Slashdot Mirror
Fans Attempting to Pay for Enterprise
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.
Wow, talk about fanaticism! I mean, I like Star Trek too, but when was the last time you saw a bunch of desperate couch potatos try to put $80 mil together for medical research, space exploration, or charitable distribution? Seriously, luxuries beyond beer seem like a major drain on mankind sometimes...
And donate the money to Africa or asia. They need the money much more!
Remember that tsunami? Remember the millions of dollars that private citizens donated?
people will do ANYTHING to avoid the realities of life and substitute in fictional realities these days, it seems.
the only tv shows that ever have or ever will make me surrender money are on PBS.
What kind of standard could something like this set? Imagine if this caught on and they did it to popular shows such as the OC. Actors get inflated salaries and/or networks make even more $$$.
I hope this never happens for a show just because of the standard it would set.
Evolution or ID?
Star Trek has been kept running on the popularity of the mythos, of the franchise. It has always been self-sustaining, through its own quality. If a Star Trek show is in such a bad state that it needs to rely on fan charity to survive... it isn't worth keeping.
The coolest voice ever.
The commercial-free distribution costs would be insane. It would be cheaper to mail a set of DVDs to each fan.
The unofficial
After 9/11 when Amazon starting taking donations they only made $6.8 million dollars, and that was a big thing where over 170,000 people donated. They expect Trekkies to pay more just for a show?
In the unlikely situation that the money is raised - an individual, or registered organisation that represents the fund would have to enter into a contract with Paramount. At this point they become an investor in the franchise and its development. What happens if Paramount fail to produce the show? Legal action? What also happens to the advertising and syndication revenue? Are people investing purely to finance a vehicle that will make the franchise owner money - or would they seek to recoup their investment? That's just the beginning. I can't see Paramount taking cash from the fans in this way.
I find it very sad that people are willing to pay (or even contemplate paying) this much money in order to experience one mediocre hour of TV a week, rather than dontate their money to good causes like cancer research or some other deserving charity.
Good god people, what's this world coming too? Way to let "The Man" know how much of our soles he ownes!
If they come up with the 50-80 million dollars. I'm gonna cry.
they're free to do with it as they please. if I decided to spend 1 billion dollars and buy an island nation to rule like a king, that would be my business and noone else's.
that 80 million dollars isnt gonna come in $20,000 donations, I'd bet. Just lots of fans donating what they can. They think this cause is worthy. If there are enough of them who think so to make it happen, who says they are wrong?
Why not have a lottery? Each "ticket" costs US$20 and if enough money is raised, 3 winners are selected for roles on Enterprise. If enough money isn't raised to save the show the money is transfered to Amazon, (or other online retailer), and each ticket becomes a US$20 gift card.
Now there is a "carrot" for those who want to donate and a way out if enough money isn't raised.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
If I pay for just a show I better receive all rights of ownership for that show.
Unless you're a multi-millionaire, I think that you're vastly overestimating the value of the amount you're gonna be sending. $15.00 doesn't buy much.
How about instead of paying for Enterprise, this movement recruits Star Trek fans of all colors to get the funds and then demand paramount create a new series that better suits their tastes. Get everyone on board, then demand a better product.
If they owned the right to it, maybe they would be allowed to ditribute it themselves independantly of the studio
I'm thinking legaly on bittorrent would be really cool
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
This type of thing is brought up way too much in the forums, and I'm surprised people continue to mod this stuff up. It's a fallacy and people need to learn that.
Such an argument has merit on it's face, but when you say this you are making a assumptive judgement on the part of the donors. Who's to say that the donors didn't already donate to tsunami relief? And who's to say what they already donated wasn't enough? And who's to say exactly how much per each person per amount of income is "the right amount" to donate?
The fact is you can't. Therefore the argument falls down because you can't apply it to each case uniformly. If you can prove that each and every single person in this campaign is a single white male earning $100,000+ a year and gave absolutely nothing top charity, then you can say it is a misappropriation.
I know I'm nitpicking but under the same argument, all money spent to produce Battlestar Galactica is also a misappropriation because it's for luxury and therefore should go to tsunami relief. Half of slashdot thinks trek should die but watch slashdot mobilize if Galactica suddenly dies an early death. How's that for a double standard?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
If you think about it, fans paying for a show is kind of like reserving tickets for a play that you'll see later.
