrocket. And the fanbase will grow as well.
I also wonder whether they could then do some non-advertiser shows, meaning, show a 58 minute show instead of 40 minutes cut every eight minutes by commercials. I would watch that show. I would. I enjoyed the first remake with stewart, and saw many. Lately, though, can't stand the commercials and the poor acting. (send your actors to Shakespearean schools dammit!)