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.

Comments

Misapproriated Funds

[mod_critical]

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...

Re:Misapproriated Funds

[wo1verin3]

It's their money to do what they see fit... did you have McDonalds for lunch ever? Couldn't you have instead given that money to a homeless person? Or give up coffee for a month to adopt a child in another country.

No one (except maybe your wife/gf, but this is slashdot) tells you what you can and can't do with your money... it's not one person donating millions, each person is asked for a small amount. /kick mod_critical #high_horse

Re:Misapproriated Funds

[Anonymous Coward]

No one (except maybe your wife/gf, but this is slashdot) tells you what you can and can't do with your money.

You've got to be kidding. Everyone tells me what I should do with my money. The governement is the worst. They have guns and prisons for me if I don't spend my money in ways they accept.

Re:Misapproriated Funds

[26199]

Money doesn't work like that.

You remind me of the guy who said the Penny Arcade Christmas fund money should have gone to a more deserving cause. It's just a totally bizarre statement. Go out and raise money for whatever good cause you want; it's got absolutely nothing to do with this. (Money doesn't disappear when it's spent).

Re:Misapproriated Funds

[Buran]

Yes, people have certainly done this -- the X-Prize, while some of the funds came from major companies, was partly funded by individuals. Yes, some of that was rich people who could donate a lot of money, but that does mean that there are people out there who will fund making it possible for ordinary citizens to visit space.

Furthermore, some of the individual X-Prize teams operated off money gained from ordinary commercial ventures. An example of this is Armadillo Aerospace of Texas, which used funds gained from sale of PC-based games to fund its program. A good portion of the people here probably donated to that effort by purchasing the software built in part by one of the lead techs of AA; millions more members of the general public did the same.

I would guess that a large percentage of those people probably did not know that they were helping to fund a private space program (which has yet to launch anything more than test vehicles, but which hasn't given up yet even though the prize has been won) and much of the cash was earned before the X-Prize became a reality.

But I, personally, can say that I stepped up to the cash register, box in hand, knowing that some minor percentage of the money I paid for what I took home would be used to put ordinary civilians in space.

And I'm damn proud of that.

Re:Misapproriated Funds

[nizo]

...some of the individual X-Prize teams operated off money gained from ordinary commercial ventures.

I wonder how much money could have been raised from a bunch of "save your favorite show" websites scamming money from various rabid fans? Scamming money for a good cause is legal right???

Re:Misapproriated Funds

[Anonymous Coward]

did you have McDonalds for lunch ever? Couldn't you have instead given that money to a homeless person?

Exactly. And whenever I see some fat boy trying to get me to donate some money for starving ethiopians, I know there's a few meals he could have skipped and saved more than $11 bucks.

I spend my money as I see fit, and I expect others to do the same. It pisses me off when people give me a sob story about how I'm supposed to donate money etc. The international criticism the US received early on in the Tsunami relief was pathetic too. "The rich US gave ONLY x million dollars..." I hear that junk in one ear, then the other I hear about the enormous deficits, and very rarely do I hear about some rich industrialized nation giving me money.

Think about this: hundreds of thousands need aid from the Tsunami and millions are poured into it. How many incidents have occurred between this and the last Tsunami, where a small few people needed aid and didn't get it. What's so special about multiple people need help at the same time that I'm supposed to give my money away?

Re:Misapproriated Funds

[tomhudson]

I've got a better idea, from a group you CAN'T MISS [tt] with:

Brothers and sisters, I need $200 million dollars to help us all get closer to the Lord.

That's right. Baby Jesus wants us to build our own space ship. In these end days, we must be independent of government space programs that are hiding the truth and the proof about the second coming.

Remember, these days are the end of time, the apocalypse is coming - we must act with all urgency, as the Lord would have us do. So, give, give until it hurts, because no sacrifice is too great, when you compare it with helping us get to see the true heavens.