So should all theater season ticket holders destroy theaters everywhere by not supporting the theater or ever buying passes?
And why should anyone ever go to a movie, or a concert? That money obvisouly is better spent on food for the poor.
I'm sure the dissolution of all entertainment everywhere so that you could provde a larger band-aid to problems that are primarily political in nature would make the world a happier place. Am I allowed to at least sketch drawings in the sand as long as the stick is free?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In other words, in order to get them to go for this, you'd have to cover the lost advertisement revenue AS WELL AS the production costs. That's probably going to be over $150 million at least.
Which isn't a bad idea. Why assume that the broadcast medium is the proper mechanism. If enough fans sign on for a subscription service to be able to 1) produce the show, 2) master the DVDs, and 3) distribute the DVDs to subscribers, especially if it could be done at a reasonable profit, then why not try a subscription-based model rather than old-fashioned broadcast TV?
Maybe I should clarify .. BSG is not really "true" science fiction, so in that sense what I said is not really accurate. But as far as space operas go, acting, writing, sfx and general storytelling, BSG is seriously putting other "sci-fi" shows, including Star Trek, in their place. (And this comes from someone who loves Star Trek.)
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Beer is not a luxury.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
I believe it was Farscape that tried to create fan-funded production.
5 21 4&tid=129
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/16/135
No, you said
"[...] compare [...] a natural disaster with [...] a failing television show?"
You popped off on a misunderstanding of the post, which replied to the original question asking about the "last time [...] couch potatos [...] $80 mil together for [..] or charitable distribution?" You're still harping about people putting money into a failing TV show, as has every other post you're bashing. You got it wrong when you flew off the handle - suck it up already, and show some integrity.
--
make install -not war
Well, if they're smart, they organize as a non-profit corporation with a member elected board. The board of course could set any conditions it wanted for Paramount to receive the organization's money. Money == clout, and you want somebody smart who shares your values weilding that clout.
The link of course, is dead so I can't RTFA, but the organization should be chartered so that if they don't get enough dough to extend the series, they could use it to do other things in the interest of the fan base, like obtain licensing rights to allow their favorite authors to publish trek fiction. Paramount might not want to get into the business of doing series to suit some fanbase group, but they'd be foolish not to take cash up front for a reasonable print licensing, since it would help keep the franchise's value while it is on hiatus.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
We're talking about a charity being set up for the benefit of the cast of an unsuccessful TV show, not free enterprise.
Nonsense. We're talking about fans trying to pay for a product they want. I wouldn't pay into this, and I doubt they will be succesful, but there's no aspect of "charity" to it. They're not doing it to keep the cast from poverty, they're doing it because they want more episodes.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
I was immensely against this series before it aired, and most especially because of the changes to Starbuck, which I felt like was akin to rewriting the bible and making Jesus a woman.
I will however be the first to admit I was completely wrong about BS:G.
So far it has been nothing short of brilliant. What has especially impressed me is the overall tone of it. I think it was Ron Moore who said (paraphrasing) that the original series wasn't true to it's own premise... in the original, within a week or so of Caprica being devastated, they were in bars on other planets with other humans, having a blast, generally not acting like the future of the human species hung in the balance. I never thought of it before, but damn it if he wasn't right! I still love the original series, but I do view it in a different light now. The remake has really gotten this right, in the extreme. There is a truly palpabale sense of dread throughout it, and that is fantastic as far as I'm concerned.
But...
This is NOT the best sci-fi show on the air today. It's third, near as I can tell, behind Stargate SG1 and SG:Atlantis. SG1 has been the best for some years now, ever since Babylon 5 went off the air actually. Atlantis has come on unbelievably strong this first season, and I predict here and now we're going to be hailing it's greatness 10 years down the road when it's still chugging along. And it wouldn't surprise me it SG1 was still producing new episodes then too!
And if B5 is still airing in your market, than IT is the best show on TV today.
None of this takes away from how good BS:G has been though. It has completely proved me wrong. Hell, I'm even getting used to the new Starbuck, I think the actress playing her is doing an excellent job in the role. If they can keep this up, it's going to be a fantastic and long ride!
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
Even if your premises were true, what the hell makes the oligopoly of TV station owners the only valid market? Aren't these people acting freely as part of your beloved Invisible Hand, mr. free-market laissez-faire "liberal"?
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Enterprise, unfortunately, requires a larger budget, both because of the sets and special effects and because of the salaries for the actors and actresses.