When the day of judgement comes, brothers and sisters, and you know it's coming, you can see the signs of the times on your televisions, and in your newspapers, and on your radio, all the smut and sex and perversions that are now becoming law, and that the sinners think is normal and good and wholesome, you know ... you KNOW that it is time to act.

Do you want to stand before the Lord and say "forgive me Lord, it was more important to give to relief funds run by heathens, philistines and non-believers, than it was to do YOUR WILL?"

Or will you be able to look on Jesus' face as he says "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."

So, let us sing praises to the Lord and make that donation NOW, because you never know, the Lord judges the quick and the dead, and your days are numbered. Hallelujah,, Amen!

It worked for L. Ron Hubbard, it can work for you too.

Re:Misapproriated Funds

[bluekanoodle]

Sorry, but economies of scale give Mcdonalds the edge.

If I wanted to make a a single hamburger for lunch, it costs me much more to buy the meat, the bun, the ketchup, the cheese, etc, not to mention my time in gathering the ingredients and making it.

By paying somebody else to make one for me, I can devote my skills to something which is more economically rewarding for me. Since I now have more productivity AND more money, I can spend more time and money donating to worthy causes that can help people.

So you see, by buying Mcdonalds, I'm helping save the world!

We can save money

[Anonymous Coward]

By taping in my basement and wearing our homemade costumes! Live long and prosper.

Re:We can save money

[FesterDaFelcher]

By taping in my basement and wearing our homemade costumes! Live long and prosper.

You mean your Mom's Basement.

Re:We can save money

[foistboinder]

You mean, like this?

Re:We can save money

[Foobar of Borg]

Starship Exeter is great in and of itself and also in that it shows what a shoe-string budget the Original Series had.
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...

Proposal doesn't go far enough

[IO ERROR]

Actually I really like this idea. And I'd like it even more if they took it one step farther and arranged for the fans to pay the distribution costs, so they could run commercial-free. And, just to make it even juicier, a few more bucks for another 15 minutes of show. With the commercials stripped out, it's going to come out to about 43 minutes. You can't easily fit that into a broadcast schedule, so let's make the show 58 minutes. Hey, we're paying for it, right?

Yes, they really do run that many commercials in a "one hour" show.

Re:Proposal doesn't go far enough

[snorklewacker]

How much extra would it cost to fire Berman?

Re:Proposal doesn't go far enough

[Gherald]

The commercial-free distribution costs would be insane. It would be cheaper to mail a set of DVDs to each fan.

Re:Proposal doesn't go far enough

[Freexe]

commercial-free distribution

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

Re:Proposal doesn't go far enough

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I was thinking in terms of how much it would cost to hire a writing team that's actually seen an episode of the original series.

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..

Re:Proposal doesn't go far enough

[Overt Coward]

The commercial-free distribution costs would be insane. It would be cheaper to mail a set of DVDs to each fan.

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?

Re:Proposal doesn't go far enough

[hey!]

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.

Re:Proposal doesn't go far enough

[The_REAL_DZA]

How much extra would it cost to fire Berman?

Out of a cannon? At $5/ticket it'd be PURE PROFIT, BABY!!

heyyy... maybe we've finally discovered what the "???" part of "The Plan" might actually be!!

1. Take over production of Enterprise
2. FIRE BERMAN OUT OF A CANNON (SELL TICKETS)
3. Profit!!!

Re:Proposal doesn't go far enough

[hal2814]

I agree, mailing DVDs to one or two people would be far cheaper than a commercial-free distribution.

Re:Proposal doesn't go far enough

[istewart]

I'd laugh if this now becomes incorporated into the Slashdot meme. That is to say, every future "Plan" post, no matter what the subject, somehow features firing Rick Berman out of a cannon and selling tickets. It'd serve him right. I mean, look how quickly the "old people in Korea" thing caught on.

Hm, I'd better get started propagating.

Re:Proposal doesn't go far enough

[Marvelicious]

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!

Re:Proposal doesn't go far enough

[kypper]

Plan:
1) Incorporate '???' profit into running gag on Slashdot similar to 'all your base' and 'in soviet Russia'
2) Bitch about Microsoft
3) Promote Linux
4) Fire Berman from a cannon for $5
6) Profit!

Holy shit, it works!

Let it die...

[Folmer]

And donate the money to Africa or asia. They need the money much more!

Re:Let it die...

[octal666]

it's not charity, it's paying for the production costs of a show they want to see, they are buying the show. The thing is, are they going to share the profit?

Re:Let it die...

[jxyama]

flamebait alert: why didn't you donate your /. subscription to the needy then?

charity should be voluntary. and those who are charitable should not use that to make snide comments about those who are not.

Re:Let it die...

[Cryogenes]

May we assume you are following your own advice? Whenever you are about to buy a luxury good you stop yourself and donate the money to the poor instead?

Seriously, do you accost people queueing at the office box and ask them to give their movie money to tsunami aid? If it is ok to pay $10 for a movie, why can't I donate $10 towards the next startrek without being attacked by do-gooders such as yourself?

Currency

[Lev13than]

The main stumbling block, of course, is securing a suitable source of gold-pressed latinum.

Let's see... about 6 weeks ago?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that tsunami? Remember the millions of dollars that private citizens donated?

Re:Let's see... about 6 weeks ago?

[JohnFluxx]

Please read the posts before getting angry.
The top level post said:
"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?" (emphasis mine).
The anon coward pointed out the tsunami disaster for this.

Re:Let's see... about 6 weeks ago?

[DerWulf]

you lack reading skills. The fanboys want to, together with other fanboys, fund enterprise out of their pockets. Original poster said: 'this is not right, nobody puts that kind of effort into more benifitial avenues'. Reply: 'yes they did, see the tsunami'. Which is true. What's your point?

yeah, i believe it

[Naikrovek]

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.

Re:yeah, i believe it

[Buran]

It seems you are forgetting that fiction has an important role in society. It looks like you think that anything fictitious is not worth any effort whatsoever.

But in fact, science fiction and other forms of speculation DO have an important role to play. If you watch PBS a lot (as do I) you know that they will frequently run documentaries on subjects such as the Apollo lunar program. While the documentaries will focus on the 'how it was done' aspect and interview scientists and researchers and other individuals who worked on those projects, they will also sometimes mention the inspiration for them. And it's important to pay attention to those things.

Take the case of Jules Verne, for instance. Verne was a prodigious science fiction writer who imagined Project Apollo to an amazing degree of accuracy -- his ship looked roughly like Apollo's command and service modules, was roughly the same size, carried a three-person crew, was named Columbia, and was launched from the coast of Florida. This is almost exactly how the Apollo program operated by the time the first actual manned lunar mission was launched in 1968 (Apollo 8; no landing actually occurred until 1969.)

Now, while it is true that many people did not believe such a thing was possible (Robert Goddard was laughed at for believing that a rocket would function in a vacuum, for instance) and Verne's stories were dismissed as fantasy (nuclear-powered submarines!? Are you crazy!?) they came true, in time.

Going back to Project Apollo, you may or may not remember that the first few crews to visit the Moon were quarantined upon their return to make sure that there were no dangerous organisms on them or their clothing or in their spacecraft. The fear of a possible contamination of Earth was raised, in part, by Michael Crichton's novel The Andromeda Strain, as well as by points raised by the scientific community. As a result, quarantines continued until we had enough experience with returning Apollo crews to believe that they were no longer necessary. (Apollo 12's recovery of Surveyor hardware, and the subsequent discovery of terrestrial bacteria surviving on some of that equipment, proved that organisms could survive for long periods of time in space.)

We have also been influenced by other major works of science fiction (War of the Worlds' radio broadcast, for instance, has long been held as an example of how we might react to the idea of hostile alien life, and ET is an example of how we could react to more friendly aliens.)