I think if the fans can really pull it off, it would show that advertising revenue, and thus annoying adverts, aren't really necessary. We are stuck in this business model purely because of past momentum and the obsessive absurdity of the advertising industry. If we could make them obselete through ploys like this, they would lobby Congress to make it illegal.
I guess it is like the old joke about, if pro- is the opposite of con-, what is the opposite of progress...
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Cost of distribution model.
David Lynch and a few others not withstandaing, it's very unviable to run a production company on a download or subscription model.
Take for instance, thousands and thousands of hours of decent content which is produced regardless if anybody watches it or not. Yes, I'm talking about independant film. Hundreds of films get made around the world every year, some end up at film festivals, some stay highly regional, some make it to Sundance in the USA and other prestigious film fests for indy films.
Very few of these films are torrent-able. A tiny, tiny margin - maybe 1%, probably less. There isn't enough bandwidth or storage space to encode them all, even though the filmmakers are looking at nothing but profit if they participate in the process instead of letting the canisters rot in their attic. Still, it doesn't happen.
Now, cut out the distribution methods in your model. These networks greenlight projects, review them for quality, and decide if they will bankroll them. Take that away, and you have anarchy.
Seriously, what would happen over time is an insane S/N ratio. Hundreds of small production companies would vie for your dollars. Here! Bankroll this, we'll sign Shatner! Seriously, we'll put his fat ass in a rubber suit and make him recite King Lear! Pay here!
A few companies would eventually emerge, just as in the game industry, where the barriers to entry used to be low, and an EA or Microsoft would try and step in as the content "management" provider, and you'd just substitute the bogeyman you hate, with a new and more manevolent one.
It all seems very democratic or populist, but it doesn't play out that way. The market abhors a vacuum.
Lets stop pussy footing around. There are no ownership or copyright issues.
You start with a plot outline, create a shooting schedule, line up some actors, start filming, put the thing out there.
The quality of the visuals will NOT be up to Star Trek vehicles to date but the writing could be much better, the acting could be better.
Even the set could be a digital one to allow 'transportation' at no cost (think of the techniques used for the "Polar Express".)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
He's... not responding to... my... overacting! Bones... do... something!
James T aside, are you at all familiar with the 60's? Have you seen any other TV shows that came out at that time? This is a show that had to come up with the transporter, because they didn't have the budget to do the shuttlecraft models yet!
Don't take it too seriously, just enjoy the cheese!
Send whiskey and fresh horses!
Someone came up with a $120/head number, but would only be the cost of production. Unless you are going to run it commercial-free, the network should rebate some of the advertising revenue in lieu of having to buy it. You might get a check back larger than your 'donation'...
A network that people have to pay for stands or falls on the content.. Think:
Farscape
BG
Stargate
Programs that advertising alone struggles to pay for.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
To make this work, saveenterprise would have to prove, as a first step, that they have access to 38-88 million bucks.
They key would be to set up an escrow account with, say, Paypal? that would accumulate real money. If they can achieve the target amount, they have some real POWER. If they cannot achieve target, then the money should be paid back from escrow.
Here's a cute thought: how much interest can 88 million earn in a couple of months? I don't think escrow accounts can be invested, but... jeez. At the end of the money raising period, if the project went bust, everyone would get their cash back, minus admin fees for the escrow holder, plus interest earned. Yipes.
Why didn't anyone think of this for Whedon's Buffyverse? I hearby propose sending someone to JW's house with a proposal.
The power of this kind of project is unlimited, if you think about it. Building Rutan's SpaceShipOne cost about 20-30 million. An escrow fund could build spaceships. Space stations. How much to go to the moon, if you wanted to do it cheap and practical? A billion? That's a few hundred dollars for each star trek fan. A small investment in a club, and you not only could finance SF, you could finance instead the reality.
It is viable to produce a series that is commercially viable without commericials. You could then market the series without the need for FCC regulations, keep artistic integrity, and other problems. This has been done before though costs need to be kept in check.
Anime has done this and these series are called OVA (original video animations). The series are not broadcast and people buy these series straight to tape. The thing is, you can't just produce schlock and sell it as an OVA and expect to make money on it. It needs to be just as engaging as any movie or series. The money then made goes straight into the production company's pocket. If revenues are substantial enough, these series sometimes make it to the small or big screen.