For something to happen, it has to be imagined first. Sometimes, that takes the form of science fiction stories. Not worth it? Far from it. We'll be forever stuck in the present and never stop to imagine what might come in the future without the ideas that come from those who dare to say "Hey, what if this was possible?"

Re:yeah, i believe it

[spectecjr]

the only tv shows that ever have or ever will make me surrender money are on PBS.

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.

Standard Setting

[millahtime]

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.

Re:Standard Setting

[Saxerman]

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.

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:Standard Setting

[Saxerman]

Give each member a share of common stock for x dollars and run the business as any other. Any profits can be reinvested in the business or payed to the members as a dividend. Then the fans are the owners and the conventional business model will not be upset.

Again, you're missing the picture here. That business model is based on generating revenue for share holders. Those who invest in the fan group are doing so for content, they want more episodes. If you merely create another for-profit group, it would be no different than the current business models and would look to sacrifice quality and content in the name of the bottom line.

I look at it this way...

[Faust7]

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.

Re:I look at it this way...

[harks]

To the contrary, I'd say that any show that could survive on donations from fans is the most worth keeping.

Re:I look at it this way...

[wwest4]

All TV shows rely on fan charity via one source or another.

If the shows ratings are a good indicator of how many people are watching the commercials and buying the products adverstised, then the "charity" effort will fail.

However, if the ratings samples are NOT representative for some reason (e.g. bitorrent), AND enough people understand that it may not be a lost cause, and someone organizes it properly, it might work. My guess is that it won't, because grassroots support takes a while to filter up to the broadcast execs -- think Family Guy. By the time they mobilize enough fans (assuming there are enough) and convince the head honkey in charge, the series finale will have been aired.

Re:I look at it this way...

[codifus]

Hello! History lesson. Isn't that how Star Trek got started? Kirk and his crew were galavanting across the universe for 66 epsisodes, then NBC canned them. Lo and behold, reruns and fan support blew it up for 30 years into the "Enterprise" it is today, pun intended :) CD

Re:I look at it this way...

[kabocox]

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.

Aren't you saying the same thing in just slightly different ways? Come on when has Star Trek ever had that much quaility? Mythos yes, quaility, No.

I just had to do it:

Linux has been kept running on the popularity of the mythos, of the franchise. It has always been self-sustaining, through its own quality. If Linux is in such a bad state that it needs to rely on fan charity to survive... it isn't worth keeping.

Re:I look at it this way...

[Abcd1234]

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.

Funny, I was thinking the exact opposite. Clearly, if fans are willing to toss large sums of money at Paramount to have the show continued, I think it clearly demonstrates that people think it's worth keeping, to the tune of 80 million bucks.

Put another way, do you *really* trust the television industry to understand what is and isn't worth keeping? Why is Paramount to be trusted to make the right decision, but the fans aren't?

already paying for cable...

[Zed2K]

I'm already paying to receive my tv feeds. If I pay for just a show I better receive all rights of ownership for that show. I also better get all dvd right as well as rebroadcast rights.

Hmmm

[rscrawford]

If this works out, then would the fans have more say over the direction of the show? Open source Star Trek?

Re:Hmmm

[PriceIke]

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.)

gotta quote Shatner here...

[holden caufield]

GET A LIFE!

PBS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Enterprise has actuly 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.

I guess they've never heard of PBS.

Paying for Enterprise

[renderhead]

I thought about paying for Enterprise, but in the end I decided to download Fedora Core for free.

*ducks*

Never?

[dorward]

a project that no one has ever attempted before

Didn't somebody try the same for Farscape?

Never going to happen

[EvilGoodGuy]

There is no way both fans have that kind of money.

Re:Never going to happen

[triumphDriver]

That is not true!!! They save a lot of money not having Girl friends and living in their parents basement.

They expect to raise 50-80 Million?

[solowCX]

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?

Re:They expect to raise 50-80 Million?

[RangerRick98]

Some trekkies are obsesive and they they'd donate their soap and shampoo money for this.

This assumes that they had any money budgetted for soap and shampoo in the first place.

IPO or Bonds to take it to syndication

[MBraynard]

ST:TNG did so well because it was syndicated rather than being on a 2nd tier network. If Paramount would allow the fifth season to be sold and syndicated, an IPO or corporate bond sale would be an ideal way to raise the funds. The profit would come from advertising for that year.

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.

Re:IPO or Bonds to take it to syndication

[richdun]

The biggest problem with that show was that they skipped the second and third spin-offs and went straight to the "stranded a bagillion miles away from home with a younger, hipper crew" one.

It may seem alright now, but just wait until they start the "hundreds of years earlier but we have better technology than the first guys" one. Billy the Kid and Abraham Lincoln making contact with the aliens that take over your body back in the 1800s just won't work. Everyone knows it was Q that brought those aliens around.

Investors, ownership and a legal bunfight?

[mauledbydogs]

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.

it's their money

[dknight]

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?

Re:it's their money

[be-fan]

It's not just for picking this "cause" instead of a charity. It's for a number of other reasons, the main one being it's ridiculous to "donate" to a for-profit operation! These people are setting themselves up to get screwed by Paramount. They'll probably just be satisfied with getting the show back on the air, and not demand anything like a cut of advertising dollars, partial ownership, broadcast rights, etc. From my point of view, it's not unlike people who spend a lot of money on lottery tickits. It's a stupid thing to do, and I'm perfectly justified in pointing that out.

Model for Post Bittorrent world.....

[Danathar]

I have an idea....Seriously..

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!)

Re:Model for Post Bittorrent world.....

[JPelorat]

Then what about 24? It's been available online just like Enterprise, only it's doing great in the ratings. Same with Stargate SG-1, and who knows how many others.

I'll tell you why, it's because those other writers don't suck. Unlike Enterprise's mouthbreathers.

Lottery

[Bender0x7D1]

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.

Why isn't more TV like this?

[raygundan]

Say what you want about the quality of Enterprise-- I'm more interested in the idea of fans buying their shows directly. Sign me up.

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:Why isn't more TV like this?

[GPLDAN]

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.

Re:Why isn't more TV like this?

[billtom]

The idea that the TV networks provide any necessary service is contradicted by the fact that no other entertainment medium has a similar role. For movies, books, and music, there is no equivalent to the TV network.

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.

RE: FARSCAPE

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the farscapers tried something like this, they didn't get enough for an entire episode but they did get alot of money for donations to military librarys, and ads, and other stuff...

www.savefarscape.com

Misdirected Vigor

[lopingrhondo]

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.

Re:Sad! Man this is Sad!

[Steffan]

Good god people, what's this world coming too? Way to let "The Man" know how much of our soles he ownes!

"The Man" does not own any parts of my shoes.

Not really a true argument

[hellfire]

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?

Re:Not really a true argument

[ZorinLynx]

So it's selfish when I pay $2400 for a Powerbook G4? Or when I spend $900 on a nice flat panel monitor?

If I can't spend any of my money on myself, and on things that I like, WHAT'S THE POINT?

Every good person has their own way of giving back to society and the planet. I volunteer at an animal sanctuary; others donate lots of money to charity, and so on.

But I still feel we should have the right to spend money on ourselves without being called "selfish". Sheesh.

-Z

Re:Not really a true argument

[dougmc]

But the quesiton then becomes: should they give to a TV show, or to the needy?

Except that there will always be needy people, no matter how much you individually give. So, if you really feel that your money needs to go to the people who need it most, you'll be broke and living in a cardboard box, even with $100k+/year of income, because there's always somebody who needs it more.

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.

Re:Not really a true argument

[revscat]

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.

Re:Not really a true argument

[CommieOverlord]

Has the market shown there is insufficient demand?

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.

Star Trek: New Voyages

[Mage66]

The fan-produced series, based on the Original Series did INCREDIBLY well.

The money was donated to the Space Shuttle Children's Fund.

I don't remember how much was raised, but there were millions of downloads of the shows.

http://www.newvoyages.com

Costumes and sets and whatnot are already available. If Paramount were to continue Enterprise as Pay-per-view, or do a few direct to DVD movies each year, I think that would work well..

A Direct-to-DVD movie or Mini-Series about the Romulan War would sell well to fans.

Who owns it? Who approves scripts?

[tinrobot]

Supposing they actually do raise the dough and pay for an entire season.

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!

[brkello]

"Way to let "The Man" know how much of our soles he ownes!"

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.

So I guess people should abandon all entertainment

[SuperKendall]

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?

Why would they ever go for it?

[pclminion]

The production cost of the show is hardly the deciding factor for the TV producers. Even if the production was entirely paid for by fans, the fact remains that the viewership is small and ad revenues will be low. They would rather schedule a show in that timeslot which would produce usable ad revenue.

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.

Re:Why would they ever go for it?

[Eraser_]

The thing is, say the show was no longer profitable from commercials, and we foot the overhead bill, now the commercials are pure profit. Say they only make a few million net profit (after they have paid everyone) on your average show per new episode. Don't think of shows like ER or Friends where they probably needed larger integer types to count the money, but just your day to day average show. Now, all the overhead is taken out, or even half, by fans. The new profit margins made off of commercials is nuts, plus the advertisers know exactly how many people they are buying with their ad.

$60million in commercials minus $50million paying everyone for a season, leaves $10million in the bank. But now the fans came in and add $30, 40, 50million to the pot and look how much money is left in the bank.

The world will change in TV, and the geeks are going to do it wether they like it or not. Again, we're trying to throw money at them, they would be fools not to take it, especially since it goes out over their precious airwaves not the evil internet. Soon we will all buy shares of the shows we watch and love instead of buying cable. Only we won't get any profit sharing or dividends, because why should they bother?

Fans pay for Enterprise

[Scott7477]

It could be done for a lot less than $80 million if fans were willing to accept some changes in the production methods of the show. Here are my ideas:

1. Use a prosumer type videocams to record shows instead of network grade production equipment.
2. Don't use the studio sets to produce the show; build a set on somebody's property elsewhere.
3. Don't use the actors; go to a theatre school and find some actors. You don't need Mr. Quantum Leap to be the captain. In the theatre business, plays are produced over and over with different actors all the time.
4. I'm sure a bunch of slashdotters could scrounge up some CRT's and write some graphics to simulate the computer technology shown on the ship.
5. Use scripts written by fans instead of the schlock that Berman et al have been putting out.

Of course none of this will happen because of the hammerlock on the copyrights that Roddenberry's estate has. I think that is part of the problem with the franchise; Roddenberry's will constrains the types of plots that can be used in these shows.

Just my two cents...

Obviously Gene Rodenberry's message got to you

[Infonaut]

Fuck'em. I would rather give my cash to Star Trek than anymore ungrateful third world bastards.

I think your comment neatly summarizes the Star Trek ethos pretty well.

Or not.

Re:Obviously Gene Rodenberry's message got to you

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the Prime Directive to me.

Bullshit

[Andy Dodd]

Ever heard of BitTorrent?

I've seen some describe this as a potential future for TV where the content providers are smart enough to embrace new technologies. Instead of BT being used to pirate episodes, fans pay a modest fee to subscribe to the tracker that provides their favorite episodes.

The fee covers production costs, the fans themselves do the distribution.

The Romulan Wars & Birth of the Federation

[rsmith-mac]

I'm not terribly surprised to see this happening. After the plot developments that have occurred so far in season 4, it's fairly obvious that the stage is being set for the Romulan Wars later on. Considering that if Enterprise indeed doesn't make it to a 5th season we'll likely never see the wars(nor the birth of the Federation), I can't say I blame the fans; the only way to really complete the Enterprise arc is for these events to happen. Let's hope the fans are successful enough to see this through.

"luxuries beyond beer"

[weierstrass]

Beer is not a luxury.

I think this was tried before....

[pvjr]

I believe it was Farscape that tried to create fan-funded production.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/16/1355 21 4&tid=129

BitTorrent - Enterprise's downfall

[Andy Dodd]

The type of people who watch Enterprise happen to be the most likely to embrace BitTorrent and similar technologies.

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.

Re:BitTorrent - Enterprise's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you are contributing to the ratings measurements it does not matter how you watch it.

There are only about 6,000 homes with monitoring units that track for nationwide ratings, about 20,000 that track for local ratings, and about 2 million people get sent TV surveys and diaries. In the first two cases, if you live in one of the 26,000 places with a monitoring device, by all means you should use the TV and not bittorrent. If you are in the latter 2 million, you should make sure to write down what shows you downloaded. Otherwise, you don't matter a lick.

Why stop with Enterprise?

[Mike626]

The numbers are compelling to pay for and distribute most television material privately.

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

Re:Who owns it? Who approves scripts?

[Tenebrious1]

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.

No, *I* get the cameo walk on role...

Nice in theory, but it won't work

[mark-t]

Too many people are of the mentality "Oh, somebody else can do it", and they would probably not even reach 2% of what they'd need, let alone the full $90 million they'd need for a whole season.

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?

Enterprise ... grr. aargh.

[BelaHedgehog]

Another vote for more Firefly.

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.

Re:Production Costs Only The Tip Of The Iceberg

[Monkelectric]

Unless they can kidnap Scott Bakula and the rest of the cast and build sets in their basements,

OH oh! and we should have a secret word to call scott by so when we need another fan we'll know ... say "Broktune"?

(10 points if you get it)

Complaining about charity?

[nmarchan]

From the unofficial project FAQ at TrekBBS: "Why donate for a TV show and not for social aid? It's not an either/or option. Of course the most noble donations are those for humane causes, and I'm sure many of us here are supporting aid organizations and their work. But independent from that each day people spend alot of money on entertainment products, cinema, superficial things. To use just a little of this money (what equals to one cheap DVD or CD) to keep the show you like on the air, isn't a bad cause then either, is it?" It's not any more "selfish" than buying that season set of DVDs from that show you like.

Let it die the death it so richly deserves

[f-f-f-f-fuuubar]

TOS: enjoyed it in reruns as a kid. Thought the first season ruled, the second season was mostly good, the third season was headed downhill fast. Lesson: the quality (read: intelligence level) of the show's producer(s) matters.

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.

RTFP

[Doc Ruby]

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.

lessons from MMORPG

[rpillala]

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 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:Sad! Man this is Sad!

[lsmeg]

I watched the show a few times and it was just plain bad. The Captain is just a female version of Kirk.

I can't tell if you're confusing Enterprise with Voyager, or if you're making a subtle comment about Archer. :)

Re:Well then

[Hope Thelps]

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.

Re: FARSCAPE

[Celorfin Jr'ent]

Um, that isn't true at all. The Jim Henson Company told us directly that there were legal problems with fans funding a series. Actually it's illegal without a production company. So we spent time elsewhere.

Battlestar: Galactica comment

[fzammett]

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!

Consumer-owned TV

[Doc Ruby]

If they can raise $88M, or even $35M, the fans should just buy the show, rather than "donate" production costs to Paramount. Then sell advertising, like any other show, except perhaps geared more to their own fanbase's interests. They could forego some profit margin to sell more Trek-related goods to themselves, and wind up paying that $12-30 each year for products their community prefers, and getting their show as a vehicle. If run properly, this "enterprise" could even turn a profit, return a dividend, and pay for itself handsomely, just like any other TV show.

Ah good idea, no wait, erm

[t_allardyce]

If the full amount is reached then does that mean the contributors will collectively own the rights or the rights to a copy or something? If its shown on TV will it have adverts? I think it would be easier to either petition or get people to come up with half or a quarter of the amount that way producers would see the demand and put up the other half of the money, say reduce the amount of advertising and still make a tidy profit? What will happen if the target isn't reached? mass refunds?

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

[Sean Clifford]

I think the DVD subscription model (and downloads via torrent, but I want a physical disc) is great; no reason you can't *also* do broadcast TV. This is a great idea and one I though would be great for FireFly. I hope that interest is renewed once Serenity hits theatres; I'll certainly pony up the cash for FireFly. There are a couple of other shows I'd be interested in subscribing to.

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.

To Quote Kirk Again . . .

[cashman73]

Enterprise was a good show and all, but seriously, maybe it's time had come.

After all, "It's just a TV show!"

The way some of these people on saveenterprise.com are talking, you'd think it was the second coming of Christ!

As Dr. Bones McCoy has already said (over and over in his grave):

"It's Dead, Jim!"

Let's just let Star Trek die and rest in peace,... And then bury Berman and Braga alive with all the damn tapes of the freakin' Nazis in Space! :-)

Depends...

[xstonedogx]

...on the price and on how it is done.

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.

Bill Gates

[Shinaku]

What if Bill Gates payed? I'm pretty sure he'd do it if Enterprise ran Windows XP - and it'd give the slashdotters a laugh when it BSODed right in the middle of a battle :P

!!!!Remake the Original Star Trek!!!!!

[DrPlutoMadre]

If you can do it for BattleStar, why not? Now let's see, who could we cast as Kirk....

Here's how they can finance the new season.

[mabu]

Attach a dynamo to Gene Roddenberry's corpse and play the first few seasons of Enterprise at his gravesite. Sell the electricity generated from his spinning corpse to the power companies and it should be more than enough to finance several more seasons of the show.

Re: FARSCAPE

[robobor]

There's some weird law that limits the number of financial contributors. It would work if everybody gave money to a single entity created for money collection, and then that entity invested the money in the series. We went through all of this in fall '01 after Farscape was dropped.

Re:Well then

[geoffspear]

I find it ironic that someone with a sig saying "the conservative right is always wrong" and accusing me of loving government propaganda (for the record, I'm liberal and proud of it) argues that if the "free market" (and if you consider the market for TV shows to be a free one, you're living in some sort of right wing fantasy land yourself) kills off a show, then it would be wrong to try to bring it back.

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"?

What about an indiependent show

[Datasage]

If your dealing with star trek, your dealing with copyrights up the ass. So if you manage to raise $50 million to create a show, why not pay a production studio to produce the show indiependently and distribute the film on bittorrent or DVD?

Im talking about a completly orginal show. Not one you would have to waste money on licencing rights for.

Re:Sad! Man this is Sad!

[Rinikusu]

Wrong Show.. Voyager had a female captain, Enterprise has Scott Bakula. But that's besides the point.

The original series had KIRK. Kirk cannot be compared to any other captain in the ST universe because Kirk's Prime Directive was to seek and and find new alien civilizations and determine if "all the parts fit", if you know what I mean.

Kirk was THE MAN. Kirk GOT LAID. Kirk had his priorities straight. Kirk was the pimp-daddy of all pimp daddies.

The rest are just pussies by comparison.

Why not GPL the thing?

[crovira]

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".)

but the facts are...

[east coast]

The facts are that this is far far from a true movement. A guy posting on a fansite is hardly "the shot heard around the world". Look at at saveenterprise.com... God, they're begging for money for a newspaper ad and people really think that drudging cash to pay for the production of the show is more than a pipe dream? Man...

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.

It not as expensive as you might think

[zafo]

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'...

You'd get what you pay for...

[Chordonblue]

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.

Escrow account would do it - and a modest proposal

[Catbeller]

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.